StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Something I've been wondering about, since I see the term "capital ship" tossed around in discussions a lot. What exactly is the definintion of a capital ship? As in, does it apply only to battleships, to cruisers and battlecruisers as well, etc?

Also, can anyone recommend some good books or websites on navy terminology in general, just in case I have more questions like this in the future?

The Romulan Republic wrote:Something I've been wondering about, since I see the term "capital ship" tossed around in discussions a lot. What exactly is the definintion of a capital ship? As in, does it apply only to battleships, to cruisers and battlecruisers as well, etc?

Also, can anyone recommend some good books or websites on navy terminology in general, just in case I have more questions like this in the future?

Usually capital ship means about the same as "major surface combatant". It definitely includes battleships, battlecruisers, large cruisers, guided missile cruisers and armored cruisers. In WW2 or later context aircraft carriers are always included, but not always before that. It does not normally include light cruisers, protected cruisers, destroyers or post-sail frigates. Monitors and coastal defense vessels might be included if they are big and important enough. Heavy cruisers are usually included as well. In modern setting destroyers are sometimes called capital ships, since most modern navies have nothing bigger.

Some people maintain that a "capital ship" is any surface vessel important for the navy in question. However, many modern navies have nothing bigger than a corvettes or frigates, but they are still usually not called "capital ships", even if they are the most important surface vessels of their respective navies.

The definition of "capital ship" has changed a lot throughout history.

I don't know enough about the Age of Sail to define what the Royal Navy considered capital ships (Thanas? Anyone?)

But I can help with the 20th Century.

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1923 defined capital ships as:

A capital ship, in the case of ships hereafter built, is defined as a vessel of war; not an aircraft carrier, whose displacement exceeds 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, or which carries a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 inches (203 millimetres).

The Second London Naval Treaty of 1936 revised the definition further:

1) Capital Ships are surface vessels of war belonging to one of the two following sub-categories:—

(a) surface vessels of war, other than aircraft carriers, auxiliary vessels, or capital ships of sub-category (b), the standard displacement of which exceeds 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) or which carry a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 in. (203 mm.);

(b) surface vessels of war, other than aircraft-carriers, the standard displacement of which does not exceed 8,000 tons (8,128 metric tons) and which carry a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 in. (203 mm.).

The First London Naval Treaty of 1930, by the way, invented the nomenclature of "light" and "heavy" cruiser with this phrase in it's definition of cruisers:

The cruiser category is divided into two sub-categories, as follows;

(a) cruisers carrying a gun above 6.1-inch (155 mm.) calibre;

(b) cruisers carrying a gun not above 6.1-inch (155 mm.) calibre.

That's largely meaningless, since the same treaty limited cruisers at the same time and by the same terms, so it just means 'aircraft carriers and battleships' ie the biggest and best units of the navies of the time. The term 'King's ship' is far older than this.

MKSheppard wrote:The definition of "capital ship" has changed a lot throughout history.

I don't know enough about the Age of Sail to define what the Royal Navy considered capital ships (Thanas? Anyone?)

That certaintly depends on the time, after all, it was a rather extensive period. By the American Revolution the 74-gun was considered the smallest that could reasonably be on the battleline, 50 years previous that would've been an upper-end combatant, etc.

MKSheppard wrote:The definition of "capital ship" has changed a lot throughout history.

I don't know enough about the Age of Sail to define what the Royal Navy considered capital ships (Thanas? Anyone?)

I'd suggest 1st to 3rd rate ships of the line, with the actual size of the vessel depending on the exact period. They got the more experienced captains and had more firepower than the smaller frigates. In addition, they had the ability to operate in any ocean.

I don't think there were capital ships in the age of sail, at least not in the way of having the whole fleet existing as their protection. There were ships that were considered national flagships or symbols of the nation (like the Ville de Paris, Vasa, or the Soleil Royal), but none of them were as important as capital ships are today.

We are talking about fleets that had 70+ ships of the line. I don't really think it is the right thing to do to call any of those ships capital ships. Flagships is a much better term - the ships were important not just for their value, but because they carried the fleet commander. The ships are more important for their prestige, less for their tactical value.

Thanas wrote:We are talking about fleets that had 70+ ships of the line. I don't really think it is the right thing to do to call any of those ships capital ships. Flagships is a much better term - the ships were important not just for their value, but because they carried the fleet commander. The ships are more important for their prestige, less for their tactical value.

While ships of the line in general probably don't deserve the title, I think the three-deckers do. While they were certainly important as flagships, I think you're selling them a bit short in terms of their tactical superiority over smaller ships.

Liners (Ships of the Line, Linienschiff, what have you), had the exact same tactical role as the capital ships defined in the Washington Treaty, so I would in fact argue that the term is directly analogous between the two. The fact that there were a lot more of them doesn't invalidate their position and role in the fleet--because everyone else had a lot more, too.

Captain Seafort wrote:While ships of the line in general probably don't deserve the title, I think the three-deckers do. While they were certainly important as flagships, I think you're selling them a bit short in terms of their tactical superiority over smaller ships.

How so?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Liners (Ships of the Line, Linienschiff, what have you), had the exact same tactical role as the capital ships defined in the Washington Treaty, so I would in fact argue that the term is directly analogous between the two. The fact that there were a lot more of them doesn't invalidate their position and role in the fleet--because everyone else had a lot more, too.

It does invalidate their worth as capital ships in the modern definition, as in a modern navy losing a capital ship was a severe blow. In 18th century navies, losses of single ships were expected.

Thanas wrote:How so?

Simple size - while (for example) an 50 gun ship would be at a severe disadvantage against an 84, that 84 would be at a far more serious disadvantage against a 98 or a 1st rate, because of the latter's height advantage - they'd be able to sweep the smaller ship's deck, and would be able to board more easily, while being more difficult to board themselves. There are a few examples of two-deckers taking on three-deckers (such as the Redoubtable), but they required considerable strength of numbers, or unconventional tactics.

It does invalidate their worth as capital ships in the modern definition, as in a modern navy losing a capital ship was a severe blow. In 18th century navies, losses of single ships were expected.

Losing a bog-standard ship of the line was one thing. Losing a three-decker (particularly a 1st rate, of which even the Royal Navy only had half a dozen) was a different matter entirely - they were big, expensive ships, and a serious loss.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Thanas wrote:How so?

Simple size - while (for example) an 50 gun ship would be at a severe disadvantage against an 84, that 84 would be at a far more serious disadvantage against a 98 or a 1st rate, because of the latter's height advantage - they'd be able to sweep the smaller ship's deck, and would be able to board more easily, while being more difficult to board themselves. There are a few examples of two-deckers taking on three-deckers (such as the Redoubtable), but they required considerable strength of numbers, or unconventional tactics.

You will of course submit a number of scenarios in which a three-decker beat a third rate ship of the line as well as cite the sources that form the basis of this asumption? Because I can easily show several battles in which two-deckers beat three-deckers.

You will of course also show the relative weight of broadside? There is a reason the 74 became the standard, you know.

It does invalidate their worth as capital ships in the modern definition, as in a modern navy losing a capital ship was a severe blow. In 18th century navies, losses of single ships were expected.

Losing a bog-standard ship of the line was one thing. Losing a three-decker (particularly a 1st rate, of which even the Royal Navy only had half a dozen)

The Royal Navy is not exactly the golden standard of first-rate shipbuilding, you know, since they hardly ever built them at all. If you want to make any such assumption, look at the navies of french and spain.

was a different matter entirely - they were big, expensive ships, and a serious loss.

Please show the difference in cost from a 1st rate and a 3rd rate.

Thanas wrote:
You will of course submit a number of scenarios in which a three-decker beat a third rate ship of the line as well as cite the sources that form the basis of this asumption? Because I can easily show several battles in which two-deckers beat three-deckers.

That’d have a lot to do with the inability of three deckers to use the lower gunports in anything but a flat clam. But on the other hand the lowest gundeck of a three decker was almost near immune to cannon fire unless it entered through an open port.

You will of course also show the relative weight of broadside? There is a reason the 74 became the standard, you know.

Weight of broadside is a really bad way of comparing ships of the line. Many ships have multiple different guns firing the same cannon balls, but with radically different barrel lengths and maximum powder charges. The 74 proliferated because of its good speed and handling more then any other advantages. Ships significantly faster were also greatly inferior in armament, while the bigger two deckers, and three deckers couldn’t support enough additional rigging not to end up slower and less agile. This was pretty important when you starting having fleets with several dozen ships trying to move in a single straight line with just a couple flagships to control them.

Going back to the original question, as far as I can tell the term capital ship was really just not used in the age of sail on a regular basis. It seems to have only come into vogue alongside the early era of steel hulled battleships, and largely died out with them in turn.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Thanas wrote:
You will of course submit a number of scenarios in which a three-decker beat a third rate ship of the line as well as cite the sources that form the basis of this asumption? Because I can easily show several battles in which two-deckers beat three-deckers.

That’d have a lot to do with the inability of three deckers to use the lower gunports in anything but a flat clam.

Where is your source for that? Because Iirc several battles were fought in a non-calmed sea, like Trafalgar. This would more likely be a design question.

But on the other hand the lowest gundeck of a three decker was almost near immune to cannon fire unless it entered through an open port.

I would submit that this has more to do with how the ship was constructed than with any general three-decker characteristic. The Ocean class ships of the line had several ships that were reportedly very thin-hulled.

You will of course also show the relative weight of broadside? There is a reason the 74 became the standard, you know.

Weight of broadside is a really bad way of comparing ships of the line. Many ships have multiple different guns firing the same cannon balls, but with radically different barrel lengths and maximum powder charges.

That is true, but I don't expect him to do a table comparison of every gun armament in the 18th century, so weight of broadside will suffice for me.

The 74 proliferated because of its good speed and handling more then any other advantages. Ships significantly faster were also greatly inferior in armament, while the bigger two deckers, and three deckers couldn’t support enough additional rigging not to end up slower and less agile. This was pretty important when you starting having fleets with several dozen ships trying to move in a single straight line with just a couple flagships to control them.

It also proliferated because it was a more stable gun platform due to the wider beam. But the topic at hand was about his claim that the three deckers were important enough to be considered capital ships according to the modern definition.

Ship classification at any age is a dicey prospect, because so many terms were thrown about that didn't correlate between peer nations at the time, much less once a major breakthrough in technology gave one side an advantage. For awhile, at least around 1812, a "frigate" was a term used for some of the biggest, baddest ships out there. "Destroyer" didn't exist as a class; if "Cruiser" existed at all I think it was an informal term analogous to "any ship that's really fast but not a Clipper".

But once you get into the age of powered ships, and ironclads, rifled barrels and then turrets, the whole "what is a capital ship" gets a thorough shaking. Once 'wireless', radio, radar and finally missiles and aircraft get to step up and take their place, you have the term "frigate" being applied to pretty much the smallest, 'weakest' ships in the fleet that are still bluewater capable, and yet can dominate a battlefield in a way that the entire Royal Navy could not have dreamed of Back In The Day.

I always saw "capital ship" now, somewhat broadly, as a term for any ship that can bring hurt across the ocean on its own. Bluewater capable ships would be from frigate on up; the jury's not back yet on what the LCS will be able to do with regards to that. I have a feeling that at best the LCS will be a tactical, rather than a strategic, asset so it may not count even if it is bluwater capable.

But all this is my take on it, and I'm Army.

Coyote wrote:For awhile, at least around 1812, a "frigate" was a term used for some of the biggest, baddest ships out there.

Eh?

Thanas wrote:

Coyote wrote:For awhile, at least around 1812, a "frigate" was a term used for some of the biggest, baddest ships out there.

Eh?

I should say, "In American service", sorry. The Constitution was a 'frigate', technically rated at 44-guns, but in practice had about 50. It was more heavily armed that most other frigates at the time, and was one of the heaviest ships in the American fleet (edit: of six frigates built at th etime). It was outgunned by the British ships that ranged 50 to 100 guns or so, though.

But there was a time when our "frigate" was our "battleship", such as it was. Perhaps in modern terms, because it was more heavily armed than other frigates at the time, it would have been called a 'cruiser' instead, but... feh.

^Well, the Independence and the Washington, which were both SOTLs of 87 guns were launched in 1814.