Jump to content

Talk:List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article naming

Should we move this page to the Royal Navy (UK) or something like that? Is it possible that other countries have Royal Navies? Mark Richards 20:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By common agreement, "Royal Navy" by itself is assumed British, similar to how the UPU allows the UK to be the only country that doesn't have to put its name on its postage stamps. Stan 21:44, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed; other Royal navies are disambiguated by nationality (Royal Norwegian Navy, Royal Netherlands Navy) or by language (Regia Marina). Using plain Royal Navy avoids the awkward problem that neither "English", "British" nor "UK" will do to describe all these ships. The few ships that belonged to the navy of the Commonwealth of England but never to the Royal Navy can be identified as exceptions. Gdr 21:56, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

The above is not quite true. The term 'Royal Navy' was only introduced in 1660, following the Restoration of King Charles II - it certainly is not appropriate for the pre-Cromwellian period. Before the execution of Charles I in 1649, the actual term used was 'the King's Ships' (or 'the Queen's Ships' when appropriate). This is because at this stage English warships were the property of the monarch, and it was not until 1660 that they become a state organisation. I would recommend that this entry should be split, with (a) a separate page for the pre-1660 listing and (b) a proper listing for capital ships of the 'true' Royal Navy from 1660 onwards. The latter should include all ships-of-the-line (but not smaller vessels!) from 1660 to 1860, and the subsequent steam-driven battleships.

Rif Winfield 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (Rif Winfield is the author of the British Warships in the Age of Sail series of volumes encompassing all vessels compiled from official Admiralty sources.)

More explanation please

Could someone in the know add explanation to the top of the list, and the introduction of each part of the list i.e. I notice the recent contributions on this talk page contain information about why the sub lists start and end around particular dates. It would be useful if the sections contained a sentence or two referencing out to main articles. There don't appear to be any battleships after 1940? Viv Hamilton 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is because, with the single exception of the Vanguard (1944), there have been no British battleships built since 1940. And even the USA has built none since the Iowa Class in the 1940s. All have now been scrapped (except the few retained as museum items). Rif Winfield 18:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Steam Battle Fleet (1847-61)

I have split out the steam line-of-battle fleet. I have accepted that there needs to be some duplication with the conversions. Now that the ships are ordered in a predictable way, it will be possible to go through the ships checking facts, etc.

What someone needs to do, is to go through the 19th Century sailing line-of-battle fleet and organise the ships by classes, and by type. This will of course mean some duplication with the conversions.--Toddy1 20:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As I'm currently working through adding the relevant class articles and stubs for any missing ships that's something that I'd be quite happy to do when I've finished the current work. Martocticvs 20:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have any difficulties, please contact me (e-mail me direct at: sailing.navy@btinternet.com). Might I modestly refer you to my "Sail and Steam Navy List 1815-1889" which contains full details of all RN vessels, organised by class? You are welcome to quote any details (although it would be appreciated if you could include the book among the referenced sources). Incidentally, I have made a start at re-organising the French ship-of-the-line and French frigates - although this remains work in progress; if you have any comments on what's been done so far (there are still some original entries which need clearing out, although anything I've done is quoted with the building details, organised by class), please let me know. Rif Winfield 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the list of the 40 ships of the 74-gun Armada Class of 1806 - the raw details only, leaving someone else to fill in further details on each ship - if you need help on this, ASK ME. Please note that MOST of these ships seemed to be missing, so I have given you complete list to work with. Note that most of the steam blockships were originally built and completed to the Armada design - it was only in the 1840s that they were converted to 60-gun steam-assisted vessels. I have also corrected the list of ex-French prizes of 1803-1815. Rif Winfield 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be getting to those ships fairly soon - I haven't seen them listed as Armada class before... Vengeur class, Hogue class and Conquestador class I have seen attributed to the Surveyors' class of third rates though - I have taken Vengeur as the class name thus far, as Brian Lavery lists them as such in his Ship of the Line book. Martocticvs 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this is because that concept of 'a class' - in the modern sense of ships built to one standard design - was not used at this date. In contemporary usage, the word 'class' signified a type of warship or a gun-rating more than a common design, e.g. they would talk of 'the 80-gun class' or 'the 36-gun class'. It did get a little more complex with certain types, e.g. with 74-gun ships there were three 'classes' - a 'Common class 74' (with 28 x 32pounders on the lower deck, and 28 x 18pounders on the upper deck, plus 16 smaller guns on the QD and forecastle), a 'Middling Class 74' (with 2 extra 18pounders on the upper deck, and only 14 smaller guns on the QD and forecastle), and a 'Large Class 74', with 28 x 24pounders on the upper deck instead of 18pounders). To identify common designs (in the present-day sense of a 'Class'), you need to look at the specification/contract which states something like 'to the lines of the ....' (naming a previous ship built to the same design, but not always picking the same ship). So to identify the 'Forty Thieves' (as they were commonly known) we have concocted our own terms, based on the name of earlest ships built to this design - "Surveyor's Class", "Armada Class", "Vengeur Class" are all perfectly acceptable names for the same group of forty ships. Rif Winfield 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've borne that fact in mind during my recent efforts here. I was at first a little dubious about grouping these ships under the heading of a specific class, but I have since come to see the value of doing so; I just don't labour the point in the individual ship articles. Martocticvs 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion of Ships which were not ships-of-the-line

The current table includes 50-gun ships, and even some 44-gun ships, in the end of the 18th cenury and later. Please note that up until 1757 all Third and Fourth Rates (i.e. down to 50 guns) were classed as ships-of-the-line (i.e. fit to stand in the line of battle), while smaller Fifth and Sixth Rates (e.g. 44-gun ships) were NEVER counted as ships-of-the-line; in 1757 all ships with fewer than 58 guns were removed from the ship-of-the-line classification.

Can someone therefore REMOVE from this webpage the later 50-gun ships (and all the smaller ships - mainly Fifth Rates) which are currently wrongly included on this page?

What is really needed here, for the 1660 to 1860 period, is a listing for smaller (rated) ships. Officially the British Navy termed all vessels 'below the line' as cruisers, whether rated or unrated vessels. Unrated cruisers were of course all categorised officially as "sloops-of-war" (a term which technically included even the bomb-vessels and fireships). You currently have listings of cruisers (from the introduction of the 'true' frigate in 1748) so you need a catch-all listing ot perhaps two listings to cover the smaller Rated ships other than the post-1748 frigates.

Rif Winfield 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to this problem is for you to do exactly what I did with the steam battle fleet. You need to work out a solution and do it yourself.--Toddy1 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Although be wary of conflict of interest if you are forming categories and removing / adding vessels based upon your personal research. Emoscopes Talk 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Purple Prose for Dreadnought (1906)

Dreadnought (1906) - Considered the defining modern battleship By who?

I don't think this is an appropriate comment. It is certainly not NPOV.

All the stuff about this ship making previous battleships obsolete was politically motivated - it was intended to force ministers to pay for high levels of construction. See for instance, Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution by Lambert.

As for a defining modern battleship, well a good case could be made for Collingwood (1882) or Renown (1895)--Toddy1 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Errors in Data

HMS Nelson (1814)

I have fixed this using Lyon's Sailing Navy List and Lambert's Battleships in Transition. There was a claim in the old version that she was cut down to a frigate. I do not know the source for that, but it is not mentioned in Lyon or Lambert. The old version also claimed Victoria, whereas Lyon and Lambert say new South Wales. There is one discrepancy between Lyon and Lambert. Lyon claims the conversion to screw was 1858, whereas Lambert claims 10 March 1859 - 7 February 1860.

A major problem with putting potted ship's histories on this kind of page is that it does not lend itself to footnoting.--Toddy1 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Toddy, Nelson was NOT cut down to a frigate. Her full history is given in Sail and Steam Navy List, which you've just ordered (pages 34 and 195 - the plan on the latter page will show convincingly that she could never have been cut down to a frigate!). I have looked through all David Lyon's own notes (which are now in my possession, courtesy of his widow) which among other things confirms that the conversion was taken in hand on 10.3.1859 at Portsmouth, and completed on 7.2.1860. This therefore tallies with Andrew Lambert's investigations. Where David took the 1858 date from is unknown, but it doesn't appear anywhere in his notes and may simply be a printing error. There is also a note in David's hand that the statement about New South Wales was incorrect, and should read Victoria. Can I add, as a friend of David Lyon, that as epoch-making as his Sailing Navy List was, he would be the first to say that it contained a number of small errors of detail (that's not to criticise the concepts, all of which were right, just to suggest caution about taking every figure as gospel! As an example, look at the length quoted for the iconic Victory - printed as 186 inches length). In fact, a year after its publication David circulated to some of us a 42-page closely-typed list of amendments to the printed version. Certainly his intention was to see a revised edition produced - sadly this never happened before his tragic death. Hopefully my current efforts take all these corrections, and other amendments, into account. Rif Winfield 11:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Where there are links to ship articles that have not been written yet, this is useful as it suggests that they ought to be written. Replacing those links with disambiguation pages is unhelpful. It creates the illusion that things have been done, when there is really nothing. Mini-ship biographies on disambiguation pages are useful if there is a properly referenced article to back it up. But since people do not allow footnotes on disambiguation pages for some reason, a mini-ship biography with no article on the ship behind it is totally unreliable.--Toddy1 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting article

I was going to suggest splitting this list up as well - as it stands at present, it is extremely long and very cumbersome to try to edit. I was actually going to suggest a further division though, with ships of the line given their own list, as that section in itself is very long, and the term battleship has stronger connections with ships from the introduction of the turret onwards. Martocticvs 15:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur. What criteria do you suggest to split the list? Emoscopes Talk 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is far too lengthy. Someone please split it into manageable parts. Zephyrus67 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The term 'battleship' should be reserved to the post-1860 vessels, i.e. from Warrior onwards. Remember that the early battleships developed out of the screw frigate, not out of the ship-of-the-line. I suggest that the wooden-hulled steam-assisted ships-of-the-line should be left with the purely sailing ships-of-the-line; as you know, the majority of this type in the RN were converted from sailing ship-of-the-line anyway, and structurally the wooden steam vessels resembled their purely sailing predecessors. So you could leave the post-1860 vessels in this webpage (which is where they belong) and move all previous vessels to two pages (1) covering the medieval English fleet up to 1650, and (2) covering purely the English/British ship-of-the-line from c.1650 up to 1860.

One qualification! Please DO NOT include smaller vessels which did not form part of the battlefleet - the current list includes a few Fifth Rates which should really go into a webpage covering the pre-1750 Fifth and Sixth Rates.

The reference above to "The few ships that belonged to the navy of the Commonwealth of England" is peraps a little jaundiced. Whatever you think of his politics, Cromwell added considerably to the size of the Navy. So there are more than a 'few ships' to take into account. Happily, almost all of them survived past 1660, so should be included in the list of (post-1660)ships-of-the-line. Rif Winfield 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Battleships vs ships of the line

A while back on WP:SHIPS, we had a debate on what people would commonly call a battleship, versus a ship of the line here where we agreed on a definition acceptable to the majority. With this in mind, would it be a good idea to split up the article into seperate ones, ones for ships of the line, one for frigates, sloops of war, i.e. smaller vessels, and keep this article for the battleships of the accepted definition? There was some debate over which ship marked the transition, HMS Prince Albert (1864) and possible HMS Royal Sovereign (1857) could be tentatively identified. However, there was agreement that there should be some overlap between the two, so to include some of the preceding ships in the list in order to catch most readers.

So, what I'm proposing is:

  • A list of Frigates, sloops, etc that carried fewer than 58 guns.
  • A list of ships of the line that carried more than this number.
  • A list of what are considered to be battleships (at this page), with necessary overlap, i.e. for those that would consider HMS Warrior (1860) and her ilk a battleship.
  • Potentially another list for the section currently titled "Great ships, carracks and galleons (–1640)"Either way, I think this page is long due to be broken up into more easily navigatable chunks, and it would satisfy the current debates over what should be included and what shouldn't. Word to the wise Rif, destruction of information is rarely a good thing, especially as it can take a long time to put back. Better to look for ways to move it if possible. Also try to build WP:Consensus before declaring somethings right or wrong. I respect your credentials but think of us as a lot of noisy sub-editors who often have our own opinions as to what is the right way to do things. Pip pip! Benea 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (the user known as Benea is Emeritus Professor of Maritime History and Architecture at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, and is the Author of Good Grief, What a lot of Boats! - A Bluffer's Guide to things that Float. No I'm not really. Or am I?) Kind regards!

Actually, the way it is done on this page is a better way of covering the line-of-battle ship or battleship. As for HMS Prince Albert (1864) and HMS Royal Sovereign (1857) [as completed], they were coastal service vessels.

As for splits between pages, splitting things up on the basis of whether something has a Coles' turret seems very odd. Why not on the basis of whether it had a steam engine? Listing them on one page and subdividing is the better approach.--Toddy1 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you're coming from but when we had this debate it was to try and get some agreement on definitions which are very fluid. I'm happy to see the debate re-opened as to which ships marked the turning point, and why, since if they were not ocean going, it'd pretty much rule them out as battleships for me. Turret ships were picked as they made the decisive change to the practice of naval warfare, more so than engines and armour. The page has already been arbitrarily split into sections, I'm talking about hiving some sections off, and linking each one clearly to the list of ships that followed/preceded. As to having this page as an enormous list of every major (or not) ship of the Royal navy (or not) since the Mary Rose and before, it's hugely long, unwieldy and dense for the casual reader, and there are already concerns over ships which shouldn't be here and people are asking to have them removed. Rather than see that information lost, it would be better to move it to seperate articles that better describes what they contain. As to the whole definition of a battleship/ship of the line, I don't mind the debate re-opening on WP:SHIPS, and we could perhaps discuss there what approach to take. --Benea 07:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Benea. I couldn't agree more. Sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning - I totally agree that deletion of material is totally the wrong approach and did not intend to advocate loss of material, I was advocating moving the entries for sailing warships of fewer than 58 guns (post 1757, obviously fewer than 48 for the earlier period) to a different page, where it could be expanded to give fuller coverage to the smaller two-deckers.

I agree that the pre-1649 vessels need to be moved to a different page (perhaps "List of Medieval Warships of the English Navy"?), obviously with appropriate links and signposts in both articles. Structurally, the mid-19th century transition era is better divided between wooden construction v iron and steel construction, rather than sail v steam, and more of the wooden-hulled screw-assisted ships-of-the-line were converted from pure sailing warships than were built from the start for steam usage, so it makes more sense to leave all pre-Warrior vessels with the ship-of-the-line listings, and start the battleship list from 1659.

As regards smaller vessels of the sailing era, I don't think it's appropriate to try and combine frigates, sloops, and smaller craft in one listing. For one thing, we are discussing several thousand vessels in this category, and most people won't wish to scroll through this volume of entries to find what they are searching for. As long as there are clear links between the various naval listings, there can be several WP pages compiled. The frigates are a clearly separate matter, because their definition (at least post 1748) is quite formalised. Smaller rated vessels (post ships in the 18th century and up to 1830s, corvettes in the later period) can be perhaps combined with the (unrated) sloops-of-war. But what do we do about the smaller craft which were Lieutenants' commands, i.e. the gun-brigs, cutters and schooners? Rif Winfield 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm definately with you on this. The article as it stands is far too vague as to what is a battleship, and the more we can define and catagorise what we're talking about, the easier it will be to search and navigate. A more appropriate title at the moment would be something like "List of some of the capital ships of the Royal Navy". And as we expand and add ships to it, you're right it would be completely mammoth, and really neither use nor ornament. I don't mind how many list articles there are, as long as they're clearly linked I don't think people should have a problem finding what they're looking for. I'm happy to go with you on what sort of lists you think would best fit for the smaller craft, I think as time goes on, and more articles about them are written, there'll be an evolving need for more specialisation and clearly defined lists of those sorts of ships. I think this article though has reached the stage where it needs to divided up and hived off, at least between battleships/ships of the line/pre-1649/others, and I'm open as to where and how we drawn the defining lines. User:Toddy1 seems to think the list is best as it is, so I've opened a thread at WP:SHIPS to get some wider opinions on this. Kind regards, Benea 11:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what I think this would boil down (and stop me if you disagree) is the following types of list articles:
  • An article for the pre 1649 ships, the title "List of Medieval Warships of the English Navy" sounds fine to me. That would neatly include all of that current section.
  • An article for ships of the line, possible at something "List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy", to have all of the ships from 1649 onwards which carried more than 58 guns, up to about somewhere around 1859ish, to include all those listed as 'broadside ironclads'.
  • An article at something like "List of frigates of the Royal Navy" containing everything from that same period that carried fewer than 58 guns (I can't really see much in the way of bomb vessels, etc. in the list as it stands). This could be an interim measure, and as and when we get a more complete list of the sloops/bomb ketches etc, then think about moving those to more specialised lists.
  • An article for turret ships and beyond under the heading of 'battleships', maybe at this page. I think at least part of it could include those ships like HMS Warrior (1860), and beyond in a little section, just because it is a rather fluid definition and we want to make sure casual readers don't miss out, but I'm open to change on this. This would then run right up to the likes of HMS Vanguard (23).
With this system then, we'd have recategorised and defined the ships in a more useful way, even if for some it's a rather stop gap measure (i.e. the frigates and other small ships). Benea 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed lists 1, 2 and 4 above. I don't like the idea of putting everything in the 1649-1860 period 'below the line' (i.e. non capital ships) into one article headed "List of frigates of the Royal Navy" for three reasons: (1) because it would swiftly become too large several thousand vessels would fall into this description; I have included them all in my books, so I know the complexity; (2) it would be technically misleading, because frigates have a precise definition - this did vary with date, but post-1748 did certainly exclude the small vessels with fewer than 28 guns; finally (3) there is already a "List of corvettes and sloops of the Royal Navy" page, which (to quote your own comment back to you!) "destruction of information is rarely a good thing", so it would be silly not to retain - and develop - the fairly useful article of "corvettes and sloops". In theory, the term 'sloop-of-war' included the bombs and fireships, so it would be sensible to put these into that WP page (for the time being, at any rate).

What would also be sensible is if someone put a generalised article into "British Warships" with a brief explanation as to the types, how they evolved over the centuries, and clear links to every "List of ..... of the Royal Navy" page. Rif Winfield 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even better! If a list already exists, then it makes sense to use it. Soooo, a new one for frigates, and add to the existing one for sloops and corvettes, and the ships that don't qualify as frigates. User:Emoscopes had the good idea of having this page as a disambiguation one. This would mean that we can use it to canter through the types, have a little history of the types, how the ship of battle changes and evolves through galleons, frigates, ships of the line and through to turret ships, dreadnoughts and up to the present era (or at least 1944). At each new section, we can link the reader off to the specific list. Sound good? --Benea 17:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is badly in need of cleanup and splitting. I've thought so for some time but never tried to address it. I'd like to clarify the above-linked discussion on WP:SHIPS, about categorization of battleships. It was not decided that turret ships were the dividing line between battleships and ships of the line; rather, it was decided that there would be an overlap: oceangoing armored capital ships would be called battleships, and oceangoing armored battleships with turreted armament would no longer be called ships of the line. I believe a similar arrangement would be a good idea here. We need to focus on maximizing accessibility of information and not argue about how this one ship was the first battleship. I agree with your proposal, Benea, on all counts, and believe that ships whose classification is debatable should appear on multiple lists. For example, one could make a legitimate case to call HMS Warrior a battleship, a frigate, or a ship of the line, and I don't see the harm in cross-listing her on all three as long as it doesn't become excessive. I would like to note that the frigate list really needs to be called List of sailing frigates of the Royal Navy, because simply using "list of frigates" will cause confusion with modern vessels like the Type 23 when they're entirely different things. TomTheHand 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree about splitting modern frigates off from 18th & 19th century frigates. Would we have three categories:

  • Modern frigates
  • Sail frigates
  • Steam frigates

--Toddy1 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered about which ship was definitive, and if we allow plenty of overlap between the articles, we can neatly avoid that whole issue. I'm happy to see the categories Toddy1 suggests, since Rif doesn't seem to think we'll have a problem filling up the lists with ships, so subdividing between steam, sail and their modern successors doesn't seem to me to be a problem. --Benea 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily sure that I'd separate sail from steam. They're a continuous line of evolution rather than two distinct types of ships. Modern frigates, on the other hand, are entirely different. TomTheHand 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between a sail frigate and the River class and its progeny. I dont think anyone could argue to keep the two together. I'll leave the experts to argue over the canvassy types. What would we call the split lists?
  • List of modern frigates of the Royal Navy
  • List of sail frigates of the Royal Navy
How does that seem? Emoscopes Talk 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
While I think we can all agree that we should list modern frigates separately, I believe there's some debate as to whether steam frigates like HMS Odin (1846) should be listed with sailing frigates like HMS Endymion (1797). I would argue that they're part of a continuous line of evolution and should be listed in the same article. The list can mention which are purely sailing frigates and which also carry steam engines. TomTheHand 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If the list contains both sailing frigates and steam frigates, then you need to call it List of sail and steam frigates of the Royal Navy. All the same arguments apply to corvettes - the series of 19th century corvettes, were re-rated as cruisers in the 1880s.--Toddy1 04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite, I'd utterly forgotten about steam / sail hybrid vessels! It does mess my nice dichotomy up a bit! The other alternative would be having List of Cruisers, List of Corvettes, List of Frigates etc. strictly for the modern definition of these vessels, and have a large combined list of sail / screw corvettes, sloops, frigates and cruisers. That we one can better explain the definition and relationship between these classes of vessel.
As the modern re-cycling of the names has meant that what has come to be seen as, say, a corvette, has no historical relation to the original type of vessel, there may be some merit in doing that. We can of course link back to sail & screw corvettes from the modern corvettes. Emoscopes Talk 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I think the worry is that there are too many differences and ships to really put sloops/corvettes in with frigates. I'm personally leaning towards doing it by the class rather than by method of propulsion, so to combine sail and steam to have a list of historical frigates, a list of historical sloops/corvettes, and to title the articles so they clearly differentiate from their modern day namesakes. But I'm a floating voter (appropriately enough I suppose) and I'm willing to be swayed. Benea 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I go along entirely with the view that modern (20th century) frigates and corvettes should be on separate lists from vessels which earlier used this terminology. The old system of frigates and corvettes came to a full stop in 1887, when all existing frigates and corvettes were officially reclassed under the new category of 'cruisers'. Only the old category of 'sloop' continued in use. The frigates and corvettes of the 1939-45 War were totally different vessels which bore no resemblance to the 19th century frigates and corvettes. Can someone get cracking on splitting this up straight away? Might I also suggest the the different page-name systems we're using, of 'List of frigates of the Royal Navy' versus 'List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy', etc, is confusing. Yes, we do for clarity need to group vessels built to the same design ('class' in the modern sense) together, but this can best be done within a 'list of frigates' or whatever, by listing the vessels built to one class underneath the class name (as I've started to do for French sail warships). But leave the word 'class' out of the page number. Rif Winfield 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've got a bit of free time coming up in a few days, so I'll make a start on all this. Before I do, can we work out what article names we want:
  • List of Medieval Warships of the English Navy for the pre 1649 ships.
  • List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy for ships from 1649 onwards which carried more than 58 guns, up to about somewhere around 1859ish, to include all those listed as 'broadside ironclads'
  • List of pre ???? frigates of the Royal Navy for everything from the same period as the ships of the line that carried fewer than 58 guns. (If we include sloops etc in there for now then we can work them out into their own article when we're a bit clearer on terms, etc). I'm suggesting no division between sail and steam at the moment. With the ????, I'm asking for a decision as to what would seperate the 'modern' from the 'historical' frigate. I'm looking at you Rif!
  • List of battleships of the Royal Navy (i.e. this page), for turret ships and beyond under the heading of 'battleships' (and including those ships like HMS Warrior (1860), and beyond in a little section). This would then run right up to the likes of HMS Vanguard (23).
  • Battleships of the Royal Navy, to be a disambiguation/historical page, where we run through the history of the capital ship, how it develops from pre 1649 and onwards and link to the aforementioned lists.
Opinions please ladies and gentlemen! If there are no major disagreements, I hope to get cracking in a few days. God Speed! Benea 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! IMHO it's best to go ahead and get it done now, and should we feel the need, we can argue over and change the article titles later. Emoscopes Talk 22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please hold, until this has been thought through more clearly.. I thought that the idea of splitting this list was that the list as now is too long. Your proposal will still produce lists that are too long.

Personally I like the list as now.

But if it is going to be split, then more thought needs to go into the splits. As for your suggested divisions my comments are as follows:

  • List of Medieval Warships of the English Navy for the pre 1649 ships. Bad choice of name, as includes 16th & 17th centuries. List of Warships of the English Navy before 1649 [or 1639?] is better because it is more accurate.
  • List of pre ???? frigates of the Royal Navy for everything from the same period as the ships of the line that carried fewer than 58 guns. The word frigate has a meaning. Your category would include many ships that were not frigates - therefore you cannot call it that. Suggest the following two categories instead:
    • List of sailing and steam frigates of the Royal Navy Though I really do not know if it is the right thing to put the sail frigates with the steam frigates. The one was a development of the other to some extent. But then to some extent the aircraft carrier was a development of the battle cruiser, which was a development of the armoured cruiser, which was a development of 1st class cruisers, which were a development of steam frigates... where do you stop? Also there were line-of-battle ships called frigates built in the 1650s - see page 159-160, The Ship of the Line by Brian Lavery, ISBN 0-85177-252-8
    • List of two-deckers of less than 60 guns of the Royal Navy

*List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy for ships from 1649 onwards which carried more than 58 guns, up to about somewhere around 1859ish, to include all those listed as 'broadside ironclads'. This is much too big a list. If the idea is to split into more manageable lists, then this needs splitting into between many parts. I am not an expert on the 17th/18th Century ships: for the 19th/20th Century Ships, the obvious divisions are:

How to split the 17th & 18th Century ships needs more thought - the split of 1719 was based on one the changes in establishments in Lavery's The Ship of the Line. However there were other changes in establishments that could be used to further division.--Toddy1 06:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps the best solution would be to start doing the split now, but instead of taking things to other pages, to put them in as level two headings, with with pressent headings replaced or reduced a level, etc. (A level two heading has ==Heading==) the advantage of this is that it would make it easier to see whether proposed splits work - and if different/more splits are necessary the work would not be wasted.

The sorting out problem is formidable for sail line-of-battle ships.--Toddy1 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC) & --Toddy1 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As you can see I have made a start splitting up the sail line-of-battle ships, and I am doing so on the lines of Lavery's The Ship of the Line.--Toddy1 20:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This list needs some links in the appropriate places for less expert users, for example those who do not know the difference between a battleship and a battlecruiser. Mike Young 19:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is suck a link in the navbox on the right top side of the page Emoscopes Talk 19:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd personally oppose the level of splitting for the ships of the line that Toddy1 suggests:

The original point made by Martocticvs was that the list "is extremely long and very cumbersome to try to edit".

The vast majority of the list consists of ships that were sail powered. Removing WW I and II battleships does not achieve the original objective of making the list less long.

To put lists of what are essentially the same types of ship in different articles is overly confusing. In that case why do you support splitting at all? The WWII battleships may not look like the 18th Century line-of-battle ships, but they are essentially the same kind of ship.--Toddy1 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to work in the mindset of the reader who doesn't have his copy of Lavery or Colledge, or his own copy of Conway's on his bookshelf. To the casual reader the difference between a WWII battleship and Nelson's Victory are enormous. The distinction between a ship of the line of 1800 and one of 1830 really is not that great. So I'm an advocate of splitting when the casual reader would be aided by it, I'm against it when I feel he'd be hindered. But I'm open to more views on the subject. And suprisingly it seems that removing the WWI and WWII battleships would indeed make the list less long. And a fair few of those currently under ships of the line would be shunted off into the frigate list. As List of submarines of the United States Navy shows, a list can be both long, yet quite navigable. I was more concerned about content than length when it came down to it. Benea 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly urge that the term "ship-of-the-line" should be used for the 1642-1860 battle fleet. Note that the term line-of-battle ship never had any formal significance until AFTER the latter date, when it became used in correspondence (but not offically adopted). This is why it is correct to refer to all capital ships as ship-of-the-line up until the end of the wooden-hulled battle fleet in about 1860 (including the brief period of steam-assisted ships-of-the-line!). It is also misleading to refer - as is done at the start of the article - to the modern battleship as being derived from the ship-of-the-line - structurally the line of development came from the single-deck frigate. This is why a clean break at 1860 is the most sensible step. The Bulwark class two-deckers and Victoria class three-deckers brought to an end more than two centuries of the multi-decked broadside wooden capital ship (the addition of the screw steam propulsion did not really make an upheaval in design as much as did the introduction of metal hulls). The term "battleship" was likewise a late Victorian addition, and officially the Warrior and her derivitives were classed as frigates for several years, but I think it is good enough to include all the ironclads from Warrior onwards in the "battleships" article as there was a reasonably linear development (if one ignores the dispute between the pro-turret and anti-turret brigades). Rif Winfield 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Restructuring of Sailing Line-of-Battle Ships

As you can see I have been restructuring the list of sailing line-of-battle ships using the structure in Lavery's The Ship of the Line.

  • This does not provide a structure for the period before 1619. Can anyone help with this section please?
  • Round about 1755, Lavery's structure begins to get less useful. The reason for this is that there are listings of recognisable ship classes, which are being built across the time-frames in Lavery's 1755-1845 structure. What I propose to do is to group by ship class for this period. I think it is unhelpful to split a group of ship built to a common design between many sections.

With ships I am following the following conventions:

  • The year starts on 1 January. The reasons for using this convention are: (1) Lavery used it, so it makes it easier to use his book as a reference. (2) It is easier for modern readers not used to the year starting on 25 March up to 1752.
  • The calendar used is that in use in England at the time, subject to the correction for the date of the start of the year. Before 14 September 1752, this was the Julian calendar. It makes it a lot easier to check facts if we use the calender in use at the time, as the dates in reference books will generally be on that basis.
  • It was often easier for the Navy to get money to build new ships if it disguised these as rebuilding. In these cases, what actually happened was that the ship was broken up and some of the material used in the construction of a new vessel of a different design. Where standard reference books such as Lavery's treat a rebuilding as a new ship, the list has recorded it as a new ship. This convention is completely normal. Standard reference books such as Conways use the same convention with respect American and Austrian ironclads that went through the same process.

I do not pretend that Lavery's book is all encompassing. However, once the list has been structured, it will be easier to put in vessels not mentioned by Lavery and to fix errors. I hope that these will be suitably footnoted.

Getting the sailing list right will take time. I have another reference book on order, it is expected to arrive in late September. --Toddy1 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that I think the lower level headings are useful whether or not as a step to splitting the page up. Viv Hamilton 17:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Toddy, hopefully the contents of Chapter 3 sent to you will assist. E-mail me if you need help with other Rates. I have today added in Marlborough (1767) and all fifteen Intrepid Class, but require other people to insert the appropriate linkages. Rif Winfield 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure that it would actually be helpful to try to 'sort out' the pre-1618 vessels. They certainly do not belong in a list of ships-of-the-line, as the line-of-battle tactic did not exist until the mid-17th century. Neither do they belong in a list of the Royal Navy, since the RN did not exist before 1660. Finally the 'number of guns' is most misleading with Tudor warships, due to the diversity of small weapons. I would suggest that pre-1618 vessels (I'm not sure about the 1618-1642 period, again a transitionary epoch) should be removed to an article on Medieval Warships in the English Navy (with a appropriate reference back inserted somewhere towards the start of the article on ships-of-the-line in the RN. Rif Winfield 16:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How about we split that article off now - we have a clear consensus that they are not battleships. List of Warships of the English Navy before 1618 is one possibility, List of warships of the Medieval English Navy is another, particularly if we add the section entitled List of Major Warships of the English Navy (1618-1642) to it. It would be a good idea to future proof this article in this case and make the title more generalised. We can firm up the definition in the opening section of the article. Benea 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think 'up to' sounds slightly better than 'before' in the title, and I do see the slight issue with using Medieval in the title, as the period in question is not completely in the medieval period. List of warships of the English Navy up to 1618 is a little wordy though... Martocticvs 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree on both counts. How about List of early warships of the English Navy? And again make it clear in the introduction what we're talking about. It carries a sense of period definition by being 'English' rather than 'Royal' Navy, and hopefully is not too wordy or precise, so that further editing of the contents doesn't become too difficult. Benea 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems a concensus, then. Please can someone take the initiative, so this can be adjusted, with appropriate comments on the period covered being included in the opening paragraph of each article as appropriate? Rif Winfield 22:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Benea beat me too it! I'm glad there's finally been consensus and movement on this. I've updated the navbox on the side to include the new list. If there's such a list for the Scottish Navy I'll make sure to dab the two and include them in the box. Emoscopes Talk 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A much better arrangement, having the early English warships hived off. It also makes it possible to include on that page the smaller English warships, without having to worry that they were not designed for the battle fleet but fo escort duties, etc. Now please separate off the 1660-1860 vessels into a "list of ships-of-the-line of the RN" page, and you can safely leave the post-1860 vessels on this battleships page. 

Incidentally (I suppose it should go into the discussion box for the new "Early English warships" page), the sentence "It should be noted that frigate at this time was a Dutch concept for the line-of-battle ship" is absolutely untrue and misleading. The frigate, which was certainly of Dutch origin ("Dutch" at that time including Dunkirk), had everything to do with a move towards better lines and hull proportions (to improve speed) and lower superstructures (to improve stability), but had nothing to do with line-of-battle tactics.

I might also mention (for Emoscopes's benefit) that I've never seen details of pre-Union Scottish warships (apart from the three small ships which in 1707 were added to the Royal Navy). Obviously such ships existed, but there appears to be no details, no even a list of names. Rif Winfield 07:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Have done, at List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy Benea 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now to tidy up the present article. The first paragraph needs amending, certainly to eliminate reference to its including sailing warships, by directing the reader to the new articles (rather than listing them as sections of this article, and THEN referring them to other articles). Might I suggest that the present article should say it "includes battleships of the Royal Navy and the ironclad warships of the 1860s that preceded the true battleship"? But leave out references to "of England, Scotland, Great Britain" etc (the Scottish Navy was not a part of the Royal Navy - it was totally separate until after the Act of Union in 1707, when it was abolished and its few (three!) small existing warships were absorbed into the Royal Navy). Rif Winfield 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to those who have carried out the restructuring. I've tweaked the intro paragraph to give a little more explanation and remove the predecessor references, and tweaked the heading layout for the predecessors and added a little explanation (culled from the relevant articles). Could the experts please review to make sure I haven't said anything that is incorrect. Viv Hamilton 13:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Project assessment

I reverted the assessments under MILHIST and SHIP. The assessment pages of both projects state that lists are assessed as for other articles (other than progressing to featured list). The assessment should not be NA, which should be used for templates and disambiguation pages that do not need assessing. Viv Hamilton 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_dreadnought_battleships_of_the_Royal_Navy/Archive_1&oldid=1058027220"