Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Escorts - a useful term? Why not say 'frigates and destroyers'?

Fake Sheikh

War Hero
65p?
Blimey was this when you started buying it?
 
I can't see what's wrong with Escorts when they are with a Carrier Group because that is what they are doing for that deployment. I stand to be corrected but isn't the normal term used when they are deployed as a single unit or working with anything other than a carrier?
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
You can call them escorts, I'd refer to them as smaller targets before sinking the CV ;)
 
....... The term frigate, previously used for a fast ship of the line, ........

Interesting post, but frigates in the era of sail were not intended to be used in the line.
They were the "eyes of the fleet" and their construction was lighter than the "line-of-battle ships" - a term which morphed into "battleships".

They did perform other tasks such as escorting convoys, and were also used as detached commerce raiders, sometimes being described as "cruisers".

Line-of-battle ships could have two, three or even four gun decks; frigates had just the one. Technically, with one gun deck, HMS Warrior at Portsmouth was a frigate, although significantly larger than line-of-battle ships such as HMS Victory in an earlier era.

In later years, ships of the Invincible class started out as "through-deck cruisers" despite being smallish aircraft carriers. (That, however, was a bit of PR to get them approved, which might otherwise have been unlikely if the RN had asked for three carriers)
 

Yokel

LE
I can't see what's wrong with Escorts when they are with a Carrier Group because that is what they are doing for that deployment. I stand to be corrected but isn't the normal term used when they are deployed as a single unit or working with anything other than a carrier?

Escort suggests a purely defensive (of the carrier) role. Controlling jets or working with carrier based ASW helicopters does not easily fall into that description. My point is that they are an active part of using the carrier's aircraft, and that they are not tied to the carrier.

Interesting post, but frigates in the era of sail were not intended to be used in the line.
They were the "eyes of the fleet" and their construction was lighter than the "line-of-battle ships" - a term which morphed into "battleships".

They did perform other tasks such as escorting convoys, and were also used as detached commerce raiders, sometimes being described as "cruisers".

Line-of-battle ships could have two, three or even four gun decks; frigates had just the one. Technically, with one gun deck, HMS Warrior at Portsmouth was a frigate, although significantly larger than line-of-battle ships such as HMS Victory in an earlier era.

In later years, ships of the Invincible class started out as "through-deck cruisers" despite being smallish aircraft carriers. (That, however, was a bit of PR to get them approved, which might otherwise have been unlikely if the RN had asked for three carriers)

Discussed at length elsewhere. The reason the Invincible class were so described was because their original role was going to be to carry up to ten ASW Sea Kings, to which were added a small number of Sea Harriers to deal with Soviet Bear aircraft that provided over the horizon targeting for submarine launched missiles.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Being serious for a moment, though it won't last, escort suggests a protection role for units unable to protect themselves - either entirely or from a given threat, whereas consort suggests that the vessel in question is intended to join in the fun in a similar manner to its companion - e.g. Prinz Eugen was Bismarck's consort. Is the consort/escort conundrum dependent on your companion ship's capability in the face of a particular threat?
 
And reasonably so given that it's not incompatible with a discussion of the modern RN...


Someone was posting about the successful inclusion and cohesion of females into the fighting arm of the RN, and how forward thinking and progressive they all are.

Then this.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
Someone was posting about the successful inclusion and cohesion of females into the fighting arm of the RN, and how forward thinking and progressive they all are.

Then this.

The Mutiny on the Booty....

Who would have thunk that coed wrestling would be an issue.....
 
W
Someone was posting about the successful inclusion and cohesion of females into the fighting arm of the RN, and how forward thinking and progressive they all are.

Then this.

If the captain had been female as well, this wouldn't have happened.....ooh, erm, crikey...mebbe
 
Someone was posting about the successful inclusion and cohesion of females into the fighting arm of the RN, and how forward thinking and progressive they all are.

Then this.
ISTR a matelot telling new that stag ships (all male crews) consistently outperformed those ships with mixed crews.
 

skeetstar

Old-Salt
Interesting post, but frigates in the era of sail were not intended to be used in the line.
They were the "eyes of the fleet" and their construction was lighter than the "line-of-battle ships" - a term which morphed into "battleships".

They did perform other tasks such as escorting convoys, and were also used as detached commerce raiders, sometimes being described as "cruisers".

Line-of-battle ships could have two, three or even four gun decks; frigates had just the one. Technically, with one gun deck, HMS Warrior at Portsmouth was a frigate, although significantly larger than line-of-battle ships such as HMS Victory in an earlier era.

In later years, ships of the Invincible class started out as "through-deck cruisers" despite being smallish aircraft carriers. (That, however, was a bit of PR to get them approved, which might otherwise have been unlikely if the RN had asked for three carriers)
Kerrect, frigates were too light to stand in the line of battle, but were big enough to gad about on independent operations, or cruises. So they occasionally got referred to as cruisers..at least I'm pretty sure they did. Modern cruisers fulfilled a similar role, being able to operate independently over large distances.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
Well back to the naming issue.
Why not just use Large Surface Combatant and Small Surface Combatant.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top