:''There are six rating articles (first-rate, second-rate, third-rate, fourth-rate, fifth-rate, sixth-rate) in the rating system of the Royal Navy.'' The rating system of the Royal Navy was used by the Royal Navy between the 1670s and early 19th century to categorise sailing warships according to their ability to stand in a line of battle and according to their number of guns. Cannon (large, smooth-bored, muzzle-loading guns) were counted, but not carronades (short guns which were half the weight of equivalent long guns), although rated ships could carry up to twelve 24- or 32-pounder carronades. During the Napoleonic Wars the correlation between formal gun rating and actual number of long guns or carronades carried by any individual ship was theoretical at best. When first established, first-rates were ships of exactly 100 guns, second-rates 90 guns, third-rates 70 guns, and fourth-rates 54–60 guns. As time passed, and different ships were built with greater or fewer numbers of guns, the term was expanded to include the ranges listed below. Although the rating system was only used by the Royal Navy, British authors might still use "first-rate" when referring to the largest ships of other nations or "third-rate" to speak of a French seventy-four (ship). By the end of the 18th century, the rating system had mostly fallen out of common use, ships of the line usually being characterized directly by their nominal number of guns, the numbers even being used as the name of the type, as in "a squadron of three seventy-fours". The rating system did not handle ships smaller than the sixth rate, the remainder simply being "unrated". The larger of the unrated vessels were generally called sloop-of-wars (but be warned that nomenclature is quite confusing for unrated vessels, especially when dealing with the finer points of "brig", "sloop-of-war", "corvette" and "post-ship" and whether any particular vessel is one, the other, or several of these at once). Sixth-rate ships were generally useful as convoy escorts, for blockade duties and the carrying of dispatches; their small size made them a bit unsuited for the general cruising tasks the fifth-rate frigates did so well. ==Rating system== {| |- !align="center"|Type !align="center"|Rate !align="center"|Guns !align="center"|Gun decks !align="center"|Men !align="center"|Displacement in tonnes !Notes |- |align="center" rowspan="3"|Ship of the line |align="center"|first-rate |align="center"|100 or more |align="center"|3 + forecastle
and quarterdeck |align="center"|850 to 875 |align="center"|> 2,000 |The largest ship of the line. Tended to be slow and invariably expensive to operate. As a result, the few first-rates were typically reserved as admirals' flagships. The number of crew on a first rate was increased by 25 when used as the flagship of a full Admiral, by 20 for a Vice Admiral and 15 for a Rear Admiral. |- |align="center"|second-rate |align="center"|90 to 98 |align="center"|3 + forecastle
and quarterdeck |align="center"|700 to 750 |align="center"|about 2,000 |Had lighter guns on their middle and upper decks than first rates. Powerful and able to fight in the center of a line of battle, second-rates were sometimes criticised for being slow and hard to maneuver. Where a first-rate vessel was considered too expensive or vulnerable to risk, a second-rate often served as a flagship. |- |align="center"|third-rate |align="center"|64 to 80 |align="center"|2 |align="center"|500 to 650 |align="center"|1,300–1,600 |Had two gun decks (thus the related term two-decker). Included the Seventy-four (ship), the most popular size of large ship for navies of several different nations. It was an easier ship to handle than a first or second rate ship, but still possessed enough firepower to potentially destroy any single opponent. It was also cheaper to operate. |- |align="center" rowspan="3"|Frigate |align="center"|fourth-rate |align="center"|50 to 60 |align="center"|2 |align="center"|320 to 420 |align="center"|about 1,000 |A two-decker, but from the 18th century considered too weak to stand in the line of battle. The few that remained were relegated to convoy escort, or as flagships on far-flung stations. Some exceptionally large frigates also belonged in the fourth rate. |- |align="center"|fifth-rate |align="center"|32 to 40 |align="center"|1 |align="center"|200 to 300 |align="center"|700 to 1,450 |Acted as a fast scout or an independent cruiser. |- |align="center"|sixth-rate |align="center"|20 to 28 |align="center"|1 |align="center"|140 to 200 |align="center"|450 to 550 | |- |align="center"|Sloop-of-war |align="center" rowspan="2"|Unrated |align="center"|16 to 18 |align="center"|1 |align="center"|90 to 125 |align="center"|380 | |- |align="center"|Gun-brig or Cutter |align="center"|6 to 14 |align="center"|1 |align="center"|5 to 25 |align="center"|< 220 | |} In 1817, the Royal Navy introduced a new rating system which included carronades in the count. The rating system was again modified later based more on the size of the crew. == Other uses == The term first-rate has passed into general usage, as an adjective used to mean something of the best or highest quality available. Second-rate and Third-rate are also used as adjectives to mean that something is of inferior quality. ==References== * Michael Philips, [http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/gen1.htm ''Notes on Sailing Warships''], 2000. Royal Navy
==Reason for creation of this page== Moved the rating system of the Royal Navy table from ship of the line as suggested (Talk:Ship of the line)and because many other pages (mostly sailing ships) have rating links to the previously individual rating pages.
Also merged all six rating pages (which were mostly stubs) here so that readers can easily compare the six different ratings in one place. The sixth-rate page was in process of being moved to Wiktionary.
Moved the pictures from the First-rate page to ship of the line to speed loading of this page User:Petersam 03:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:I don't think all the redirecting - what's happened is that six short but succinct articles have been made into a giant indigestible blob. Think about the reader - if the reader wants to know what a "third-rate" was, he/she wants to see "a third-rate is a type of ship of size X", not a lengthy list of types and tables. The individual articles should link to this overall discussion/table, for the benefit of those readers who are interested in the overall concept. Remember, this is a hyperlinked encyclopedia, long multi-subject articles are counterproductive. User:Stan Shebs 02:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Good points. A picture or table is worth a thousand words. I've removed all the text from the separate sections that could be easily found in the table. The table also shows the differences better than what can be stated in the sections. The ship references have been moved to their respective pages ship of the line or frigate making those articles more richer (more editing to be done later!) And I reduced the rate descriptions to the basic minimums so the reader knows how they are different. Readers can go the the 2 other articles for more information. The sixth-rate article of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sixth-rate&diff=5845899&oldid=5466806 26 Aug 2004] had a Template:wiktionary placed on it because it was so small and most of the others were also small. The first-rate article was not short or succinct so readers may not find what they wanted very fast. Also, the six rate pages were of different lengths and the first-rate and fourth-rate articles include ships that probably should have been placed in other articles instead (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy&oldid=5846574 all rate pages together]). So, I think I now have one short, but succinct article about the rating system which does answer what the reader wants to know what a "third-rate" was and that "a third-rate is a type of ship of size X" and also can see how that third-rate ship compares with other rate ships. ..............OOPS! (in response to recent Stan message)...... I'm a newbie and perhaps was a little too bold? (Gotta to read that page again!} I saw your original comment on the ship of the line page to move the rating system to a separate page (Talk:Ship of the line) and I thought it would be also a good idea to combine all the rate pages together after checking the separate talk pages for any problems (only the first-rate page had comments). Right now it is getting much too late for me!! I need to sign off now, so I'll expect more comments later. I expect I'll be doing a lot more editing soon. (Boy, this place can sure be addicting!!!.... User:Petersam 07:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::The net effect is that you deleted a bunch of content, plus which there is more to say about each individual rate (construction particulars for instance), plus it doesn't work with the categorization system. When thinking about merging articles, one important thing to consider is whether the article is small because it's new and needs more content, or it will always be small. In the case of the RN rates, all have much to say about them - rationale, evolution, employment, plus a picture or two so we can see what they looked like. This article should be about the system as a whole (who introduced it and why? When did it go out of use? How did it compare to other nations' systems?) - once you have adequate treatment of all that, plus the two screenfuls with two representative pictures per rate, that's a pretty hefty article, no longer easy for reader to get the basic definition of "third-rate". When considering organization like this, it's worthwhile to look at history of all the articles concerned, and maybe query the editors who set it up, because what you've effectively done is to destroy article structure that I and others carefully set up some time ago. Talk pages are mostly used for debate, so lack of talk page bits combined with multiple editors in history indicates that all the editors agreed perfectly, no need to discuss. User:Stan Shebs 08:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::::Oops! and Great points!! I will revert the rate pages back again by tonight. I'll add a sentence at the top of each page which will tell the readers that it is one part of six parts which make up the rating system for the RN which should address the "move to wikitionary" issue on the sixth-rate page. Sorry for creating all these problems as a newbie learning the hard way. Perhaps we can get together in the virtual ship's gallery later over some virtual chow -- I have a lot of hash we can use User:Petersam 18:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for fixing up! I promise to add more content for each rate, but not until next week - right now I'm on the road and away from my library. :-( User:Stan Shebs 03:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::::::Currently the table says 4th, 5th and 6th rate ships were all frigates. I am not sure that all 4th rate ships were frigates. But I am pretty sure not all 6th rate ships were frigates. Superficially similar, from a distance, the smaller 6th rates were ship-rigged, flush-decked sloops-of war. Frigates weren't flush-decked. They had a quarter-deck, at the stern.
:::::::4th Rates were typically the small two-deckers of 40 to 54 guns, too small to stand in the line of battle and too slow and clumsy to outsail frigates. I have edited the table entry accordingly. As for the sixth rate - it's a bit confusing actually. Small 28-gun frigates certainly belong there, as do large ship-sloops whether flush-decked or not (a lot of them had both quarterdeck and forecastle in fact). I am a bit uncertain as to whether there were any rated non-ship rigged vessels such as large brigs, will have to check references on that one.User:lordhoweno
==Suggestion==
There really needs to be a page about the ranking system on a 18th century ship, the only hints about this is in the general ranking system of the royal navy. Their should be articles about officers on ship of the line and such.
==First paragraph is navigational aid==
Please do not remove the first paragraph as it functions as a quick navigational aid to the other articles in this series. Thank you. User:Petersam 03:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy:
Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy
Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy
Rating system of the Royal Navy
:''There are six rating articles (first-rate, second-rate, third-rate, fourth-rate, fifth-rate, sixth-rate) in the rating system of the Royal Navy.'' The rating system of the Royal Navy was used by the Royal Navy between the 1670s and early 19th century to categorise sailing warships according to their ability to stand in a line of battle and according to their number of guns. Cannon (large, smooth-bored, muzzle-loading guns) were counted, but not carronades (short guns which were half the weight of equivalent long guns), although rated ships could carry up to twelve 24- or 32-pounder carronades. During the Napoleonic Wars the correlation between formal gun rating and actual number of long guns or carronades carried by any individual ship was theoretical at best. When first established, first-rates were ships of exactly 100 guns, second-rates 90 guns, third-rates 70 guns, and fourth-rates 54–60 guns. As time passed, and different ships were built with greater or fewer numbers of guns, the term was expanded to include the ranges listed below. Although the rating system was only used by the Royal Navy, British authors might still use "first-rate" when referring to the largest ships of other nations or "third-rate" to speak of a French seventy-four (ship). By the end of the 18th century, the rating system had mostly fallen out of common use, ships of the line usually being characterized directly by their nominal number of guns, the numbers even being used as the name of the type, as in "a squadron of three seventy-fours". The rating system did not handle ships smaller than the sixth rate, the remainder simply being "unrated". The larger of the unrated vessels were generally called sloop-of-wars (but be warned that nomenclature is quite confusing for unrated vessels, especially when dealing with the finer points of "brig", "sloop-of-war", "corvette" and "post-ship" and whether any particular vessel is one, the other, or several of these at once). Sixth-rate ships were generally useful as convoy escorts, for blockade duties and the carrying of dispatches; their small size made them a bit unsuited for the general cruising tasks the fifth-rate frigates did so well. ==Rating system== {| |- !align="center"|Type !align="center"|Rate !align="center"|Guns !align="center"|Gun decks !align="center"|Men !align="center"|Displacement in tonnes !Notes |- |align="center" rowspan="3"|Ship of the line |align="center"|first-rate |align="center"|100 or more |align="center"|3 + forecastle
and quarterdeck |align="center"|850 to 875 |align="center"|> 2,000 |The largest ship of the line. Tended to be slow and invariably expensive to operate. As a result, the few first-rates were typically reserved as admirals' flagships. The number of crew on a first rate was increased by 25 when used as the flagship of a full Admiral, by 20 for a Vice Admiral and 15 for a Rear Admiral. |- |align="center"|second-rate |align="center"|90 to 98 |align="center"|3 + forecastle
and quarterdeck |align="center"|700 to 750 |align="center"|about 2,000 |Had lighter guns on their middle and upper decks than first rates. Powerful and able to fight in the center of a line of battle, second-rates were sometimes criticised for being slow and hard to maneuver. Where a first-rate vessel was considered too expensive or vulnerable to risk, a second-rate often served as a flagship. |- |align="center"|third-rate |align="center"|64 to 80 |align="center"|2 |align="center"|500 to 650 |align="center"|1,300–1,600 |Had two gun decks (thus the related term two-decker). Included the Seventy-four (ship), the most popular size of large ship for navies of several different nations. It was an easier ship to handle than a first or second rate ship, but still possessed enough firepower to potentially destroy any single opponent. It was also cheaper to operate. |- |align="center" rowspan="3"|Frigate |align="center"|fourth-rate |align="center"|50 to 60 |align="center"|2 |align="center"|320 to 420 |align="center"|about 1,000 |A two-decker, but from the 18th century considered too weak to stand in the line of battle. The few that remained were relegated to convoy escort, or as flagships on far-flung stations. Some exceptionally large frigates also belonged in the fourth rate. |- |align="center"|fifth-rate |align="center"|32 to 40 |align="center"|1 |align="center"|200 to 300 |align="center"|700 to 1,450 |Acted as a fast scout or an independent cruiser. |- |align="center"|sixth-rate |align="center"|20 to 28 |align="center"|1 |align="center"|140 to 200 |align="center"|450 to 550 | |- |align="center"|Sloop-of-war |align="center" rowspan="2"|Unrated |align="center"|16 to 18 |align="center"|1 |align="center"|90 to 125 |align="center"|380 | |- |align="center"|Gun-brig or Cutter |align="center"|6 to 14 |align="center"|1 |align="center"|5 to 25 |align="center"|< 220 | |} In 1817, the Royal Navy introduced a new rating system which included carronades in the count. The rating system was again modified later based more on the size of the crew. == Other uses == The term first-rate has passed into general usage, as an adjective used to mean something of the best or highest quality available. Second-rate and Third-rate are also used as adjectives to mean that something is of inferior quality. ==References== * Michael Philips, [http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/gen1.htm ''Notes on Sailing Warships''], 2000. Royal Navy
Rating system of the Royal Navy
==Reason for creation of this page== Moved the rating system of the Royal Navy table from ship of the line as suggested (Talk:Ship of the line)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
R
RA | RB | RC | RD | RE | RF | RG | RH | RI | RJ | RK | RL | RM | RN | RO | RP | RS | RT | RU | RW | RX | RY | RZ |Words begining with Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy:
Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy
Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
