Talk:List of early warships of the English navy

message: 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, from which most of the early frigates appeared), 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. It is certainly true that the use of the term changed dramatically over the years, and was nothing to do with the later 18th-century definition of the frigate, which was of a warship carrying its main battery of guns (between 24 and 30 main guns i.e. excluding smaller guns mounted on the forecastle and/or quarter deck) on a single upper deck, with ports high enough above the waterline that they could be opened even in a storm. The mid-17th century definition could be better viewed as a set of design characteristics rather than a ship type. Rif Winfield 07:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, have removed the misleading statement. Benea 11:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept of the frigate 

message: Many smaller warships have previously been listed as being of "provenance unknown", although they were fully listed in all Admiralty records and publications, simply because they were not included by Brian Lavery in his "The Ship of the Line", vol.1. Brian Lavery was only listing the ships-of-the-line (and their predecessors), not the lesser warships, so it is hardly a surprise that he did not seek to include the smaller warships. However, their 'provenance' is undoubted, and I have cited Michael Oppenheim's 1896 book on early naval administration, in which they are all dutifully listed, as well as removing reference to the misleading "provenance unknown". I should modestly add my own published volume on British Warships of 1603-1714, as this is now generally described as the authoritative work on the topic. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesser Warship 

message: I have removed the grouping of Commonwealth frigates by "class" in almost all cases as the term is misleading. What the 17th and 18th century implied by the word 'class' would be better understood by modern readers as meaning 'type'. Except in rare cases, the early warships were not built to a common set of plans ('draughts') or even to a common set of specified dimensions. The only vessels to which this term might be applicable are the Ruby and Diamond (built in 1651-52 by Deptford to a common design by Peter Pett, and clearly sister-ships), and probably the Reserve and Advice, similarly built by Pett in 1650, as a contract commission at Woodbridge. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The concept of "class" 

message: The list of pre-1603 ships included a number which were privately-owned warships, such as the Sourge of Malice, or ones which were owned by commercial ventures such as the East India Company. These were never part of the sovereign's Navy, and I have deleted them from this article. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of non-naval warships

message: I really enjoyed this useful goldmine of ship listings on our early navy, thanks so much for your help . 2A01:4C8:1403:DF16:1:2:A008:F9D2 (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listings