Redpill me on razées. Were they a meme?
Cruiser before the term was invented if memory serves. All the grunt and most of the firepower of a battleship without the extra trimmings.
>>64885556They were an expedient way to recycle older designs which were no longer suitable for heavy fleet action. All those 60-64 ships wouldn't be able to stand against a new 74-80 gun ship, so they were converted into super frigates. It was cheaper and quicker than building a new ship, plus the resulting vessel still retained its heavy construction, allowing it to continue carrying larger guns than the average frigate (ex. 24-pounders, as opposed to 18-pounders, excluding carronade calibers). It wasn't as nimble as a true frigate, but it did its new job more than adequately.
>>64885603Third deck barely added any firepower in terms of battleship combat. Third deck had 9-12 pound guns that struggle to penetrate battleships structure.
>>64885612IIRC, guns on the fo'c'sle, upperdeck, and quarterdeck were primarly anti-personnel and anti-sail/rigging.
>>64885556>razées. Were they a meme?Not at all, they provided timely firepower right when it was needed. The RN's razees were all operating off the American coast before the first 1812-war-emergency super-frigate was completedTheir real downside is that you are buying super-frigates for the cost of a battleshipThey are essentially the 1800s equivalent of an Alaska-class(If the Alaskas had been made by thinning down the armour belt of a Colorado)
>>64885603Yeah, the 60-64 ships were nearly obsolete as formal ships-of-the-line in the later parts of the Napoleonic wars, and at the same time Britain was starting to face some significant economic crunches. Assuming the timbers were still good though (there was plenty of naval corruption and definitely ships that should have been scrapped or changed to merchant or something which were pushed on past when they should have been, but also plenty of ships that were still in solid enough shape) having them live on as heavy frigates wasn't a bad idea. They also served as an experiment/counter to the three American heavy frigates which were significantly tougher then the typical Brit ones, even putting aside differences in crew. The US obviously had tiny numbers on an absolute scale, but after the consecutive losses it was actually a pretty big deal to the brit navy.>>64885635Yes, burning/sinking enemies wasn't necessarily the main goal at all in many cases, a lot of times capturing was both lucrative and also quite practical, many ships on various sides were originally ships from the other side that were captured and refitted.
>>64885556Admiral Pellew (he appears in the Hornblower series) made his irl career on a razee. He was the most successful captain of his era in terms of capturing prize ships.
>>64885673Don't you dare slim down my Smolorado's glorious hips and thighs!
>>64885860Yum yum.
>>64885673>Their real downside is that you are buying super-frigates for the cost of a battleship The ships had already been bought, back when they were first commissioned. All you're doing is sawing off the superstructure and replacing a few particularly rotted-out timbers. Way cheaper than building a completely new frigate.
>>64885556>Muricans invent proto-battlecruiser doctrine with their heavy frigates>Limey's say "yeah that's great and all but man it's expensive">have shitton of obsolete hulls which are too small or French hulls to flimsy for the modern battle line>cut down hulls to make make heavier ship for proto-battlecruiser doctrineRazees tended to defeat their purpose built counterparts and the ships were going to be struck from the naval registry anyway so why not.
>>64885917>cheaper than building a completely new frigateyesalthough there is indeed an element of sunk cost here, nonetheless,>The ships had already been bought, back when they were first commissioned"they're obsolete so they don't actually count as battleships so disposing them to gain a super-frigate" is not a good argument regardlessthat's like arguing that USS Ranger was not very useful as a carrier so it could have been safely converted into (for ex) a heavy cruiser; no, hell no, even a substandard vessel could be deployed usefully as a fleet carrier.the 1790s RN was always lacking in ships of the line and there was a very real risk of being outnumbered, outgunned, and eventually outfought, until Trafalgar happened. that is precisely why obsolescent 64s like HMS Indefatigable were still in service. they could be used to counter weaker nations' fleets, for example Denmark (the Battle of Copenhagen involved five 64s out of a fleet of twelve total ships of the line). that is five notional 74s freed up to counter the French and Spanish fleets, which is 10% of the entire British third-rate fleet.therefore, converting a razee involved a not-insignificant element of risk and expense. it is only with the benefit of hindsight we now know that it was worth it.>>64885956>why notsee above
>>64886037>although there is indeed an element of sunk cost here, nonetheless,Not sure if I agree with that in this case vs the argument of capital amortization. In the age of sail things weren't moving that fast, and the labor and resource cost of even a single big ship was really, really significant. In the UK they were literally running out of forest to work with, this isn't something where it's infinitely scalable, this is all pre-industrial era. In some ships yeah, the core was shot, but in a lot of others the timbers were still solid it's just they couldn't bear the load of bigger guns.>rest of analysisNot unfair, but by the 1810s the situation had shifted quite a bit. Most of the razees iirc (majestic, saturn, goliath, excellent, etc) were all that era or later. While sure there was some risk taking, I think by that point they were dominant enough and had a firm enough grasp on the state of the war to realize that even for lesser nations having lighter, handier faster but still punchy ships, was a worthwhile trade, so old 64s or 74s for 44s or 58s wasn't that big a leap. And Indefatigable of the 1780s had done very well too.
>>64885956>>Muricans invent proto-battlecruiser doctrine with their heavy frigatesIs this what the Gladiator is talking about in Master and Commander (in the original they are fighting burgers)?
>>64886037the Royal Navy had older battle ship hulks it didn't need and needed more and heavier frigates.there's also the issue of crewing those ships, the RN was hurting for seamen.raziers take less crew to man than the battle ships they where covered frombut above all, they fucking worked.no cost-efficiency argument is going to hold water when you are fighting a war for your survival. get the boats, get them now, get them yesterday
>>64886194>it didn't needReread
>>64886037 >"they're obsolete so they don't actually count as battleships so disposing them to gain a super-frigate" They had the choice of continuing to run them as shitty third-rates, or outright hulking them, or razeeing them into heavy fourth-rates. Being the best of the minnow squad was seen as a superior choice to being a bottom-of-the-bin largemouth, or some slowly-rotting-away pierside barracks/prison (not always differentiated). >that's like arguing that USS Ranger was not very useful as a carrier so it could have been safely converted into (for ex) a heavy cruiser Not a good analogy; it would be like removing the missiles from a frigate and converting it into a super-heavy fishing zone enforcement vessel (or anti-piracy patrol). Which a number of nations actually did. >they could be used to counter weaker nations' fleets Yes, however there was a hard limit to how many ships Baltic nations could sail (primarily a manpower limit), so there was no need to keep a bunch of obsolete undergunned former ships-of-the-line. Especially since they weren't useful elsewhere, so they couldn't be reallocated. Hence razeeing them into lighter, more maneuvrable heavy frigates. >>64886132>In the UK they were literally running out of forest to work with Thus the creation of several "king's woods", forests specifically planted with oak for shipbuilding purposes.
>>64885556They're great in Napoleon Total War. Unfortunately you can only build them as the British
>>64885580"Cruiser" designated role in that time period. It was a large ship used in the commerce protection/raiding role. So all frigates of the time were also cruisers. Small two-deckers were also cruisers. Frigates would eventually evolve into the modern cruiser as steam power + fewer numbers of larger guns made them not frigates anymore. Frigate: Ship-rigged (three masts, square sales) with one gun deck and additional guns on the forecastle and quarterdeck. At least 20 long guns.Cruiser: Large ship designed for independent actions as a commerce raider/protector.
>>64886132>amortizationdifferent concept applies here I believe>by the 1810s the situation had shifted quite a bit. Most of the razees iirc (majestic, saturn, goliath, excellent, etc) were all that era or laterafter Trafalgar the RN enjoyed a significant advantage or even supremacy over the seas>>64886211>Being the best of the minnow squad was seen as a superior choice to being a bottom-of-the-bin largemouthultimately yes, I'm just pointing out that a bottom-bin largemouth still had its uses>there was a hard limit to how many ships Baltic nations could sail (primarily a manpower limit), so there was no needCopenhagen showed that there was not such an excess of 64s really given that they still had to make up half the fleet out of 74sagain, under such circumstances, every 64 razeed into a frigate is a 74 that has to be pulled from the Channel and Mediterranean fleets
>>64886887Napoleon TW is pretty easy for the British, you start with enough navy to slap the French and the Spanish about, by t2 you control the entire med.
Did the RN as an institution have a culture and normal/possible procedures which gave them an advantage? I sometimes read that it was fairly 'socially mobile' for its time and much more merit based than other British services (it's often compared to the Brit army at the time which is said to have been a nepotic shitshow next to the navy), and that this made for a more talented cadre of officers and commanders. I also read that this, and other navy cultural factors, meant that RN seamen were by and large very effective in their roles onboard and in battle. Nut what about the French, Spanish or American navies? I can't imagine the American navy was less so than the British in the aforementioned ways. And until the strategical and material advantages of the later period both the French and Spanish ships and navies were more or less an even match for the RN.
>>64887968>NutI meant "but", obviously. Should have proofread it bud I'm a dumb faggot.
Aesthetically, I just think razées are very good looking
>>64885580>>64887190I think there's an argument to made that a razzéed third-rate would be akin to a battle cruiser in concept, given that as a third rate the ship would have originally have been in the line of battle (Reminder that pic related was the work of third rates)
>>64886167Yes, its an alt history scenario where the frogs procure something akin to the USS Constitution which was close to a fourth rate in armament but with very good speed so it could outrun anything larger and outfight anything smaller.It's an exaggerated dramatization of the battle between HMS Shannon and USS Chesapeake, but in reality those ships were about as equal as you could get in tonnage and armament between two different navies. Chesapeake was barely heavier.The movie makes it a David and Goliath encounter, which is obviously more fun and entertaining. Chesapeake was the smallest of the original 6 frigates, about half the tonnage of Constitution. And Surprise was likewise half the tonnage of HMS Shannon.
>>64887968Absolutely, yesFirst of all they had a unified chain of command, everything naval was under the Admiralty. In contrast the British Army worked under an obsolete sort of medieval system whereby various functions were under separate authorities, especially supply and funding. You may be familiar with Sharpe and Wellington memes. Why does it at all matter that Wellington's enemies have "friends at Horse Guards"? Because they could override his personnel decisions. Why does Wellington need to do deals with Jews to secure funding for salaries? Because Whitehall paid the troops, instead of sending him the money. One of the biggest differences between the Admiralty and the Army was that the Admiralty had full control over supply, from procurement to preparation to transport, whereas in the Army, Quartermasters reported to Whitehall not Wellington!Secondly, the RN had a professional seamanship and tactical manual and an officer progression system, the Army didn't. The Army had a basic musket drill book, and a Rifleman school, and that's it. Officers had no training or performance measures whatsoever. In contrast, the Navy had examination boards for various ranks, a list of skills that sailors, warrant officers, and commissioned officers alike were expected to master, and a system of learning, however rudimentary.Thirdly the RN did have a certain respect for technical skill over breeding. Had they done as some other navies did and rejected officers and warrant officers and refused to promote them or even recruit them due to their backgrounds (the French purged their navy of nobles and intelligentsia, for example), they would have been just as inefficient as the Army. Instead, they allowed skilled individuals of all backgrounds to have fairly important roles in the organisation.This is not to say they weren't still very corrupt by modern standards. Many lieutenants and captains, even famous ones, paid their way into command. It's all relative.
>>64887992>there's an argument to made that a razzéed third-rate would be akin to a battle cruiser in conceptIt absolutely was. A razee had thicker scantlings and sides, making it better armoured and armed essentially, as the reinforced structure meant it could carry heavier guns. It was also faster since it could carry more sail and ballast both.Indefatigable and Constitution carried 24-lber guns. For comparison, at this time the international standard frigate carried 12lber guns, smaller ships 9lbers, and only the heaviest frigates carried 18lbers. Chesapeake, Constellation and Congress carried 18lbers like the most modern British and French frigates of the day.>given that as a third rate the ship would have originally have been in the line of battle (Reminder that pic related was the work of third rates)In practice there wasn't much difference between a third rate and a first rate. It's like, would a KGV (10 guns) consistently outfight a Revenge class (8 guns) battleship? The result would be much closer than the terminology implies. The 74s became regarded as the ideal because first rates were too slow and yet their heavier firepower didn't have significantly greater advantage in battle.
>>64888024The battle in the Master And Commander novie is not based on the Chesapeake and Shannon.
>>64888084>Why does Wellington need to do deals with Jews to secure funding for salaries? Because Whitehall paid the troops, instead of sending him the money.I don't get it
>>64888106TLDR most things to do with supply and pay were not in Wellington's control, but under London's, whether the War Department (now MoD) or Treasury. Therefore not only did those 2 organisations have to wrangle with each other for resources and assets, Wellington also had to fight and petition the War Department to assign assets to him. And even then, supply officers nominally under his command could always complain to a superior body. Worst of all, Wellington had no authority to restructure (i.e. fire and hire) and reorganise the logistics train on which his manoeuvres depended. So incompetent officers and fuckedup org structures were outside of his powers to reorganise. Imagine you trying to run a campaign on Alibaba and Taobao, basically. And no, you don't have the authority to switch to Amazon.Wellington therefore had to convince, cajole and commandeer resources, and try to build up a mini supply train under his personal command, organised how he liked and answerable to him. This wasn't always possible.In contrast the Admiralty had full authority over most (not all) procurement and design decisions, as well as operations. The Treasury paid them and they did the rest. They had a comparatively very streamlined and efficient supply system, as a result. Contrary to pop-his memes, food supply in the Royal Navy was probably better than on land.
you could turn your ageing obsolete 2nd rates from the 1700's into a hard hitting super heavy frigate.the bongs knew what they were about
>There will probably be 2-3 more "Kpoop Demon Hunters" but Master and Commander 2 or anything else like it will probably never happen
