Talk:Second-rate

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

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. Petersam 03:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While the main thrust of this article is fine, its current wording relates primarily to Second Rates of the Nelsonic Era. To avoid misleading readers, you need to explain that - like most types - the Second Rates had grown in size and firepower since the early 17th century. Early Second Rates were a lot smaller than 2,000 tons and carried fewer than 90 or 98 guns. Rif Winfield 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

I placed a {{cn}} on the claim that second rate, to refer to something inferior, derives from the RN rating system. I suspect this is a retronym. Even if it is not a retronym, we need a reference for this claim. Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

It has become apparent that the words "first rate", "second rate", etc have become capitalised over the last year or so. This seems to me to directly contradict the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), and I have changed them back again. To clarify, if we were talking about frigates, we would use lower case, because it's not a proper noun; "first rate" is exactly analogous. The usage on Category:Set indices on ships follows the lower case usage almost exclusively, as far as I can tell. Please address any concerns here before making wholesale changes back again.

On another note, some of the hyphenation has been rather patchy. Adjectival use will require a hyphen (first-rate ship) but when used as a noun (first rate), it does not. Again, I've made the changes were I've spotted the need.

Apologies if I've missed any or introduced any errors, since we all err from time to time. Shem (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French equivalent of the British rating system

I note that the reference fr:2e rang appears at the foot of this article. The French rating system did not correspond precisely with the British one; in fact, the French "Deuxième Rang" corresponded better to the British Third Rate (not exactly, but better than to the Second Rate). Roughly speaking (there were exceptions) the French "Premiere Rang" equated to both the First Rate and Second Rate in the British Navy, although by Napoleonic times there were in effect no French equivalents to the British Second Rate, as the French Navy was building nothing between their 118-gun three-deckers and their 80-gun two-deckers. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crew of 750?

This seems implausible. I suspect a zero was added there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's entirely right. With 84 to 90 guns, and a gun crew of 10 or so (even with the requirement to fight only one side), plus sail trimmers, carpenters, helmsmen, marines, officers, and all the rest, the figure is spot on. In fact, you can't even sail a 2,000 square rigger with 75 crew, let alone fight it. Shem (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm finding it difficult to imagine such a host on a ship that would barely be 250 feet long by 60 wide, or how provisions and drinking water were stored on board for months long periods at sea. Were some people crew who were not at sea with the ship? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were packed in like sardines. You can see now why the Royal Navy needed to press gang men to serve their vast manpower needs. The sailors slept in hammocks on the gun deck (of which there were two in a second rate), with 18 inches per man. At sea, when one (of two) watches were on deck, that became more comfortable, but in harbour, you can imagine the stink and the squeeze. The provisions were stored in barrels in capricious holds (see the cutaway model half way down this page) and the very procurement of these vast stores (as well as the timber, sails & rigging) was one of the factors that caused the modern bureaucracy of state to come into being. Hard to imagine these days, but actually not so different from a small conventional submarine on a long patrol today, in many ways. Shem (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]