Replies

Central, you're insisting on the precise definition. "Battleships" are the equivalent of the Ship-of-the-Line of the sailing era. They're designed to go up against their counterpart. Hence, big guns and lots of armor. During the battleship era, "destroyer" and "cruiser" were smaller, less armored, fast ships (battleship could be either fast or slow). Although often used as escorts, they are capable of independent action on the oceans of the world. During WWII, battleships were re-purposed as escorts and shore bombardment ships; under Reagan, they were revived as cruise missile launch pads. The re-purposing of battleships signified that they were no loner the equivalent of the Ship-of-the-line of the sailing era. Without battleships out there, there was no point to defining destroyers and cruisers by contrast to battleships. This is why a wide range of surface combat ships are today called a "destroyer." In this sense, a destroyer isn't so much a weight class, but a blue ocean capable surface combat ship. The recently-launched USN Zumwalt is a "destroyer," when it should be a "cruiser." And, the Japanese Hyūga-class light carrier is a "destroyer." Ditto the South Korean Dokdo-class light carrier. We're holding the line on our light carriers, calling them amphibious assault ships rather than "destroyers." I should comment on "corvette" and "frigate." In the sailing era, a corvette was a coastal ship, perhaps the original littoral combat ship. And, frigates were small, fast man-of-war, not really capable of standing up to a Ship-of-line, but capable of independent action. Push forward, and during WWII, "frigate" referred to a weight class of escort vessel bigger than a destroyer and smaller than a cruiser. Think, "light-weight," "middle weight," "light heavy weight" and "heavy weight." Well, today "corvette" and "frigate" are escort vessels smaller than "destroyer. Think "bantam weight," "feather weight" and "light weight." Notice however that "frigate" and "destroyer" have flip-flopped.