Royal Navy

[andy_311]

Just had a gander on the Official RN website had a look on the history section, now it;s a bit vague but it does say from 39-45 that thay lost quote"224" un quote Large Warships fine so what do we define as large warships? BB's Cruisers,Battle Cruisers etc surely that can.t include DD's.
Now the paragraoh does not sat sunk by u-boats or surface ships or aircraft. but even 224 ships that's in my calculations from Sept 39 to May 9th works out around 44.8 shios sunk per year,now I don;t know were am going with this but in my opion (GW) Cruisers are rife in convoys (still not encountered a BB in the high seas)well I have but weather not permmiting, so I wonder or does anyone knows what are these 224 Large warships sunk?

[JScones]

Doesn't seem to gel with http://www.naval-history.net/WW2WarshiplossesBritish.htm which reports 278 RN losses across Capital ships, Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers, Submarines.

BTW, I like how the page lists losses by cause.

[perisher]

The Royal Navy's definition of a "Large Warship" has changed over the years. Back in WWII "Large" was a cruiser or larger. Today frigates and destroyers are "Large".

[JSalinger]

A frigate or a destroyer are LARGE these days???:hmm: Okay, so I guess in comparison to an ancestor of the WWII or WWI days they're large, but in comparison to a Nimitz-class supercarrier or that new one that England is putting into service to replace the Invincible-class? Uh-uh.

[bigboywooly]

Just had a quickish count up on uboat.net and from light cruiser up the RN losses were 46 ( inc armed merchant cruiser) out of a total of all RN losses of 605 that includes everything from a sub/tug/trawler to a barrage/gate vessel lol