PMarione
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:25 pm Post subject: Pendant Numbers |
 |
|
An interesting article from another list:
| Quote: | I would like to call the attention of the List to an article on this
subject in Vol. 46, No. 2 (2009) of "Warship International." This is
not a feature article but an answer from a reader to one of the
"Infoser" questions, No. 12/45, posed in Vol. 45, No. 2 of 2008. The
three authors of this response, two from the US and one from the UK,
Messrs. Haack, Tootill, and Wilterding, have written an extraordinarily
detailed explanation of the RN numbering system. This explanation is
useful in a lot of ways, including a demonstration of how and why the
British system was so different from the USN's.
My interpretation of the basic reality of the numbering systems for
ships is that in the US, except for a brief, anomalous period during the
Civil War, lacked sufficient ships to require a numbering system in the
18th or 19th centuries. Every naval officer and rating probably could
recognize each ship, and certainly knew the names of most of them. In
the Royal Navy, on the other hand, there were so many ships that even in
the 18th century there needed to be a more organized way of keeping
track of who was who - not primarily for the benefit of the shoreside
bureaucracy, but for clarity in sending signals to a fleet formed in
line of battle. Those of us who have read British novels of the Age of
Sail will certainly recognize the oft-repeated scene where Capt.
Hornblower or Aubrey orders a signal midshipman to "make our number to
the flagship." And, this is the ultimate source of the British system
of pendant numbers (authors of the article use pennant and pendant
interchangeably, but I believe pendant is the correct British term).
In the RN's system, each ship was assigned a pendant number that
consisted of a letter and two numerical digits. It was to be written
down with a period (a "full stop" in the RN's idiom) between numbers and
letter. But it was meant to be transmitted as a flag hoist and
therefore the letter could be above, or below the numbers; the terms for
this are "flag superior" and "flag inferior." Being British, the RN's
management allowed certain charming customs to creep in, such as, the
digits "13" were never to be used as a pendant number, since the number
13 would inevitably attract bad luck. And, as the 20th century began,
the flag superiors became associated with ship types (possibly under the
influence of the USN's developing hull number system - my own
interpretation here, not the authors').
The RN system did not assign a pendant number to a ship on commissioning
and keep the same number throughout the ship's life. The number was,
early on, assigned by the admiral on each station. Later, the Admiralty
took it over in the WW I time frame "to distinguish between ships with
the same or similar names". Early on, pendant numbers changed with each
commission but by the interwar period they were stable enough to be
painted on the hull like USN hull numbers. Pendant numbers were not
sequential in any meaningful way; a low number did not mean the vessel
was old. Pendant numbers were re-used freely as needed. And the "code"
of flag superior relations with ship type changed frequently and was
mostly independent of the initials of the ship type. For instance,
destroyers were at first assigned the flag superior "H". Reserve Fleet
ships were assigned, in the WW I period, a second flag superior
indicating the depot from which they were manned, "C" for Chatham, for
instance. Therefore, an older destroyer demoted to the reserve fleet
might have a pendant number of HC.05. She might be the sister of HD.47
since the numbers were not sequential.
In the interwar period, up to 1940, some destroyers had "D" as their
flag superior (others kept their "H".) In 1940, destroyers became G and
H and corvettes and frigates K...and for the first time, more than 2
digits were allowed in the numerical part because of the large numbers
of corvettes and frigates in the war construction program. Submarines,
and some WW I capital ships, were assigned numbers with a flag inferior;
most capital ships later graduated to a 2-digit number with no letter.
These numbers were not sequential and seemed almost random. Since the
war, the RN has begun to issue flags superior in accordance with NATO
standards that are starting to look a little like USN hull numbers - D
for destroyers, F for frigates. In a few cases, sequential numbers have
even been assigned in a class. Perhaps the RN will eventually have hull
numbers.
As a result of this apparently chaotic system (it must have made sense
to someone in the Admiralty), British Navy pendant numbers are hardly
ever quoted in historical literature, i.e., "HMS HOOD opened fire on
BISMARCK at 0552 hours," while in USN secondary sources it is usually
"USS LAFFEY (DD 724) was hit by a kamikaze." In photographs, if the USN
ship's number is visible, identification is easy - just look it up in
Hazegray or DANFS. If the RN pendant number is visible in a photograph,
much more knowledge and skill is called for to make much sense out of it
since these numbers changed frequently over a ship's lifetime. Seeing a
pendant number in print is even less helpful, because knowing the flag
superior won't even tell you what kind of ship it is unless you also
know the date!
The USN system, while it was far from perfect or consistent, was
invented much later and had the appearance of greater rationality and
consistency. Early in the 20th century, numbers were assigned to each
ship at the time it was authorized to be built (probably, the impetus
for this was within the Bureau of Construction and Repair, and not from
the operational Fleet). These numbers consisted of a letter designating
the ship type and a sequential number. Numbers were never re-used and a
ship kept her number until final de-commissioning. Later, when
different types of cruisers came into the fleet, two letter identifiers
were introduced; CA was an armored cruiser (later, a heavy cruiser), CL
a light cruiser, and CC a battle cruiser. The familiar DD for destroyer
was introduced about this time. However, the numerical digits, but not
the letters, were painted on the ships' sides in peacetime since every
bluejacket was expected to be able to tell a cruiser from a destroyer!
The WW II and postwar time frame saw more letters added to some of the
designations, and a few instances of designations changing (DDG's
becoming CG's in a number of cases, and DL's becoming CG's or DDG's.)
In a few cases the numbers also changed. But on the whole the
connection between the ship type and the letters part of the hull
number, as well as the sequential nature of the numerical part, was
preserved for almost all USN ships since the 1920's, to the point where
if a name is re-used (a common instance in both these English-speaking
navies), people familiar with the system are likely to expect the hull
number to be used for clarification, as in "USS ENTERPRISE, CVN 68" for
the current aircraft carrier, not her WW II namesake.
In conclusion, I praise the authors of the "Warship International" piece
for digging up this meticulous explanation of the complex British
numbering system. The RN had a more highly developed turret designation
system for capital ships - you can tell the location of the turret by
what letter it goes by, while in the USN system they are simply numbered
fore to aft and "No. 2" could be on the stern in a 2-turret ship. B
Turret, RN is always forward of the bridge! But in hull numbers the USN
definitely had an easier system. An understanding of the RN's pennant
numbers is important for our understanding of naval history even though
working with it would be quite a chore.
A. Steven Toby
Naval Architect |
|
|
