# Boats vs. Ships

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boats-vs-ships/379211>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [November 5, 2006, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boats-vs-ships/379211 "2006-11-05T22:06:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2006, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boats-vs-ships/379211/1 "2006-11-05T22:06:31Z")

</div>

On the subject of exceptions to the rule, there have been ships big enough to carry _other_ ships aboard them. A notable recent example was when the USS _Cole_ was damaged in a suicide attack in Yemen in 1999, and was brought back to the US for repairs by being loaded onto a large freighter. (Probably to minimise the risk of the Cole being lost at sea due to her damage, as a number of Navy ships have been lost that way before whlie sailing to port for extensive repairs)

In general, I’d say that the general definition of a ship as a large-ish seagoing vessel capable of independet operation works just fine. Most of the examples of large seagoing vessels being called “boats” would seem to be a result of tradition rather than definition (and as anyone who has gone to school at Texas A&M would know, traditions need not make any sense).

Oh, and a [link](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_256.html) to Cecil’s column.