History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedBiggest sea battle in modern times?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Biggest sea battle in modern times?
    Posted: 31-May-2008 at 09:53
Hello
 
I was thinking about what the biggest sea battle was in the modern age from 1900 onwards.
 
Usually it is claimed that the battle of Leyte Gulf is the biggest, but is it really?
 
The way I see it:
 
The battle was at least three completely separate battles (You could even say five, but some of the forces was repeated, so I count only three), although they were the result of one strategic plan by the Japanese.
 
Many of the vessels did not participate in the sea battle, as they were part of the landing forces, and should be exluded.
 
The total forces of all battles included was of course the biggest by far if thought of as one sea battle.
 
However - here's what I think is the biggest sea battles:
 
1: The Battle of the Philippine Sea - Imho the largest carrier battle in WWII, as it was one large battle with most of the vessels being part of the battlegroups.
40 capital ships, if light carriers also count as capital ships.
186 ships total.
 
2: The battle of Jutland:
The biggest pure ship to ship battle by far, the biggest battleship battle, the bigest number of capital ships in a single battle - in my opinion the largest real seabattle.
58 capital ships, excluding the 6 German pre-dreadnoughts.
250 ships in all.
 
Agree/disagree?


Edited by Jams - 31-May-2008 at 16:45
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 12:48
Battles involving carriers shouldn't be considered pure naval battles since the aircrafts played the most important role.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 13:42
You have a couple problems with comparing different situations. One is precisely defining a 'battle'.  As you've noted yourself, what is 'loosely' termed a 'battle' might actually be a serious of battles.  If anything simply 'called' a 'Battle of ....' is a candidate, then how about the 'Battle of the Atlantic' in WWII.  I'm not seriously proposing that, but just using it as an example to illustrate my point.  The other problem is, as mentioned above, the advent of the aircraft carrier as the 'new capital ship'.  If you consider carrier strikes as part of a naval battle, then you have to consider Pearl Harbor, with the entire American fleet at anchor on one side and the entire Japanese task force on the other.  If you more narrowly define a 'battle', to exclude separate 'actions' strung together (your example of Leyte Gulf) and specify 'surface actions', then you are clearly left with Jutland.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 15:03
Jutland was also many nseperate actions. The initial  Battlecruiser action, (with the QE class BB's in support) the action  between the retraeting British and the German High seas fleet, the main fleet action and the night action which involved mainly destroyers, (though capital ships kept firing).
 
A battle is by defination a series of actions, often seperate. What makes it a battle is if they are all aimed at achieving one objective. Leyet Gulf, Jutland etc were definatly battles.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 15:21
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Jutland was also many nseperate actions. The initial  Battlecruiser action, (with the QE class BB's in support) the action  between the retraeting British and the German High seas fleet, the main fleet action and the night action which involved mainly destroyers, (though capital ships kept firing).
 
A battle is by defination a series of actions, often seperate. What makes it a battle is if they are all aimed at achieving one objective. Leyet Gulf, Jutland etc were definatly battles.
 
"The Battle of Leyte Gulf included four major naval battles: the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, the Battle of Surigao Strait, the Battle of Cape EngaƱo and the Battle off Samar, as well as other actions."
 
Admittedly from Wiki, however, it just serves to make the point that the (so called) Battle of Leyte Gulf is frequently recognized to have consisted of several distinct 'battles' spanning four days.  I am not aware of any such view of Jutland - which although it was a 'series' of 'engagements', ran from the afternoon of May 31 through to the early morning hours of June 1 (about 12 hours) and is generally viewed as a single 'battle'.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 16:34
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Jutland was also many nseperate actions. The initial  Battlecruiser action, (with the QE class BB's in support) the action  between the retraeting British and the German High seas fleet, the main fleet action and the night action which involved mainly destroyers, (though capital ships kept firing).
 
A battle is by defination a series of actions, often seperate. What makes it a battle is if they are all aimed at achieving one objective. Leyet Gulf, Jutland etc were definatly battles.
 
Yes, but all ships still took part at the same time. Granted, the destroyers may only have actually used the torpedoes at the end of the battle, after the main gun action, but they were still part of the fleets throughout. After the run to the north, all ships were present in roughly the same area of battle. (Except the ones that exploded, of course)
 
If we should go by that criteria, then the battle of the Leyte Gulf wasn't that big despite the huge forces, as many of them didn't actually shoot at anything, such as much of Halsey's fleet.


Edited by Jams - 31-May-2008 at 16:47
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
Maximus View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2008
Location: America
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maximus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 01:13

I'll cast a vote for Jutland.  But by a narrow margin.

The Battle of Jutland caused the German Navy to change tactics.

The Germans abandoned warfare with capitol ships, and resorted to submarine warfare thereafter. 

 

I often wonder if there is still a majority of American voters who can discern a charlatan from a statesman?
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 01:16
Originally posted by Maximus Maximus wrote:

I'll cast a vote for Jutland.  But by a narrow margin.

The Battle of Jutland caused the German Navy to change tactics.

The Germans abandoned warfare with capitol ships, and resorted to submarine warfare thereafter. 

 

 
So they replaced one failed strategy with another that failed (twice).
 
 
Back to Top
Maximus View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2008
Location: America
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maximus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 01:18
Yeah.  It sure didn't work out too well for them did it?
I often wonder if there is still a majority of American voters who can discern a charlatan from a statesman?
Back to Top
mazuk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2008
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mazuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2008 at 10:22
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

 

2: The battle of Jutland:
The biggest pure ship to ship battle by far, the biggest battleship battle, the bigest number of capital ships in a single battle - in my opinion the largest real seabattle.
58 capital ships, excluding the 6 German pre-dreadnoughts.
250 ships in all.
 


Am i the only person that can't imagine a Sea battle of that size?
"Night or the Prussians"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.