Print Page | Close Window

Most Powerful Navy Ever

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc...
Moderators: Constantine XI, Byzantine Emperor, Knights, Sparten, Temujin
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=13322
Printed Date: 23-Nov-2014 at 00:45


Topic: Most Powerful Navy Ever
Posted By: Red4tribe
Subject: Most Powerful Navy Ever
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 17:21
Ive always wondered what people thought about this.

-------------
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.

George Washington - March 15, 1783




Replies:
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 20:19
You should give a timeframe because comparing a ship of the line to a nuclear aircraft carrier or a modern missile cruiser is kind of impossible. The U.S. Navy right now is probably the most powerful just because its modern and is alot more capable then any navy ever assembled. The soviet navy was quite decent in the cold war also. But its what you expect from two countries that pump so much money into the military while the rest of the world worries about important other things.

-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 02:45

Are we talking about war navy or commerce navy. Because, if its commerce, my vote goes to Dutch no doubt, but, if its war navy, then British 1700 definetely British.

 


-------------
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 03:07
   


Dear Red4Tribe,

One is totally Flabberghasted that you did not include the French Navy of the 1600's, especially the mid to late 1600's. At that time this was the most Powerful Navy in the World.

The Most Powerful Navy Ever.... has to be the current Navy of the USA. Fantastic Submarines, Numerous Battle Ships, Aircraft Carriers etc..... You can't argue with that. Just the shear Size of it, and the Arms they posses, make it the Most Powerful Navy Ever!




    

-------------
Jugo de sandia es muy bueno!


Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 14:33
Opps sorry I forgot the French Shocked.Well anyway im talking about the most powerful Navy for it's time.

-------------
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.

George Washington - March 15, 1783



Posted By: parthenon
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 07:19
American Navy. Self-evident.

-------------
After all, tomorrow is another day.:)


Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 14:55
Ancient navy(mostly SPQR)!


-------------
DÜŞÜNÜYORUM O HALDE VURUN !


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 10:10
The American navy are simply the most powerful the world has even seen. No question. Their technical ability and size makes them unparralelled. The portugese, dutch and british navies in the 1600's were powerful- mainly the Dutch (Because they develped a special kind of finanical bonding which could enable them to afford huge ships at low interest rates) and the British (Because the Spanish had controlled the gold trade in the 1600s and they needed these ships desperatly to try and get some income from raiding spanish vessels. The Portugese navy must have been powerful- i believe that they were the first europeans to build a fortress in India!
The Ottoman navy was also quite powerful- Piri Reis and Barbarossa pioneered the navy in both cartography, tactics and navigation. Are the British navy still powerful, though?


-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 20:43
Obviously the modern American navy. A single aircraft carrier can wipe out the first three navies in the poll, combined.


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:49
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

Obviously the modern American navy. A single aircraft carrier can wipe out the first three navies in the poll, combined.

    
Kind of funny that reminded me of that movie The Final Countdown when the Nimitz got ported to right before Pearl Harbour

-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 09:44

Apparently those huge battleships like the Nimitz were not very effective in WWII warfare- look what the Russians learnt from Tushima! The Germans should have stayed with Pocket battleships- small moving and with plenty of firepower



-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 14:45
The nimitz is an aircraft carier.  Those proved quite useful during WWII. 



Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 15:36
Yes it was a fiction movie. The Nimitz is an advancded Nuclear aircraft carrier named after Chester Nimitz an admiral during world war 2

-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 15:46
The Most Powerful Navy Ever.... has to be the current Navy of the USA. Fantastic Submarines, Numerous Battle Ships, Aircraft Carriers etc..... You can't argue with that. Just the shear Size of it, and the Arms they posses, make it the Most Powerful Navy Ever!
 
A couple of years ago, there was a big NATO exercise in the Atlantic. During this exercise one single Dutch diesel Submarine managed to sink 7 American ships, including the Carrier JFK. The crew was so proud (understandably) they had T-shirts made with the pictures of all seven ships...
 
I say we still rule. Big smile


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Pendragon
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 06:21
I'd have thought British Navy 1800's aka after Trafalgar - it truly had no rival on Earth, and practially controlled all the Oceans of the World.
 
But that option wasn't avaliable, oh well


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 10:36
Ancient Byzantine navy. When they had money, they were on top of things.
 
American?? Well, hard to say, America has problems with submarines. A Swedish submarine passed throguh the entire US Fleet in drills in the Pacific... Ok, it was a good submarine but still.


-------------
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 10:59

Originally posted by Aelfgifu

A couple of years ago, there was a big NATO exercise in the Atlantic. During this exerciseone singleDutch diesel Submarine managed to sink 7 American ships, including the Carrier JFK.


The thing is though, if that happened in real life the US Navy could very Quickly and Easily find 7 replacement Vessles. What if the tables were turned... Is the Dutch Navy vast enough to be able to quickly replace it's losses? This is what makes the US Navy so Powerful... the Shear Size of it! Unbelievable.

I remember a few years ago when the US Aircraft Carriers the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Abraham Lincoln visited Fremantle. I actually had the pleasure of going on board the Kitty Hawk,(this was before 911 of course) and it was absolutely Amazing! They were saying that the Lincoln by itself, has more fire power on it than the entire Australian Navy and Airforce put together! [in a Gomer Pyle voice] "Golly Sgt Carter" "Shazam Shazam Shazam!"





    

-------------
Jugo de sandia es muy bueno!


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 13:45
Originally posted by Gargoyle


The thing is though, if that happened in real life the US Navy could very Quickly and Easily find 7 replacement Vessles. What if the tables were turned... Is the Dutch Navy vast enough to be able to quickly replace it's losses? This is what makes the US Navy so Powerful... the Shear Size of it! Unbelievable. 

    
 
No, they probably wouldn't. But we were discussing which was the best navy, not which navy has so many ships it can just waste them...
 
Building tons of units and then push trough an attack until they are all gone, hoping you defeat the enemy before they are all gone is the tactic I use on Red Alert. I would expect the Americans to be a bit better at tactics than that.... Tongue


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 18:02
Hmmm, at games, creativity is my asset. I always try to assault differently (speaking of Stronghold series and Total War series now). You just must, all on isn't a very good tactic. (Especially not with slaves in SHC).
 
But if there are 100 such Dutch submarines that all take down 7 american carriers? Are the Americans then still so happy?


-------------
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.


Posted By: Goban
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 07:46
I am U.S. Navy so my opinion may be pretty biased ... But I voted anyway. Tongue

-------------
The sharpest spoon in the drawer.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 10:27
Originally posted by rider

But if there are 100 such Dutch submarines that all take down 7 american carriers? Are the Americans then still so happy?
 
Yeah, well, I'm no expert on the Dutch navy (in fact, I couldnt care less...Wink), but I think 8 subs would be nearer to reality, so I guess the US navy is safe from us yet...LOL


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 20:30
The Dutch navy was at one time during the 1600's larger than the British,Scottish,Spainish,French,and Portuguese navy's combined.

-------------
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.

George Washington - March 15, 1783



Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 11:21
Indeed! The dutch managed to almost ruin Britain's trade in India with their naval power, and combat ottoman interests in the spice trade! But Hollands power was (and still is) economic

-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 21:05
Yes that does make it so they are not as high ranked but their navy is still one of the most powerful.I am still undecided on this topic.You all have made excellent points.

-------------
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.

George Washington - March 15, 1783



Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 05:53
Is the British navy still a powerful force?
 


-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 20:01
I would say so.

-------------
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.

George Washington - March 15, 1783



Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 17:08
Originally posted by Goban

I am U.S. Navy so my opinion may be pretty biased ... But I voted anyway. Tongue
 
You are cheating! We should find some Byzantine and Ottoman navy now to vote for their navies LOL
 
To be serious I am surprised that there is no Swedish and Russian Navy 1600-1700 in this vote. Where are vikings? All those were not just others! I didn't vote.


-------------
.


Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2006 at 23:52
American navy  is def. the most powerful the world has seen, but considering in a relative manner, it isn't as untouchable as some have been (the Byzantines or Romans in certain eras, the British navy in the 1800s). Further, "American Navy 1900s-2000s is pretty inaccurate unless "1900s" corresponds to 1950-present. During the first half of the 20th century Britain still had the most powerful fleet in the world; the Germans in WWI and the Japanese in WWII came somewhat close, but still didn't equal it. I don't know what happened.


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 14:29
Probably the economic influence of America and the eventual collapse of British Colonialism.

-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 19:34
I didn't vote for the US navy for one reason. First it wasn't that powerfull before say 1942-43 than in the 60's, 70's, 80's it was challenged by the Soviet navy and finally because nowadays the days of such a plane carrier as the Niemitz are maybe counted.
Too expensive for government whose budget will be squeezed in a near future.
Unefficient against terrorism. See USS Cole.
Unefficient against other states navies as proved by the Falkland war: no ship's safe and certainly not such a big one.
The subs are powerfull but a simple nuke reaching the US mainland can prove them inefficiant.

For all these reasons the Royal Navy in the 1800's is the finest: no ennemy able to even think about starting to tink of representing a threat to them. Unmatchable from (at least) Trafalgar (actually the mid 17th) to the begining of the German Wielt Politik (or the jutland and maybe even latter until Pearl Harbor). So that is between 90 and 200 years of absolute control all over the seas. Not bad.

No navy can be concidered before the 16th c. as it is unthinkable to compare the Athenian and the Chinese.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 11:35
The Imperial Roman navy at the height of Romes' power can't have exactly been poor.

-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: IrishNation1
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 13:37

I have not read all posts so this could have been already said. I believe Crtahge of course was a very strog fllet of the Ancient World. China also had great Power and it is apperantly True that The Chinese discovered America before Collumbus. However as i did manage to read at the top of the page a timeline should have been set. A modern Sea power  would of Course be America. And Britan was very strong with its Navy as well. But there are really Numerous differant answers that could be stated to this Question



-------------
Early this morning I signed my death warrant.
Michael Collins, to friend John O'Kane after signing Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921


Posted By: The Philosopher
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2006 at 22:28
Originally posted by IrishNation1

I have not read all posts so this could have been already said. I believe Crtahge of course was a very strog fllet of the Ancient World. China also had great Power and it is apperantly True that The Chinese discovered America before Collumbus. However as i did manage to read at the top of the page a timeline should have been set. A modern Sea power would of Course be America. And Britan was very strong with its Navy as well. But there are really Numerous differant answers that could be stated to this Question


The Vikings were very much feared during the middle ages. And i've never heard of the Chinese coming to the Americas, is there a place were i could read about this?? If it is true.    


Posted By: Kaysaar
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 19:04
As much as I like the Vikings, I don't think they have a place on this list. I say this because all of these poll options are of coherent political entities. The Vikings did manage great nautical feats, but many of the raiding parties belonged to local leaders or rulers. Comparing loose bands of raiders to an organized political entity's navy just doesn't work in my mind. 


Posted By: The Philosopher
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 20:20
Yes, i see that point, but then, i would have to say the British navy, would have had to have been the best in my mind.


Posted By: Elisha
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 21:17
Hey what about Korea? They drove the Japanies back with their powerfull navy


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 03:23

Yes- they have had a powerful navy but I don't think that it can count as Korea was mainly under Chinese domination then



-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 04:32
What is the criter of powerful navy?How can we decide about?
Quantity?Fire power?US Navy easily defeats others :)
Some navies given in some periods  ans i think they were the most powerful
for this periods...


-------------
War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it.
Desiderius Erasmus


Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 15:04
    I would vote on it by its power for its time.

-------------
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.

George Washington - March 15, 1783



Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 17:21

British; by 7 votes and 100 yrs.

British Navy 1700's = 16  +
British Navy 1900's = 20
                               = 36 Votes
 
American Navy 1900's-2000's = 29 votes
 


-------------
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
http://www.antiwar.com - antiwar.com
http://www.crimesofwar.org - crimesofwar.org


Posted By: nikodemos
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2006 at 10:51
The two most powerful ever:
1)The British Navy, especially during the Napoleonic Wars

2)The Athenian Navy


Posted By: Sock Puppet
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 02:56
Isn't this a totally ridiculous poll, it's a bit like asking which decade had the fastest race car. 1990's, 1960's, 1930's and 1890's. What would a Roman Trimarine do against a dreadnought?

-------------
When in Rome do as the Romans do, is not good advice when visiting an Italian public toilet.


Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 00:53
Originally posted by Sock Puppet

Isn't this a totally ridiculous poll, it's a bit like asking which decade had the fastest race car. 1990's, 1960's, 1930's and 1890's.


Well I'd say the 1990's! LOL

Originally posted by Sock Puppet

What would a Roman Trimarine do against a dreadnought?


Well it would probably try to ram it....couldn't do much else

Anyways, in terms of how good they were for their time I would probably say the first true navy in history. Was it the Phoenicians who created the bireme - first true battle ship. I'm not sure on these facts, but I do know that the first proper/dedicated navy would have been virtually invincible because of lack of competition.




-------------



Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 02:47
Originally posted by Knights


Anyways, in terms of how good they were for their time I


Like how good was "ancient navy"?Smile
Roman,Byzantine,Ottoman ? I guess its tme is some 2500 years Smile


Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 03:32
Yeh it is a pretty hard thing to define 'the most powerful navy ever'. In going along with that EXACT topic name, then it would have to be the American Navy of present unless their is a stronger one of some other nation. The fact of the matter is that only a navy of the present day could be the most powerful navy EVER.

And yes, the Roman navy...hehe...are we talking about pre-first punic war or the time of Agrippa -- who knows?!?! Very broad term...ancient navy


-------------



Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2006 at 05:43
Hi!
 
Hungarian mounted archers (some hundred, or maybe one thousand)attacked Venice in 900 on little leather boats and on their swimming horses. Big smile  BUT the venetian navy chased them away...
 
...with galleys .
 
TSZ


Posted By: Hygelac
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 16:17

American navy being the most powerful? Dream on. The US navy wasn't ever as good as the British navy (which is the greatest navy), though they beat them a few times during the first American Civil War ('War of Independence).

The British navy also won an Enigma machine contrary to that film about the US navy finding it in a German U-boat they captured.


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 16:42
Originally posted by Hygelac

American navy being the most powerful? Dream on. The US navy wasn't ever as good as the British navy (which is the greatest navy), though they beat them a few times during the first American Civil War ('War of Independence).

The British navy also won an Enigma machine contrary to that film about the US navy finding it in a German U-boat they captured.


Of what time period? The world war 2 U.S. Navy would of flattened the Royal Navy. On every ship scale. Post world war 2 is quite obvious which is far more superior. And what in the wild word of sports does enigma and a fiction movie have to do with the naval superiority?


-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Hygelac
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 16:57
Of any period.
 
No, the WWII British navy was superior in training, the US had a greater number of ships.
I mentioned that film (what in Hel's name is it called?) because it is propaganda.
 
However, I don't want to change your opinions and argue about the modern military; something that I find imperialistic and uncivilised.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 17:46
Originally posted by Hygelac

Of any period.
 
No, the WWII British navy was superior in training, the US had a greater number of ships.
I mentioned that film (what in Hel's name is it called?) because it is propaganda.
 
However, I don't want to change your opinions and argue about the modern military; something that I find imperialistic and uncivilised.
 
 
I have to hand it to you, that's a pretty neat way of wiggling out from under a really absurd post.  Nothing against the British navy, fine outfit, better trained?  give examples please.  When the war ended the US Navy had 36 Essex class carriers in service and god knows how many more in construction.  Most of the capitol ships for D Day were US and in the Pacific all but a handfull were US.


-------------


Posted By: Christ-Knight
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 11:33
This question is relative... There are many times... For example now, 10 ships are more powerful than 200 Roman ships... For me, the great sailors/navy men were the Greeks and the Romans (ancient times). If you want to talk about medieval times I vote in the Portuguese or Spanish navy, but I can tell you that the Portuguese navy was bigger and more powerful than the Spanish one. In present we have the US navy.Tongue


Posted By: bleda
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 11:54
american navy but
Big%20smile



-------------
We are the possessors of Turan and Emir of Turkestan
We are real Turks that are the sons of Turks
We are the members of the oldest and the highest nation

       AMIR TIMUR


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 12:02

LOL

I love that one. It is one of the funniest jokes I've seen, but, in the interest of fairness, it isn't true.
 
http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm - http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 16:13
I am throwing my hat for the Spanish navy. Spain's navy had her time in the spotlight, especially before the armada invasion


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 17:20
Originally posted by Akolouthos

LOL

I love that one. It is one of the funniest jokes I've seen, but, in the interest of fairness, it isn't true.
 
http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm - http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm
 
-Akolouthos
 
It tormented Swedish television a few years ago as the plot of a commercial. Can't remember about what though.


Posted By: Hygelac
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 18:02
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Hygelac

Of any period.
 
No, the WWII British navy was superior in training, the US had a greater number of ships.
I mentioned that film (what in Hel's name is it called?) because it is propaganda.
 
However, I don't want to change your opinions and argue about the modern military; something that I find imperialistic and uncivilised.
 
 
I have to hand it to you, that's a pretty neat way of wiggling out from under a really absurd post.  Nothing against the British navy, fine outfit, better trained?  give examples please.  When the war ended the US Navy had 36 Essex class carriers in service and god knows how many more in construction.  Most of the capitol ships for D Day were US and in the Pacific all but a handfull were US.
 
My post wasn't absurd, I just cannot be bothered with a discussion of modern Navies, who in my opinion enforce US and UK imperial terrorism.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 18:14
Originally posted by Hygelac

Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Hygelac

Of any period.
 
No, the WWII British navy was superior in training, the US had a greater number of ships.
I mentioned that film (what in Hel's name is it called?) because it is propaganda.
 
However, I don't want to change your opinions and argue about the modern military; something that I find imperialistic and uncivilised.
 
 
I have to hand it to you, that's a pretty neat way of wiggling out from under a really absurd post.  Nothing against the British navy, fine outfit, better trained?  give examples please.  When the war ended the US Navy had 36 Essex class carriers in service and god knows how many more in construction.  Most of the capitol ships for D Day were US and in the Pacific all but a handfull were US.
 
My post wasn't absurd, I just cannot be bothered with a discussion of modern Navies, who in my opinion enforce US and UK imperial terrorism.
 
Oh, for God's sake...give us all a break!  This horsesh*t gets sooooo old. 
 
Discuss the topic or go discuss something else.
 
 


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 21:42
Originally posted by Hygelac

Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Hygelac

Of any period.
 
No, the WWII British navy was superior in training, the US had a greater number of ships.
I mentioned that film (what in Hel's name is it called?) because it is propaganda.
 
However, I don't want to change your opinions and argue about the modern military; something that I find imperialistic and uncivilised.
 
 
I have to hand it to you, that's a pretty neat way of wiggling out from under a really absurd post.  Nothing against the British navy, fine outfit, better trained?  give examples please.  When the war ended the US Navy had 36 Essex class carriers in service and god knows how many more in construction.  Most of the capitol ships for D Day were US and in the Pacific all but a handfull were US.
 
My post wasn't absurd, I just cannot be bothered with a discussion of modern Navies, who in my opinion enforce US and UK imperial terrorism.
 
The modern U.S. and British Navies grew out of a need to counter the Soviets. Call it imperialism, but it's highly preferable to the grey twilight the world would have lived under if the Soviets had been the ones to dominate the globe.


-------------


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 10:05
Modern sensibilities have come to see defending one's interests (and by extension the interests of others as well) as "imperialism."
 
Some people need to consult a dictionary, and then research imperialism....hopefully not on Wikipedia. Angry
 
 


Posted By: Christ-Knight
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 12:59
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Modern sensibilities have come to see defending one's interests (and by extension the interests of others as well) as "imperialism."
 
Some people need to consult a dictionary, and then research imperialism....hopefully not on Wikipedia. Angry
 
 
 
hey hey hey... lol...LOL    The US military are not original.... they have copied their symbol from the Spartans... look what you see in the Merkavas...  you are powerful but you don't have no history... only indian unfair deaths...Shocked


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 14:21
Originally posted by Christ-Knight

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Modern sensibilities have come to see defending one's interests (and by extension the interests of others as well) as "imperialism."
 
Some people need to consult a dictionary, and then research imperialism....hopefully not on Wikipedia. Angry
 
 
 
hey hey hey... lol...LOL    The US military are not original.... they have copied their symbol from the Spartans... look what you see in the Merkavas...  you are powerful but you don't have no history... only indian unfair deaths...Shocked
 
What?  Confused
 
 


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 20:00
I have no idea what he's talking about either. He cracks himself up, so let him enjoy himself.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Galahadlrrp
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 05:07
--For what it's worth, when Japan surrendered in 1945, the US Navy was stronger than all the other navies of the world put together--and that was with only the ships in commission, and doesn't include a building program that would have doubled the fleet's size in all major warships had it been completed.


Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 17:52
Originally posted by Galahadlrrp

--For what it's worth, when Japan surrendered in 1945, the US Navy was stronger than all the other navies of the world put together--and that was with only the ships in commission, and doesn't include a building program that would have doubled the fleet's size in all major warships had it been completed.
 
American Industrial Might at its best.


-------------
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.

George Washington - March 15, 1783



Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 18:47
I think relatively, I would say Athens from c.462-c415 bc, although apparently according to Connolly and Aeschylus, the Athenian fleet could have numbered c.300 vessels after Themistokles' 482 building programme, and may have numbered more at Salamis. Herdotos' statement that the Persian fleet was even larger is probably a load of rubbish, when we consider that Xerxes, having controlled Athens and her shores, probably just left a small force to contain the Athenians on Salamis island and concentrated any larger ships that he had south to attack Hellenic league forces, which would have been more of a threat to any able commander. Naval power of that magnitude is more or less unheard of then, and if we are to say the most "powerful" navy, Persia may not be a good example - the enslaved Phoenecian sailors, for example, made a huge fuss about attacking Egypt under Cambyses II, and I think the same happened in the Greco-Persian wars. Moreover, Athenian triemes were far superior technologically to the large-hulled Pheonecian ships, as Salamis showed. However, technologically, by c.415, Sicilian ships and Spartan ships under Glypos and Hermocrates were becoming more superior; thanks to Athenian maritime pressure and the ensuing arms race, and probably the utilisation of the "Corinthian ram" (first used by the Corinthians to break past Phormio's blockade at Naupcatos) instead of a spike at the prow, which allowed ships to be knocked over and captured instead of holed and sunk.
 
...As I always say in these threads - you can't compare navies centuries apart! I think we should subdivide them into pre-classical, early classical, late classical/hellenistic, imperial roman, late roman, early antiquity...and so forth.


-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 21:14
Since the question was "most powerfull navy" in the  poll, I'd say the present US navy is the most powerfull ever, in absolute terms.

-------------
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ - http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/ - http://www.raipon.org/


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 21:36

This thread desn't make sense. How we could compare navies of such different time frames? In absolute terms, the U.S. navy is the strongest ever, but that's only because it is the most modern of all the rest.

What we are comparing?


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2008 at 00:32
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by Christ-Knight

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Modern sensibilities have come to see defending one's interests (and by extension the interests of others as well) as "imperialism."

Some people need to consult a dictionary, and then research imperialism....hopefully not on Wikipedia. Angry




hey hey hey... lol...LOL    The US military are not original.... they have copied their symbol from the Spartans... look what you see in the Merkavas... you are powerful but you don't have no history... only indian unfair deaths...Shocked


What? Confused




I second that...

-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2008 at 00:35
I ended up voting for the British navy of th 1900s. I do not understand why break it up into two though. As a naval force it was the most formidable and proved that in WWI. Even with a relatively miniscule amount of soldiers it was able to maintain Britains interests.

-------------



Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2008 at 01:07
I ended up voting for the British navy of th 1900s. I do not understand why break it up into two though. As a naval force it was the most formidable and proved that in WWI. Even with a relatively miniscule amount of soldiers it was able to maintain Britains interests.
 
Okay, I would generally agree with you there es_bih, but the monreau doctrine of 1823 was reformed and came fully into play in 1904, if I remember correctly - regard that in 1905, the Japanese showed that at Tsushima with their torpedo boats that heavy battleships of the kind that Russia and Britain were using were obsolete; British attempts to try to change this in 1912 with the Dreadnought programme were also obselete by the first world war! I would agree with you that the British Navy was an extremely powerful one, but I'd push that date back to the 1880s or a period like that.


-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2008 at 03:15
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

I think relatively, I would say Athens from c.462-c415 bc, although apparently according to Connolly and Aeschylus, the Athenian fleet could have numbered c.300 vessels after Themistokles' 482 building programme, and may have numbered more at Salamis. Herdotos' statement that the Persian fleet was even larger is probably a load of rubbish, when we consider that Xerxes, having controlled Athens and her shores, probably just left a small force to contain the Athenians on Salamis island and concentrated any larger ships that he had south to attack Hellenic league forces, which would have been more of a threat to any able commander. Naval power of that magnitude is more or less unheard of then, and if we are to say the most "powerful" navy, Persia may not be a good example - the enslaved Phoenecian sailors, for example, made a huge fuss about attacking Egypt under Cambyses II, and I think the same happened in the Greco-Persian wars. Moreover, Athenian triemes were far superior technologically to the large-hulled Pheonecian ships, as Salamis showed. However, technologically, by c.415, Sicilian ships and Spartan ships under Glypos and Hermocrates were becoming more superior; thanks to Athenian maritime pressure and the ensuing arms race, and probably the utilisation of the "Corinthian ram" (first used by the Corinthians to break past Phormio's blockade at Naupcatos) instead of a spike at the prow, which allowed ships to be knocked over and captured instead of holed and sunk.
 
...As I always say in these threads - you can't compare navies centuries apart! I think we should subdivide them into pre-classical, early classical, late classical/hellenistic, imperial roman, late roman, early antiquity...and so forth.


The Athenians and Phoenicians followed their own boat-building traditions. The Athenians built more slender triremes. This is for the pure purpose of speed. The Phoenicians built their triremes to about the same length, but wider. It is thought that the Phoenician ships were also higher and did not have an outrigger. A wider hull allows a larger deck. The Phoenician relied more on their marines than the Athenians. The Phoenicians could put more marines on their ships. As many as thirty marines and archers could be on the deck. The styles of fighting were drastically different. It must also be stated that the Persian army did not only use Phoenician ships, but also Egyptian, Ionian, and other ports along the Persian Empire's coastline. It is therefore unreasonable to say one is "better" than the other.

I do not believe in "better" or "superior". People of the world's past made things that were suited to their preference and environment.


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2008 at 15:37
Okay, fair enough, but the Athenians at Salamis and Cyprus clearly showed that there was some tactical superiority that was due to their ships! Manuverability and experience is probably the main maxim, and although I don't debate that Phonecian ships would have had ample experience, the small islands and gulleys around Greece were more suited for Athenian and typically Greek vessels, not suprisingly. I take back "technological superiority", but I think superiority is a word we must use in regards as to which ship was better equipped for war in the immediate area. I obviously agree that the Persian fleet was far more ethnically - and thus probably technologically - diverse, but as I say before, all of the countries of the levant will have build quite different ships to the Greeks because of the open waters that they had to navigate. You're just proving my point.

-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2008 at 16:52
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

Okay, fair enough, but the Athenians at Salamis and Cyprus clearly showed that there was some tactical superiority that was due to their ships! Manuverability and experience is probably the main maxim, and although I don't debate that Phonecian ships would have had ample experience, the small islands and gulleys around Greece were more suited for Athenian and typically Greek vessels, not suprisingly. I take back "technological superiority", but I think superiority is a word we must use in regards as to which ship was better equipped for war in the immediate area. I obviously agree that the Persian fleet was far more ethnically - and thus probably technologically - diverse, but as I say before, all of the countries of the levant will have build quite different ships to the Greeks because of the open waters that they had to navigate. You're just proving my point.


Fair enough.


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Bandeirante
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2008 at 18:07
The Portuguese Navy 1400-1570
The first to link Europe, Africa, America, Asia, India, China, Japan


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2008 at 18:17
The Portuguese Navy 1400-1570
The first to link Europe, Africa, America, Asia, India, China, Japan
I would agree with that - even before Spain, England and other such areas were interested in patroning exploration and naval development, Henry "the navigator" of Portugal was already spearheading Portugal's maritime colonial legacy. Moreover, it's mainly the acquisition of Portugal in 1580 by Philip II that made his empire one of the largest in the world.


-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 16:00

I would have to go with the modern US navy, but largely because of nuclear submarines. I can't think of any other navy that ever had the power to not only dominate its enemies, but completely obliterate their populations as well.

If we were just talking about conventional surface fleets, I'd go with the Royal Navy during the 19th century.



Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 19:58
Compared to its contemporaries, the most powerful navies are:
 
1.)  Ming Dynasty treasure fleet under Zheng He (1400-1435)  No other navy in that time period could even approach it in size, range, endurance, war capacity, and capability. 
 
2.)  US Navy (1945- present)  No navy has been so dominant as the USN has been.  While the RN at its height were barely managing its two power standard, the USN currently has a 17 power standard.  It is more powerful, in any terms from tonnage, firepower, etc, than the next 17 navies COMBINED.


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 21:07
but completely obliterate their populations as well.
 
Surely Nuclear weapons make this question a bit pointless - every navy that has nuclear weapons could thus be considered potentially the "most powerful" in this sense, and because of the principle of mutually assured destruction when regarding the use of nuclear weapons, surely any such powers via nuclear weapons would be negated?


-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 21:58
Originally posted by edgewaters

I would have to go with the modern US navy, but largely because of nuclear submarines. I can't think of any other navy that ever had the power to not only dominate its enemies, but completely obliterate their populations as well.

If we were just talking about conventional surface fleets, I'd go with the Royal Navy during the 19th century.

 
The Russian SSBN fleet are also capable of "obliterating its enemies" the US included. 
 
The duty of nuclear deterent is a relatively new task for a navy.  SSBN (ballistic subs) job is to hide and survive a first strike and ensure a secondary strike response to a nation that is attacked.  Aside from that, no navy or a combination of navies can come close to the USN capabilities. 
  1. It has 12 supercarriers, the other navies have none.  Only 1 (France) has a conventional carrier (CTOL).  The rest are harrier carriers or STOBAR.
  2. South Korea and Japan assemble their fleets around an Aegis destroyer (Burke class derivatives).  They are,  in effect, their capital ships.  The USN uses these ships as escorts. 
  3. Russia has about a dozen attack subs that are a generation behind the current Virginia class.  The US have more than 40 attack subs. 


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 09:48
It's either the 19th/early 20th century British navy or the post-WWII American. When it comes to sheer dominance there is no other contender. The Dutch, Spanish and 18th century British have nothing to do on the voting list, neither do Ancient or "other".


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 13:43
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

It's either the 19th/early 20th century British navy or the post-WWII American. When it comes to sheer dominance there is no other contender. The Dutch, Spanish and 18th century British have nothing to do on the voting list, neither do Ancient or "other".
 
I don't know, the Germany navy certainly gave the RN a run for its money.  The RN had a hard time keeping its two power standard, especially after the dreadnaught was launch. 
 
By the first years of 20th century, the RN had to keep all of its capital ships on home waters to keep numerical superiority againsts the Germans.  That was one of the reason for the British Japanese alliance of 1902. 


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 15:48
Originally posted by IDonT

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

It's either the 19th/early 20th century British navy or the post-WWII American. When it comes to sheer dominance there is no other contender. The Dutch, Spanish and 18th century British have nothing to do on the voting list, neither do Ancient or "other".
 
I don't know, the Germany navy certainly gave the RN a run for its money.  The RN had a hard time keeping its two power standard, especially after the dreadnaught was launch. 
 
By the first years of 20th century, the RN had to keep all of its capital ships on home waters to keep numerical superiority againsts the Germans.  That was one of the reason for the British Japanese alliance of 1902. 
 
I would have to disagree with the statement that the RN had a problem with German capital ship numbers.  Actually, the deficiency was only for a few years after HMS Dreadnought made most other capital ships obsolescent (not obsolete).  The ship building capacity of the UK re-established superiority rather quickly, and the recall of most of the far East naval units was to better secure the lines of communication in the Mediterranean due to the increases and modernization of the French and Italian navies.  Battleship divisions (older ones) continued to be based at Gibraltar and Alexandria throughout the years before WW I. 
 
My thought is that, yes, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance allowed for redeployment of (mostly lighter) naval units, but it also was directed at Russia which was still (1901-02) putting pressure on British interests in the Indian Subcontinent.  Russian moves in Manchuria and toward Korea impacted both Japanese and British interests in north Asia. 
 
At the time, there was still the possibility of Anglo-German cooperation on a number of issues, and also the possibility of alliance under the right circumstances.  Germany's response to Dreadnought ended that.
 
The Kriegsmarine was never devised as a threat to British dominance, but as a diversion in the North Sea, and in connection with German war plans across the Channel.  As such, it was self defeating as Britain could outproduce industrial Germany in every way, and had all the resources she needed.  Germany was very vulnerable in terms of materials, dock yard capacity, and demands on funding (the army).  The Kaiser had his fantasies, but the resources were never there.  The submarine strategy later reflected how deficient the navy was, and Jutland showed that the RN was still dominant beyond question.
 
The capital ships of the Kriegsmarine were not intended to operate away from the North Sea and Britsh home waters, and their destroyers could not operate away from those areas either which made the battleships extremely vulnerable to torpedo attack.
 
The RN and Whitehall may have perceived a greater threat than was there, but I don't think it was ever anything they thought they could not handle.
 
 


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 18:38
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

 
I would have to disagree with the statement that the RN had a problem with German capital ship numbers.  Actually, the deficiency was only for a few years after HMS Dreadnought made most other capital ships obsolescent (not obsolete).  The ship building capacity of the UK re-established superiority rather quickly, and the recall of most of the far East naval units was to better secure the lines of communication in the Mediterranean due to the increases and modernization of the French and Italian navies.  Battleship divisions (older ones) continued to be based at Gibraltar and Alexandria throughout the years before WW I. 
 
My thought is that, yes, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance allowed for redeployment of (mostly lighter) naval units, but it also was directed at Russia which was still (1901-02) putting pressure on British interests in the Indian Subcontinent.  Russian moves in Manchuria and toward Korea impacted both Japanese and British interests in north Asia. 
 
At the time, there was still the possibility of Anglo-German cooperation on a number of issues, and also the possibility of alliance under the right circumstances.  Germany's response to Dreadnought ended that.
 
The Kriegsmarine was never devised as a threat to British dominance, but as a diversion in the North Sea, and in connection with German war plans across the Channel.  As such, it was self defeating as Britain could outproduce industrial Germany in every way, and had all the resources she needed.  Germany was very vulnerable in terms of materials, dock yard capacity, and demands on funding (the army).  The Kaiser had his fantasies, but the resources were never there.  The submarine strategy later reflected how deficient the navy was, and Jutland showed that the RN was still dominant beyond question.
 
The capital ships of the Kriegsmarine were not intended to operate away from the North Sea and Britsh home waters, and their destroyers could not operate away from those areas either which made the battleships extremely vulnerable to torpedo attack.
 
The RN and Whitehall may have perceived a greater threat than was there, but I don't think it was ever anything they thought they could not handle.
 
 
I'm not debating whether the RN had dominance over the Kriegsmarine, it clearly had.  I'm debating about its margin of superiority (in numbers, technology, and training) over the navies of the rest of the world.  (French, Italian, Russian, US, German, etc).  Though the RN may be larger than the next 2 naval powers, a posture it upheld with great difficulty, the RN will have a hard time versus the combined naval might of the rest of the world.
 
Now compare it with the current US navy or the Ming Navy under Zheng He.  No coalition of navies would beat it.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 19:05
Well I understand your point.  I just prefer the actual historical interprtations rather than all the "they could, and they would and what ifs."
 
I think there is a lot of misassumption about how mighty was the Kriegsmarine.  As another forumer stated in a previous thread, it was known in part as the "High Seas Fleet."  But, other than a handful of cruisers intended in part for ill advised use as commerce raiders, the fleet could not venture much beyond the North Sea for any number of reasons.  You can call it whatever you want, but a High Seas fleet it was not.
 
Concerning a coalition of navies, by 1906, the most obvious coalition of navies probably was the Royal Navy and the US navy.  The respective geopolitical interests of the two nations was so complimentary that it was almost like a single naval force.  (Ooops, sounds like what if Wink )
 
EDIT:  I just wanted to add that your point about a coalition of navies brings up the fact that German assumptions prior to 1906 had been that a coalition of navies could be possible which would negate British naval superiority.  Of course, after the Entente (w/ France) and after 1907 when Russia, of all countries, became an associated member of the Entente, that German assumption went out the window.  That is all in addition to the operational deficiencies of the High Seas Fleet. 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 19:56
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

You can call it whatever you want, but a High Seas fleet it was not.
 


Coronel anyone? seriously, the German navy was significantly smalelr than the British but the German was also significantly larger than the navies of other great powers at the time. of course Britain could and did outproduce Germany but it didn't had full dominance. and i wouldn't say the result of Jütland was very decisive for either side.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 11:17
Coronel was pretty swiftly followed by the Falklands.
 
Coronel in some ways is more like the various US victories over RN frigates in the war of 1812: new US frigates outgunned older RN ones (despite Shannon and Chesapeake). It was certainly not a fleet action.
 
The result of Jutland was that the German fleet stayed in port for the rest of the war. If, say, the French and German armies had fought a land battle, the result of which was that the German army retreated to Germany and stayed there till the war was over, would not that count as a decisive French victory (even if the French lost more men than the Germans)?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 16:18
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

You can call it whatever you want, but a High Seas fleet it was not.
 


Coronel anyone? seriously, the German navy was significantly smalelr than the British but the German was also significantly larger than the navies of other great powers at the time. of course Britain could and did outproduce Germany but it didn't had full dominance. and i wouldn't say the result of Jütland was very decisive for either side.
 
Coronel was a cruiser action.  Those ships and others like Emden didn't last long in their assigned roles.
 
The intent of the Kriegsmarine's capital units is shown by their design and by the lack of ocean going destroyers to escort and shield the battle fleet from torpedo attack.  The battleships and the battlecruisers were well designed as gun platforms in the North Sea, but had insufficient coal/oil capacity for longer range operations.  In any event, the fleet had few possibilities for taking on fuel, and as importantly for maintenance and repair, far from its bases on the North Sea and in the Baltic.
 
The ships had very good compartmentalization for survivability in case of battle damage, but that compromised habitable living conditions aboard for the large crews.  It was intentional as the use of the battle fleet was not anticipated away from the North Sea and the Channel.  (Though I don't think Channel operations of the battle fleet were envisioned.)
 
The German torpedo boats had insufficient operating ranges to support the battle fleet very far from base, and had inadequate gunpower to counter British cruisers and ocean going destroyers.  IIRC, the largest gun, or at least by far the most numerous, was an 8.8cm, and only two or three were mounted on the T.B.s.
 
The ships were good; the officers well educated, and the crews well trained.  Their gunnery, torpedoes and mines were excellent.  It was only partly the insufficient numbers that frustrated the Kriegsmarine.  Their tactical doctrine of attrition of the Grand Fleet never could be implemented due to the British not accomodating them by a "close blockade" (due in part to those good mines and torpedoes Smile ).
 
I just do not see the intent or the capacity for the Kriegsmarine to be a High Seas fleet to that degree.
 
 


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 17:15
Originally posted by gcle2003

Coronel was pretty swiftly followed by the Falklands.
 


Coronel was a battle between equal forces (ships fo the same type) and it ended pretty one-sided. Falklands was a battle between two new British battleships and the old German squadron of Coronel that had only protected cruisers.
 
The result of Jutland was that the German fleet stayed in port for the rest of the war. If, say, the French and German armies had fought a land battle, the result of which was that the German army retreated to Germany and stayed there till the war was over, would not that count as a decisive French victory (even if the French lost more men than the Germans)?


we've already talked about concepts of "holding ground" on the sea, that's pretty pointless. what matters is the losses inflicted. if you look att he forces invovled, the Germans had the better of it, but the Royal Navy had more ships so losses on the German side weighted more. either way, Jütland was the second most decisive sea-battle in terms of forces comitted and losses inflicted after Coronel so there's no way you can convince me Jütland was a German defeat. and the German Navy still left harbour several times afterwards, but mostly into the Baltics.


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 08:16
Coronel was NOT a battle between equals.
 
The British were as inferior to the Germans then as the Germans were to the British at the Falklands subsequently
 
Re Jutland, any navy which runs back to harbour when its opponent descends on him is defeated


Posted By: ElliotisGOD
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 09:58
Spanish Navy supremacy was confirmed in the Battle of Lepanto & refuse of the english armada creating the galleon and as first trully global empire in the world, I'd say:

1º Spanish Navy 1600
2º British  Navy 1700's (including this periode to the worst defeat of the royal navy, Battle of Cartagena de Indias (1741) & 1900's
3º American Navy till today.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 10:09
Originally posted by ElliotisGOD

Spanish Navy supremacy was confirmed in the Battle of Lepanto


What? More than half of the allied fleet at Lepanto was Venetian, including all the decesive galleasses. The Spanish navy supplied the other half largest contingent, but that's hardly the kind of dominance we're talking about here. The Turks even managed to rebuild their whole fleet wihtin a couple of years.


Posted By: ElliotisGOD
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 10:52
"more than half of the allied fleet at Lepanto was Venetian", that's wrong, spain supplied the battle with 80 ships, venice with only 20 more.  Mostly of the man in lepanto were SPANISH as well as the most important battle commanders Alvaro de Bazán and Juan de Austria. But im not talking about lepanto in a special case.. i mean:

(against the ottoman empire)
Cefalonia 1500
Algiers 1510
Viena 1529
Túnez 1535
Castelnuovo 1539
Lepanto 1571
Tangiers 1580

the battle of azores/ponta delgada (1582), in which a Spanish fleet defeated a combined French, English, Portuguese and Dutch force.
the defeat of the English + Dutch Armada in 1589 consisting of 150 ships


That's called supremacy i think. Sleepy




Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 11:02
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by gcle2003

Coronel was pretty swiftly followed by the Falklands.
 


Coronel was a battle between equal forces (ships fo the same type) and it ended pretty one-sided.
It started out one-sided. The British were heavily outgunned (outranged) and their ships were older and slower (apart from Glasgow which escaped). Scharnhorst (1907) and Gneisenau (1907) between them had 16 8.2 inch guns, whereas Good Hope (1901) had only two 9.2 inch guns. Otherwise the entire British force had nothing but 6" guns.
 
Apart from the superiority in gunnery, the German side had the two modern armoured cruisers plus three light cruisers, while the British had two outdated armoured cruisers, one modern light cruiser, and a converted passenger liner (with only 4 4.6 inch guns).
 
Essentially, especially since one of Good Hope's 9.2 inch guns was hit almost immediately, the battle turned into a shooting gallery with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau able to fire at their leisure while the British could not get within range.
 
Falklands was a battle between two new British battleships and the old German squadron of Coronel that had only protected cruisers.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were not 'protected cruisers'. Germany stopped building protected cruisers in 1900. Granted though the Germans were outnumbered and outgunned at the Falklands.
 
The result of Jutland was that the German fleet stayed in port for the rest of the war. If, say, the French and German armies had fought a land battle, the result of which was that the German army retreated to Germany and stayed there till the war was over, would not that count as a decisive French victory (even if the French lost more men than the Germans)?


we've already talked about concepts of "holding ground" on the sea, that's pretty pointless.
It's very far from pointless. Control of sea routes is vital in war - at least global war. That's why the Atlantic battles against submarines were so important in both world wars. So too is holding the Channel and the North Sea: without control of the Channel, there wouod have been no D-Day. If Germany had controlled the Mediterranean, Rommel's forces would have been much more successful. 
what matters is the losses inflicted. if you look att he forces invovled, the Germans had the better of it, but the Royal Navy had more ships so losses on the German side weighted more.
True enough. That's why the battle was a defeat for Germany.
either way, Jütland was the second most decisive sea-battle in terms of forces comitted and losses inflicted after Coronel so there's no way you can convince me Jütland was a German defeat. and the German Navy still left harbour several times afterwards, but mostly into the Baltics.
They never again came out to fight. But if you like, change my analogy to the German army retreating to Germany and only leaving Germany for an occasional holiday in Bornholm.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by 'second most decisive sea-battle after Coronel'. If you mean second in terms of importance, what was the first? Or did you mean Coronel was more important, which, frankly, would be ridiculous, since it had no strategic effect whatsoever? 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 11:12
Originally posted by ElliotisGOD

Spanish Navy supremacy was confirmed in the Battle of Lepanto & refuse of the english armada creating the galleon and as first trully global empire in the world, I'd say:

1º Spanish Navy 1600
2º British  Navy 1700's (including this periode to the worst defeat of the royal navy, Battle of Cartagena de Indias (1741) & 1900's
3º American Navy till today.
 
Cartagena wasn't the worst defeat of the Royal Navy, even in that century. The Battle of the Chesapeake was. Moreover Cartagena was essentially a land battle, repulsing a military expedition. There were quite a few such operations that failed on land, including  Nelson's expedition against Santa Cruz.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: ElliotisGOD
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 11:24
ure mad!! 186 ships of the line and 25000 man against 3000 spaniards + indian archers and 6 ships of the line, is by FAR the worst defeat of the royal navy in their history


Posted By: bowenmin
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 11:29
BAD DEBATE! pointless to argue any but the American navy is the strongest

-------------
Remember...


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 12:17
Originally posted by ElliotisGOD

ure mad!! 186 ships of the line and 25000 man against 3000 spaniards + indian archers and 6 ships of the line, is by FAR the worst defeat of the royal navy in their history
 
The Royal Navy transported the Army there. The army was repulsed. It was a British Army defeat.


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 12:20
Quite agree. The way the thread is worded, makes the whole thing a rubbish statement.
 
Even the smallest frigate of today could defeat any of the old navies without breaking sweat.
 
Unless some sensible criteria are made part of the question, it is meaningless


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 14:57
Temujin:
Would you maybe agree that Jutland was a defeat for Germany but not for the German Navy?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 17:16
well i meant Jütland was second most sucessfull battle for the German Navy in terms of enemy vessels sunk compared to overall forces involved and own forces committed.

to determine who won it is only necessary to check the objectives of both comamnders for the sea-going. at the moment it's most likely a draw.

Originally posted by ElliotisGOD

Mostly of the man in lepanto were SPANISH as well as the most important battle commanders Alvaro de Bazán and Juan de Austria.


Don Juan de Austria was obviously not Spanish, as his name implies...



Print Page | Close Window