Page 8 of 17

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:51 am
by jmcnorkis@yahoo.com
Javier L. wrote:
Tiornu wrote:I believe Leyte had the greatest number of ships involved, but Jutland had a greater tonnage of ships involved.
Hi Tiornu,

I didn't put Leyte because I consider it a naval campaign consisting of many small engagements (not a single battle), like Guadalcanal, or the battle of the Atlantic 1941-43.
WITH DUE RESPECT, I BEG TO DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT LEYTE CONSIST OF MANY SMALL OF ENGAGEMENT..THE BATTLE OF LEYTE GULF IS A VERY COMPLEX NAVAL BATTLE BECAUSE OF THE TACTICS APPLIED BY THE AMERICANS AND JAPANESE COMMANDERS. IT IS A CONTINOUS NAVAL BATTLE FOUGHT FROM OCTOBER 23-26, 1944. INVOLVING AMERICANS 3RD AND 7TH FLEET AND THE JAPANESE NORTHERN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FORCE. I ALSO DISAGREE THAT JUTLAND HAD A GREATER TONNAGE OF SHIPS. AMERICAN FORCES HAD 8 FLEET CARRIERS, 8 LIGHT CARRIERS, 16 ESCORT CARRIERS, 12 BATTLESHIPS, 24 CRUISERS, 141 DESTROYERS AND 1,500 PLANES. JAPANESE FORCES 1 FLEER CARRIER, 3 LIGHT CRUISERS, 9 BATTLESHIPS, 14 HEAVY CRUISERS 35 DESTROYERS AND 300 PLANES.
AMERICAN LOSSES: 1 LIGHT CARRIER, 2 ESCORT CARRIERS, 2 DESTROYERS, 1 DESTROYER ESCORT, 200 PLANES AND 2,800 DEAD
JAPANESE LOSSES: 1 FLEET CARRIER, 3 LIGHT CRUISERS, 3 BATTLESHIPS,1O CRUISERS, 11 DESTROYERS, 500 PLANES AND 10,500 DEAD
BATTLE OF LEYTE GULF HAVE THE SHIP TO SHIP ENGAGEMENT OF CAPITAL SHIPS, SHIPS AGAINST AIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT AGAINSTS AIRCRAFT..HOW CAN IT BE A SMALL ENGAGEMENT?

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:33 am
by RF
jmcnorkis@yahoo.com wrote:To determine what really is the Greatest Naval Battle in History, i rather put it in terms on the following criteria:
1. Tactics
2. Area of coverage
3. Number and quality of warships involved
I think you also need to consider the impact of the battle as well and its consequences. I don't necessarily disagree with these three choices but there were other large scale battles, such as Jutland, which took place over a more confined area.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:49 pm
by DanFilson
Begs the question of 'Greatest' in what sense - biggest, most people involved, most ships, greatest strategic consequences.

I voted for Midway because in the space of a short time the dominance of the USA over Japan was established and the balance of carrier power made explicit. Navies engaging without seeing one another.

I am however - at this stage only 7 votes cast so no great shakes - to see nil votes so far for (a) Tsuschima or (b) Spanish Armada.

Clearly if Russia had not lost the battle in 1905 the rottenness of its alleged strength would not have become apparent, and Prussia might not have risked a two-front war. It was also a wake-up call to the world's navies and they set about the Dreadnought competition with a severe drain on resources as a result, leading to Britain's army being behind relatively, and so a small player in 1914. This led to the 1914 stalemate, and 4 years trench warfare.

Had the Spanish Armada succeeded, Catholic Spain might have restored catholicism to England and this might have led to the failure of the protestant revolt elsewhere in Europe. The consequences might have been, quite apart from suppression of freedom of thought, more sluggish economic growth if you subscribe to the nexus between protestantism and economic liberalism. /there was another more practical lesson to be learned from the Armada failure - the need to harmonise weaponry, as the cannonballs on the Spanish ships were of all different sizes and could not be fired from all cannons; this greatly reduced the cannonry effectiveness.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:16 pm
by lwd
jmcnorkis@yahoo.com wrote:To determine what really is the Greatest Naval Battle in History, i rather put it in terms on the following criteria:
1. Tactics
2. Area of coverage
3. Number and quality of warships involved
....
The problem I see with this is it essentially requires the answer to be one of those in the 20th century.
1) How do you equate tactics in the age or oar and ram vs sail and connon vs steel ships, rifled guns, radio, radar, and planes?
2) Area of coverage due to changes in communications capabiity radio alone not to mention the speed of the vessels will mean that 20th century battles easily eclipse older ones in terms of area.
3) How do you count numbers and assess quality. Remember a PT boat may mass as much as a bireme.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:26 pm
by RF
DanFilson wrote: Had the Spanish Armada succeeded, Catholic Spain might have restored catholicism to England and this might have led to the failure of the protestant revolt elsewhere in Europe. The consequences might have been, quite apart from suppression of freedom of thought, more sluggish economic growth if you subscribe to the nexus between protestantism and economic liberalism.
An interesting proposition, but with a multitude of possible consequences. The reign of Mary I had already seen an attempt by force to restore catholicism - it didn't succeed.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:28 pm
by lwd
There's also the point that the Spanish Armada was destroyed more due to weather and possibly poor command than it was due to the actions of the RN.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:23 am
by RF
The fireships started the fiasco that befell the Armada.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:00 pm
by lwd
RF wrote:The fireships started the fiasco that befell the Armada.
That's a rather arbitrary point isn't it? Why not choose the point where the first ships were forced out of the Armada or the first engagment between the forces or perhaps the failure of the Spanish to attack the English in port? The fact remains that most of the damage and losses were due to the weather.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:37 pm
by RF
Its not an arbitrary point at all. It was the fireships that broke the formation of the Spanish ships and initially scattering them - the significance being that from that point the Spanish were unable to invade England with a substantial army as their ships were unco-ordinated. The weather did the rest, as the Spanish tried to head for home the long way round the British Isles.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:05 pm
by lwd
Isn't it?
Didn't the previous engagements set up the fireship attack? Conversely if they had enough comunications to go the long way around to return home then why couldn't they have reformed and tried the invasion?
Almost anytime someone picks a point and says "here is where it began" they are being at least to some extent arbitrary.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:18 pm
by RF
The engagements in the English Channel didn't penetrate the formation of the Spanish ships as they made their way towards the Hook of Holland.

They didn't have the communications ''to go the long way home'' it was the only viable escape route open to them. And without picking up the land forces commanded by the Duke of Parma in Holland/Belgium there could be no invasion anywhere in England - which was why the Armada went up the English Channel in the first place, to collect this invasion force.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:54 pm
by jmcnorkis@yahoo.com
lwd wrote:
jmcnorkis@yahoo.com wrote:To determine what really is the Greatest Naval Battle in History, i rather put it in terms on the following criteria:
1. Tactics
2. Area of coverage
3. Number and quality of warships involved
....
The problem I see with this is it essentially requires the answer to be one of those in the 20th century.
1) How do you equate tactics in the age or oar and ram vs sail and connon vs steel ships, rifled guns, radio, radar, and planes?
2) Area of coverage due to changes in communications capabiity radio alone not to mention the speed of the vessels will mean that 20th century battles easily eclipse older ones in terms of area.
3) How do you count numbers and assess quality. Remember a PT boat may mass as much as a bireme.
I never intend to undermined the naval tactics of the ancient or middle ages or even in world war 1 because the tactics that they used is within the limits of the capability of their ships. However, what i emphasize about the tactics used in the battle of leyte gulf is how the americans and japanese commanders used deception in two instances in the battle. First, it was the americans 7th fleet when the japanese southern force was about to enter surigao strait..first they were met with the PT boats launching torpedoes againts their battleships and cruisers disrupting the battle formation of the japanese..then by the american destroyer again launching torpedoes, which the japanese formation is in disarray not knowing the big guns of the battleships and cruisers of the americans were waiting upon them and when the japanese ships were in range and caught on the classic crossing "T" hurled their metals on the japanese ships practically that fleet is obliterated in minutes..
Then it is the turn of the japanese..the japanese central force with the world biggest battleships (yamato and musashi were measured 70,000 tons each) was harassed by the american 3rd fleet submarines and naval fighters when about to enter the northern samar began to turned tail...at the same time the japanese northern force (the bait) tried to lure the 3rd fleet aircraft carriers and battleships guarding northern samar. The famous Admiral Halsey thought that the japanese northern fleet (with 4 carriers but only 30 aircrafts) is the main force..left northern samar thinking the japanese central force is already defeated and turned tail and he destroyed the northern force..but he was wrong..the central force which is the main force reverse course and entered northern samar and attack the 7th fleet escort carriers with only 5 destroyers guarding them..General Kinkaid the 7th fleet commander cannot assist them because after he has destroyed the japanese southern force he is still guarding surigao strait thinking of another japanese attempt to attack in the south..the americans commanders of the 3rd fleet and 7th fleet were confused what to do..it is only the brave sailors of the american destroyers and pilots of the escort carriers save the day for them..that confused also the central force commander, he thought he encountered the main battle force of the americans. but before the japanese left they have sunk 3 escort carriers and destroyed the five destroyers defending them without any loss on their side...We have the tactics of the old and the new era combined in the battle of leyte gulf. while i read all the famous naval battles in history i still dont find any of them equal to the tactics employed in leyte gulf..again the area of coverage 2 fleets of the americans and 3 of the japanese cannot surpass by any naval battle covering a wide area of more than a thousand of square miles. The quality of warships involve we have the two mightiest battlship of the world the yamato and mushashi for the japanese and the new iowa class battleships of the americans..the 18 fleet carriers of the americans and 4 carriers of the japanese..but every warship from the smallest PT boats and submarines were also involve in the battle..tell me, what naval battle can surpass these achievement...

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:15 pm
by lwd
One of the reasons I don't like "best" or "greatest" type threads is that they are so ill defined and often there are several equally good defintions. I much prefer "What's your favorit" type threads. Often not as long but less contentious.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:41 am
by celticmarine10
though I guess it doesn't rank in fame as compared to Trafalgar and Jutland, The pursuit and sinking of Bismarck did have the entire home fleet and many escorts scrambled in haste to sink her.

Re: The Greatest Naval Battle in History

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:30 am
by jmcnorkis@yahoo.com
celticmarine10 wrote:though I guess it doesn't rank in fame as compared to Trafalgar and Jutland, The pursuit and sinking of Bismarck did have the entire home fleet and many escorts scrambled in haste to sink her.
I think you miss the point how the battle leyte gulf was fought...with due respect if you have to remember the fall of malaya and singapore the british sent their famous prince of wales and repulse and an aircraft carrier to meet the japanese navy...but due to overconfidence thinking the japanese will used the same tactic as european navies do...within an hour the conquerors of bismarck was sunk...not even the combined fleet of the americans, dutch and australian had a chance against the japanese in the battle of java sea.

Actually the japanese have revolutionize the naval warfare in World War 2. By using aircarft carriers as there main weapon and there destroyers to launch torpedoes against the capital ships of the allied forces. after which after the battle formation of the allies will be on a evasive maneuver this is the only time that their capital ships will maneuver in a position that will outgunned the allied forces that so many suffered defeats in the naval battles i mentioned including coral sea and guadalcanal. In the early going in the pacific war i dont see the americans, british or european navy can defeat the tactics of the japanese.

I think you have to look on the impact of the battles in the pacific...it is unfortunate that only Midway is only known (which is fought in the american teritory) and other famous european naval battles are mentioned and discussed..but seldom you heard battle of leyte gulf and tsushima strait all fought in asia which majority of our members has not given so much importance. It is on these battles that naval warfare was revolutionized, the japanese maneuver of the battle of tsushima strait that is excellently done and the leyte gulf multi dimensional warfare aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines and even PT boats were used.

Again i dont want to undermined the battle of trafalgar, jutland and pursuit of bismarck..but i feel in these battles i only have the battle of trafalgar as one of those i find tactics has been applied but the most notable reason of its victory is lack of coordination with the spanish and french fleet. In regards to jutland and pursuit of bismarck sorry to say tactics are not well defined it is more of how to outgunned their opponents. This is the reason in jutland its only a stalemate and bismarck was just plainly outnumbered (but the british could have sunk the bismarck much earlier if they just exploited the used of the aircract carriers).