Greatest admiral of all time

[Bgile]

I take exception to your statement that the US cheated on the treaty. Just look at our crummy "tin clad"cruisers. Do you really think those would have been built if we had intended to cheat?

[Farragut]

Hi guys noob here.

What exactly does "greatest" mean? Most victories? or most influential? How about Alfred Thayer Mahan? Every admiral of the twentieth century studied Mahan.

[Bgile]

Hi guys noob here.

What exactly does "greatest" mean? Most victories? or most influential? How about Alfred Thayer Mahan? Every admiral of the twentieth century studied Mahan.

Quite true. I think we all have different definitions at different times.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Great as Nelson...
Great as Nimitz...

[Cohaagen]

I take exception to your statement that the US cheated on the treaty. Just look at our crummy "tin clad"cruisers. Do you really think those would have been built if we had intended to cheat?

You can take exception all you like, since you're way off the mark. I was referring to the later London treaty, not the earlier one which most nations - including the US - abided by. Britain also had those "tin clads", though they performed rather well in WWII.

My message is only a little bit up the page, so both you and any others belonging to the greatly affronted can thoroughly check it for mention of "cheating". You'll find none - in your sensitivity you appear to be hallucinating words I did not write. There isn't even inference of cheating...in fact, my only criticism is of the British Gov/Admiralty and Civil Service in trying to play the "nice guy" with the Nazis. The strongest criticism I could make of the US is that America at that point had a hell of a lot less to lose than the UK by not adhering to the treaty(ies), and seem in hindsight to have been rather enthusiastically prepared for the possibility of Japan's move to bigger armament, given how quickly they changed over to the 16"/45 and 16"/50. It is an example of how good faith has little place is global war. Aside, it also makes the constant American carping over the KGV class totally redundant - the US never actually built a real Treaty battleship. That requires 14" guns.

That's about as much a response as you need, and a pretty in-depth one at that. Don't bother replying as I don't wish to become involved in derailing what has been a good thread. Find someone else to play with. Cheers.

[Bgile]

Are you unaware that the North Carolina class was designed with 12 14" guns, and that they were being built that way and that when the Japanese backed out the US reverted to the 16" gun? The latter had been designed to cover the possible eventuality. The completion of the first ship was delayed by several months because of the substitution.

ed: sorry I forgot I was ordered not to reply.

[Cohaagen]

Are you unaware that the North Carolina class was designed with 12 14" guns, and that they were being built that way and that when the Japanese backed out the US reverted to the 16" gun? The latter had etc. etc.

No, I am very much aware. In fact, if you read the message above yours, you'll realise that is precisely what I was referring to and that you have effectively just given a reworded technical version of this:

The strongest criticism I could make of the US is that America at that point had a hell of a lot less to lose than the UK by not adhering to the treaty(ies), and seem in hindsight to have been rather enthusiastically prepared for the possibility of Japan's move to bigger armament, given how quickly they changed over to the 16"/45 and 16"/50

That's as much as I want to add on this unproductive tangent. Back to the admirals, please? It was a much better discussion than all this Top Trumps gash.

And, uh, I don't presume to "order" anyone to do anything. It was a polite and sensible suggestion, to avoid disrupting the thread and inviting glaring contretemps such as the above.

[Cohaagen]

and no doubt would have made it his business to have an even more detailed knowledge of the Reggia Marina

Forgot to add - Cunningham benefited greatly from his practice of building up a circle of highly competent and trusted staff officers - people like Royer Dick - to keep him regularly briefed. It was Royer Dick, a fluent French speaker, who was instrumental in translating Cunningham's negotiations with French Admiral Rene Godfroy to disarm his fleet and dump their fuel - thus preventing another ignominious Mers-el-Kebir -type incident. British naval intel in the Med was excellent, moreso given that Cunningham was one of the few people to gain regular ULTRA updates (which, naturally, had to be disguised somehow as HUMINT and other sources such as seaplane spottings...the Italians were eventually convinced there were moles in their admin depts).

ABC had very detailed knowledge of the Italian fleet. He considered the Venetos to be particularly dangerous - their possession of flashless propellant was seen as a great advantage over the RN, along with excellent light AA armament the latter of which the RN appropriated at every opportunity. Materially speaking, the Italians were by no means the pushover they were seen as post-war. An example of a force equipped with advanced weaponry undermined by the human factor.

[RF]

Plus the fact that the RM did not properly plan for war - no grand strategy.

In fact their C in C, Admiral Iachino was not that bad a commander.

[jonsidneyb]

How in the Heck did Yi Sun-shin not make the list?

I can understand if people do not vote him #1 but he should surely make the list.

[jonsidneyb]

t is always difficult for Englishmen to admit that Nelson ever had an equal in his profession, but if any man is entitled to be so regarded, it should be this great naval commander of Asiatic race who never knew defeat and died in the presence of the enemy; of whose movements a track-chart might be compiled from the wrecks of hundreds of Japanese ships lying with their valiant crews at the bottom of the sea, off the coasts of the Korean peninsula... and it seems, in truth, no exaggeration to assert that from first to last he never made a mistake, for his work was so complete under each variety of circumstances as to defy criticism... His whole career might be summarized by saying that, although he had no lessons from past history to serve as a guide, he waged war on the sea as it should be waged if it is to produce definite results, and ended by making the supreme sacrifice of a defender of his country. (The Influence of the Sea on The Political History of Japan, pp. 66–67.)
- Ballard, G. A. (George Alexander), 1862-1948 The influence of the sea on the political history of Japan (1921)

[jonsidneyb]

I guess that I am alone thinking that Yi Sun-shin should be in the running. Hmmmm

[RF]

t is always difficult for Englishmen to admit that Nelson ever had an equal in his profession,

I don't necessarily think so. Its just that it is difficult to find Nelson's equal or superior.

Actually I think there were better commanders than Nelson - but none of the people I'm thinking of were ever Admirals....

[jonsidneyb]

Who,

I was quoting Ballard there.

Have any of you looked at the record of Yi Sun-shi? It is quite amazing.

[lwd]

I guess that I am alone thinking that Yi Sun-shin should be in the running. Hmmmm

Try looking at page 5 of this thread. Not many in the west are familiar with him. I'm pretty sure this accounts for the fact he wasn't on the initial list.