Greatest admiral of all time

General naval discussions that don't fit within any specific time period or cover several issues.

Who was the greatest admiral in History?

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7587
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:11 pm

My vote is for Nelson - no contest really!

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

My vote

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:13 pm

Ciao all,

as said I do admire H. Nelson as well, and many others too.

But my vote goes to Andrea Doria.

Ciao Antonio :D

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7587
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:01 am

As this is a Bismarck website has anybody noticed that there is one admiral NOT featured in the poll?

I wonder why not!

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:20 pm

No Lutjens, no Holland, no Wake-Walker and no Tovey. The four of them can´t make a Nelson...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:57 pm

hey...
i agree that they cannot be compared to Nelson....
but still especially Tovey and Lütjens are mentionable..

Tovey had to work with enormous stress and he always kept the HOME safe...

Lütjens was the creator of the Channel Dash...
thats worth mentioning...

adios
miro
Die See ruft....

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7587
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:11 am

miro777 wrote:hey...

Lütjens was the creator of the Channel Dash...
thats worth mentioning...

adios
miro
The Channel dash operation was actually the idea of Hitler; Raeder had suggested bringing Prinz Eugen home via the Channel to Hitler, who replied ''why not bring the three of them home that way?''.
Raeder was initially sceptical, tried to talk Hitler out of it, but it was then Ciliax who enthusiastically pushed for it, not least because of the problem of the RAF continually bombing Brest.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:30 pm

If Jon Parshall (http://www.combinedfleet.com) is right in his book about Midway (Shattered Sword) then Yamamoto was far from being even considered as a great admiral.
In the book Yamamoto is described, more or less, as a political oportunist.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7587
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:48 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:If Jon Parshall (http://www.combinedfleet.com) is right in his book about Midway (Shattered Sword) then Yamamoto was far from being even considered as a great admiral.
In the book Yamamoto is described, more or less, as a political oportunist.
For what purpose? He was against starting the Pacific War anyway.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:04 pm

RF:
For what purpose? He was against starting the Pacific War anyway.
I´m going to order that book today or tomorrow, so I´ll have it in 2-3 weeks and read it in another couple of weeks. Then I can be more specific.
But something I´m sure about: there are a lot of myths about WWII: Rommel, Monty, Patton´s "accident", Pearl, the russian commies, you name it! And now there are a lot more investigaton material and more "objective" capability from serious writers and historians than it could have been 20 or 30 years ago.
A lot of what we know from Yamamoto came from Fushida and, some believe, is a biased account.
As I said, I´ll have to read the book first, but the allegations don´t seem to me wild. For example: Myth No. 1: Yamamoto was a superb and cunning commander that was very strict with detail. So, how come his Midway Operation was so disorganized from the very beggining? Just look at this: he dispersed his units with the diversion at the Aleutians; two aircraft carriers gone away from where they were most needed. Just think about that.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7587
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:00 am

The Midway operation was very complex and detailed and not disorganised. What ruined all the planning was that the Americans had broken the Japanese codes and were aware of the Japs intentions.

The Aluetians feint had to look realistic, hence the detachment of carriers.

The Americans had the advantage of concentrating what they had in the critical sector and had the great fortune to hit the Jap carriers at their weakest moment, with planes, bombs and torpedoes to act as tinder.

If there were Japanese failings, these were:

1)Failure to equip their ships with radar. The Japs were aware of radar as the Germans had it.

2)Failure to notice their codes were being broken, and changing their code system.

Would the Americans have won such a decisive victory in ignorance of the Japanese plans? I doubt it.

Overall Yammamoto was about the best commander the Japanese had, he did use his imagination. The rest of the commanders were far more defensive and pessimistic in nature, particulary Nagumo, rather in fact like Lutjens in the Bismarck.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7587
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:05 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote: Myth No. 1: Yamamoto was a superb and cunning commander that was very strict with detail. So, how come his Midway Operation was so disorganized from the very beggining? Just look at this: he dispersed his units with the diversion at the Aleutians; two aircraft carriers gone away from where they were most needed. Just think about that.
Apart from Rommel, Yammamoto was the only Axis military field commander specifically targeted by the Allies for assassination. If he was no good, the Allies would want to keep him in command - which is why Operation Foxley was abandoned, ie the British plan to assassinate Hitler.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:01 pm

RF,
we must not evaluate the axis commanders for what the allies believed in that moment. Rommel and Yamamoto where prestige trophys, myths built by the same allied country´s press. In order to eliminate their ghost from the soldiers´minds the allied commanders decided to murder them (I never heard about a war crime trial against those who planned and execute at least Yamamoto´s). But that doesn´t mean they were the superb commanders claimed.
In Phillipines Yamashita was a bigger problem for Old Mac than Yamamoto was for Nimitz.
As a matter of fact both, Rommel and Yamamoto were already defeated when they died: one at the hand of Monty and the other at Nimitz´.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7587
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:09 am

I don't think either Rommel or Yammamoto were superb or infallible, on the other hand they were far better than some of their contemporaries. They were both good tactical commanders fighting a war in which their countries faced strategic defeat, their ability is measured in terms of prolonging a war their countries couldn't win.

Zhukov and Patten were good tank division commanders - they were fighting for countries assured of strategic victory so it was far easier to win the tactical battles and keep winning.

Sam Houston was a very good tactical commander and a strategic one as well. He allowed a significant defeat - the Alamo - in order to have the opportunity of victory on the San Jacinto. I mention this incidentaly because the John Wayne directed film didn't, people remember the defeat and not the victory.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:26 pm

RF,
the new movie about El Alamo records the victory also. In Latin America the movie wasn´t very well received, obvious, but it´s quite good.
Let´s return to the thread because this time José is going to scold us.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Captain Morgan
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:27 am
Location: The Great Lakes, USA

Post by Captain Morgan » Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:59 am

miro777 wrote:
Lütjens was the creator of the Channel Dash...
thats worth mentioning...

adios
miro
Lütjens was long dead when the first meetings about the channel dash were held.
There are 2 types of vessels out there. One type is called a target. If it isn't capable of silently doing 30+ knots at 2000 ft depth its always considered a target. The vessel that can silently go fast and deep is the one the targets are afraid of.

Post Reply