|
Except the Japanese fleet basically tried to do what Nelson did... after all, it worked for him! Of course, the Spanish/French fleet at Trafalgar wasn't nearly as co-ordinated as the American fleet was... and their radar and fire-control systems were pretty crap, too.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
sullat posted:Except the Japanese fleet basically tried to do what Nelson did... after all, it worked for him! Of course, the Spanish/French fleet at Trafalgar wasn't nearly as co-ordinated as the American fleet was... and their radar and fire-control systems were pretty crap, too. While we're at it, here's some HMS Victory:  Guns. Lots of guns. by Phanatic, on Flickr  Bring me a wheel of oaken wood by Phanatic, on Flickr  Each day you tend this lock, you're one day older by Phanatic, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
As long as we're on boat talk, there was a really awesome discussion of pre-dreadnaught ironclads somewhere in this or the GBS history thread. Does anyone know where it is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
 Thanks for all this.I'm not surprised that the Battle of Leyte Gulf came up in discussing the battle of Trafalgar. The two biggest running disputes at my University's history department: Whether the Thirty Years' War was more devastating than World War II, and whether Trafalgar or Leyte Gulf was the greatest naval victory in history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 08:26
|
|
Chamale posted:
Probably Trafalgar because the writing was on the wall for Japan in 1944. In 1805, the issue was still very much in doubt for Great Britain.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
I'm reading about the battle of Crete and I'm unclear as to how the Germans were able to establish air superiority. The island had three viable airfields, and I'm guessing fighers based there would have an advantage over bombers having to stage from the Greek mainland. Was there a scarcity of available aircraft because of the North African campaign, or was the island not deemed not important enough, or was Cairo counting on Freyberg not being a giant ponce?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure how you'd classify Leyte Gulf as a great victory, let alone 'greatest'. The Battle consists of the US forces falling entirely into the trap the Japanese set and then having to fight desperately to get out of it. An example of fantastic bravery and fighting spirit, yes. But you judge battles by what the operational intent was for each side at the start and how that matched up to the end result, and to that extent I'm not sure what the lesson from Leyte Gulf is other than 'the Americans were loving lucky that that battle happened in 1944 and not 1941'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 09:29
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Probably Trafalgar because the writing was on the wall for Japan in 1944. In 1805, the issue was still very much in doubt for Great Britain. I agree. Trafalgar meant that Britain never had to fear an actual invasion from France again, and could concentrate on breaking up Napoleon's power on the continent. Japan was already on the defensive and the loss merely hastened the pace of their defeat, it didn't change the very dynamics of the war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
Chamale posted:
While trying to establish "greatest" anything is a pointless exercise (especially when the choices are 100+ years apart) it sure is a fun one! I'd say you have to add Lepanto, Myeongryang and Lake Poyang to the list of choices though. Lepanto is cool for obvious reasons while Lake Poyang is on an absolutely ridiculous scale (isn't everything in Chinese history?) and Myeongryang is basically Thermopylae at sea with the Spartans winning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 09:42
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Probably Trafalgar because the writing was on the wall for Japan in 1944. In 1805, the issue was still very much in doubt for Great Britain. The problem for the IJN was that any victory at that point was basically a loss anyway, they could barely repair or build more ships or train more crews. I seriously doubt that past the death of Yamamoto the Japanese Navy had any realistic chance. Then again Isoroku Yamamoto is an absolutely fascinating person, who probably thought the war was a poor decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 10:02
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:While trying to establish "greatest" anything is a pointless exercise (especially when the choices are 100+ years apart) it sure is a fun one! I'd say you have to add Lepanto, Myeongryang and Lake Poyang to the list of choices though. How could you forget the Battle of Salamis when discussing the greatest naval battles of all time. In terms of importance, strategy, tactics, and even seamanship, it was a total masterstroke. Granted, my knowledge of history is pretty eurocentric, but as far as it goes, Salamis has to be the most important naval battle in Western history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
ripped0ff posted:How could you forget the Battle of Salamis when discussing the greatest naval battles of all time. In terms of importance, strategy, tactics, and even seamanship, it was a total masterstroke. Ah yeah that too. I'm terrible with my classics. Not really a naval battle but The Sad Night is pretty fascinating as well. quote:On the night of June 30, 1520, his large army left their compound and headed west, toward the Tlacopan causeway. The causeway was apparently unguarded, and the Spaniards made their way out of their complex unnoticed, winding their way through the sleeping city under the cover of a rainstorm. Before reaching the causeway, they were noticed by Aztec warriors, who sounded the alarm. Sources diverge here, with some stating that a woman filling water jugs sounded the alarm. Not often you read something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 12:41
|
|
|
I dunno how legit this is, seems real and interesting. Its translated letters written by kamikaze pilots before they killed themselves http://www.geocities.jp/kamikazes_site_e/isyo.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 12:59
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:Not often you read something like that. It's interesting how close Cortes came to being a miserable failure. Though I doubt the fate of the native civilizations would be ultimately much brighter if he had died--smallpox was already ravaging and would leave them susceptible to whoever showed up next. It can't be understated how important European germs were to the conquest of the Americas. If native society wasn't being gutted by relentless epidemics, the European forays would have most certainly not overstayed their welcome. Cavalry, steel equipment and lovely 16th century firearms could not be enough on their own (at least not in the limited numbers expeditions employed them).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 14:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm not sure how you'd classify Leyte Gulf as a great victory, let alone 'greatest'. The Battle consists of the US forces falling entirely into the trap the Japanese set and then having to fight desperately to get out of it. I think you have it backwards. First off Leyte Gulf was actually 4 separate battles, the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, Battle of the Surigao Strait, Battle of Cape Engano, and the Battle of Samar. These ranged from a setback to the Japanese, to an out and out crushing defeat. As for achieving their objective argument, the 6th Army beachhead remained secure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
DasReich posted:I think you have it backwards. First off Leyte Gulf was actually 4 separate battles, the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, Battle of the Surigao Strait, Battle of Cape Engano, and the Battle of Samar. These ranged from a setback to the Japanese, to an out and out crushing defeat. The Japanese operational plan worked close to perfectly insofar as it was devised. Halsey fell for the diversion force and the attack fleet got within sight of its target. The fact that even exposed the Beachhead forces were able to fight the Japanese task force off just demonstrates how undecisive the battle was - US material superiority was far too great for any battle to make a difference. Even if the Japanese attack had gone off perfectly it would still leave the US main battle fleet intact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
It's not an individual battle per se, but I'd consider the Battle of the Atlantic to be extremely important in shaping the course of world events. Without an Allied victory here, the Battle of Britain could have been lost, Operation Sea Lion might have happened, D-Day would have been delayed/never occurred, strategic bombing in Europe would have never happened (or taken on a very different character, i.e. B-36s from CONUS instead of B-17s/24s from England), Hitler would have had less incentive to develop V-weapons and jet technology, the Soviet Union would have been mauled much more badly (especially without lend-lease supplies via Murmansk), etc. Scarily, it isn't hard to imagine the battle turning out differently. If Hitler had listened to Doenitz and built more U-Boats early on (rather than trying to build battleships and an aircraft carrier...), if the US had not given the 50 Lend-Lease destroyers, and if Britain had been slower and less effective in developing ASW equipment like ASDIC, things could well have gone the other way. Heck, just look at Japan versus US Navy submarines in the Pacific for a demonstration of what submarines can do to a war effort and a war economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The Japanese operational plan worked close to perfectly insofar as it was devised. Halsey fell for the diversion force and the attack fleet got within sight of its target. It was their plan to be badly mauled 6 battleships, 4 heavy cruisers, 4 light cruisers, and assorted smaller craft in the Surigao Strait? We judge victory by results. The Japanese failed to attack the beachhead, the IJN was decimated to the tune of losing 4 carriers, including Zuikaku, 3 battleships, including Musashi, 6 heavy cruisers, 4 lights, 9 destroyers, and who knows how many aircraft. As Admiral Ozama said,"After this battle the surface forces became strictly auxiliary.....there was no further use assigned to surface vessels...." Breaking the IJN totally seems like decisive victory to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
They were already broken. The Carrier Battle groups were all gone. There was no prospect whatsoever of a decisive victory. Leyte Gulf was the IJN throwing everything they had left at the US invasions force with a 'why not' shrug, but really they had passed the point of being able to appreciably effect the war long before. The fact that you are actually trying to count '4 carriers' as a serious Japanese loss shows you don't really understand what was happening in the battle at all. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Why Leyte and not the battle of Midway? If there ever was a decisive battle that change the momentum of the war in the pacific, I would think most people would say Midway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They were already broken. The Carrier Battle groups were all gone. There was no prospect whatsoever of a decisive victory. Leyte Gulf was the IJN throwing everything they had left at the US invasions force with a 'why not' shrug, but really they had passed the point of being able to appreciably effect the war long before. I understand quite well. You said that the plan worked as it was devised. Not really. Kurita got stonewalled by Taffy 3 off Samar. And even if he hadn't his window of opportunity to do damage would've been tiny. Either the aforementioned battleships or Halsey would have decimated him in short order. As it was, he was run off by a tiny fleet. 4 carriers would have carried enough aircraft to at least be a scouting arm. Not to mention the kamikaze load they could have carried. At say, Iwo Jima or during Okinawa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
kalthir posted:I'm reading about the battle of Crete and I'm unclear as to how the Germans were able to establish air superiority. The island had three viable airfields, and I'm guessing fighers based there would have an advantage over bombers having to stage from the Greek mainland. Was there a scarcity of available aircraft because of the North African campaign, or was the island not deemed not important enough, or was Cairo counting on Freyberg not being a giant ponce? Crete was a clusterfuck for all sides. I'm pretty sure the RAF had been withdrawn/shot down well before the Ju52's arrived, and there wasn't any Radar to detect incoming attacks. Most fighters that could be committed were lost in Greece, and the British were fighting on 4 different fronts (this is all around the same time as taking out the Italian East African Empire, fighting the Vichy French in Syria/Palestine, dealing with an uprising in Iraq, North Africa AND all your supplies and reinforcements need to come from England. As is the British almost held Create except for losing one airfield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
The Japanese plan for Leyte Gulf "worked" insofar as they convinced Halsey to go chasing off their mostly-useless-if-not-completely-empty carriers while leaving Kurita wide open to wreak havoc on ships that should have been easy pickings for the Musashi and the Yamato. (Technically they were hoping to shoot up some transports, but the slow-assed Destroyer Escorts and Escort Carriers of Taffy 3 are arguably just as soft targets, at least on paper) The Japanese plan for Leyte Gulf did not work in the sense that even after Halsey left the back door wide open, Kurita was still unable to deliver because he didn't even sink a majority of Taffy 3. It also did not work in the sense that even if Halsey let Kurita slip through, and even if Kurita either sank most of Taffy 3 or sank a bunch of MacArthur's transports, it still would not have any lasting difference in the war, except perhaps Halsey's legacy being way more stained than it is today. I personally wouldn't consider Leyte Gulf to be a great naval battle (relative to Trafalgar) from either side: It wouldn't have changed a thing for the Japanese strategic situation even if the battle went perfectly, and the bravery of the USN is marred by the failures which necessitated that bravery in the first place. Saint Celestine posted:Why Leyte and not the battle of Midway? If there ever was a decisive battle that change the momentum of the war in the pacific, I would think most people would say Midway. Depends on your definition of a "naval battle", I guess. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
There was also that little skirmish in the waters around Actium a while back. That was pretty important too IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There was also that little skirmish in the waters around Actium a while back. That was pretty important too IIRC. Well, insofar as we have a month named "August" and not "Anthony" it was important. But it wouldn't have changed the grand scheme of history too much, the Roman empire would have had a different set of dudes at the head. Whereas with Salamis or Lepanto or Trafalgar, if the winning side had lost a totally different empire would have been established.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Let me take the opportunity to recommend Barry Strauss's The Battle of Salamis. Strauss is up-front about when he gets into details for which no concrete evidence exists, fact-checks Herodotus when he recounts the questionable, qualifies his references to Plutarch and others who wrote hundreds of years after the events they describe, and does a great job of keeping the reader aware of just how difficult it can be to glean fact from scattered writings of a culture which placed great import on social braggery. But his scholarship is impeccable, he backs up his supposition with evidence, and he always draws a clear line between that which is known and that which it is merely reasonable to surmise. Which is good, because, man, Thermopyle gets all the press, but for all the heroic sacrifice of the Spartans and the Thespians, it was still a defeat. A disastrous one, no less disastrous for also being a disaster for the Persians. It was at Salamis that the Greeks actually defeated that rear end in a top hat Xerxes, driven by the sinews of the poorest their proto-democracy had to offer. quote:But in 472 B.C. Aeschylus could still see the white horses of the sun rising over the earth that morning and the red stain widening in a Persian grandee's beard. He remembered things that he described in cliches, but they were earned cliches, as he might have thought; anyone who was there that day had the right to stumble in his words. Wonderful book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
sullat posted:Well, insofar as we have a month named "August" and not "Anthony" it was important. But it wouldn't have changed the grand scheme of history too much, the Roman empire would have had a different set of dudes at the head. Whereas with Salamis or Lepanto or Trafalgar, if the winning side had lost a totally different empire would have been established. I really, really, don't think the Roman Empire would have become anything like it did if Antony beat Octavian. In fact I would bet that it would have broken up hundreds of years before it actually did, affecting the entire history of Europe in who knows how many ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
The battle of Cartagena de Indias was clearly the greatest naval victory ever, not in the way it affected history but because of outnumbered the brave Spaniards who defeated the royal navy was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Alt History naval question incomming! How does the the fleets of the Holy Alliance at Lepanto compare to the Korean fleets (of Japanese even) during the Imjin war? Who would come off the better in a theoretical battle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:The battle of Cartagena de Indias was clearly the greatest naval victory ever, not in the way it affected history but because of outnumbered the brave Spaniards who defeated the royal navy was. That was not decided as a naval battle. It was a siege. On land, with the army doing the fighting. All the Spanish ships were sunk and the Royal Navy landed the soldiers. I'm afraid they did not defeat the Royal Navy, but did win a land battle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
General China posted:That was not decided as a naval battle. It was a siege. On land, with the army doing the fighting. All the Spanish ships were sunk and the Royal Navy landed the soldiers. I'm afraid they did not defeat the Royal Navy, but did win a land battle. You're right, I thought it was a naval battle for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Alt History naval question incomming! How does the the fleets of the Holy Alliance at Lepanto compare to the Korean fleets (of Japanese even) during the Imjin war? Who would come off the better in a theoretical battle? There are some similarities, to be sure. They're both semi-littoral fleets capable of fighting massed actions. They're set up (even intended) to be used as fighting platforms for marines and soldiers to duke it out. But the Holly Alliance has powerful, advanced European artillery, particularity on the Venetian galleasses (some accounts credit the six galleasses at Lepanto for sinking 70 Ottoman galleys). To be sure, the Koreans have artilley too, but I'm not sure it would have been a match.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
^^^Generally you're correct but the Korean Panokseon ship was setup specifically to avoid that kind of thing, since the lightly armoured Korean sailors had a tendency to lose badly in that style of naval combat. The whole point of the Panokseon was to stay at range and shoot a ridiculous amount of fire bolts, cannon balls, fire arrows, mortars etc. Rabhadh posted:Alt History naval question incomming! How does the the fleets of the Holy Alliance at Lepanto compare to the Korean fleets (of Japanese even) during the Imjin war? Who would come off the better in a theoretical battle? The Japanese fleet isn't even in the running here. It's truly shocking how many resources (especially timber on a resource poor island) were wasted making such terrible quality ships. In 1586 Hideyoshi was really happy because one of the Jesuits promised that he would arrange to have 2 Portuguese Galleys tag along to cover his invasion force (this never materialized). Every time Portuguese traders arrived in Japan basically the attitude was "we don't care what crap you have in your cargo bays give us the cannons from this ship". The Japanese eventually obtained some Portuguese cannons and also captured a whole whack of Korean cannons but then found they couldn't actually use them on sea because their ships would capsize or BLOW APART from the recoil. Now to (not) answer your question. 1v1 ship to ship - a Korean Panokseon and a Venetian Galley were roughly equal. Each had niche strengths. If someone can make a convincing case about why a Venetian Galley would win ~70%+ of the time I'd be interested to read it. In my opinion it really would come down to the skill of the commander, seamanship of the crew, knowledge of local waters etc. Now as we enter the 17th century European military technology (especially cannon design) really starts to pull away and this quickly becomes a no contest. I'm not that up on comparative cannon design so if someone could shed some light on why Europe - really late to the gunpowder game - ended up with the best cannons fairly quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:57
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:^^^Generally you're correct but the Korean Panokseon ship was setup specifically to avoid that kind of thing, since the lightly armoured Korean sailors had a tendency to lose badly in that style of naval combat. The whole point of the Panokseon was to stay at range and shoot a ridiculous amount of fire bolts, cannon balls, fire arrows, mortars etc. Basically, Sakers the 'early' long cannons from the late 16th and early 17th century were machined rather dubiously using very poor ore. This meant they still had a nasty tendency to be unpredictable and blow up if not taken care of professionally. Artillery 'specialists' and Mercenaries weren't cheap too. Break throughs in both artillery design, metallurgy and the slow professionalism of European Armies and Navies rapidly advanced Artillery design and useage.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
More naval history speculation.. How would the battle of Midway been different if the Kido Butai had sortied with all six fleet carriers instead of just four?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
I know at least one of the two that was left behind was severely depleted by battles in the south pacific.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Theoretically they could have transferred the air group from one onto the other, thus having an undamaged carrier with enough planes, but that wasn't the way things were organized so they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:Now to (not) answer your question. 1v1 ship to ship - a Korean Panokseon and a Venetian Galley were roughly equal. Each had niche strengths. If someone can make a convincing case about why a Venetian Galley would win ~70%+ of the time I'd be interested to read it. In my opinion it really would come down to the skill of the commander, seamanship of the crew, knowledge of local waters etc. Now as we enter the 17th century European military technology (especially cannon design) really starts to pull away and this quickly becomes a no contest. You're absolutely right, outside and human factors would be extremely important in any hypothetical engagement. Both Panokseons and galleys were designed for fleet combat (although the Barbary corsairs certainly employed galleys successfully in individual engagements). Their historical employment reflects this. A 100v100 fight might be a better indication of each design's potential. However, for argument's sake, let's assume a 1v1 in littoral waters unknown to both captains, with rested crews of historically-typical quality. For the Venetian galley, the best course of action is going to close the engagement range with the Panokseon as quickly as possible. The vessel is well-equipped to do this. With oars, 16th century Venetian galleys had a 7-10 knot burst speed. The main battery on the Panokseon (13-20 gun broadside) has about a 1000m range. If the captain elects to use the exploding daejeon darts, it's 500m. Rowing at 7 knots, the Venetian galley can cover a kilometer in about 4.6 minutes. This gives the Koreans the chance to fire one broadside, possibly two, before the Venetians close the distance. A sleek (5m wide), fast-moving galley is a difficult target, particularly for the the crude smoothbore guns of the era. For accuracy and effect, the best option is to hold fire as long as possible. Against the packed decks of the galley, a point-blank volley from the Koreans. However, holding fire that long would require discipline on the part of the Korean crew. Armament-wise, the Venetian galley packs a formidable punch. At the bow, there's a 50-55 pounder canone and four 6-12 pounder aspidi or falconetti, up to four swivel guns, plus the muskets of the embarked marines. The gunners are going to hold fire until the moment before impact. Then, they're going to let fly and send ninety pounds of roundshot, hailshot and musket balls into the Panokseon and her crew. Seconds later, the galley's beak is going to slam into Korean ship. It's important to remember a couple of things at this point. One, the galley's guns are mounted less than a meter above the waterline. At close range, their point of impact is going to to be on the Panokseon's waterline. The roundshot is going to blow large holes in the hull and send a shower of splinters into the Korean rowers packed on the lower decks. Second, a 150-200+ ton galley moving at 7-10 knots is going to exert an enormous amount of momentum (about 58,8000 kg m/s). Odds are, the beak of the galley will punch a sizable hole, also near the waterline. The Korean ship isn't going to be in great shape at this point. In fairness, the Venetians are going to be pretty beat up as well. They'll have taken serious casualties from arrows, musketry and cannon fire. The breastplates and casques of the soldiers/marines and "gentlemen adventurers" will give them some protection, but the exposed rowers will have been hit hard. To make matters worse, the Koreans will now be lobbing grenades on deck. After impact, the battle would disintegrate into a melee. The Venetians will be scrambling aboard the Panokseon up the side of the ship and through the newly-smashed holes. The Koreans have about 125 marines and 50-60 crew, minus losses. Before losses, the Venetians have 75 sailors and gunners, 130-140 rowers, and 50-130 marines and "gentlemen adventurers." Since this is a Venetian galley, the rowers are armed freemen and can join the fight . Even without embarked troops, it's fair to say the Venetians have the number advantage at this point. If the Venetian crew can get enough men aboard the Panokseon and if they can keep the swivel guns firing hailshot into the Korean's upper decks, they have a good chance to carry the day, albeit with heavy losses. And even if they lose, the Panokseon is still at serious risk of sinking from its battle damage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:More naval history speculation.. How would the battle of Midway been different if the Kido Butai had sortied with all six fleet carriers instead of just four? The bigger question is what could have happened at Coral Sea if all six KB carriers were sent out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Bacarruda posted:You're absolutely right, outside and human factors would be extremely important in any hypothetical engagement. This assumes the Koreans sit there and wait for the Venitians to engage rather than maneuver to extend the time they can deploy their fire power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 10:00
|
|