NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought this would be interesting as it appears we have some history buffs on this board.

I'll list my top 3.

3. Jutland: If England had competent Admirals to prosecute this battle the way it should've been, then this would easily be #1 on anyone's list. This truly was an interesting battle though. 58 dreadnoughts of the Royal and German Imperial Navies facing off. There were also hundreds of smaller vessels like DDs and light cruisers.

The battle of course was one where the Germans would send Hipper's battlecruiser fleet to sucker Beatty's battlecruiser fleet to follow him and lead him into the trap of Admiral Scheer and his main fleet. Brittain had forewarning due to the intelligence work of Room 40. The Grand Fleet led by Jellicoe set sail from Scapa Flow to meet Germany in what should've been a collasal battle that would dwarf everything before it, even Trafalgar.

The most noteworthy part in the battle has to be the Battlecruiser action between Hipper and Beatty. The 2 had faced off a year earlier at Dogger Bank when Beatty's cruisers sunk Hipper's SMS Blucker. The battle should've been a bigger British victory except Beatty demonstrated poor leadership of his squadron. This was largely due to the poor signals sent by his signals officer, Lt Cdr Ralph Seymour. Beatty also broke chase to avoid what he thought was a torpedo wake. (It is still unknown whether or not there was an actual torpedo.)

At Jutland the 2 came face to face again. Hipper's ships were outnumbered. Beatty had the 5th battle fleet comprising of 4 Queen Elizabeth class dreadnought battleships under his command to support his battlecruisers. It should've been a massacre of Hipper's fleet, but Beatty failed as a leader. He executed maneuvers without properly informing the 5th battle fleet. The result was that when the engagement began it was just battlecruisers. Beatty was at a disadvantage as the Germans had better battlecruisers that could absorb much more damage.

Early on in the battle Beatty took his losses. The Queen Mary and Indefatigable were both lost. When they were lost Beatty gave us the wise observation that "there must be something wrong with our bloody ships today." His own flagship, HMS Lion was nearly lost. She took a hit to her Q turret. If the commander of that turret hadn't flooded the magazine, the Lion would've blown up and Beatty would've been killed. The 5th battle fleet eventually came around, but it was too late to do any good.

The battle then continued as Beatty raced for the cover of Jellicoe's Grand Fleet. Scheer moved north along with Hipper now to face the British. Jellicoe then had the Admiral's dream situation. He had crossed the enemy's T. This was done by the expert maneuvering from Jellicoe aboard the HMS Iron Duke. From his ship he had his ships deploy from columns into a straight line to engage the German fleet. Scheer realizing his T had been crossed ordered his ships to turn around and flee.

Jellicoe didn't pursue as he was fearful of torpedoes being fired by the Germans. Scheer was trying to flee in the dark, but it wasn't dark enough so he gave Jellicoe another chance by turning east since he would be killed in a stern engagement. Once again Jellicoe had Scheer's T crossed. During this part of the battle Read-Admiral Hood was killed when his battlecruiser HMS Invincible was sunk. (She was the 1st battlecruiser built.) Then the Germans eventually turned back as it got darker. This time they covered their retreat with torpedoes and their battlecruiser squadron. Hipper's squadron was massacred, but that was to be expected as battlecruisers didn't have the armour to deal with battleships.

Jellicoe didn't press a major pursuit as he was fearful of torpedoes. At the time, estimates were that 1/3 of torpedoes would hit so it is easy to understand his decision, but that didn't stop Beatty from trying to score political points and try to call Jellicoe a coward. Beatty and his supporters ignored the fact that Beatty had screwed up during the battle and had also done the exact same thing he criticized Jellicoe for when he faced Hipper at Dogger Bank. It's obvious to see I take Jellicoe's side in the Jutland contraversy.

There was some night action between smaller ships. A German pre-dreadnought was lost. Hipper's flagship, the SMS LUTZOW was lost and never made it home. Most of her crew got off as she sunk slowly. Most of Hipper's squadron was on the verge of sinking. Hipper fought the battle well. His ships were in such bad shape because of his valiant move to use his fleet to cover the escape of Scheer's main fleet. Hipper took the brunt of Jellicoe's Grand Fleet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/SMS_Seydlitz_damage.jpg
The wrecked SMS Seydlitz, part of Hipper's battlecrusier squadron.

2. Trafalgar. I don't have the historical background to write as much about Trafalgar, but this was a major battle with Lord Nelson's British fleet facing off against the combined French and Spanish fleets. The British fleet was outnumbered, but they still scored a decisive victory taking 22 of 41 enemy ships with the loss of only a few. Sadly, Nelson was killed by a sniper while aboard his flagship the HMS Victory. He never got to see his victory through to the end.

This battle was important as it removed the threat that Napoleon would invade the British Isles. IIRC, They still haven't really been invaded since the 12th or 13th century. This really was the beginning of the end of Napoleon.

1. Midway. My choice of Midway probably seems like American bias, but if this battle had gone the other way it would have a greater impact than any other battle. If Nimitz had lost the Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown without taking the Japanese Navy out, then there would be nothing left to counter the Japanese and we would be at their mercy.

The Battle of Coral Sea a month before was indecisive. We sunk a light carrier of the Japanese, but that came at a heavy price. The Lady Lex had been lost and the Yorktown had been heavily damaged. Even if she survived Midway, her career would be over. The repair workers at Pearl did slip shot repairs that made her capable to fight at Midway, but after that they could never really restore her. The damage she took at Coral Sea might possibly have been even worse than what The Big Ben took at Okinawa.

This battle really rested on intel. The Hypo office did great work determining that AF was Midway. Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to confront Vice Admiral Nagumo and his Kido Butai

Over the island, the Japanese owned the skies. The Americans were in a bad situation as the F2 Buffalo was a horrible aircraft.

As the planes were being rearmed, the American carrier based aircraft found the fleet. IN 10-15 minutes, 3 of Nagumo's 4 carriers were sent to Davy Jones' Locker. The Hiryu had gotten away. Her planes would sink the Yorktown, but the Americans would then sink her.

If the battle had ended differently, America would be at a worse situation. I don't believe the Japanese would've attacked the mainland unless we refused to surrender. Hawaii likely would've fallen as would Alaska (which was invaded BTW.) America would sue for Peace and Japan would have control of the Pacific.

I totally disagree with your choices. I believe the Battle of Salamis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis) was more important than any of those, except perhaps Trafalgar. The defeat of the Persian navy allowed the notions of individual freedoms to continue development instead of being extinguished by an empire.

The battle of Salamis has been described by many historians (among them Victor Davis Hanson, Donald Kagan and John Keegan) as the single most significant battle in human history. The Greek victory protected the nascent and singular traditions of democracy and individual rights, as well as guarding Greek philosophy and culture. This meant the eventual flowering of Western culture, which would have been snuffed out completely, had the Persians overrun Greece. Due to the enormous and wide-ranging influence of Western culture on all of human civilization, as well as the huge success of Western culture in its own right, it is literally possible that the world today would be utterly and fundamentally different had the Greeks lost at Salamis.

I totally disagree with your choices. I believe the Battle of Salamis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis) was more important than any of those, except perhaps Trafalgar. The defeat of the Persian navy allowed the notions of individual freedoms to continue development instead of being extinguished by an empire.

Damn. You know you're on a pretty nerdy site when someone beats you to the punch with Salamis.

Instead of Jutland I'd put Salamis at #3. If the Greeks lose, Xerxes retains control of northern Greece, possibly invades through the Isthmus of Corinth, or around it (there being no Greek fleet to oppose him). Athens, which he leveled, is never rebuilt. Fairly interesting consequences, perhaps.

Oh, and "which was invaded, BTW" is a bit of a stretch for Alaska in WWII. Two rather small islands at the far end of the Aleutians were occupied. The Japanese never came near mounting an invasion of mainland Alaska.

Edit: Let's hear it for Themistocles!

I totally disagree with your choices. I believe the Battle of Salamis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis) was more important than any of those, except perhaps Trafalgar. The defeat of the Persian navy allowed the notions of individual freedoms to continue development instead of being extinguished by an empire.

I don't discount the importance of that battle. It truly was an important battle. As was Lepanto, but a victory at Jutland would've meant a German victory in WWI. Churchill said it best about Jellicoe and Jutland when he said Jellicoe was the "only man who could lose the war in an afternoon"

Midway was the battle that the War in the Pacific hinged upon. A loss at Midway would've led to a Japanese victory in WWII.

Yours, plus the Battle of Salamis, Greco-Persian Wars.

Nobody remembers Sinop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sinop)

I'd put trafalgar ahead of midway. It's not like the US would have lost the war had it lost midway. On the other hand victory at trafalgar was key to breaking up the continental system &c.

I agree with the point about salamis; I'd throw in actium ahead of Jutland and midway also.

Lepanto, for the art and the smashing of the Turkish hold on the Caribbean.

It's important.

I'd put trafalgar ahead of midway. It's not like the US would have lost the war had it lost midway. On the other hand victory at trafalgar was key to breaking up the continental system &c.

I agree with the point about salamis; I'd throw in actium ahead of Jutland and midway also.

Nimitz made a gamble at Midway. By sending every single PACFLT carrier there, he put all of his eggs in one basket and was still outnumbered. If the Japanese sunk the 3 carriers at that battle, there would be no Pacific Fleet left. The US would've sued for peace and given up Hawaii and Alaska.

Lepanto, for the art and the smashing of the Turkish hold on the Caribbean.

It's important.

I'd agree on the importance of the battle, but it was the Med.

Nimitz made a gamble at Midway. By sending every single PACFLT carrier there, he put all of his eggs in one basket and was still outnumbered. If the Japanese sunk the 3 carriers at that battle, there would be no Pacific Fleet left. The US would've sued for peace and given up Hawaii and Alaska.
Why does everyone seem to think that Japan wanted Hawai'i? Or Alaska for that matter?

The big push was for Asia (We Americans always seem to forget that point). The islands were ment to act as a barrier between America and Japan's new empire in Asia. The whole misconsived plan was to get America to sue for peace, for Japan to retain control over all captured areas in Asia, and fortify the islands in the South Pacific to hold the US at bay while Japan stripped the areas of raw materials. Japan didn't even begin to imagine taking over the US, or Hawai'i. Why should it when Hawai'i didn't have anything Japan wanted? All of Japan's sugar was being grown in Okinawa at the time.

That being said, Midway may not have caused the US to surrender, but it WOULD have given Japan free reign in the Pacific to build up those islands and get the materials it needed to keep the war going. The Pacific conflict would have taken a lot longer and may have indeed ended up with Japan keeping its empire.

World War Two it has to be The Battle of Coral Sea
it stop the Japs landing more troops in New Guinea, were we where fighting them along the Kokoda Trail

Awww, nobody wants to give the Ruskies any love.
Makes me sad :(

Why does everyone seem to think that Japan wanted Hawai'i? Or Alaska for that matter?



They didn't want those territories for the sake of wanting them. They wanted them for 2 reasons.


It would severely hamper the US's ability to try to strike back.
They are both (especially Hawaii) strategically important positions for control of the Pacific.

Nimitz made a gamble at Midway. By sending every single PACFLT carrier there, he put all of his eggs in one basket and was still outnumbered. If the Japanese sunk the 3 carriers at that battle, there would be no Pacific Fleet left. The US would've sued for peace and given up Hawaii and Alaska.

I doubt the US would have dropped out of the war.

Now I think of it that armada thing wasn't too shabby either.

I doubt the US would have dropped out of the war.

Now I think of it that armada thing wasn't too shabby either.

Without the carriers, the US had no ability to strike Japan and would be on a defensive position.

Holding Hawaii would be difficult and the West Coast would've likely been a target for bombing.

The Japanese had little fear of US Army Air Corp bombers. B-17s tried attacking them at many points during the war and failed to get a single hit on their carriers.

I'd agree on the importance of the battle, but it was the Med.

I just wish I was there. I must be tired. :D

It would be nice to see the Turks in the Caribbean in 1571, eh?

Awww, nobody wants to give the Ruskies any love.
Makes me sad :(That's because the Russians lost the war. It can hardly be considered decisive in that case, can it? ;)

They didn't want those territories for the sake of wanting them. They wanted them for 2 reasons.


It would severely hamper the US's ability to try to strike back.
They are both (especially Hawaii) strategically important positions for control of the Pacific.

Got something that shows Japan was trying for it? Because reading over the general plans drawn up by the High Command, I see nothing that notes any goals for invasion and/or demands that the US give up Hawai'i.

The invasion of the tip of Alaska was aimed at keeping the sea lanes clear and protecting Port Arthur, but again, I haven't seen ANYTHING that says Japan wanted Alaska.

Without the carriers, the US had no ability to strike Japan and would be on a defensive position.

Holding Hawaii would be difficult and the West Coast would've likely been a target for bombing.

The Japanese had little fear of US Army Air Corp bombers. B-17s tried attacking them at many points during the war and failed to get a single hit on their carriers.

That doesn't mean the US would have been out of the war. Even supposing the US lost all three carriers - which is doubtful, because lets face it Midway was an ambush based upon information gained from breaking the japanese naval codes - it doesn't automatically mean that Hawaii would fall. It's a long way from japan, and those supply lines would be awfully thin. Also, US shipbuilding production was completely mammoth. The US would have passed Japan in Naval power within 12-18 months anway. (Though it probably would have had to de-emphasize the european theater for a while).

That doesn't mean the US would have been out of the war. Even supposing the US lost all three carriers - which is doubtful, because lets face it Midway was an ambush based upon information gained from breaking the japanese naval codes - it doesn't automatically mean that Hawaii would fall. It's a long way from japan, and those supply lines would be awfully thin. Also, US shipbuilding production was completely mammoth. The US would have passed Japan in Naval power within 12-18 months anway. (Though it probably would have had to de-emphasize the european theater for a while).

Which, if you delay Europe, you wonder what could happen with Hitler. We know he was researching the bomb. Would it happen?

No one mentioned Hampton Roads?

Which, if you delay Europe, you wonder what could happen with Hitler. We know he was researching the bomb. Would it happen?

No one mentioned Hampton Roads?

The germans were years behind in the race for the bomb. I don't think heisenberg liked hitler much.

honorable mention for Malta on which a massive section of the African and Mediterranean fronts in WW2 depended

Which, if you delay Europe, you wonder what could happen with Hitler. We know he was researching the bomb. Would it happen?

No one mentioned Hampton Roads?

Hampton Roads was a groundbreaking battle in terms of new technologies, but it wasn't the biggest battle. Even if the Virginia broke through the Union Blockade, the Confederacy didn't have the resources to build a 2nd ship like the Virginia. They actually had to take apart a railway to get enough iron for that single iron clad.

She also had the problem of her exposed wooden hull being above the waterline once she fired some of her shells.

That's because the Russians lost the war. It can hardly be considered decisive in that case, can it? ;)

I was thinking more in terms of its impact on naval warfare as a whole. Sort of signaling the end of the whole 'Line up your ships and blast away at each other' school of naval combat.
Not to mention the end of wooden ships as effective fighting ships.

I was thinking more in terms of its impact on naval warfare as a whole. Sort of signaling the end of the whole 'Line up your ships and blast away at each other' school of naval combat.
Not to mention the end of wooden ships as effective fighting ships.

That type of warfare was still prevalent during WWI. Jutland's main fleet portion of the battle was such a battle.

1. Battle of the Iron-clads. IT CHANGED THE COURSE OF NAVAL BATTLE FOREVER!!!
2. Midway? I dunno.
3. Whichever one where the Yamato and her twin sister were destroyed. It showed that NO SHIP is unsinkable.

That doesn't mean the US would have been out of the war. Even supposing the US lost all three carriers - which is doubtful, because lets face it Midway was an ambush based upon information gained from breaking the japanese naval codes - it doesn't automatically mean that Hawaii would fall. It's a long way from japan, and those supply lines would be awfully thin. Also, US shipbuilding production was completely mammoth. The US would have passed Japan in Naval power within 12-18 months anway. (Though it probably would have had to de-emphasize the european theater for a while).

It should be noted that many in the Navy including ADM King, the CNO, believed that the messages were sent by the Japanese to ambush the US. Nimitz was udner heavy pressure from Washington not to go after the Japanese at Midway. It was only because of his trust in Rochefort and the men of Hypo that he went forward with the plan.

3. Whichever one where the Yamato and her twin sister were destroyed. It showed that NO SHIP is unsinkable.
Uh... Yamato and Musashi were destroyed in two seperate battles. The Yamato was also on a suicide run so it could hardly be considered a full trial to prove she was unsinkable.

And given how hard the Japanese tried to hid her, they knew she was sinkable.

Uh... Yamato and Musashi were destroyed in two seperate battles. The Yamato was also on a suicide run so it could hardly be considered a full trial to prove she was unsinkable.

And given how hard the Japanese tried to hid her, they knew she was sinkable.

"She formed part of Vice-Admiral Takeo Kurita's Centre Force along with Yamato at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. During this battle on 24 October 1944, she was attacked by American carrier-based aircraft armed with bombs and torpedoes. After taking 17 bomb and 20 torpedo hits and 18 near misses, the ship capsized to port, and sank at 19:35hrs. on October 24, taking more than 1000 of her 2399 crew with her; 1376 of the crew were rescued by the destroyers Kiyoshimo and Shimakaze."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi

I guess I'm half right and you're half truthful. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi

I guess I'm half right and you're half truthful. :p
Um... How am I half truthful? I said Musashi was taken in a sperate battle than the one for Yamato. Yamato itself was on a suicide run with peanut oil in her tenders.

Um... How am I half truthful? I said Musashi was taken in a sperate battle than the one for Yamato. Yamato itself was on a suicide run with peanut oil in her tenders.

I said that they were proven to be sinkable, and you said that the Yamato sank on a suicide mission without giving any information on the Musashi. I knew that one of them got hammered until it sank, which was the Musashi. You argued only half my point.

What about the sinking of the Spanish Armada?

I said that they were proven to be sinkable, and you said that the Yamato sank on a suicide mission without giving any information on the Musashi. I knew that one of them got hammered until it sank, which was the Musashi. You argued only half my point.
Ah! Gottcha. I shall try to be more of a know-it-all in the future. ;)

My answer based on the following question,

Would the battle of britian be considerd Naval? or would I be talking more about the battle for the Atlantic. I would consider that #1 if it is, because if the Brits lost the RAF and the Navy then the Germans would've marched all over the British Isles and it would be very doughtful that the US would be able to start a western front all by its lonesome. And remember, at that point Hitler wasn't interested in Russia at all and only invaded Russia after being frustrated about getting whooped by the RAF. Had he been succsesful....well,

Midway comes at a close second,

Trafalgar at 3rd most definetly. How the world would be damn different had Napoleon owned all of Europe....

Um... How am I half truthful? I said Musashi was taken in a sperate battle than the one for Yamato. Yamato itself was on a suicide run with peanut oil in her tenders.

Did they hope that the USN had terrible peanut allergies or something?

What about the sinking of the Spanish Armada?

I would have thought so too.

My vote is for the epic battle between the Royal Navy and Blackbeard.

That guy was shot and stabbed like hella times AND they removed his head. He was like a proto-Rasputin, only a pirate, thus proving pirate supremacy over ninjas.

The Titanic versus a large hunk of ice! Proving once again that ocean liners inspired by arrogance are no match for gargantuan hunks of ice manned by angry penguins.

Did they hope that the USN had terrible peanut allergies or something?
*lol* Ok, that was good.

No, it was the only oil the Japanese had left though.

The Titanic versus a large hunk of ice! Proving once again that ocean liners inspired by arrogance are no match for gargantuan hunks of ice manned by angry penguins.

dam bloody Penguins

Battle of Actium

What about the sinking of the Spanish Armada?Fun times, fun times. I still think of them after I fought in it.

Salamis and Trafalgar are the two most important naval battles in human history.

Salamis was EASILY the most important battle of all time.

Other Great Battles:
Monitor v. Virginia: Draw, but it marked the end of the age of wooden ships.
Battle of Midway: Turning point in the Pacific War.

I think battle of Bismarck sea is important cause they sank a ship carrying a 100,000 troops that led to the loss of battle of Guadalcanal and the process of capturing papar new guinea, If new Guinea fell, Australia falls too

Lepanto, for the art and the smashing of the Turkish hold on the Caribbean.

It's important.

I would argue against it.
Firstly, whilst the Turkish fleet was completely trounced and short-term results achieved, and European morale much increased, nothing came of it in the long-term.
The Christian alliance fell apart afterwards due to bickering, Cyprus nor any other Venetian territory was recaptured, or any Ottoman territory captured.
And soon enough, the Turks had rebuilt their fleet and resumed operations against the Christian powers in the Mediterranean, even if it was more cautious about engagements in battles than before.

Much could have come of it, but nothing did - hence it has no real bearing on history.

The defeat of the Spanish Armada.

not in any order:

Salamis
any naval skirmish during the Punic wars
Meloria
Lepanto
Trafalgar
Matapan
Sulu Sea

Actium for sure.

Without it, Mark Anthony would have just done as Caesar had before. Instead Octavian stabilised the collpsing Republic and replaced it with the Empire. Not a massive improvement but vastly more durable and critical to modern society.

The Battle of the Atlantic. By a mile.

I don't discount the importance of that battle. It truly was an important battle. As was Lepanto, but a victory at Jutland would've meant a German victory in WWI. Churchill said it best about Jellicoe and Jutland when he said Jellicoe was the "only man who could lose the war in an afternoon"

Midway was the battle that the War in the Pacific hinged upon. A loss at Midway would've led to a Japanese victory in WWII.


I disagree entirely, certainly it would have been a huge set back for the American and British forces in the Pacific, however American heavy Industry was focused and still is on the other side of the continent. The USA would have been able to recover the fleet, by simple industrial overload. Japanese carriers too would have slowly become useless thanks to American land air supremacy. Certainly victory would have been achieved in the Islands and greater Pacific for a time, but the American continent was hardly in danger from a direct invasion.

The Japanese didn’t have the resources or the supply lines in place to launch one after Midway.

Progress in china was successful but rather slow.

Invasion of Australia and other Imperial holdings would have taken precedence, yet allowing the American Navy more time to repair.

It would have been disastrous for morale of the allies, but hardly crippling. The American war machine would have geared up, massed, and simply out produced anything the Japanese were capable of resisting.

A defeat at Midway like Pearl Harbour would have only intensified American resolve and national outrage against the Japanese menace.

The Titanic versus a large hunk of ice! Proving once again that ocean liners inspired by arrogance are no match for gargantuan hunks of ice manned by angry penguins.

Question: what, prey tell, were the penguins doing in the Northern hemisphere? I think we should be told.

Given the penchant people have for disagreeing with conclusions here, I will list what most legitimate naval historians think are the most significant battles in naval history.

Salamis- As more than adequately pointed out by numbers of people here, the outcome of Salamis influenced the next few millenia significantly.

Trafalgar- This battle is a favorite of mine as I had an ancestor in command of <i> Santissima Trinidad </i>, the largest Galleon in the history of the Spanish Armada. This battle decisively broke the naval superiority of Spain and simultaneously broke French Colonial power, ending quite decisively their ability to expand their territory by force of arms. It ushered in <i> Pax Brittanica </i> and turned England into a great Colonial power. A quick note on my ancestor, he was killed in the same manner as Lord Viscount Nelson, by sniper fire, he was Rear Admiral Don Baltazar Hidalgo Cisneros. The ship sank in tow to Gibralter it was the last of the Spanish First Raters to be built in that size (4900 displaced tons, over 60 meters in length and four+ gun decks).

Midway- With a combination of good luck and smart decision making, Nimitz turned the tide of the Pacific War on the roll of the dice, but a number of things that went wrong before the battle, contributed to the victory. First, Bill Halsey was beached and replaced by Ray Spruance (Halsey got a bad case of psoriasis). Spruance was a Cruiser Admiral whose nature was better suited to counter the strategic decision making of Admiral Nagumo. Frank Jack Fletcher was in command of the TF with Spruance as his second. Halsey was often criticized as an overly aggressive commander, but Spruance was considered steady and thoughtful. Those qualities proved to be the Japanese undoing (they were expecting the overly aggressive Halsey, not Spruance and Fletcher), Spruance refused to "follow-on" engage on two occasions where Halsey would have aggressively pursued such an engagement. This eventually led to the series of odd events that doomed the Japanese TF. This battle broke Japanese Naval Superiority in the Pacific and forced them to draw their forces back. While Japan might not have taken Hawaii (and this has been debated quite a bit) if they had won, it would have forced the US Pacific Fleet to withdraw to San Francisco, leaving Japan able to resupply and shore up their control of the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere they so wanted. It is clear without Spruance and the work of Commander James J. Rochefort (made Captain posthumously and given a Silver Star posthumously), Nimitz could not have taken the risk he did.

Jutland- Yes, Jutland was hugely significant and deserves to be included. Others have made the case here and within the naval history community for it.

These are not the end of the list by any means. But their significance in each was a complete change of Naval Power for the victors and a breaking of Naval superiority for the losers. Germany in Jutland, Spain in Trafalgar, Japan in Midway. Salamis stands alone, and is likely the most significant naval engagement in history.

Germany in Jutland, Spain in Trafalgar, Japan in Midway. Salamis stands alone, and is likely the most significant naval engagement in history.

Germany never had Naval Supermacy :cool:

Neither did Spain as far as I remember. It was just a tool of Napoleon in that war. It was Britain and France with the major fleets

Comparing Mark Antony to Caesar? Ugh, Julius would be rolling in his grave on that one.

Lepanto
Pearl Harbor
Battle of the Atlantic
Actium
Salamis

Actium for sure.

Without it, Mark Anthony would have just done as Caesar had before. Instead Octavian stabilised the collpsing Republic and replaced it with the Empire. Not a massive improvement but vastly more durable and critical to modern society.

What did Caesar do? He didn't get time to do much of anything before he got knifed. I"m not discounting the battle, though it would be interesting to see how things turned out had Antony won, but that's for another thread. So's the debate on whether the Empire improved over the Republic.

I know it's late in the thread to bring this up, but back in the 60s, there was a huge battle over Barbara Eden's costume on I Dream of Jeanie and whether her belly button could be exposed.

What did Caesar do? He didn't get time to do much of anything before he got knifed. I"m not discounting the battle, though it would be interesting to see how things turned out had Antony won, but that's for another thread. So's the debate on whether the Empire improved over the Republic.

My point exactly. Ceasar did a whole lot of nothing in terms of trying to stabilize the oncoming collapse of the Republic. All he did was try to shore up his own power in the short term. Anthony would have followed suit.

Octavian actually set out to fix the system, maybe he was, by some miracle young and idealistic. More likely he had the long-term thinking to see that if he took over as 'Dicatator for life' it'd all go to hell and if he simply restored the Republic as was it'd suffer the same fate, it'd just take a little longer.

Germany never had Naval Supermacy :cool:

Neither did Spain as far as I remember. It was just a tool of Napoleon in that war. It was Britain and France with the major fleets

France's naval power, while significant was beholden to Spain and England at the time. Trafalgar was the fulcrum which vaulted England into it's period of naval supremacy. England was outnumbered, outmanned and outgunned.

If you dispute the Armada's previous to Trafalgar's supremacy and contend that France was the true naval power, bear in mind that France was the major LAND power of the Napoleonic Era, not sea power. Yet, the French and Spanish could only muster 33 ships of the line that day. England managed a paltry 27, but through discipline and superior seamanship won the day at Trafalgar. The OOB at Trafalgar featured NO French 100's all four 100+ First Rates that either sailed for or participated at Trafalgar were Spanish. Rayo (100), Santissima Trinidad (136), Principe de Asturias (112) and Santa Anna (112). The English featured only 3 100+ First Rates; Royal Sovereign (100), Brittania (100) and Victory (100). Despite this advantage France and Spain were decisively defeated. England from that point remained unchallenged on the high seas until Imperial Germany as the sail era ended.

It is suggested by prominent naval historians such as Paul Kennedy, that England remained unchallenged not because of actual naval superiority, but economic superiority. I do not have the credentials to refute such a claim, and certainly economic strength has determined the course of military superiority very decisively in other eras (especially the modern one) as well. So, at least evidence supports Dr. Kennedy's argument.

France, much like the Soviet Union, overextended herself financially and eventually after the wane of Napoleon never really regained any momentum in that area to any significant degree.

I think the battle of the Nile has to fit in there somewhere as well

1. The attack of the Spanish Armada
2. Trafalgar
3. Salamis

Leyte Gulf should have been a Massacre for the Transports and Landing craft and troops invading Manila and would have served up Halseys head on a Platter and what of Nimitz ? Not to mention MzcArthurs standing. Along with the fact the losses would have prolonged the war and have proven the Naval officers who wanted to bypass the Phillipenes because it had no Value and could have been left to whither . They prefered Formosa.
Also because the WW I Battle ships fought the last encounter between Battleships at night in a classic Naval battle that the Japenese...excellent night fighters..lost .

Not to mention if Halsey Had left his Iowa Class Battleships behind like he should have...You would have had action Between Iowa and Yamato class ships .

The waters around the Phillipines would be the site of the largest naval battle of the war, as the Japanese desperately strove to turn back the American invasion of Leyte. Their operational plan was, as usual, very complicated, involving the movement of forces scattered in bases both in Japan and Borneo. Basically, Admiral Jisaburo Ozawa's depleted Mobile Force, it's carriers practically denuded of aircraft, would come down from Japan in an attempt to draw US naval might northward, away from Leyte. Simultaneously, two battleship groups who had been training in Singapore and Borneo would cruise northward separately and attempt to reach the Leyte landing beaches through the northern (San Bernardino Strait) and southern (Surigao Strait) approaches to the island. In this way the Japanese hoped to bring into play the one largely undamaged asset still at their disposal; the formidable guns of the Navy's battleships.


Once Kurita's force made it into the Sibuyan Sea, west of Leyte, the fun really began. American carrier aircraft pounded the group of warships most of the day on the 24th. What little Japanese air cover there was over the squadron was driven off almost instantaneously by the superior American airpower. Most of their attacks were directed at the hapless Musashi, which succumbed to her wounds late in the afternoon after absorbing a staggering amount of punishment (twenty torpedoes, seventeen bombs, and eighteen near misses). Several other vessels received damage as well. Kurita briefly turned his force around to the west to get out of American air range, but then returned to an eastward heading. As luck would have it, the American fast battleship force that might have met him in the San Bernardino Strait that night had been moved northward with Halsey's carrier forces as he sought to attack Ozawa's bait force. By dawn Kurita would be off the beaches of Samar, with no one the wiser as to his whereabouts


The Southern pincer force under Admiral Shoji Nishimura, which was centered on the two least-modernized battleships in the Japanese inventory (Fuso and Yamashiro) had thus far proceeded without nearly the same difficulties being suffered by Kurita. They, too, were subjected to air attacks on the afternoon of the 24th, but had received no crippling blows. That night they began to traverse Surigao Strait towards the Leyte beaches.
Waiting for them was a battlegroup under Admiral Jesse Oldendorf. The heavyweight component of this task force was six old American battleships, five of whom had been at Pearl Harbor. Not only did they outnumber the Japanese battleships six to two, but five of the six American BBs sported either 10cm or 3cm fire control radar systems. Furthermore, the American force had assumed a position across the Strait which capped the enemy 'T'. The result was a crushing advantage in firepower effectiveness. In front of this battle line, on either side of the Strait, were arrayed several lines of destroyers and PT boats

Nishimura's ships first underwent several torpedo attacks, initially from PT boats and then from American destroyers. Already badly beaten up, they were then subjected to radar-directed fire from the American cruisers and battleships, which they were largely unable to return. The fight was over within an hour and a half. Fuso had broken in half and sunk by 0300, with Yamashiro soon following her. Admiral Nishimura did not survive. Further attacks by aircraft in the morning would hunt down some of the damaged cripples from the night action, including Mogami. The southern pincer had been crushed.


Battle of Surigao Strait

Losses x2 sunk (Fuso, Yamashiro)
x1 sunk (Mogami)
x1 damaged (Nachi)
x1 damaged (Abukuma)
x3 sunk (Michishio, Yamagumo, Asagumo)
x1 damaged (Shigure) x1 damaged (friendly fire)
1 PT boat sunk, 3-4 damaged (Allied )





The Coup Fe Gras that never was .

Kurita's reward for his perseverance the day before was presented to him the morning of October 25th. At 0644 Japanese lookouts spotted masts to the southeast. They belonged to a group of six escort carriers, three destroyers, and four destroyer escorts whose main responsibility was providing airpower for the ground forces on Leyte. This force was part of a larger Task Group consisting of sixteen escort carriers, nine destroyers, and fourteen destroyer escorts divided into three Task Units. Nearest to the attacking Japanese force was TG77.43, or 'Taffy 3', the northernmost of the three Task Units that comprised TG 77.4. Not surprisingly, the Americans were in quite a tizzy when the Japanese came over the horizon with four battleships and change, because by all rights their collective gooses were now about to be cooked. None of the American vessels carried anything larger than a 5" gun, whereas the Japanese had everything up to 18.1" weapons. Furthermore, the top speed of the American CVEs was appreciably lower than that of even the Japanese battlewagons. All in all, things did not look promising for Old Glory.

Fortunately, the Americans were aided by two factors. First, they did have airplanes on those jeep carriers, albeit airplanes without much in the way of anti-ship ordnance other than torpedos. By 0615, the Americans had launched several hundred aircraft, who proceeded to do everything short of throwing stones to harass the Japanese attackers. Second, the screening DDs and DEs for Taffy 3 were maniacally brave. In one of the great feats of sheer guts in naval history, seven American DDs and DEs charged the entire Japanese squadron, which outgunned them so utterly it beggars the imagination.

They paid the price, of course. Two DDs and a DE were sunk, but not before they had inflicted appreciable pain on the Japanese, and had convinced Kurita that he was actually up against American fleet CVs with cruiser escorts and all the fixin's. In the meantime, American aircraft had damaged more of his vessels, forced him to turn away form the battle area several times in Yamato to avoid torpedo attacks, and had completely disrupted his command of the tactical situation. As a result, the Japanese managed to sink only a single jeep carrier before they gave up and turned for home. The remainder of the day brought further air attacks on Kurita's retreating warships, which would damage still more of them, and sink some of the cripples. Upon arriving in Japan, only Yamato would be truly fit for action. The one dream of 'Big-Gun' fans in every navy, to turn one's broadside upon the defenseless hulls of an enemy carrier task force, had been briefly within Kurita's reach. But a combination of exhaustion, crummy visibility, relentless air attacks, and an American destroyer screen that fought like wolves over their cubs had obliged him to let the battle slip from his grasp. Japan would never be given another such opportunity.




For those who care :D

http://www.combinedfleet.com/map.htm

One of the Best WWII Naval sites around .

The Titanic versus a large hunk of ice! Proving once again that ocean liners inspired by arrogance are no match for gargantuan hunks of ice manned by angry penguins.

Penguins don't live in the Arctic :rolleyes:

What about the sinking of the Spanish Armada?

If you can have a navel battle with nature and pure luck then maybe.

Germany never had Naval Supermacy :cool:

Neither did Spain as far as I remember. It was just a tool of Napoleon in that war. It was Britain and France with the major fleets

I think he may have mixed up two different historical spanish fleets.

Spanish armada was 1588AD

Trafalgar was 1805AD (french fleet included)

I would vote trafalgar as the Brits were outnumbered but did not suffer an loss of ships while capturing half of the oposing combined fleet.

Thats what those barbarous penguins want you to think!!!! They pretend like they live in the Antartic, while they pilot glacier of doom at cruise lines so they can win money in the stock market!

I think he may have mixed up two different historical spanish fleets.

Spanish armada was 1588AD

Trafalgar was 1805AD (french fleet included)

I would vote trafalgar as the Brits were outnumbered but did not suffer an loss of ships while capturing half of the oposing combined fleet.

You are right, Drake...with only one caveat. Spain maintained at least rival status to England until 1805, when Nelson and his better trained Navy exceeded Spain's Armada (which had been living on reputation). Spain never quite got past the fact that press gangs rarely picked up good quality material for the average sailor. England had a professional fighting Navy, Spain's First Raters were manned by slovenly, inexperienced, lubberly types that had been pressed in Cadiz. Given equal officer and enlisted experience, Spain's four First Rates would have been the nastiest test of Nelson's career. Santissima Trinidad was a nasty piece of work and RADM Don Baltazar Hidalgo de Cisneros was an experienced flag officer.

The Spanish Admiralty never really recovered from the dishonor of Trafalgar.

I'd put trafalgar ahead of midway. It's not like the US would have lost the war had it lost midway. On the other hand victory at trafalgar was key to breaking up the continental system &c.

Would not have lost the war? It would have made winning it even more difficult as we would have to guard Hawaii that much closer. The West Coast would have been left wide open and the Pacific Navy would have been completely destroyed. It is a safe bet that the United States would have to have settled for peace.

Would not have lost the war? It would have made winning it even more difficult as we would have to guard Hawaii that much closer. The West Coast would have been left wide open and the Pacific Navy would have been completely destroyed. It is a safe bet that the United States would have to have settled for peace.

Indeed. The Pacific war would have been lost. Of course, the Japanese lost that opportunity on the first blow at Pearl. They were lured by the siren song of destroying the Battleship fleet when they should have destroyed the tank farms and support mechanisms for the fleet, with no fuel oil, storage capacity, drydock or repair facilities and the logistics (supply) line broken, this would have demanded a temporary (meaning 6 months +) relocation of the PacFleet to San Francisco giving Japan more than adequate time to secure the Pacific. This has been war gamed in retrospect, and that analysis is pretty well secure.

By destroying the Battleships, the Japanese forced a change of force projection paradigm on the United States leaving no place for the Battleship admirals to go but forward. That day in Pearl lead to the Aircraft Carrier Task Forces of today and their mass force projection. No serious naval strategist or tactician even considers battleships anything more than an archaic link to the past.

Indeed. The Pacific war would have been lost. Of course, the Japanese lost that opportunity on the first blow at Pearl. They were lured by the siren song of destroying the Battleship fleet when they should have destroyed the tank farms and support mechanisms for the fleet, with no fuel oil, storage capacity, drydock or repair facilities and the logistics (supply) line broken, this would have demanded a temporary (meaning 6 months +) relocation of the PacFleet to San Francisco giving Japan more than adequate time to secure the Pacific. This has been war gamed in retrospect, and that analysis is pretty well secure.

By destroying the Battleships, the Japanese forced a change of force projection paradigm on the United States leaving no place for the Battleship admirals to go but forward. That day in Pearl lead to the Aircraft Carrier Task Forces of today and their mass force projection. No serious naval strategist or tactician even considers battleships anything more than an archaic link to the past.

Could not agree with you more Schwarzchild. And it is nice to see you again :)

Could not agree with you more Schwarzchild. And it is nice to see you again :)

:) I see you have a new name. Good to see you too.