Who do you think was the best admiral

[Xiaodun]

Quite straight forward really.

Personally my vote goes for Kuki Yoshitaka. He used to be a pirate that ravaged the Setonaikai before pledging allegiance to Nobunaga and Hideyoshi. At the battle of Kitukawa in 1574 he led 6 of the new iron clads (invented just months before the battle by Nobunga) to victory against 600 ships of the great Mori navy. Unfortunatly in the invasion against Korea, he lost against admiral Lee because Hideyoshi (the idiot) didnt give him any iron clads.

By the way in this battle there were 12 Korean ironclads against 300 Japanese ships. Statisticly he won against odds 4 times as bad as Yi

[FliegerAD]

Admiral Scheer. He led the Hochseeflotte against the British fleet in the battle of Jutland and although heavily outnumbered, the Hochseeflotte inflicted much more damage than it suffered in return. Reason for this was the great and unusual tactics employed by Scheer.

It did not help anyway, Britains fleet was still way superior to Germany's after this battle. One the other hand, Britain had failed to defeat the way inferior German fleet, as expected.

Germany .......................................Britain
22 Battleships.................................28 Battleships
5 Battlecruisers...............................17 Battlecruisers
11 Cruisers.....................................26 Cruisers
62 Destroyers and Torpedoboats......79 Destroyers and Torpedoboats

(from: Gino Galuppini: Enziclopedia delle Navi de Guerra, Milano 1983)


Don't know, whether he is the best, but to withstand the mighty British fleet in open battle is quite an achievement.

[the Black Prince]

Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson... Trafalgar and others... need i say more?



while i admit that jutland was not a RN victory, there are many who would say its not a german victory too, afterall, neither managed to achieve its objectives.

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by the Black Prince@Apr 2 2005, 02:46 PM
while i admit that jutland was not a RN victory, there are many who would say its not a german victory too, afterall, neither managed to achieve its objectives.

It is ironic how even at sea, WWI battles didnt accomplish anything either. Although the Germans did do more damage, considering the actual size of the fleets, the Germans lost a larger percentage. Not to mention that Germany was still blockaded

[the Black Prince]

my point, the gwermans failed to break the blockade, and we failed to sink the high seas fleet, it was a high casualty draw really... with the only real victors being the fishes.

[FliegerAD]

Originally posted by deathdoom56@Apr 2 2005, 03:00 PM
It is ironic how even at sea, WWI battles didnt accomplish anything either. Although the Germans did do more damage, considering the actual size of the fleets, the Germans lost a larger percentage. Not to mention that Germany was still blockaded

True.
Scheer's merit is to have faced the British and to have fought good.

Regarding the odds (Germany inferior in numbers and experience - this was Germany's first naval war at all&#33, the British should have crushed the Hochseeflotte easily.

[Sidus Preclarum]

Nelson, or Ruyter ...
Not much of an expert in naval history though :/

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by the Black Prince@Apr 2 2005, 03:12 PM
my point, the gwermans failed to break the blockade, and we failed to sink the high seas fleet, it was a high casualty draw really... with the only real victors being the fishes.

Sorry this is spam, but how are the fishes the winners. I think that if the shells from the battleships dont kill them, the sinking battlecruisers did

[the Black Prince]

dead sailors feed the fishes


its a bastardy of the more common expression of battlefield victory:
humans 0 ravens 10,000

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by the Black Prince@Apr 2 2005, 03:26 PM
dead sailors feed the fishes


its a bastardy of the more common expression of battlefield victory:
humans 0 ravens 10,000

Well you done much for confirming my opinion that humans are only good for the earth dead.

There seems to be a lot of Nelsons, but although he was an exceptional naval leader, isnt his recklessness a bit of a liablilty? I mean he did get himself killed.

[the Black Prince]

thats a risk you take in battle. nelson was not of the type of leader who led from behind, his gflagship, and thereby himself led from the front.

[Erik]

I don't know many admirals but I know Nelson re-defined naval warfare with his tactics.

edit: leading his fleet with his flagship was an essential part of his tactic, he wasn't reckless.

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by the Black Prince@Apr 2 2005, 03:33 PM
thats a risk you take in battle. nelson was not of the type of leader who led from behind, his gflagship, and thereby himself led from the front.

But think about it, the French have been specificly trained in close anti personal combat and is scraping the deck of your flagship with grenades and muskets while snipers shoot off anyone on deck. Would you go on the deck and walk around?

A death of a general, expecially one that is seen by the soldiers is a seriously demoralizing thing.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Admiral David Farragut, Pioneer in the naval warfare of the 1860s

[Erik]

Originally posted by deathdoom56@Apr 2 2005, 03:37 PM
A death of a general, expecially one that is seen by the soldiers is a seriously demoralizing thing.

A general who is too affraid to face battle is also a demoralizing thing to soldiers.

Nelsons tactic was to break the enemy line, so he could pick then off a few enemy ships with his entire fleet.
I think he was realy needed to issue commands during the battle, so hiding wasn't an option.

[Flanagan]

Though not as famous as Nelson I would go with Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone,

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3526.html

He is not known for any battles he fough (if any) but he lead the way of the big gun modren battleships before WW1.

[the Black Prince]

a few others do spring to mind, Oliver Hazard Perry, Chester Nimitz perhaps...

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by the Black Prince@Apr 3 2005, 10:37 AM
a few others do spring to mind, Oliver Hazard Perry, Chester Nimitz perhaps...

Im not well versed in American naval history, I know Nimitz's name but what did he do?

[Sidus Preclarum]

Originally posted by deathdoom56@Apr 3 2005, 09:41 AM
Im not well versed in American naval history, I know Nimitz's name but what did he do?

he commanded the US fleet @ the coral sea, midway, the salomon, and leyte .
Afaik, though less well-known than AMc Arthur, he was the better commander .

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Sidus Preclarum@Apr 3 2005, 10:45 AM
he commanded the US fleet @ the coral sea, midway, the salomon, and leyte .
Afaik, though less well-known than AMc Arthur, he was the better commander .

Oh yes, so hes the guy I should blame for my country losing the war.

Just kidding. He must have been a great commander to pull off most of the naval victories in the Pacific