-
April 02, 2005, 12:50 PM
#1
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
-
April 02, 2005, 01:38 PM
#2
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.
-
April 02, 2005, 01:46 PM
#3
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.
-
April 02, 2005, 02:00 PM
#4
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
-
April 02, 2005, 02:12 PM
#5
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.
-
April 02, 2005, 02:12 PM
#6
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!, the British should have crushed the Hochseeflotte easily.
-
April 02, 2005, 02:17 PM
#7
Nelson, or Ruyter ...
Not much of an expert in naval history though :/
-
April 02, 2005, 02:20 PM
#8
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
-
April 02, 2005, 02:26 PM
#9
dead sailors feed the fishes
its a bastardy of the more common expression of battlefield victory:
humans 0 ravens 10,000
-
April 02, 2005, 02:30 PM
#10
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.
-
April 02, 2005, 02:33 PM
#11
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.
-
April 02, 2005, 02:34 PM
#12
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.
-
April 02, 2005, 02:37 PM
#13
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.
-
April 02, 2005, 02:46 PM
#14
Admiral David Farragut, Pioneer in the naval warfare of the 1860s
-
April 02, 2005, 02:47 PM
#15
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.
-
April 02, 2005, 08:36 PM
#16
Civis
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.
-
April 03, 2005, 10:37 AM
#17
a few others do spring to mind, Oliver Hazard Perry, Chester Nimitz perhaps...
-
April 03, 2005, 10:41 AM
#18
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?
-
April 03, 2005, 10:45 AM
#19
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 .
-
April 03, 2005, 10:54 AM
#20
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
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules