| FORUM | LIBRARY | ARCHIVE | E-BOOKS |                     | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Which navy has fought the most battles?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Which navy has fought the most battles?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
pix042 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pix042 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Which navy has fought the most battles?
    Posted: 13 Apr 2011 at 12:26
A previous post from quite some time ago (http://www.allempires.net/most-powerful-navy-ever_topic13322.html) asked what was the most powerful navy in history. The consensus was that it was the United States Navy of 20th to 21st century with the British navy of 19th to 20th century a close second.
 
I think it is more pertinent to ask which navy has fought the most battles. The current US Navy is quite probably the most powerful ever on paper but does not actually do much naval fighting (of course, set piece naval battles may be a thing of the past, anyway) whereas the old British senior service was fighting hard over and over. Think of the Battle of the Nile, Trafalgar, Jutland and Leyte Gulf.
 
Isn't it more to the point to vote on which navy has fought the most battles?
pix042
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Apr 2011 at 16:49
The object of an impressive navy is not to have to fight at all!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Apr 2011 at 20:46
Difficult to argue with that Dr G.
 
However, the question is still interesting, though tricky. In pretty well all the battles the RN fought in the 18th 19th century the French were on the other side (or they were allies: e.g. Navariino and the Crimea).
 
So they must come out not too far apart.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 04:15
 
The American navy does not fight because the entire country's foreign policy is based upon not letting another nation became a maritime power. As a result, there have not been any major naval engagements since the World War. In that war, the Americans fought extensively on water. As did the Japanese, and British.  These states are maritime by historical and geographical means, but the United States had kept both of these nations from expanding their navies. Not by implementing strict rules against them (a common miscoception is that the Japanese do want to have an offensive navy but cannot due to Article 9), but by helping both these nations in their broader maritime goals, at a cost to their independency. Though this is more prevalent in the Japanese-American relationship. This will of course change, as Japan needs to achieve economic and commerical goals abroad that the Americans disallow, and the English wish to obtain its previous naval supremacy in the European theatre.  
 
 
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 04:58
Naval policy as conspiracy? Please Darius do not insult our intelligence. Naval capital ships are beyond the fiscal resources of most nation states and the nature of current technology still does not answer an old need dating back to the 16th century: an extended network of naval supply stations.  
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Status: Offline
Points: 7772
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 05:56
I would suggest that the navy which has fought the most battles is not likely to be that of one of the larger countries, but rather is probably a navy which frequently either engaged in piracy or had to fight it. Big fleets may seem impressive, but in terms of actual numbers of battles I doubt they would compare quite so large as with small vessels.

With that in mind, I am putting forward Venice as a candidate (if we can look through the whole course of history rather than just the last 200 years). Venice's constant trade wars with other maritime cities, imperial adventures in the Near East and the need to peek those pesky Illyrian pirates at bay just across the Adriatic meant that they surely must have fought more sea battles than the USA or Great Britain. Plus, their navy existed continuously for over 1,000 years.
Nullius in verba
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 15:13
Venice is a good candidate, as you say. I was just pointing out that fighting the most battles is not the same as winning the most battles. The Genoese fought in a lot of battles too, though mostly I think as mercenaries.
 
I also had in mind fleet engagements as battles, not one on one encounters or the like.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 15:40
Bravo CIX since the object of "big fleets" is to render them relatively invulnerable to attack except by an equally impressive counter-force. As Gcle well knows from our bitter bashings over the Armada of 1588, in terms of naval warfare it was invulnerable to disruption save for the weather. The large Atlantic Flotas proved rather effective in frustrating attack over the long run and if we are to seek an environment for almost constant naval engagement then we must look toward the Mediterranean. Fleet engagements are the exception and not the rule.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 04:44
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Naval policy as conspiracy? Please Darius do not insult our intelligence. Naval capital ships are beyond the fiscal resources of most nation states and the nature of current technology still does not answer an old need dating back to the 16th century: an extended network of naval supply stations.  
 
 
The evidence is there. The navy is the main force of the United States military. It controls all the world's oceans and all of the maritime trade routes. Any non-American naval operation must be permitted by the United States, if not, the United States will respond. The Americans see any maritime power as a direct attack on their nation security. The Americans have solved the supply station problem, there are American naval refueling bases across the globe.
 
Conspiracy? By this logic any attempt to analyze a nation's true intent in a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, by this logic everything is a conspiracy if not directly stated by a nation's government. How can one hope to analyze the world or historical events if we are not allowed to analyze?
 
 
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 06:27
It seems that the topic here is "which Navy has fought the most battles?

So, I would suggest that it was the British Navy who fought the "most battles!"

Thus the slogan "Rule britannia", an unofficial anthem of Britain, "Britannia rules the waves"

I have removed some offending words that had no place here. I apologize to anyone who might have been offended.

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 15 Apr 2011 at 22:41
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 11:08
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

It seems that the topic here is "which Navy has fought the most battles?
Well, yes, we can all read.
Quote
So, I would suggest that it was the British Navy who fought the "most battles!"

Thus the slogan "Rule britannia", an unofficial anthem of Britain, "Britannia rules the waves"

Have you bothered to read the earlier posts at all?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12482
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 13:03
If I was to have a wild guess I would say navy of the Romans.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 14:48
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

The evidence is there. The navy is the main force of the United States military. It controls all the world's oceans and all of the maritime trade routes. Any non-American naval operation must be permitted by the United States, if not, the United States will respond. The Americans see any maritime power as a direct attack on their nation security. The Americans have solved the supply station problem, there are American naval refueling bases across the globe.
 
Conspiracy? By this logic any attempt to analyze a nation's true intent in a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, by this logic everything is a conspiracy if not directly stated by a nation's government. How can one hope to analyze the world or historical events if we are not allowed to analyze?
 
But the above is evasion and avoids the fundamental bottom line with respect to contemporary economic realities, not to mention the fact that International Maritime Law and not the United States governs the deployment of naval operations. Fleets are, naturally, the product of a willingness to undertake consistent and systematic capital investments, and as with any other economic reality that constraint and not some mystical claim on malevolent US influence. The Russian federation is certainly not seeking US consent for the deployment of their naval forces--
 
 
The simple fact here is that $$$$$$ and not some eminence gris rules the waves.
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 15:01
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

If I was to have a wild guess I would say navy of the Romans.
 
That one is truly "wild" since you'd be hard put to find a shipbuilding industry in the proximity of Rome and if you get right down to it the Battle of Actium is essentially the last "naval" conflict in the Mediterranean for quite some time and even there it was, fundamentally, an internal Roman affair. In fact under the Empire, ship building was essentially delegated to the Greeks and Egyptians, and naval operations essentially reduced to the roles of patrol and transport. Essentially, ships were never considered an autonomous military force and under the Empire they served solely as an adjunct of the legions.


Edited by drgonzaga - 15 Apr 2011 at 15:02
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12482
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 00:46
I was considering naval engagement in any form and within scope of Rome from the republic until the fall of Byzantium. I did after all say the navy of the Romans; not the Roman Navy.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 12:32
One would have to ask, within the period of Roman ascendancy, who did they have to fight in the
Mediterranean? Apart from each other at Actium for instance.
 
Pompey's campaign against the pirates comes to mind, but I'm not sure it counts as a 'battle'.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 16:08
The Ottoman navy  (and its vassals) could also be a contender , with its fair share of  major naval engagements/campaigns including Lepanto 1, Prevetza, Djerba, Lepanto 2, actions off the Barbary coast,  naval actions against the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean, Chesme,  Navarino, Sinope........
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
King
King

Most Glorious Leader of Muzhnopia

Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 13:36
This is a very good questions once you start thinking about it. The issue is how do you collect that information, or where you find that information.

There are only a limited number of modern naval powers, and people kept records of those battles.

Would it be wrong to assume that there were more naval battles since the start of the modern world than before, making this assumption based on population size and technology?


My gut guess is that United Kingdom has the most naval battles. Not really using numbers here, but coming to this thought throw deduction. First, UK is a natural maritime country, and it has fought many wars with Spain and especially with France. They also participated in the both world wars. It just seems that just because of the number of naval wars that it has participated, it should be the one who has fought the most battles.

The only event that could throw this hypothesis, in modern times, is the U.S. in the Pacific during WWII. It could be that they fought more frequent battles. I am not familiar with naval history at all, but it seems that if there was going to be a surprised, that would be a good candidate to upset the natural inclination of thinking that UK wins this one. I would still bet on the UK though.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12482
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 14:42
Yes, also, what do you define as a battle? Do skirmishes count?

What about the Greek city states?
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 22:37
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

It seems that the topic here is "which Navy has fought the most battles?

Well, yes, we can all read.

Quote So, I would suggest that it was the British Navy who fought the "most battles!" Thus the slogan "Rule britannia", an unofficial anthem of Britain, "Britannia rules the waves"

Have you bothered to read the earlier posts at all?


I actually think that I have already replied to the above post, but it seems to have for some magical reason to have disappeared from view, thus I will state again, Yes I did read all earlier posts!

Did you?
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 23:05
Originally posted by Tashfin Tashfin wrote:

The Ottoman navy  (and its vassals) could also be a contender , with its fair share of  major naval engagements/campaigns including Lepanto 1, Prevetza, Djerba, Lepanto 2, actions off the Barbary coast,  naval actions against the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean, Chesme,  Navarino, Sinope........
 
I was going to suggest the Ottoman navy too.
 
They fought everyone and every state starting with the Byzantines and ending with the Royal navy. 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 23:13
Well, if one wants a really long term view of the subject, then why could any of us leave out the Barbary Pirates? It seems that these people were successful against the greatest navies of the times, and for over 200 years, the rulers of the Med. Often sought out, but never defeated.
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 03:24
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
But the above is evasion and avoids the fundamental bottom line with respect to contemporary economic realities, not to mention the fact that International Maritime Law and not the United States governs the deployment of naval operations. Fleets are, naturally, the product of a willingness to undertake consistent and systematic capital investments, and as with any other economic reality that constraint and not some mystical claim on malevolent US influence. The Russian federation is certainly not seeking US consent for the deployment of their naval forces--
 
 
The simple fact here is that $$$$$$ and not some eminence gris rules the waves.
 
 
 
The Russian Baltic Fleet is effectively blockaded, as it cannot exit the Baltic Sea, by way of the
Kattegat. The Danish-American relations are warm, and any fleet passing through the strait must pass their inspection and say so.
 
The Russian Pacific Fleet is largely for defensive purposes. The entire strategy of the fleet changed once Russia became sorrouned by pro-American states. This change began during the 1970s, and was set into its doctrine during the 80s. The fleet is there to defend its long coastline along the Sea of Okhotskoye against any American threats. However the fleet cannot combat the fact that it is also blockaded by means of Japan and the American fleet stationed there.
 
In every ocean, sea, strait, and inlet, the Americans want supreme control. For both national security purposes and to control maritime trade routes.
 
The Americans do have naval supremacy and they do control maritime trade routes. Ever since the American president Franklin Roosevelt gave America its naval capability and navy, the Americans have used maritime trade routes in order to create revenue. And that was during the height of the  Great Depression, when capital was not flowing into the American treasury at any high rate.
 
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 04:19
Darius, the claim that Russian Baltic and Black Sea fleets are "effectively bottled up" is little more than "stuff and nonsense" given that the Russian Federation as a successor state to the Russian Empire and the U.S.S.R., is a signatory to both the Copenhagen Convention and the Montreaux Convention granting or defining the rights of passage to its warships, further the Russian Federation has had no problem in seeking the enforcement of the stipulations added to the Montreaux Convention at its convenience.
 
By the way, of the US Pacific Fleets (the 3rd and the 7th), only the 7th is in "forward deployment" at the following locations Yokosuka and Sasebo in Japan and Apra in Guam while fleet logistics and supply is based at Singapore (WESTPAC), which sort of calls into question the notion it is all directed against the Russians and their Navy.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 11:39
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

The Americans do have naval supremacy and they do control maritime trade routes. Ever since the American president Franklin Roosevelt gave America its naval capability and navy, the Americans have used maritime trade routes in order to create revenue. And that was during the height of the  Great Depression, when capital was not flowing into the American treasury at any high rate.
 
Are you mixing up your Roosevelts? If either of them it was Teddy not Franklin who first built up the US navy, which was iirc the third biggest navy in the world at the time FDR was elected, based on the Washington agreements of the early '20s. No battleships and only two aircraft carriers were built during the Great Depression.
 
The great expansion of the US Navy especially after the Two Oceans Bill of 1941 was under FDR but of course the Great Depression was over by then, with the onset of WW2 in Europe. .
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5071
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 15:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

The Americans do have naval supremacy and they do control maritime trade routes. Ever since the American president Franklin Roosevelt gave America its naval capability and navy, the Americans have used maritime trade routes in order to create revenue. And that was during the height of the  Great Depression, when capital was not flowing into the American treasury at any high rate.
 
Are you mixing up your Roosevelts? If either of them it was Teddy not Franklin who first built up the US navy, which was iirc the third biggest navy in the world at the time FDR was elected, based on the Washington agreements of the early '20s. No battleships and only two aircraft carriers were built during the Great Depression.
 
The great expansion of the US Navy especially after the Two Oceans Bill of 1941 was under FDR but of course the Great Depression was over by then, with the onset of WW2 in Europe. .


Darius seems to be referring to the "two-ocean navy" that did not pre-date FDR.  I would rate the USN as second overall to the RN in 1939/40.  Capital ships were similar in number -15 - but included three battlecruisers for the RN; none for the USN.  (Three of the US battleships were quite old and not modernized.)  The RN had far more cruisers, a type in which the USN had always been severely deficient.  Destroyers and submarines - not sure of the differences.

The expanse of the Pacific did not favor the US there, and the IJN was superior without doubt west of Hawaii.  Virtually the entire US battle fleet had been on the west coast since 1919, and there were major weaknesses in terms of numbers, in dock yard facilities and in their proximity, and in technical advancement.  Aviation had been lagging behind and our torpedoes were terrible.

I feel the need to be a wise guy in re CVs  Smile  CV 1 (Langley) was a conversion from a collier in 1922, and was experimental.  The two large carriers were conversions from battlecruisers of a class that never proceeded  (Lexington, CV 2, and Saratoga CV 3) and both entered service in 1925.  Ranger, CV 4, was commissioned in 1934, and was a questionable design from the beginning.  She wound up being mostly an aircraft transport.

Depending on your time frame, the Yorktown (CV 5) class (incl. Enterprise, CV 6,  and Hornet, CV 8) were laid down during the Depression - 1937/38.  (The ill-starred Wasp, CV 7, was wedged in there and was a bad copy of Ranger.)

By 1940, the US had six modern battleships under construction and four more designed.  Those last four were reworked to act as escorts for the fast carrier task forces.

Little else needs to be said about the construction as the war progressed.




Edited by pikeshot1600 - 18 Apr 2011 at 19:13
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 19:25
As pikeshot suggested above, but did not elaborate upon, is the "allegation" (since I have no real proof to exhibit) that the modern battle-ships and carriers, had a secondary means of defense. That is they had "speed"!

While most people think that the smaller destroyers, or light cruisers were fast, they were (I my opinion) mostly slower than the carriers and battleships in the fleet.

Thus if things got bad, then it was expected that their superior speed, and the covering by those smaller and less speedy convoy ships of war, would allow them to get out of harms way via a speedy retreat, etc.

But, perhaps my information is lacking, and incorrect?

Regards,
Ronald
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 19:26
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

The Americans do have naval supremacy and they do control maritime trade routes. Ever since the American president Franklin Roosevelt gave America its naval capability and navy, the Americans have used maritime trade routes in order to create revenue. And that was during the height of the  Great Depression, when capital was not flowing into the American treasury at any high rate.
 
Are you mixing up your Roosevelts? If either of them it was Teddy not Franklin who first built up the US navy, which was iirc the third biggest navy in the world at the time FDR was elected, based on the Washington agreements of the early '20s. No battleships and only two aircraft carriers were built during the Great Depression.
 
The great expansion of the US Navy especially after the Two Oceans Bill of 1941 was under FDR but of course the Great Depression was over by then, with the onset of WW2 in Europe. .


Darius seems to be referring to the "two-ocean navy" that did not pre-date FDR. 
I said it was under FDR. What I was objecting to was Darius saying it was during the Great Depression. That was over before 1941.
Quote
I would rate the USN as second overall to the RN in 1939/40.  Capital ships were similar in number -15 - but included three battlecruisers for the RN; none for the USN.  (Three of the US battleships were quite old and not modernized.)  The RN had far more cruisers, a type in which the USN had always been severely deficient.  Destroyers and submarines - not sure of the differences.
My doubt arises from my uncertainty of the Japanese situation (and unwillingness for the moment to look it up. It was either RN-USN-IJN or RN-IJN-USN.
Quote
The expanse of the Pacific did not favor the US there, and the IJN was superior without doubt west of Hawaii.  Virtually the entire US battle fleet had been on the west coast since 1919, and there were major weaknesses in terms of numbers, in dock yard facilities and in their proximity, and in technical advancement.  Aviation had been lagging behind and our torpedoes were terrible.

I feel the need to be a wise guy in re CVs  Smile  CV 1 (Langley) was a conversion from a collier in 1922, and was experimental.  The two large carriers were conversions from battlecruisers of a class that never proceeded  (Lexington, CV 2, and Saratoga CV 3) and both entered service in 1925.  Ranger, CV 4, was commissioned in 1934, and was a questionable design from the beginning.  She wound up being mostly an aircraft transport.

Depending on your time frame, the Yorktown (CV 5) class (incl. Enterprise, CV 6,  and Hornet, CV 8) were laid down during the Depression - 1937/38.  (The ill-starred Wasp, CV 7, was wedged in there and was a bad copy of Ranger.)

By 1940, the US had six modern battleships under construction and four more designed.  Those last four were reworked to act as escorts for the fast carrier task forces.

Little else needs to be said about the construction as the war progressed.
 
I don't disagree with that, though I gather I missed a carrier. My main point, supporting drgonzaga on the question of capital, was that the expansion did not take place during the Great Depression - say 1929-39.  And of course that the other Roosevelt could easily be classed as the president who gave the US its navy.


Edited by gcle2003 - 18 Apr 2011 at 19:27
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5071
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 15:15
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

As pikeshot suggested above, but did not elaborate upon, is the "allegation" (since I have no real proof to exhibit) that the modern battle-ships and carriers, had a secondary means of defense. That is they had "speed"!

While most people think that the smaller destroyers, or light cruisers were fast, they were (I my opinion) mostly slower than the carriers and battleships in the fleet.

Thus if things got bad, then it was expected that their superior speed, and the covering by those smaller and less speedy convoy ships of war, would allow them to get out of harms way via a speedy retreat, etc.

But, perhaps my information is lacking, and incorrect?

Regards,
Ronald


The fast carriers were essentially, and especially, the Essex class, of which I think 24 saw service 1942-45.  In general all those ships had machinery that could reach speeds of 32-33 knots at full speed.  However, the Yorktown class could make 30-33 knots at top speed, and the Lexingtons had very powerful turbo-electric drive that could originally make 34 knots.  Now, the two Lexingtons were old ships, and Yorktown and Hornet were lost early in the war.

Only the four Iowa class battleships could make speed like that.  The carriers and battleships could not outrun either cruisers or destroyers, but their gun power and the carrier air groups could counter the smaller, faster ships.  Many of the better, modern destroyers could make 38-40 knots at speed. Also, the BBs and CVs were supported by their own escorts that acted in task groups or task forces that included the faster ship types.

As far as "slow" destroyers, you may be thinking of escort vessels that were designed to keep speed with merchant/auxilliary or troop transport ships.  Their primary role was anti-submarine and anti-aircraft protection rather than screening a battle fleet or task force.

In USN doctrine a carrier's main defense was its air group which was one reason all those larger ships (back into the 1920s) had been designed to carry around 90 aircraft (80-85 combat).  The air group had to be large enough to provide the strike force and defense as well.  (All this had changed since the early 1920s and the development of dive bombing and air delivered torpedoes.)

Interesting stuff!

 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 19 Apr 2011 at 15:19
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 16:20
The theoretical maximum speed in knots of any surface displacement craft is given by the formula 1.34 * sqrt(l) where l is the waterline length in feet. To go any faster than that the bow has to be lifted above the water, which takes vast amounts of power.
 
Actual speed (unless crippled for some reason) has rarely been a critical factor in surface warship operation in the 20th century. For submarines, after diving, it's entirely different.
 
Of course, if a ship doesn't have enough power to reach her theoretical maximum, the maximum is irrelevant.  Otherwise the longer the ship the faster she goes.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.