Most historically significant naval battles???

& paid for it by losing the war.

It was the Germans who PO'd the Bear!

Yeah, the bear would have been those Soviet guys...

amphib

 Yamamoto had it right when he stated that the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would awaken a sleeping bear.

I think that he was quoted as saying something like "I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and to fill him with a terrible resolve".

I would suggest that the most significant battle of WWII was Pearl Harbor. Why? Before Pearl Harbor this country still had a significant isolationist mind set. Pearl Harbor ended any debate regarding whether to deal with the Japanese. It also solved a dilemma for Roosevelt because Hitler immediately jumped in and declared war on the US in support of his Japanese allies. Once the questions of isolationism and how to declare war on Germany were solved all else became a war of attrition. Whether some battles hastened the end of the war or not it was inevitable that we would prevail. Yamamoto had it right when he stated that the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would awaken a sleeping bear.

Well, after that battle Tiberius discovered the headwaters of the Danube, so it's geographically significant, anyway!

Historically significant, no. I just think it's amusing to think of a naval battle fought in the Alps.

Karl

I think the Battle of Lake Constance in 15 BCE deserves an honorable mention. There haven't been many naval battles in Switzerland, in fact I think it's the only one.

But what is its historical significance? Did it have a major affect on world history as a whole?

   Most of this thread seems to be devoted to modern, or almost modern era decisive naval battles that altered the course of history.  Little concern is given to ancient conflicts that had a profound change in the direction of history.

          My choice for a naval battle that had a most decisive mark on history, would be the battle of Actium, fought on September 2, 31 BC,on the Ionian Sea near the Roman city of Actium, Greece. The battle of Actium was the decisive confrontation of the final war of the Roman Republic. It was fought between Octavian, heir to the will of Julius Caesar and the combined forces of Mark Anthony and his paramore, Cleopatra VII, Queen of Ptolemaic Egypt.

        Octavian's victory enabled him to consolidate his power over Rome and its dominions. This victory ended the long 500 year Roman Republic and ushered in the Empire, which lasted until the last emperor in 476 AD. This victory gave Rome a monopoly over "Mare Nostrum" , the entire Mediterranean Sea, which Rome considerer her private lake. Egypt's surrender to Octavian, following the suicide of Cleopatra VII, marked the final demise of the Hellenistic age and the Ptolemaic Kingdom founded about 300 years earlier by a general in the army of Alexander the Great.

        Montani semper liberi !    Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

                                               Crackers                  

 

 

I think the Battle of Lake Constance in 15 BCE deserves an honorable mention. There haven't been many naval battles in Switzerland, in fact I think it's the only one.

Tsushima had a lot of influences on the Russian Empire. It also saw the ascendency of the Japanese Empire into the modern era. For one thing the internal rot of the Russian Empire was fully exposed and elelments that led to the Russian Revolution was spawned here. Even with the family links to the British and German Empires, this didn't thwart the Japanese as their army was Prussian trained and equipped by Krupp while the Japanese navy was equipped with British made vessels and the officers trained in England. I assume that the whole business/name card etiquette that the Japanese use may have derived from the British officer class. From its epic voyage from the Baltic to the Sea of Japan, this fleet had its share of problems, mutiny before it even left, they shelled a British fishing fleet thinking it was a Japanese squadron of torpedo boats. (Japan had the boats on order and a rumor was out that they sent crews out to man them - the rumor was false). This latter caused the British public to give their voice against the Russian and helped making Russian re-coaling in South Africa a non event. The fleet was exhausted in both men and equipment as many ships had to be repaired enroute.

The short Russo-Japanese War climaxed with the exhaustion of both sides. Japan over extended in its victories.  Russia facing a deteriorating society and the loss of world prestige and a demoralized army and navy. Further planned expansion into Chinese territory was now abandoned as revolution was in the air at home. the Trans-Siberian railroad helped bring equipment  to bear, but if the sabers were dull they weren't any good. This was the first facing of the Russian military against a modern force since Crimea and again it faired second best again. Bad leadership, poor tactics, poor logistics, this war acted like a bullhorn for the coming revolution.

Mike T.

Even though Midway completely Devestated the Japanese, I believe The Coral Sea Battle was more Significant. The combined US and Australian Forces stopped them from reaching their goal and it was also the First time the Japanese lost a Major Battle. It marked a turning point as from then on The Imperial Forces were gradually forces into retreat. If Japan had taken Port Moresby, The end result would have been very much different. They would have cut the Us-Nz-Aus Trade Routes and created all sorts of Mayhem. From that time, The Japanese were in retreat as that was the furtherest the reached South.

Overall maybe Salamis. The sources are thin, but if Athens did indeed prevent a Persian conquest of the Greek polis the world would have been .... very different. Can't possibly say how or why or good or bad. History needs a kind of statute of limitations if you go beyond "different." But it would have been different. No Athens, perhaps no Alexander. No Parthenon, no Socrates, no Alexander. The New Testament would not have been written in Greek. Different.

In the modern world Midway deserves its fame. Japan lost the war the day before Nagumo launched against Pearl Harbor because that's when Zhukov launched the counter-attack that doomed Germany in the East. And without a German victory in Europe, Japan was cooked and knew it. Duration of wars, however, is sometimes nearly as important as outcome. The immediate outcome of Midway was to embolden American commanders like King and MacArthur to press their case for a more vigorous war in the Pacific. (The Solomon campaign was a direct result - no way was the USN going to launch even a minor offensive if the IJN was alpha dog.) Cries of support in the Pacific were very bad news to Marshall and the other "Europe First" advocates - and when the decision to hit N. Africa instead of prepare for a 43 invasion of France was made, a whole lot of US troops were sitting with nothing to do on the US mainland. Several divisions ended up in the Solomons and New Guinea. So the land and air forces were there to support the fleet building program that came on line in late 43. The result was simple: the US fought a two front war full-bore simultaneously. This trampled all expectations existing in early 42 when all eyes were on Europe and hopes in the Pacific were defensive. In June 1944 US forces hit the beaches at Normandy - and Saipan. Had this two front war not been fought, US victory would have happened regardless. But it might have taken place in 1946. At minimum that would have meant that Japan would have suffered the same fate as Germany and Korea - division between the US and the USSR. (As it was, a Russian attack on Hokaido in late 45 would have worked almost certainly. Very close. Very different.)

I have a book named "70 great battles of history", written by some of the greatest military historians like John Guilmartin Jr., Jan Glete etc. The naval battles listed here:

Salamis, 480 B.C.E

Actium, 31 B.C.E

Hakata Bay, 1281 (Japanese repulse Mongolian/Chinese landing)

Lepanto, 1571

Armada, 1588

Trafalgar, 1805

Tsushima, 1905

Jutland, 1914

Midway, 1942

Battle of Atlantic, 1943

 

squeakie wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote:  squeakie wrote:  Mansteins revenge wrote:  searat12 wrote: Yup, the Battle of the Chesapeake is an excellent choice!  Were it not for the French Navy, Cornwallis would have escaped back to New York, and the war might have dragged on for another year or more....... Well then, based on that, it might not be as significant as I thought (or as the poster suggested)--the war dragging on one more year is probably not that significat in terms of the entire length of the Revolutionary War...a loss at Midway probably would have delayed VJ day more than a year... I gave some serious thought to The Battle Of The Chesapeak in my original post on this subject, but also thought about the naval battles on Lake Champlain and the other Great lakes. I mudt confess that I don't know enough about the Revolutionary War to voice much of an opinion. I should know much more as my ancestors were heavilly involved right from the getgo in Virginia.     Back on the Battle Of Midway a minute. What most of us seem to have forgotten is that the single biggest element in the victory at Midway was not the sinking of the carriers, but the unreplaceable loss of all those seasoned pilots. We saw the samething with Germany in Europe. They each had plenty of planes, but nobody to fly them. Then to compound the situation the Japanese with the loss of their front line carriers also didn't really have all the means to replace them like we did. We were laying down keels about as fast as they could pour the iron!     Now I need to make a slight revision to an earlier post about what would happen should the Japanese have won the Battle Of Midway. If you all will remember I said that their umbrella was probably less than 800 miles at best, but I was wrong. The Japanese Betty had a range of well over 2,200 miles carrying a 3,000lb. bomb load. So technicaly they could have done that part as the range of our carrier based aircraft would have put our ships in that umbrella to make a strike on Midway. Maybe the long range Mustangs that came into service later escorting B-17's out of Hawaii might have been able to make an effective strike on Midway. Still the island of Midway was not all that important to the Japanese in a stratigic sense. Nothing like a good airbase in the Marianas, Sumatra or Guadalcanal. It was their standing chance to knock out the Pacific Fleet, and they failed. In this case the "checkmate" goes with the U.S. Pacific Fleet. And as I once said proving out that the deep south Pacific campaign as well as the south west Pacific campaigns were the biggies.     What would have happened if those four troop ships and their equipment had made it ashore instead of being lost in the south Java Sea? Foresure Stillwell's campaign would have been many times harder. They may have been able to move into east India. The flights over the hump may not have taken place, and we couldn't have resupplied from Murmansk (remember Russia and Japan were not at war with each other). What if Japan had attacked Russia as Hitler begged them todo instead of attacking Pearl Harbor? (remember that the only reason the Russian stopped the Germans was with the Siberian divisions that were brought in from the far east.     Another thought is that with the advent of the Japanese attacking Russia instead of the United States is that there wouldn't have been a Kursk or Karkov group build! But maube a Kazan group build instead. Maybe a second or even a third Battle Of Britian group build? gary "(remember that the only reason the Russian stopped the Germans was with the Siberian divisions that were brought in from the far east." Not entirely accurate...the Germans were already stopped, but it is true that the Russians used these divisions in a counterattck that pushed the Germans back a bit...even had the Siberian divisions not been available, the outcome, IMO, would have differed little... The advent of the Siberian Divisions into the Battle For Moscow is considered by most historians as the straw that broke the camel's back. Look at the time of year involved and the basic logistics that the Germans were facing on the outskirts of Moscow. Had Japan made anykind of move into Siberia; Moscow would have been unholdable for the Russians. This plus the lack of resupply convoys into Murmansk would have spelled doom for Stalin. He'd have sued for peace as the Germans approached Kazan and the iron ore mines. If not the country would have collapsed with his own people taking up sides (independantly) against the Soviets in the heartland of East Russia; thus forcing the Soviets to a retreat to Murmansk (remember they couldn't go south due to the hatred that the locals had for them in the south).     It is correct that Japan didn't have any real armor, but they did build a very small handfull of heavy armor prototypes, and at onetime actually sought to buy Tiger tanks from Germany (they'd have been far better off with Panthers or even MK IV's). Yet when one looks at Siberia the one thing most fail to grasp (besides it size and weather patterns) is the terrane. Few roads, and most all are virtually a cow path. Not exactly made for modern armed warefare and moving at anykind of real pace unless the ground was frozen solid.     I think (personally) that if we'd have not entered into WWII the rest would have sued for peace by late 1943 if not a few months sooner. Without the industrial mite of the United States the situation would have become untenable even without Japan attacking from the east. England would first have sued for peace only to be followed by the Soviets. Nice being an armchair general! gary

I just finished reading an entire book on Operation Typhoon and the Germans had stopped advancing by the time the Siberian units were thrown into the battle...I'm not saying they didn't make a difference in a macro sense but I stick to the notion that the Germans would not have taken Moscow regardless of the presence of those divisions...The rest of your arguement delves into strategic theories which I don't care to debate right now, but from an opeational point of view the Germans had already shot their bolt when the Siberian divisions counterattacked...  

last night I really sat down and reread the events of mid November in the Savo Straits!!! Talk about making ones hair turn white!!! Fourteen inch guns firing at you from two miles out in near total darkness (no street lights here), and in a narrow strait. They could have handed out the CMH every fifteen minutes in my opinion!!

gary

Mansteins revenge wrote:

squeakie wrote:  Mansteins revenge wrote:  searat12 wrote: Yup, the Battle of the Chesapeake is an excellent choice!  Were it not for the French Navy, Cornwallis would have escaped back to New York, and the war might have dragged on for another year or more....... Well then, based on that, it might not be as significant as I thought (or as the poster suggested)--the war dragging on one more year is probably not that significat in terms of the entire length of the Revolutionary War...a loss at Midway probably would have delayed VJ day more than a year... I gave some serious thought to The Battle Of The Chesapeak in my original post on this subject, but also thought about the naval battles on Lake Champlain and the other Great lakes. I mudt confess that I don't know enough about the Revolutionary War to voice much of an opinion. I should know much more as my ancestors were heavilly involved right from the getgo in Virginia.     Back on the Battle Of Midway a minute. What most of us seem to have forgotten is that the single biggest element in the victory at Midway was not the sinking of the carriers, but the unreplaceable loss of all those seasoned pilots. We saw the samething with Germany in Europe. They each had plenty of planes, but nobody to fly them. Then to compound the situation the Japanese with the loss of their front line carriers also didn't really have all the means to replace them like we did. We were laying down keels about as fast as they could pour the iron!     Now I need to make a slight revision to an earlier post about what would happen should the Japanese have won the Battle Of Midway. If you all will remember I said that their umbrella was probably less than 800 miles at best, but I was wrong. The Japanese Betty had a range of well over 2,200 miles carrying a 3,000lb. bomb load. So technicaly they could have done that part as the range of our carrier based aircraft would have put our ships in that umbrella to make a strike on Midway. Maybe the long range Mustangs that came into service later escorting B-17's out of Hawaii might have been able to make an effective strike on Midway. Still the island of Midway was not all that important to the Japanese in a stratigic sense. Nothing like a good airbase in the Marianas, Sumatra or Guadalcanal. It was their standing chance to knock out the Pacific Fleet, and they failed. In this case the "checkmate" goes with the U.S. Pacific Fleet. And as I once said proving out that the deep south Pacific campaign as well as the south west Pacific campaigns were the biggies.     What would have happened if those four troop ships and their equipment had made it ashore instead of being lost in the south Java Sea? Foresure Stillwell's campaign would have been many times harder. They may have been able to move into east India. The flights over the hump may not have taken place, and we couldn't have resupplied from Murmansk (remember Russia and Japan were not at war with each other). What if Japan had attacked Russia as Hitler begged them todo instead of attacking Pearl Harbor? (remember that the only reason the Russian stopped the Germans was with the Siberian divisions that were brought in from the far east.     Another thought is that with the advent of the Japanese attacking Russia instead of the United States is that there wouldn't have been a Kursk or Karkov group build! But maube a Kazan group build instead. Maybe a second or even a third Battle Of Britian group build? gary "(remember that the only reason the Russian stopped the Germans was with the Siberian divisions that were brought in from the far east." Not entirely accurate...the Germans were already stopped, but it is true that the Russians used these divisions in a counterattck that pushed the Germans back a bit...even had the Siberian divisions not been available, the outcome, IMO, would have differed little...

The advent of the Siberian Divisions into the Battle For Moscow is considered by most historians as the straw that broke the camel's back. Look at the time of year involved and the basic logistics that the Germans were facing on the outskirts of Moscow. Had Japan made anykind of move into Siberia; Moscow would have been unholdable for the Russians. This plus the lack of resupply convoys into Murmansk would have spelled doom for Stalin. He'd have sued for peace as the Germans approached Kazan and the iron ore mines. If not the country would have collapsed with his own people taking up sides (independantly) against the Soviets in the heartland of East Russia; thus forcing the Soviets to a retreat to Murmansk (remember they couldn't go south due to the hatred that the locals had for them in the south).

    It is correct that Japan didn't have any real armor, but they did build a very small handfull of heavy armor prototypes, and at onetime actually sought to buy Tiger tanks from Germany (they'd have been far better off with Panthers or even MK IV's). Yet when one looks at Siberia the one thing most fail to grasp (besides it size and weather patterns) is the terrane. Few roads, and most all are virtually a cow path. Not exactly made for modern armed warefare and moving at anykind of real pace unless the ground was frozen solid.

    I think (personally) that if we'd have not entered into WWII the rest would have sued for peace by late 1943 if not a few months sooner. Without the industrial mite of the United States the situation would have become untenable even without Japan attacking from the east. England would first have sued for peace only to be followed by the Soviets. Nice being an armchair general!

gary  

searat12 wrote:

Interesting thought... That said, given the technical level of Japanese Army equipment (especially armor!!), I think an attack against Russia would have been an even bigger mistake than Pearl Harbor!  Remember, MOST of the Japanese Army spent the war standing around in Manchuria, and when the Russians finally declared war against Japan, they cleaned up so quickly, it wasn't even funny (of course, the Russians had spent the previous four years fighting the mighty Wehrmacht, and the Russian tanks and troops reflected that hard-won training and capability!)..... As for the Battle of the Chesapeake, it was one of the defining moments of the Revolutionary War, and SHOULD have been a firm basis for an enduring French/American friendship, but all that went out the window with the excesses of the French Revolution...... Not only that, but was one of the few times a French fleet did a British fleet very brown indeed.......

think about Japan attacking the far eastern parts of Siberia from this stand point: It would have tied down the Siberian Divisions that were so much needed in the west. The U.S.A. would not have gone to war with Japan unless we had decided to make the first move, and Japan would have encircled China and moved into India. Russia's tank production was largely in the far east, and would have been in jeopardy unless they were moved again (remember they'd already been moved once before. There'd have been little if any convoys headed to Murmansk. Germany would have wintered up in Moscow, and headed off to Kazan in the late spring of the following year; thus isolating Murmansk as the final hold out. They'd have sued for peace in 1943. Japan would have all it's needed natural resources, and even more with the taking of several hundred miles of Siberia. The best thing that happened in 1941 was Hitler declaring war against the USA and Japan attacking Pearl Harbor!

gary

schoonerbumm wrote:

Interesting alternate history. I don't think that the Americans could have survived another year.  In 1781, the British were close to victory in the colonies.  "After two years of war, French finances were all but exhausted. The Continental Army was demoralized, and in February 1781, Vergennes urged the Americans to make peace" Navies and the American Revolution The French plan for 1781 was to evacuate their troops from North America and send them to bolster their defences in the West Indies. The campaign that developed in 1781 was a last gasp effort that should have failed. It succeeded due to a unique opportunity afforded by two British blunders. Cornwallis's march and Rodney's looting of Saint Eustatius. Had Conrwallis been successfully evacuated or reinforced, the British might have had a significant strategic and political victory from the subsequent abandonment of the Americans by the French.

Well, I'm not so sure of that either!  Yes, French finances were in a pretty bad way, but so was Britain's, and with significant French (and Spanish!) threats developing in the West Indies (De Grasse had come to the Chesapeake after a fairly successful campaign against Rodney in the West Indies), the Med, and with Suffren rampaging in Indian waters and large combined Franco Spanish fleets making strenuous (if largely ineffectual) efforts to force the Channel, Britain was facing a lot of problems of its own.  Combine that with a largely unsuccessful and costly British campaign in the South (which is why Cornwallis marched North to the Chesapeake in the first place) against an increasing professional American force, and the whole thing looked like a terrible game of 'whack a mole' to the Brits.  Certainly the French Army forces under Rochambeau and Lafayette were essential to the eventual victory of the Americans, but I don't see a lot of reasons that the Americans would have collapsed if Cornwallis had somehow escaped Yorktown.  Of course, if De Grasse had been comprehensively defeated in the West Indies before his move to the Chesapeake, rather than after, the war would have likely have gone on a fair bit longer (also it is important to remember that the British govt under Lord North was tottering by this time, and was casting about desperately for anything that might eliminate at least one of the various campaign arenas!)

Lepanto.

Period, end stop.

squeakie wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote:  searat12 wrote: Yup, the Battle of the Chesapeake is an excellent choice!  Were it not for the French Navy, Cornwallis would have escaped back to New York, and the war might have dragged on for another year or more....... Well then, based on that, it might not be as significant as I thought (or as the poster suggested)--the war dragging on one more year is probably not that significat in terms of the entire length of the Revolutionary War...a loss at Midway probably would have delayed VJ day more than a year... I gave some serious thought to The Battle Of The Chesapeak in my original post on this subject, but also thought about the naval battles on Lake Champlain and the other Great lakes. I mudt confess that I don't know enough about the Revolutionary War to voice much of an opinion. I should know much more as my ancestors were heavilly involved right from the getgo in Virginia.     Back on the Battle Of Midway a minute. What most of us seem to have forgotten is that the single biggest element in the victory at Midway was not the sinking of the carriers, but the unreplaceable loss of all those seasoned pilots. We saw the samething with Germany in Europe. They each had plenty of planes, but nobody to fly them. Then to compound the situation the Japanese with the loss of their front line carriers also didn't really have all the means to replace them like we did. We were laying down keels about as fast as they could pour the iron!     Now I need to make a slight revision to an earlier post about what would happen should the Japanese have won the Battle Of Midway. If you all will remember I said that their umbrella was probably less than 800 miles at best, but I was wrong. The Japanese Betty had a range of well over 2,200 miles carrying a 3,000lb. bomb load. So technicaly they could have done that part as the range of our carrier based aircraft would have put our ships in that umbrella to make a strike on Midway. Maybe the long range Mustangs that came into service later escorting B-17's out of Hawaii might have been able to make an effective strike on Midway. Still the island of Midway was not all that important to the Japanese in a stratigic sense. Nothing like a good airbase in the Marianas, Sumatra or Guadalcanal. It was their standing chance to knock out the Pacific Fleet, and they failed. In this case the "checkmate" goes with the U.S. Pacific Fleet. And as I once said proving out that the deep south Pacific campaign as well as the south west Pacific campaigns were the biggies.     What would have happened if those four troop ships and their equipment had made it ashore instead of being lost in the south Java Sea? Foresure Stillwell's campaign would have been many times harder. They may have been able to move into east India. The flights over the hump may not have taken place, and we couldn't have resupplied from Murmansk (remember Russia and Japan were not at war with each other). What if Japan had attacked Russia as Hitler begged them todo instead of attacking Pearl Harbor? (remember that the only reason the Russian stopped the Germans was with the Siberian divisions that were brought in from the far east.     Another thought is that with the advent of the Japanese attacking Russia instead of the United States is that there wouldn't have been a Kursk or Karkov group build! But maube a Kazan group build instead. Maybe a second or even a third Battle Of Britian group build? gary

"(remember that the only reason the Russian stopped the Germans was with the Siberian divisions that were brought in from the far east."

Not entirely accurate...the Germans were already stopped, but it is true that the Russians used these divisions in a counterattck that pushed the Germans back a bit...even had the Siberian divisions not been available, the outcome, IMO, would have differed little...

Interesting alternate history. I don't think that the Americans could have survived another year. 

In 1781, the British were close to victory in the colonies.

 "After two years of war, French finances were all but exhausted. The Continental Army was demoralized, and in February 1781, Vergennes urged the Americans to make peace" Navies and the American Revolution

The French plan for 1781 was to evacuate their troops from North America and send them to bolster their defences in the West Indies.

The campaign that developed in 1781 was a last gasp effort that should have failed. It succeeded due to a unique opportunity afforded by two British blunders. Cornwallis's march and Rodney's looting of Saint Eustatius.

Had Conrwallis been successfully evacuated or reinforced, the British might have had a significant strategic and political victory from the subsequent abandonment of the Americans by the French. 

Interesting thought... That said, given the technical level of Japanese Army equipment (especially armor!!), I think an attack against Russia would have been an even bigger mistake than Pearl Harbor!  Remember, MOST of the Japanese Army spent the war standing around in Manchuria, and when the Russians finally declared war against Japan, they cleaned up so quickly, it wasn't even funny (of course, the Russians had spent the previous four years fighting the mighty Wehrmacht, and the Russian tanks and troops reflected that hard-won training and capability!).....

As for the Battle of the Chesapeake, it was one of the defining moments of the Revolutionary War, and SHOULD have been a firm basis for an enduring French/American friendship, but all that went out the window with the excesses of the French Revolution...... Not only that, but was one of the few times a French fleet did a British fleet very brown indeed.......

Mansteins revenge wrote:

searat12 wrote: Yup, the Battle of the Chesapeake is an excellent choice!  Were it not for the French Navy, Cornwallis would have escaped back to New York, and the war might have dragged on for another year or more....... Well then, based on that, it might not be as significant as I thought (or as the poster suggested)--the war dragging on one more year is probably not that significat in terms of the entire length of the Revolutionary War...a loss at Midway probably would have delayed VJ day more than a year...

I gave some serious thought to The Battle Of The Chesapeak in my original post on this subject, but also thought about the naval battles on Lake Champlain and the other Great lakes. I must confess that I don't know enough about the Revolutionary War to voice much of an opinion. I should know much more as my ancestors were heavilly involved right from the getgo in Virginia.

    Back on the Battle Of Midway a minute. What most of us seem to have forgotten is that the single biggest element in the victory at Midway was not the sinking of the carriers, but the unreplaceable loss of all those seasoned pilots. We saw the samething with Germany in Europe. They each had plenty of planes, but nobody to fly them. Then to compound the situation the Japanese with the loss of their front line carriers also didn't really have all the means to replace them like we did. We were laying down keels about as fast as they could pour the iron!

    Now I need to make a slight revision to an earlier post about what would happen should the Japanese have won the Battle Of Midway. If you all will remember I said that their umbrella was probably less than 800 miles at best, but I was wrong. The Japanese Betty had a range of well over 2,200 miles carrying a 3,000lb. bomb load. So technicaly they could have done that part as the range of our carrier based aircraft would have put our ships in that umbrella to make a strike on Midway. Maybe the long range Mustangs that came into service later escorting B-17's out of Hawaii might have been able to make an effective strike on Midway. Still the island of Midway was not all that important to the Japanese in a stratigic sense. Nothing like a good airbase in the Marianas, Sumatra or Guadalcanal. It was their standing chance to knock out the Pacific Fleet, and they failed. In this case the "checkmate" goes with the U.S. Pacific Fleet. And as I once said proving out that the deep south Pacific campaign as well as the south west Pacific campaigns were the biggies.

    What would have happened if those four troop ships and their equipment had made it ashore instead of being lost in the south Java Sea? Foresure Stillwell's campaign would have been many times harder. They may have been able to move into east India. The flights over the hump may not have taken place, and we couldn't have resupplied from Murmansk (remember Russia and Japan were not at war with each other). What if Japan had attacked Russia as Hitler begged them todo instead of attacking Pearl Harbor? (remember that the only reason the Russian stopped the Germans was with the Siberian divisions that were brought in from the far east.

    Another thought is that with the advent of the Japanese attacking Russia instead of the United States is that there wouldn't have been a Kursk or Karkov group build! But maube a Kazan group build instead. Maybe a second or even a third Battle Of Britian group build?

gary

searat12 wrote:

Yup, the Battle of the Chesapeake is an excellent choice!  Were it not for the French Navy, Cornwallis would have escaped back to New York, and the war might have dragged on for another year or more.......

Well then, based on that, it might not be as significant as I thought (or as the poster suggested)--the war dragging on one more year is probably not that significat in terms of the entire length of the Revolutionary War...a loss at Midway probably would have delayed VJ day more than a year...

Yup, the Battle of the Chesapeake is an excellent choice!  Were it not for the French Navy, Cornwallis would have escaped back to New York, and the war might have dragged on for another year or more.......

schoonerbumm wrote:

aka "Battle of the Chesapeake", sealed Cornwallis's fate at Yorktown.

Ahhhhhh, got 'ya...very good nominee, IMO, and one that is seldom discussed, as the seige and subsequent land surrender was far more glamorous...

aka "Battle of the Chesapeake", sealed Cornwallis's fate at Yorktown.

schoonerbumm wrote:

my two cents... After thirty years of historical reading, war gaming and working as a chief engineer on a real weapon system used by the US Navy, I offer my sage wisdom, and free advice (remember, you get what you pay for and everyone is entitled to my opinions). My view of significance in history is based on... what if the outcome of the battle had been different? Would anything have ultimately changed?  From that persepective, I believe that only two BATTLES really matter in American history: the battle of Salamis and the Battle of the Virginia Capes. Other than these two actions, Naval BATTLES have had limited inluence on historical outcomes.   Without Themosticles's victory at Salamis, we'd all be making our morning prayers facing Mecca. The seed of western culture, the European tradition and the concept of democracy would have been crushed. By medieval times, the European, and middle eastern economies were as dependent on German silver and the Hanseatic ports as control of the Med. Control of the Med was about profitability, not survival. The Spanish Armada had already failed in its mission with its inability to offload troops from the Netherlands. Our protestant English heritage would remain protestant. If Trafalgar had been a draw or a French victory, England would still never have been invaded, and Napolean would still have met his demise in a land campaign, in Russia. The American super frigates created a great naval tradition and had great psychological impact, but ultimately were effectively neutralized and militarily insignificant in the outcome of the War of 1812. If the Monitor and Virginia hadn't have slugged it out, some other ironclads would have. Regardless, no major strategic or political issue was or would have been resolved. Both sides had ironclads. Tsushima was a symbolic victory, but ultimately did not change the political map. Forty years later, the Russians still had a significant hand in the western Pacific. If the Japanese had been victorious at Midway or Leyte Gulf, the Americans would still have triumphed in the late 1940's after Hitler had been crushed (remember, the Battle of the Bulge had more American causualties than the entire Pacific theater). The atomic bomb was the ultimate discriminator against the kamikaze, not naval power. The victory off Yorktown was a bruising POLITICAL defeat to the British ruling class, helping the cause of American Independence. But even its true significance, like Salamis, was deciding the ultimate outcome of a land campaign. Now, Naval CAMPAIGNS are a different story. The cummulative effect of privateers in the War of 1812, the Union blockade of the Confederacy, U-boat wars in the Atlantic and the Pacific carrier campaign are examples that had incredible significance in that they not only affected political outcomes, but influenced naval doctrine for decades. That is a different discussion...

Battle of the Virginia Capes??? Not familar w/ this one???