Most historically significant naval battles???

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  

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

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 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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

   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                  

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?

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

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

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.

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".

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

It was the Germans who PO'd the Bear!

& paid for it by losing the war.