StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sea Skimmer wrote:That production capacity meant Japan could have sunk the entire US Pacific fleet at midway for no losses of its own, and still been hopeleslly outgunned by early 1944. In hindsight the outcome of the battle didn't matter.

Was that known at the time, though?

It was decisive because it had carriers? So then what does that mean Tsushima (a battle fought using only surface ships with guns and torpedoes, in which almost the entire remaining Russian navy was annihilated) was? Sorry but Midway wasn't very decisive as such things go, a huge chunk of the IJN force was never even spotted let alone attacked or damaged by US forces.

I meant it was decisive because the action relied solely on the carrier's flight wing, which ushered in the role of the aircraft carrier and left behind the role of the battleship. Sorry if I wasn't clear. After Midway carriers would become the capital ship. Before Midway it was the battleship.

And it was not the first carrier on carrier battle. That was the Battle of the Coral Sea, which was also the first naval battle in which neither side's vessels ever spotted each other.

Yeah, I never said it was the first carrier on carrier battle. Give me some credit. Both carriers at the Coral Sea were destroyed, while at Midway 4 Japanese carriers were sunk in contrast to America's Yorktown. The used carriers to defeat the enemy and lost fewer units; that's significant, surely?

Operation Iraqi Freedom, followed by Thermopylae.

Stofsk wrote:The battle you're thinking about is Jutland, which was a tactical victory for the Germans but a strategic victory for the British. It was decisive only in the sense that the Germans never dared to send its fleet out again.

I wouldn't call it a strategic victory for either side. Jutland had absolutely no impact on any other aspect of the war except for that fought by the battle lines; in fact, Jutland is the first example cited by today's naval historians as the beginning of the end for the great notion of battleship sea control. World War II would demonstrate that aircraft carriers and submarines, not big metal analogues to galleons, were the decisive tools of "from the sea" warfare.

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:

Stofsk wrote:The battle you're thinking about is Jutland, which was a tactical victory for the Germans but a strategic victory for the British. It was decisive only in the sense that the Germans never dared to send its fleet out again.

I wouldn't call it a strategic victory for either side.

The justification for it being a "strategic" victory for the British was the German fleet never went out to sea again. That's pretty much the only reason.

Stofsk wrote:The justification for it being a "strategic" victory for the British was the German fleet never went out to sea again. That's pretty much the only reason.

Was that a strategic objective of the British? By that, did any such objective advance the war in a direction the British desired? Or was it that Jutland ended up as a sad, sorry exercise in the futility and uselessness of the battleship fleets?

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:Operation Iraqi Freedom, followed by Thermopylae.

You have got to be joking- come back in 50 years and tell us what happened as a consequence of OIF, then you might have an argument.

I wouldn't call it a strategic victory for either side. Jutland had absolutely no impact on any other aspect of the war except for that fought by the battle lines; in fact, Jutland is the first example cited by today's naval historians as the beginning of the end for the great notion of battleship sea control. World War II would demonstrate that aircraft carriers and submarines, not big metal analogues to galleons, were the decisive tools of "from the sea" warfare.

Jutland ensured that the blockade of Germany would stay in place- that's highly significant, but I don't think it' sup there in terms of the Greatest Battle.

Btw, "from the sea" warfare makes it sound like you've been reading too much breathless USMC publicity material. What's wrong with "naval warfare"?

Or was it that Jutland ended up as a sad, sorry exercise in the futility and uselessness of the battleship fleets?

You seem to have bought into the whole 'useless battleships, yay carriers!' thing in a big way.

Vympel wrote:Jutland ensured that the blockade of Germany would stay in place- that's highly significant, but I don't think it' sup there in terms of the Greatest Battle.

Wow. The German fleet not coming out in the first place would've ensured that.

Btw, "from the sea" warfare makes it sound like you've been reading too much breathless USMC publicity material.

We use this language frequently in the strategic studies field.

What's wrong with "naval warfare"?

How about guerre de course?

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:

Stofsk wrote:The justification for it being a "strategic" victory for the British was the German fleet never went out to sea again. That's pretty much the only reason.

Was that a strategic objective of the British? By that, did any such objective advance the war in a direction the British desired? Or was it that Jutland ended up as a sad, sorry exercise in the futility and uselessness of the battleship fleets?

Probably a morale objective. I mean defeating the enemy always scores well for your people. And given the British pride is in the navy more than anything, this would doubly apply. On the other hand, the ships that were lost might piss people off as well.

To be honest I don't know too much about the Battle of Jutland, other than it was a mess. I think the objective was to keep command of the seas firmly in the hands of the British, which was a success. Given that the Germans sought to challenge the British, and failed overall, one could take that to mean a strategic victory for the RN.

Stofsk wrote:Probably a morale objective. I mean defeating the enemy always scores well for your people. And given the British pride is in the navy more than anything, this would doubly apply. On the other hand, the ships that were lost might piss people off as well.

Well, can't argue with you there, since that was all that was accomplished at Jutland.

To be honest I don't know too much about the Battle of Jutland, other than it was a mess. I think the objective was to keep command of the seas firmly in the hands of the British, which was a success. Given that the Germans sought to challenge the British, and failed overall, one could take that to mean a strategic victory for the RN.

That was the idea. The lesson was...well....Jutland didn't have a whole lot of lessons other than that Mahan was full of shit.

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:
Wow. The German fleet not coming out in the first place would've ensured that.

What the hell does that have to do with it? I can just as easily say the Germans giving up and going home would've won WW1, does that mean anything?

We use this language frequently in the strategic studies field.

The never-ending pursuit of wanky new terms where the old ones do just fine continues unabated- and I thought "Combatant Commanders" was bad. I just hope the next time I hear an Admiral speaking he doesn't say "from the sea" warfare. It sounds like the beginning or end of a cheesy 50s horror movie.

How about guerre de course?

Commerce Raiding. A bit too specific.

Vympel wrote: What the hell does that have to do with it? I can just as easily say the Germans giving up and going home would've won WW1, does that mean anything?

The analogy doesn't quite work. The Germans didn't give up, and the war continued. The blockade continued regardless of the Jutland action.

The never-ending pursuit of wanky new terms where the old ones do just fine continues unabated- and I thought "Combatant Commanders" was bad.

Well, it represents the evolution of strategic studies along a managerial science dimension.

I just hope the next time I hear an Admiral speaking he doesn't say "from the sea" warfare. It sounds like the beginning or end of a cheesy 50s horror movie.

That's the language they use in the Navy, believe it or not. They also use "network-centric warfare," "force packages," and all sorts of other things lifted from UPS.

Commerce Raiding. A bit too specific.

I wouldn't say that. Guerre de course refers to any sort of naval action aimed at destroying the enemy's ability to wage war pther than engaging the enemy's main naval forces.

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:Operation Iraqi Freedom, followed by Thermopylae.

Your definition of 'greatest' and 'our time' seems broad and idiotic.

Crown wrote:Your definition of 'greatest' and 'our time' seems broad and idiotic.

I guess that's why I said "decisive" and "all time." Check the reply heading.

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:

Crown wrote:Your definition of 'greatest' and 'our time' seems broad and idiotic.

I guess that's why I said "decisive" and "all time." Check the reply heading.

Rev Prez

Ah so you posted an off-topic response to the thread title (i.e hijacking), cudos to you.

HemlockGrey wrote:So what was it? What was the most historically significant, decisive battle, ever?

The battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. As a result of Constantine's decisive victory in this battle, the Roman Empire became Christian, with massive historical consequences.

And yes, this battle had much greater historical consequences than "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Darth Wong wrote:The battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. As a result of Constantine's decisive victory in this battle, the Roman Empire became Christian, with massive historical consequences.

And yes, this battle had much greater historical consequences than "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Perhaps we should define "decisive." The disaster at Sicily had greater historical ramifications than Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Rev Prez

Crown wrote:Ah so you posted an off-topic response to the thread title (i.e hijacking), cudos to you.

The first poster asked: "So what was it? What was the most historically significant, decisive battle, ever?"

Yes, kudos to me.

Rev Prez

Well most any historical event like a battle can drive the future into a new path far different to what could've been. I'd say there were scales to decisiveness from results including a guy getting killed or becoming heir to a throne to an empire falling or embracing new technology, religion etc.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Well most any historical event like a battle can drive the future into a new path far different to what could've been. I'd say there were scales to decisiveness from results including a guy getting killed or becoming heir to a throne to an empire falling or embracing new technology, religion etc.

We can't know what might have happened if things had gone the other way, but we can evaluate what did happen as a result of them going this way. So while it's true that we can't really know about the alternatives, we can still evaluate the historical "reach" of an event as it took place in our actual timeline.

revprez wrote:

Crown wrote:Ah so you posted an off-topic response to the thread title (i.e hijacking), cudos to you.

The first poster asked: "So what was it? What was the most historically significant, decisive battle, ever?"

Yes, kudos to me.

Rev Prez

That sentence implies a Boolean AND, not a Boolean OR. Twin adjectives not separated by an explicit logical operator are usually interpreted this way.

Ah, true. I just remembered something on Charles Babbage last night and if he were to have made the Difference Engine and likely avoided WWI, but that's straying off topic. I'm sure there's a film on the Butterfly Effect coming out soon as well.

Eh, I'm still debating which battle in my mind had the most impact on the world, there's so many in such a violent history, spoilt for choice.

revprez wrote:

Crown wrote:Ah so you posted an off-topic response to the thread title (i.e hijacking), cudos to you.

The first poster asked: "So what was it? What was the most historically significant, decisive battle, ever?"

Yes, kudos to me.

Rev Prez

Wow. You are just oozing stupid now aren't you? So how is Operation finishing my daddy's war historically significant and decisive?

Darth Wong wrote:That sentence implies a Boolean AND, not a Boolean OR. Twin adjectives not separated by an explicit logical operator are usually interpreted this way.

All right.

Rev Prez

Crown wrote:Wow. You are just oozing stupid now aren't you? So how is Operation finishing my daddy's war historically significant and decisive?

Well, I can't argue that it is the most historically significant battle in history--I imagine we could all think of something more historically significant that the first campaign to transform the Middle East. I can argue that it is the most decisive in respects to the swiftest advance over such a distance in history.

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:

Crown wrote:Wow. You are just oozing stupid now aren't you? So how is Operation finishing my daddy's war historically significant and decisive?

Well, I can't argue that it is the most historically significant battle in history--I imagine we could all think of something more historically significant that the first campaign to transform the Middle East. I can argue that it is the most decisive in respects to the swiftest advance over such a distance in history.

Rev Prez

I think that sort of strays from the intended OP point. You could argue a relative's battle against cancer was somehow justified given it affected your history.

I don't see how mass transit in record time is really a determining factor given the war didn't amount to anything like other major conflicts.