Moderator: Community Team
Dukasaur wrote:saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
DirtyDishSoap wrote:Run away everyone! Duk is trying to suck everyone in on this tournie and he will do it no matter the cost!
Dukasaur wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Yes, I see how important this RIVER battle was......NOT:
"The Battle of Nahr-al-Kalek was fought in the immediate aftermath of the British recapture of Kut in February 1917 by Sir Frederick Maude, and largely destroyed the effectiveness of Turkish river forces on the Tigris River.
Having inadvertently outrun their own ground forces on 26 February 1917, the Royal Navy gunboats Mantis, Moth and Tarantula found themselves under fire some 30km north of Kut by four Turkish vessels at Nahr-al-Kalek while pursuing the retreating Turkish force from Kut."
This MUST be why I never NEVER of this battle, before now.
Wrong answer.
The reason that you've never heard of it is that you haven't been paying attention to the Great War series, in which Nahr-al-Kalek is an upcoming tournament...
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=207817&start=575#p4981521
Dukasaur wrote:DirtyDishSoap wrote:Run away everyone! Duk is trying to suck everyone in on this tournie and he will do it no matter the cost!
Absolutely...
However, in this case it was Confed who laid out the lures....
Dukasaur wrote:saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
jusplay4fun wrote:Despite this, I still say it is NOT an important Naval Battle in bigger picture of World History.
There is more to life than trivial battles.
JPDukasaur wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Yes, I see how important this RIVER battle was......NOT:
"The Battle of Nahr-al-Kalek was fought in the immediate aftermath of the British recapture of Kut in February 1917 by Sir Frederick Maude, and largely destroyed the effectiveness of Turkish river forces on the Tigris River.
Having inadvertently outrun their own ground forces on 26 February 1917, the Royal Navy gunboats Mantis, Moth and Tarantula found themselves under fire some 30km north of Kut by four Turkish vessels at Nahr-al-Kalek while pursuing the retreating Turkish force from Kut."
This MUST be why I never NEVER of this battle, before now.
Wrong answer.
The reason that you've never heard of it is that you haven't been paying attention to the Great War series, in which Nahr-al-Kalek is an upcoming tournament...
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=207817&start=575#p4981521
Arama86n wrote:@OP
I suppose you could define "greatest" by margin of victory.
But I mean really... the Worlds most powerful Navy sinking a few patrol boats of what the Iraqi's call a Navy is hardly worth mentioning.
ConfederateSS wrote:Arama86n wrote:@OP
I suppose you could define "greatest" by margin of victory.
But I mean really... the Worlds most powerful Navy sinking a few patrol boats of what the Iraqi's call a Navy is hardly worth mentioning.
------They were not Iraqi.......They were Turkish(Ottoman Empire).......But how do we know the current PRESIDENT OF TURKEY...Recep Tayyip Edrogan's......Grandfather might have fought and survived the battle...Never know ...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
-----Sometimes events of the past steamroll and are tied to events in the future...I.E. the current way the Middle East of today is...Thanks to that world power navy back then...The British Empire...boy!,did they screw it up, all for of course over oil...SURPRISE...The USA is doing the exact same thing right now...I guess people don't learn when history repeats itself...
ConfederateSS wrote:Arama86n wrote:@OP
I suppose you could define "greatest" by margin of victory.
But I mean really... the Worlds most powerful Navy sinking a few patrol boats of what the Iraqi's call a Navy is hardly worth mentioning.
------They were not Iraqi.......They were Turkish(Ottoman Empire).......But how do we know the current PRESIDENT OF TURKEY...Recep Tayyip Edrogan's......Grandfather might have fought and survived the battle...Never know ...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
-----Sometimes events of the past steamroll and are tied to events in the future...I.E. the current way the Middle East of today is...Thanks to that world power navy back then...The British Empire...boy!,did they screw it up, all for of course over oil...SURPRISE...The USA is doing the exact same thing right now...I guess people don't learn when history repeats itself...
jusplay4fun wrote:I am shocked that you did not include the battle between the Virginia and the Monitor. NOT well done, there, CSS.
Monitor was an unusual vessel in almost every respect and was sometimes sarcastically described by the press and other critics as "Ericsson's folly", "cheesebox on a raft"[23][24] and the "Yankee cheesebox".[25] The most prominent feature on the vessel was a large cylindrical gun turret mounted amidships above the low-freeboard upper hull, also called the "raft". This extended well past the sides of the lower, more traditionally shaped hull. A small armored pilot house was fitted on the upper deck towards the bow, however, its position prevented Monitor from firing her guns straight forward.[26][e] One of Ericsson's prime goals in designing the ship was to present the smallest possible target to enemy gunfire.[27] The ship was 179 feet (54.6 m) long overall, had a beam of 41 feet 6 inches (12.6 m) and had a maximum draft of 10 feet 6 inches (3.2 m). Monitor had a tonnage of 776 tons burthen and displaced 987 long tons (1,003 t). Her crew consisted of 49 officers and enlisted men.[28]
tzor wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:I am shocked that you did not include the battle between the Virginia and the Monitor. NOT well done, there, CSS.
All in all it was a crappy naval battle.Monitor was an unusual vessel in almost every respect and was sometimes sarcastically described by the press and other critics as "Ericsson's folly", "cheesebox on a raft"[23][24] and the "Yankee cheesebox".[25] The most prominent feature on the vessel was a large cylindrical gun turret mounted amidships above the low-freeboard upper hull, also called the "raft". This extended well past the sides of the lower, more traditionally shaped hull. A small armored pilot house was fitted on the upper deck towards the bow, however, its position prevented Monitor from firing her guns straight forward.[26][e] One of Ericsson's prime goals in designing the ship was to present the smallest possible target to enemy gunfire.[27] The ship was 179 feet (54.6 m) long overall, had a beam of 41 feet 6 inches (12.6 m) and had a maximum draft of 10 feet 6 inches (3.2 m). Monitor had a tonnage of 776 tons burthen and displaced 987 long tons (1,003 t). Her crew consisted of 49 officers and enlisted men.[28]
People often think of the vessel as an "ironclad" but the real innovation was the turret. Although the overall design had significant problems, it is the turret design that became the central feature in later vessels and not the idea of being as low to the surface of the water as possible.
jusplay4fun wrote:Again, you miss the IRONy.
and yes, degrees in History are rather useless, as far as getting employment, unless one know how to sell it. And, based on your comments, you did not sell it well.
btw: no need to capitalize that portion you did, I knew that, and anyone with a knowledge of some history knows it too. That battle is in most history textbooks, as far as I know.
JP, still "in" the game....
jusplay4fun wrote:You missed the IRONy of CSS not citing the CSS Virginia in Battle, during the War of Northern Agression.
tzor wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:You missed the IRONy of CSS not citing the CSS Virginia in Battle, during the War of Northern Agression.
Not exactly. If you understood the civil war you would realize that from a naval perspective, the entire war was a disaster from the start. The North had overwhelming naval power to enforce a naval blockade as well as take out the only major supply of salt (salt water pool evaporation) that made meat preservation all but impossible, leading to all sorts of civilian shortages in the war. Even those who managed to get supplies in often were in such positions of power that they were hated even more than the enemy troops. (You know, as in Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind?") So in general the whole naval part of the war is best forgotten.
ConfederateSS wrote:--------Not to mention...Where one lies......JustP4fun.....You say you are from Vir...So you would look at Mon/Merri as a KOOL battle....I yes,If you read any of my posts in the past ...Am from..."SOUTH"west Detroit...So I am most likely going to like The Defeat of The British Fleet on THE GREAT LAKES by Com.PERRY...Battle of Lake Erie,War of 1812,not the Com.Perry who opened up China...THE 1st time The British Royal Navy surrendered a fleet... ...Perry to Gen. Harrison(later Pres),"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY ARE OURS!"...Like you said, Those Middle East battles are fought on Rivers and Canals...So to people in those areas, those are great battles...AS GREAT AS AN American would view MIDWAY...Or an Englishman would view Trafalgar of The Armada....In China a Great battle was fought on a river,in 200 a.d.ish...THE GREAT RED WALL...because a lot of boats were put next to each other...The enemy sent a raft on fire into them...IT LOOK LIKE A WALL OF FIRE ON THE RIVER....I used PT-109 ,because that was more a river boat,(was captained by JFK,itself was not a great battle,but the survival of the crew after it sank was)...Then we were discussing, than a Wooden/Iron Clad of The Civil War...Although those WW1 gunboats were very large,more like a small WW2 destroyer...I'm more of a historical strategist then one who would run up and down Dixie waving THE BATTLE FLAG...Not to mention my father's favorite movie "Gone with the Wind" and Char/Actor...Butler/Gable...So my Avatar/Name is more to Honor him... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
Dukasaur wrote:In terms of largest, a lot depends on how you want to measure "large" but wikipedia offers this list of candidates:
- Red Cliffs
Dukasaur wrote:There's different yardsticks one can use.
In term of historical significance, there are seven naval battles that stand head-and-shoulders above the rest:
- Salamis
- Lepanto
- Spanish Armada
- Trafalgar
- Jutland
- Hakata Bay/Imari Bay
- Yamen
In terms of largest, a lot depends on how you want to measure "large" but wikipedia offers this list of candidates:
- Salamis
- Cape Ecnomus
- Red Cliffs
- Battle of the Masts
- Yamen
- Lake Poyang
- Jutland
- Philippine Sea
- Leyte Gulf
Still, one might imagine other yardsticks than size or historical significance. Jutland appears on both lists, and yet tactically it was a snoozefest. It changed the course of history, but it was an embarrassing performance on both sides. Something like the tiny First Battle of Narvik was vastly more exciting. I know people like to gasp and moan at sheer size , but it's rarely size that makes an encounter interesting.
The OP itself is an example of a different yardstick: something like most ridiculously lopsided victory. (For that category, though, I prefer the Anglo-Zanzibar War, although one could argue that that was a combined arms operation and not strictly a naval battle.)
Given the fact that there's no universally accepted yardstick, I think Confed's choice ("this is the greatest battle because it's the subject of a tourney I'll be unveiling soon"), whilst highly subjective, is no less valid than any of the others.
Incidentally, while Midway does not make either of the primary lists, I'll agree with you that it was a hell of an upset. It was the Superbowl IV of naval battles.
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee