Fluffy Fishy Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) So this is a bit of an odd topic because usually you hear a lot about the most successful nations when it comes to warfare, especially in naval warfare, but i would like to dedicate some time to talk about the nations that tried hardest but achieved the least when it comes to naval combat and history. Much like the Napoleonic French but extended over the whole of history where the investment and ships were built but due to poor command or poor crewing, even just being incredibly unlucky with wind and weather, leaving those precious victories escaping through holes in the deck. The reason I thought I would bring this up is because I was glossing over the Ottomans the other day, they seem to have been in about 40 naval battles but only managed to win about 6 of those, with half of those victories being beaten by a more decisive battle not to long after that.So what other nations are out there that invested huge strains of money into their ships for them to end up as houses for fish, and perhaps we could find the least successful nation over all. Just to note I'm not looking for nations that didn't really bother at sea, more those who lost their fleets every step of the way Edited July 23, 2016 by Fluffy Fishy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelSandwich Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I can't provide an example you wished, yet im very intrigued in the major engagements of the ottomans, can you recommend some of those to read-up upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Blackthorne Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I'd have to say the Mongol/Yuan dynasty would certainly have to be the most unlucky. 300+ ships lost in the 1274 monsoon, 800+ lost in the 1281 monsoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hethwill Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Oh good one. Out of my head i'd say Prussia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Alfonso Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I'd say that the Ottomans are indeed a striking example of a nation that tried it's hardest. The battle of Lepanto in 1571 is one of the most decisive actions, with the Ottoman casualties amounting to 137 ships captured and 50 ships sunk out of a fleet of 250 vessels. This defeat was suffered against the Spanish/Venetian fleet of 212 ships; of which 12 were lost. I see it that whilst the Ottomans maintained supremacy of the land theatre; they sacrificed much needed attention on their Navy which for an empire of it's size is an absolute necessity. A few more nations I can think of would be the Persian and Mughal Empires. Both did not fund a navy practically at all until in the case of the Mughals the British were already stealing their opium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sella Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 As far as I am aware the Ottomans had a really bad losing streak starting from the last ottoman Veneto war until the Greco Turkish war of 1922. With some breaks of course. So that's about 200 years. IMHO the most important of those was the Russo Turkish war of 1768-1774 mostly for economical reasons which proved to be devastating for the Turks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maturin Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Edit: Wrong thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thonar Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Oh good one. Out of my head i'd say Prussia. Certainly not good but Prussia had won several naval battles against the Hanse (supported by Danish/ Swedish ships)... thus certainly not really the least successful nation, but definitely not average either, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Fishy Posted July 24, 2016 Author Share Posted July 24, 2016 The Ottomans had some brief naval success Hayreddin Barbarossa getting involved in a few blockades and a significant battle but for the most part they got wrecked, as has already been pointed out most painfully at Lepanto. The trouble with the Ottoman navy is that while they poured huge amounts of money into their attempts it just got thwarted almost always, they even constructed a huge naval arsenal in Gallipoli attempting to emulate the staggering success of the Venetian arsenal.When it comes to actual worthwhile victories enjoyed by the Ottomans it slumps down to a list of;Modon (1500 - Small/Medium Battle)Preveza (1538 Large and Significant Victory)Ponza (1552 Medium)Djerba (1560 Large Significant Victory)Oinousses Islands (Small/Medium Fairly inconclusive)While they did manage to succeed in a couple of naval invasions like Algiers and also a handful of successful small skirmishes i don't consider them really worthwhile mentioning, especially as the small skirmishes tended to involve Barbarossa doing something pirate related.Meanwhile their lists of losses are huge, The Ottomans could never really quite keep Venice in check, even once the Venetians had sunk to second and 3rd rate power status which considering the size and power of the Ottoman Empire is just embarrassing. They lost every single encounter with Russia, they lost continually against the Greeks as Sella already pointed out, they also lost significant battles against the Spanish and Portuguese and took their last smashing in wooden ships by the British lead forces at Navarino in 1827. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hethwill Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Certainly not good but Prussia had won several naval battles against the Hanse (supported by Danish/ Swedish ships)... thus certainly not really the least successful nation, but definitely not average either, Given Hanseatic League was pretty much ended by the end of the 16th century ( damn Swedes, can't trust them! ) it is hardly a match but granted it was valuable to forcing the isolation of Hamburg and the other two cities which have their fate closely entwined with that of Prussia. Quite funny Coming back to the Ottomans above, I find particularly interesting that they were a "privateer state" directly supporting the Beys with money, trade and manpower where needed. Where they lost completely on the hammer punch of a national navy they gave a good run for their influence with the piracy hailing from all over the north african coast from mauritania to tripoli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serk Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Certainly not good but Prussia had won several naval battles against the Hanse (supported by Danish/ Swedish ships)... thus certainly not really the least successful nation, but definitely not average either, What about Germany? Both World war's were not a time of naval brillance for them despite the investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thonar Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 What about Germany? Both World war's were not a time of naval brillance for them despite the investment. Germany as in the terms of the "modern state" from 1871 onwards? Can't be really seen as "least successful naval power". As a matter of fact both U-Boat campaigns were pretty successful (especially the one during the first world-war) by pure numbers. The German surface-face fleet, despite being young and without much experience, proved to be a worthy opponent to the royal navy in both world-wars. In terms of naval power Germany is for sure not the "least successful naval power" when you see the damage inflicted upon the merchant shipping... so... Germany might even be the best pirate nation ^^ xD. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hethwill Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Ottoman empire and protectorates under the Beys were by far the most successful Pirate nation in the NA timeframe. No mistakes there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sella Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 As pirates yes, but as a state navy that's a different story 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hethwill Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 As pirates yes, but as a state navy that's a different story Yep. But that's the nature of a multi cultural / tribal empire. You can see the same issue back to the 9th century vikings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sella Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 That certainly played a role since a lot of Greek seamen were press ganged to staff the Ottoman Navy. You can imagine that they weren't really keen on serving there But imho and as far as i am aware the Ottoman Navy of the early 18th century and on was always a few steps back from its modern counterparts. Something like a denial to modernise. It probably was linked with the decline of the whole empire itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stukkie Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 In the category "Not actual warfare but naval warfare exercises in recent history" I would like to nominate I would like to nominate the U.S. navy. Since they tend to sink their aircraft carriers during exercises 1981: USS Eisenhower was sunk in NATO exercises in the Atlantic Ocean by Royal Canadian Navy Porpoise Class diesel-electric submarine built in Britain in the 1960's, and wasn't even detected by US Navy ASW assets. 1981: During the same exercise the USS Forrestal was also sunk by an unidentified diesel-electric submarine, probably a British Royal Navy submarine. 1989: USS America sunk in the Atlantic Ocean by Dutch Navy Zwaardvis Class diesel-electric submarine. 1996: USS Independence sunk by the Chilean Navy German built Type-209 Class diesel-electric class submarine in the Pacific Ocean. 1999: USS Theodore Roosevelt sunk by the Dutch Navy Walrus Class diesel-electric submarine in the Atlantic Ocean. 2003: Unidentified US Navy aircraft carrier sunk by two Royal Australian Navy Collins Class diesel-electric submarines in the Pacific Ocean. 2005: USS Ronald Reagan sank by Swedish Navy Gotland Class AIP submarine in the Pacific Ocean. 2006: the Chinese Navy Song Class diesel-electric submarine famously reached within striking distance of the USS Kitty Hawk undetected. However in naval exercises a total of seven US Navy aircraft carriers have reportedly been sunk by non-nuclear submarines. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4079 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serk Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Germany as in the terms of the "modern state" from 1871 onwards? Can't be really seen as "least successful naval power". As a matter of fact both U-Boat campaigns were pretty successful (especially the one during the first world-war) by pure numbers. The German surface-face fleet, despite being young and without much experience, proved to be a worthy opponent to the royal navy in both world-wars. In terms of naval power Germany is for sure not the "least successful naval power" when you see the damage inflicted upon the merchant shipping... so... Germany might even be the best pirate nation ^^ xD. Maybe it wasn't the least succesfull, but it was quite close The German imperial navy (wich was the second largest in the world thanks to the recent armed race) was blockaded most of the time and the only attemp to break out led to the inconclusive battle at Jutland. It then went back to port for the rest or the war. As for WWII, it was even worst (Bismarck's lone voyage, Tirpitz idling in Norway before being Dunkerque and that Aircraft carrier that never was.) Transfering the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau across the channel was considered a great feat. I consider them on the same level of the french imperial Navy. Both were unable to seriously challenge the dominance of the Royal Navy and spent most of the war inside their own ports. All they both managed to do was to raid shipping lanes with privateeers in one case, and submarines in another. As for the OP, the least succesfull navy must have been one that never tried, like Switzerland. Each naval power had moments of succes and defeats (even Great Britain). Heck, at one time in history, the Norwegian were the most dominant (and the only?) naval power. Edited July 25, 2016 by Serk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thonar Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Maybe it wasn't the least succesfull, but it was quite close The German imperial navy (wich was the second largest in the world thanks to the recent armed race) was blockaded most of the time and the only attemp to break out led to the inconclusive battle at Jutland. It then went back to port for the rest or the war. As for WWII, it was even worst (Bismarck's lone voyage, Tirpitz idling in Norway before being Dunkerque and that Aircraft carrier that never was.) Transfering the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau across the channel was considered a great feat. I consider them on the same level of the french imperial Navy. Both were unable to seriously challenge the dominance of the Royal Navy and spent most of the war inside their own ports. All they both managed to do was to raid shipping lanes with privateeers in one case, and submarines in another. As for the OP, the least succesfull navy must have been one that never tried, like Switzerland. Each naval power had moments of succes and defeats (even Great Britain). Heck, at one time in history, the Norwegian were the most dominant (and the only?) naval power. I'm sorry but that is just far fetched from reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being The German surface fleet never was intended, neither during the first world war nor during the 2nd, to destroy the Royal Navy. The German admiralty knew quite well that it wasn't able to defeat it. Thus the "risk-theory" was evolved by Admiral Tirpitz saying pretty much that the German navy only needs to be so strong that every destruction of the German navy would cost the Royal navy so much that it would lose its sea-dominance to a 3rd sea-power and is thus a risk the Royal Navy cannot be willing to undertake. By pure diplomatics this prewar-theory was found wrong. Nevertheless: The German surface fleet was so strong in both world wars that German submarine warfare could act pretty much without any hinderance as it always had secure areas to fall back to (see Sea-Denial-theory in the Fleet-Being-Article). So your mere believe in "a fleet must be able to defeat another one to have an impact" is a bit of the believe of someone who always was the strongest . It would have been much more stupid for the Germans to just head-charge into the royal navy without much of an impact at all. PS: Jutland wasn't inconclusive. By losses the German navy had won the battle and by controlled area it was a draw same as in strategic impact. Edited July 25, 2016 by Thonar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 I can only support and underline "Thonars" statement, profound knowledge. To mark the influence and success of a countries navy, it is a difficult task. Guess, thinking in "relative importance" and so on, helps. At least the WWII-submarines are (historically) regarded as being hugely succesful by any means. Moreover, the navy was not Hitler´s favourite "kid", so they had to work with limited ressources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kloothommel Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Germany as in the terms of the "modern state" from 1871 onwards? Can't be really seen as "least successful naval power". As a matter of fact both U-Boat campaigns were pretty successful (especially the one during the first world-war) by pure numbers. The German surface-face fleet, despite being young and without much experience, proved to be a worthy opponent to the royal navy in both world-wars. In terms of naval power Germany is for sure not the "least successful naval power" when you see the damage inflicted upon the merchant shipping... so... Germany might even be the best pirate nation ^^ xD. MFW all german players in NA reroll pirate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now