This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
A lot of messages have been about best generals and armies of all time.
I would be intersted in when people thought the Royal Navy was at it's best, compared to everyone else.
E.g.
King Alfred's Navy,
Early 1700's with Rooke etc,
Circa 1800 with Nelson etc,
WW1 navy,
WW2 navy or today's navy.
Nelson's time by far was when the Royal Navy was at its best. Superior training allowed the Navy to outfight its opponents. Also, after the hanging of that Admiral (his name eludes me as I'm writing this, sorry), the officers were imbued with a spirit to attack so as not to face the same fate. As an example, take Trafalgar. 1 British fleet taking on the combined fleets of the French and Spanish and winning. Those were the two best navies after the Royal Navy and the gap between the Royal Navy and the French+Spanish was considerably larger than the gap between 2nd and 3rd. It was that era which lead to a dominance of nearly 150 years and also gained the Royal Navy the honour of being referred as THE Royal Navy, regardless of nationality
Lord Ball
I think his name was Byng who was shot "pour encourager les autres!"
Not only the spanish and French navies but the danish navy and the US navy in 1812.
It did help the navy in Nelson's day that Admiral Rooke had captured Gibraltar in 1704? this would allow for centuries to come, RN dominance in the Mediterranean.
I wouldn't say the US Navy in 1812. Even by that time, I think a malaise had set in at the Admiralty beleiving that the Royal Navy was superior and could not be challenged. Its clear to see that in the force that the Admiralty sent to the USA in 1812. It was made up of only 1 64 gun (HMS Africa), 2 38 guns (HMS Shannon and HMS Guerrire, 1 36 gun (HMS Belvidera) and 1 32 gun (HMS Aeolus). 1 Battleship and 4 frigates of a varying degree to deal with the 11 frigates of the US Navy? It may sound like in a battle, the Royal Navy would win because of the advantage of the battleship (a third rate though.it'd be pushing it). Yet, the US Navy had superior ships mainly the USS Constitution, USS President and USS United States. These three frigates were easily capable of beating the Royal Navy frigates that were assigned to hunt them down, and did so. The resultant defeats of the Royal Navy Frigates in battle lead to loss of morale within the fleet. Also, the ships sent by the Royal Navy were manned by impressed Americans who had no desire to serve the British Crown and therefore there was no desire to fight their own navy.
No what I meant was that the RN was having to fight only the franco-spanish fleets but also the danish and US fleets respectively.
I thought the Spanish surrendered after Trafalgar and split away from the alliance with French? And the Danish were finished after Copenhagen and the end of the League of Armed Neutrality? Anyway, sorry for misinterpreting your remark.
Hi redcoat,
The Royal Navy is always at its best regardless of the quality of the ships allowed by the various governments.
An old seadog (RN)
Spike
When the RN has admirals who are up to the job, such as Blake, Nelson, or Cunningham, it is superlative. The rest of the time their moral example carries the RN through whatever vicissitudes this uncertain world throws at them.
What about Sandy Woodward(i'm pretty sure that's his name, but not 100%) at the Falklands? Do you count him as a good Admiral?
Good enough for the job - though his press relations were not too good - first "It's a doddle" then "We may struggle". Positioning of the carrier group was a touch iffy too, if memory serves. In the final analysis, he did the job, and that's about all one can ask.
About the carrier positioning, he was a sub commander before that so he could be forgiven slightly couldn't he?
Interesting fact. Pre Napoleonic times, when The royal navy 'ruled the seas undisputedly' they always made passing forgein ships dip their flag in the water as they passed! Or they said hello to the cannon....
, in reply to message 11.
Posted by Pugwash Trouserpress (U1865008) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
The standing joke amonst us who were serving 'down south' was that we were getting the South Atlantic Medal and the carriers were geting the Burma Star!!
Woodward was a submariner - but never volunteered for subs. He also seems to have been very influenced by his success in getting his flagship into the heart of a US navy force some time before, and have expected the Argentines to attempt something similar. The problems Invisible was having with her main machinery might also have made him overcautious, I suppose. Why do we always have to have a lame duck carrier? Fourth Ark (aka Park Royal) should have been scrapped at Phantomisation - Eagle was in much better nick.
Submariners seem to have replaced batttleship drivers as the new elite - only one flyer (Caspar John) ever got right to the top. My understanding is that most of the better fighting admirals of C20th were from outside the battlewagon brigade, though - Cunningham, Burnett etc.
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.