The Sino-Japanese Naval War of 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Is there any point in continuing this? There is no war going on and this is just a flame bait topic.
 

Lezt

Junior Member
I would say you are simply giving the technological advantage to the victor.
I did say I was twisting it a bit.
The Spanish armada was built with the principle of "ramming and boarding" in mind, which was the conventional wisdom of naval battles at the time. In that respect, they were far more "technologically advanced" than the English fleet.
mmmhmmmm there is a much fuller discussion here. ramming and boarding is a mediterranean tactic unsuitable for the high sea; where the battle was fought. The spanish armarda is made of galleons and galleys, the former of which sailed to america and had an significant broad side for high sea combat.

The smaller and more agile british ships were designed to fire accurate smaller caliber guns to dictate the engagement range and to maintain the wind gauge.

This is what the british fleet did so well, they herded the Spanish armada which had to maintain a blob formation so not to be picked off individually. Maintaining the wind gauge, the British were able to send fire ships into the spanish
I'm not sure about the persians and greeks, but I would say in the era of triremes, it's pretty hard to say who holds the technological advancement.
Actually, you can

Greek triremes were stronger built and their fighting decks were quite a bit taller than the Persian counterparts to allow greek marines to flight with a height advantage and negate some protection offered by the persian ships' parapets.

Another thing is that the greek fleets have been training for about a year before salamis; and they proved much more maneuverable than their Persian counterparts, and in many cases, able to cut the oars on Persian ships.
Finally, the IJN fell to the USN because the US massively outproduced Japan. The IJN, at the time of Pearl Harbor, had the most advanced and best trained navy in the world.

At the time or pearl harbor, maybe. at the time of the coral sea or midway, maybe not.

Yes Japan had better night optics, but radar fire control basically negated it. The USA had the best armor tech during WW2, their entire warships are built with armor grade steel, they akso have the best heavy weight ammunition for their large caliber guns. The USA leads in Fire control, damage control, logistics over vast span of ocean, ammunition, etc.

So I think I can clearly say that the USA is more advanced than Japan; during WW2 - generally.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I did say I was twisting it a bit.

mmmhmmmm there is a much fuller discussion here. ramming and boarding is a mediterranean tactic unsuitable for the high sea; where the battle was fought. The spanish armarda is made of galleons and galleys, the former of which sailed to america and had an significant broad side for high sea combat.

The smaller and more agile british ships were designed to fire accurate smaller caliber guns to dictate the engagement range and to maintain the wind gauge.

This is what the british fleet did so well, they herded the Spanish armada which had to maintain a blob formation so not to be picked off individually. Maintaining the wind gauge, the British were able to send fire ships into the spanish

Actually, you can

Greek triremes were stronger built and their fighting decks were quite a bit taller than the Persian counterparts to allow greek marines to flight with a height advantage and negate some protection offered by the persian ships' parapets.

Another thing is that the greek fleets have been training for about a year before salamis; and they proved much more maneuverable than their Persian counterparts, and in many cases, able to cut the oars on Persian ships.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The outcome vindicated the English strategy and resulted in a revolution in naval battle tactics with the promotion of gunnery, which until then had played a supporting role to the tasks of ramming and boarding; although the actual battle was indecisive and the losses suffered in it were relatively minor. Still, some military historians hold that the battle of Gravelines reflected a lasting shift in the balance of naval power in favour of the English, in part because of the gap in naval technology and armament it confirmed between the two nations,[26] which continued into the next century. In the words of Geoffrey Parker, by 1588 'the capital ships of the Elizabethan navy constituted the most powerful battlefleet afloat anywhere in the world.'[27] The English navy yards were leaders in technical innovation, and the captains devised new tactics. Geoffrey Parker argues that the full-rigged ship was one of the greatest technological advances of the century and permanently transformed naval warfare. In 1573 English shipwrights introduced designs, first demonstrated in the "Dreadnaught," that allowed the ships to sail faster and maneuver better and permitted heavier guns.[28] Whereas before warships had tried to grapple with each other so that soldiers could board the enemy ship, now they more often stood off and fired broadsides that could sink the enemy vessel.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because technology is not just a comparison of who has the better toys. A true revolution happens when something different is used to gain a decisive advantage. However, before that new technology is proven, no one can say with certainty that the playing field has changed.

The Spanish Armada was built on the tried and true "ramming and boarding" tactics of naval battles, with guns serving as support. It was only with their defeat that historians began to judge the English tactic as "superior".

Likewise, the full plate armor is the height of armor technology in medieval Europe, yet history judges crossbows and firearms as more technologically advanced.

In the case of China, the ASBM is yet unproven. Yet, should it prove effective, it will do to carriers what what muskets did to full plate.


At the time or pearl harbor, maybe. at the time of the coral sea or midway, maybe not.

Yes Japan had better night optics, but radar fire control basically negated it. The USA had the best armor tech during WW2, their entire warships are built with armor grade steel, they akso have the best heavy weight ammunition for their large caliber guns. The USA leads in Fire control, damage control, logistics over vast span of ocean, ammunition, etc.

So I think I can clearly say that the USA is more advanced than Japan; during WW2 - generally.

I'm pretty sure that the Germans had the best armor in WW2.

Anyway, coral sea and midway both happened in 1942, 5 years after Pearl Harbor. The reason the US was able to "out-tech" Japan was because they had an industrial base that was magnitudes more massive than Japan.

This is in fact why I said Japan stands no chance in an all out war against China today.
 

Lezt

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




The reason I'm bringing this up is because technology is not just a comparison of who has the better toys. A true revolution happens when something different is used to gain a decisive advantage. However, before that new technology is proven, no one can say with certainty that the playing field has changed.

The Spanish Armada was built on the tried and true "ramming and boarding" tactics of naval battles, with guns serving as support. It was only with their defeat that historians began to judge the English tactic as "superior".

Likewise, the full plate armor is the height of armor technology in medieval Europe, yet history judges crossbows and firearms as more technologically advanced.

In the case of China, the ASBM is yet unproven. Yet, should it prove effective, it will do to carriers what what muskets did to full plate.
I disagree respectfully.

If we simplify naval warfare, there is 2 approaches

1) by missile technology; which later evolve into aircraft as well
2) by ram and board.

But lets take a look at Roman galleys vs Greek ones, The greeks were better seamen, they can ram better than the Romans and they can manuver better. What the Romans did, was add fore and aft castles for archers, balistas and boarding bridge onto their galleys to even the odds.

Ancient Chinese and Korean warships fight mainly with traction trebuchets; while the japanese were more of the ram and board type.

^ that was my reply to really say, the playing field never really changed, it is only that new iterations of either 1 or 2 overtake one or the other.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I'm pretty sure that the Germans had the best armor in WW2.

Anyway, coral sea and midway both happened in 1942, 5 years after Pearl Harbor. The reason the US was able to "out-tech" Japan was because they had an industrial base that was magnitudes more massive than Japan.

This is in fact why I said Japan stands no chance in an all out war against China today.

tank armor and naval armor is different, the USA had the best. but anyways,

Pearl harbor was Dec 17, 1941, midway and coral sea is within a year.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Pearl harbor was Dec 17, 1941, midway and coral sea is within a year.

Ack, brainfart.

Anyway, it's interesting to note that the battle of Coral Sea was a tactical victory for Japan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Although a tactical victory for the Japanese in terms of ships sunk, the battle would prove to be a strategic victory for the Allies for several reasons. Japanese expansion, seemingly unstoppable until then, was turned back for the first time.

This pretty much implies that Japan had the naval advantage when they attacked Pearl Harbor. It's also a good reminder that for a large industrialized country, military production can happen much faster than we think during war time.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I disagree respectfully.

If we simplify naval warfare, there is 2 approaches

1) by missile technology; which later evolve into aircraft as well
2) by ram and board.

But lets take a look at Roman galleys vs Greek ones, The greeks were better seamen, they can ram better than the Romans and they can manuver better. What the Romans did, was add fore and aft castles for archers, balistas and boarding bridge onto their galleys to even the odds.

Ancient Chinese and Korean warships fight mainly with traction trebuchets; while the japanese were more of the ram and board type.

^ that was my reply to really say, the playing field never really changed, it is only that new iterations of either 1 or 2 overtake one or the other.

There is a 3rd approach, which is to fire missiles from land. This approach was in use with defensive fortifications. The Chinese ASBM can be seen as a new iteration of this approach.
 

NikeX

Banned Idiot
There is a 3rd approach, which is to fire missiles from land. This approach was in use with defensive fortifications. The Chinese ASBM can be seen as a new iteration of this approach.

Gotta find the ships first. Thought I would remind you of that. And in the face of EW, decoys, Ageis, and full on innovative tactics those land based missiles may not be deciding edge you think they are.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Gotta find the ships first. Thought I would remind you of that. And in the face of EW, decoys, Ageis, and full on innovative tactics those land based missiles may not be deciding edge you think they are.

Finding ships is easy. All you need to do is set up an extensive network of buoys, and then triangulate wave patterns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top