Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Who was history's greatest admiral?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PatrickGHBusan wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:
@steelrails

Yes, I am aware of Togo, he is hardly an obscure figure. Also rest assured that my knowledge on this subject is sufficient for a discussion with you.

Now back to the matter at hand, the japanese ships were not warships. They were used for operations in coastal waters, where they would get close and rely on melee combat.

A simple comparison of the standard Korean and Japanese ship would show just how inferior the Japanese ships were.

As you point out the battle of 칠천량 showed that if they were allowed to use their melee tactics they were formidable. Yi's strength was to understand the japanese limitations and exploit them.

Remember I am not arguing that Yi is an idiot, just that he is not the peer of Nelson. Also that his enemy was not much of a match, as evidenced by his 12 v hundreds victory.

Finally, I am not proposing a conspiracy, defeated nations often turn their enemies into superheroes to lessen the pain of defeat. The yanks do it with the Vietnamese for example.


Good points.

I too would rank Nelson above Yi. In fact, I feel Nelson is in a class of his own. However, Yi, belongs in the discussion and is in my opinion in the top 5 in terms of naval commanders throughout history due to his impact and war record.


Yeah you are right. I admit to being a Nelson fanboy, as a result I think I was a little too harsh on Yi. His record is undeniably epic and his tribulations through the second invasion were worthy of Hollywood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:
Finally, I am not proposing a conspiracy, defeated nations often turn their enemies into superheroes to lessen the pain of defeat. The yanks do it with the Vietnamese for example.


Who told you that?


Thanks for the clip and introducing me to Sam Kinison.

It is easier to make the enemy into giants than to admit that their is weakness or incompetence. All countries are guilty of it at one time or another.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes, I am aware of Togo, he is hardly an obscure figure. Also rest assured that my knowledge on this subject is sufficient for a discussion with you.


I was quoting Smithington, who wrote this gem of a statement-

Quote:
Having said that, your quote from Admiral Togo says nothing about the veracity of the story under discussion - about his 333 ships being beaten by Shin's 12. Is that the only source you have from the Japanese side? It's not much to go on. He's just praising an opponent. And let's face it, usually when someone is unexpectedly defeated it's not unknown for them to lionize the person who defeated them. "You should have seen the size of this guy. Noone could have beaten him." Again, exagerating your opponents abilities helps deflect criticism of your own failure.


It's hard to read that and not suspect that Smithington has no idea who Admiral Togo is.

I had no idea that Togo's 333 ships were beaten by Yi's 12. Apparently Yi can transport people through time.

Although Smithington will probably try to save face by claiming that he was using "The royal 'we'. You know, the editorial".

Quote:
Now back to the matter at hand, the japanese ships were not warships. They were used for operations in coastal waters, where they would get close and rely on melee combat.

A simple comparison of the standard Korean and Japanese ship would show just how inferior the Japanese ships were.


Oh I agree that 2/3rds of the fleet were transports and thus not really worthy of note, but again 1/3rd of that fleet were warships, warships which had previously smashed the Korean fleet of similarly designed ships. This isn't the mythical charge of Polish Lancers against German Panzers here.

Quote:
just that he is not the peer of Nelson.


Not the peer of DeRuyter. Nelson...didn't really have that sustained continuous campaign of battle, though in his defense this is due to a lack of opportunity as afforded by the technology and strategic situation. It is highly probable that with more opportunities, Nelson could well have achieved a lengthy record of success. Certainly, Nelson displayed all the potential. I'd rate Nelson like a Stonewall Jackson. Brilliant in what he did, but not quite enough opportunities to rank him amongst the great captains were he a general. But like Jackson, the actions that he did participate in are models for warfare. However, since this is naval warfare and such opportunities are limited, this is excused and enough to put him on the "Mount Rushmore" of admiralship, in this sense he is somewhat like Yi where there is an asterisk. Yi's asterisk being the asymmetrical nature of the ships used (although the fact that he was a significant influence in this is in part a tribute to him). Nelson to his credit dealt with not one foe from a single nation, but multiple nations and thus, multiple doctrines so to speak.

I doubt that if Nelson had been responsible for developing and implementing some sort of technological development that gave the Royal Navy a significant edge, that this would be counted against his admiralship, rather it would further enhance his brilliance, much in the way Dowding is given credit for utilizing the technology of radar to achieve a tactical advantage over the Germans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
young_clinton



Joined: 09 Sep 2009

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PatrickGHBusan wrote:


I feel Nelson is in a class of his own.


Did you know that Nelson did not come up with the strategy that defeated the Franco-Spanish fleet? The strategy was devised by an individual that was never able to get into the navy. He was so interested in Naval battles he would plan battles in a tub of water with small models. He planned the Trafalgar tactics using his small models and published it. Nelson was aware of his publication.

Also at Battle of Midway, Rear-Admiral Spruitz was in charge and conceived the importance of the naval group that decoded the Japanese message that allowed the navy to surprise attack the Japanese. Also Spruitz was in charge of the naval task force at Midway that made the first strike on the Japanese carriers. It was his decision to delay bringing in the dive bombers even though they might have to ditch them in the sea.

Nimitz's contribution was to command Spruitz and Fletcher to cause as much damage as possible to the Japanese strike force, knowing that they could not replace their ships unlike the Americans. It was Spruitz's command at Midway that led to the Japanese disaster. Spruitz and Halsey disliked each other, but in spite of that Halsey knew that Spruitz was methodical and intelligent and recommended to Nimitz to have him replaced with Spruitz while he was in the Hospital unable to command at Midway. You might want to consider Spruitz as one of the greatest Admirals if you are considering Nimitz.

Many more Admirals than the one's mentioned in this thread like Themisticles (who was actually a general) but conceived the deception at the Battle of Salamis which saved Greece from incorporation into the Persian Empire. My opinion is Salamis is the most pivotal naval battle of all time. Also you might consider the Battle of Lepanto where the naval forces of the Christian coalition defeated the Turks. That was commanded by Don John of Austria. This battle maintained Christian dominance in the Mediterranean. This is another very significant battle. This battle occurred at a time when the Turks were seriously threatening the Austria. They had 50 years earlier attacked Vienna.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickGHBusan



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

young_clinton wrote:
PatrickGHBusan wrote:


I feel Nelson is in a class of his own.


Did you know that Nelson did not come up with the strategy that defeated the Franco-Spanish fleet? The strategy was devised by an individual that was never able to get into the navy. He was so interested in Naval battles he would plan battles in a tub of water with small models. He planned the Trafalgar tactics using his small models and published it. Nelson was aware of his publication.

Also at Battle of Midway, Rear-Admiral Spruitz was in charge and conceived the importance of the naval group that decoded the Japanese message that allowed the navy to surprise attack the Japanese. Also Spruitz was in charge of the naval task force at Midway that made the first strike on the Japanese carriers. It was his decision to delay bringing in the dive bombers even though they might have to ditch them in the sea.

Nimitz's contribution was to command Spruitz and Fletcher to cause as much damage as possible to the Japanese strike force, knowing that they could not replace their ships unlike the Americans. It was Spruitz's command at Midway that led to the Japanese disaster. Spruitz and Halsey disliked each other, but in spite of that Halsey knew that Spruitz was methodical and intelligent and recommended to Nimitz to have him replaced with Spruitz while he was in the Hospital unable to command at Midway. You might want to consider Spruitz as one of the greatest Admirals if you are considering Nimitz.

Many more Admirals than the one's mentioned in this thread like Themisticles (who was actually a general) but conceived the deception at the Battle of Salamis which saved Greece from incorporation into the Persian Empire. My opinion is Salamis is the most pivotal naval battle of all time. Also you might consider the Battle of Lepanto where the naval forces of the Christian coalition defeated the Turks. That was commanded by Don John of Austria. This battle maintained Christian dominance in the Mediterranean. This is another very significant battle. This battle occurred at a time when the Turks were seriously threatening the Austria. They had 50 years earlier attacked Vienna.


All good points/examples.

All interesting cases of naval warfare and leadership.

You could add Yamamoto to the list for his Pearn Harbor / early Pacific War naval strategy. The use of torpedo planes and carriers was inspired from a British strike at an Italian port but then taken to a whole new level through the use and understanding of naval air power.

You could discuss Karl Dönitz for his subwarfare campaign in WWII.

Tons of great examples.

I still feel Nelson is in a class of his own due to his impact over a long period of conflict and over such distances. No admiral comes up with battle plans on his own, to think so is a bit naive. They all consult their staff and try to find as much information as they possibly can to ensure success. That in fact is to me one the most critical traits for any great military commander, Nelson is no exception to this rule.

Yi, to me, belongs in the top because of his impact on the Japanese invasion (he stalled it through the cutting off of supplies and affected overal Japanese morale) and his battlefield tactic, his innovation in terms of naval warfare and his war record.

Who else is in the top 5? That can be a great debate and for me, in no particular order it would be


Nelson and then 2,3,4,5 includes: Yi, Yamamoto, Don Juan of Austria and Themisticles

Honorable mentions would go to:

Togo for the battle of Tsushima Straits and of the Yellow sea, crushing victories over the Russians.

Frank Jack Fletcher for the battles of Coral sea and Midway, critical battles of WWII.

Mahan from a conceptual point of view for his work on Sea Power.

Nimitz because of midway but he was more an administrator than a battle commander in many ways.

Donitz for his conceptualization and use of submarine warfare.


Last edited by PatrickGHBusan on Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I am aware of Togo, he is hardly an obscure figure. Also rest assured that my knowledge on this subject is sufficient for a discussion with you.


I was quoting Smithington, who wrote this gem of a statement-

Quote:
Having said that, your quote from Admiral Togo says nothing about the veracity of the story under discussion - about his 333 ships being beaten by Shin's 12. Is that the only source you have from the Japanese side? It's not much to go on. He's just praising an opponent. And let's face it, usually when someone is unexpectedly defeated it's not unknown for them to lionize the person who defeated them. "You should have seen the size of this guy. Noone could have beaten him." Again, exagerating your opponents abilities helps deflect criticism of your own failure.


It's hard to read that and not suspect that Smithington has no idea who Admiral Togo is.

I had no idea that Togo's 333 ships were beaten by Yi's 12. Apparently Yi can transport people through time.

Although Smithington will probably try to save face by claiming that he was using "The royal 'we'. You know, the editorial".

Quote:
Now back to the matter at hand, the japanese ships were not warships. They were used for operations in coastal waters, where they would get close and rely on melee combat.

A simple comparison of the standard Korean and Japanese ship would show just how inferior the Japanese ships were.


Oh I agree that 2/3rds of the fleet were transports and thus not really worthy of note, but again 1/3rd of that fleet were warships, warships which had previously smashed the Korean fleet of similarly designed ships. This isn't the mythical charge of Polish Lancers against German Panzers here.

Quote:
just that he is not the peer of Nelson.


Not the peer of DeRuyter. Nelson...didn't really have that sustained continuous campaign of battle, though in his defense this is due to a lack of opportunity as afforded by the technology and strategic situation. It is highly probable that with more opportunities, Nelson could well have achieved a lengthy record of success. Certainly, Nelson displayed all the potential. I'd rate Nelson like a Stonewall Jackson. Brilliant in what he did, but not quite enough opportunities to rank him amongst the great captains were he a general. But like Jackson, the actions that he did participate in are models for warfare. However, since this is naval warfare and such opportunities are limited, this is excused and enough to put him on the "Mount Rushmore" of admiralship, in this sense he is somewhat like Yi where there is an asterisk. Yi's asterisk being the asymmetrical nature of the ships used (although the fact that he was a significant influence in this is in part a tribute to him). Nelson to his credit dealt with not one foe from a single nation, but multiple nations and thus, multiple doctrines so to speak.

I doubt that if Nelson had been responsible for developing and implementing some sort of technological development that gave the Royal Navy a significant edge, that this would be counted against his admiralship, rather it would further enhance his brilliance, much in the way Dowding is given credit for utilizing the technology of radar to achieve a tactical advantage over the Germans.


Apologies for confusing your response to smithington.

Firstly, Nelson was fighting an enemy that could fight back. Nelson couldn't just sit back and take pot shots, each ship he went up against contained more pieces of heavy artillery than even a land based army.

Yi was fighting at range against vessels with effectively no capacity to return fire. It is like glorifying British victories over the flintlock musket armed madhists who fought against an army armed with artillery, Gatling guns and repeat rifles. If the commander was incompetent enough they might sneak a victory like Islandlwana and 칠천량, but instead they were literally bringing knives to a gun fight.

Secondly, we are talking about great naval commanders not ship wrights. Whilst Yi's technological advances make him a candidate for the greatest naval engineer of all time, it has no bearing on his status as commander. Also not even the best Japanese ship came close to its Korean rival, none could be classed as a true warship.

Then there is seamanship, Nelson was a professional sailor Yi was not. Nelson fought actions and directed battles far from home waters, across oceans.

HMS Victory was almost twice the length of even the largest Korean vessel, in terms of tonnage it is not even close. The challenges of commanding vessels of such size and complexity in the age before radio were immense.

De Ruyter is I agree a far better comparison. Although I think Nelson just pips him because of his greater tactical skill. Also I hate to play this card, but Nelson was more successful, his victories had a profound effect on the global maritime balance of power.

De Ruyter did indeed embarrass the English at Medway and won the most important victories of the Third Anglo-Dutch. His record before that was also very good, but not exceptional.

Nelson turned the British pretension to naval supremacy into a reality. He didn't just win a battle, the war at sea was essentially settled thanks to his victories. Nelson won control of the sea, turning seas and oceans into British lakes, can De Ruyter and Yi say the same?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

young_clinton wrote:
PatrickGHBusan wrote:


I feel Nelson is in a class of his own.


Did you know that Nelson did not come up with the strategy that defeated the Franco-Spanish fleet? The strategy was devised by an individual that was never able to get into the navy. He was so interested in Naval battles he would plan battles in a tub of water with small models. He planned the Trafalgar tactics using his small models and published it. Nelson was aware of his publication.

Also at Battle of Midway, Rear-Admiral Spruitz was in charge and conceived the importance of the naval group that decoded the Japanese message that allowed the navy to surprise attack the Japanese. Also Spruitz was in charge of the naval task force at Midway that made the first strike on the Japanese carriers. It was his decision to delay bringing in the dive bombers even though they might have to ditch them in the sea.

Nimitz's contribution was to command Spruitz and Fletcher to cause as much damage as possible to the Japanese strike force, knowing that they could not replace their ships unlike the Americans. It was Spruitz's command at Midway that led to the Japanese disaster. Spruitz and Halsey disliked each other, but in spite of that Halsey knew that Spruitz was methodical and intelligent and recommended to Nimitz to have him replaced with Spruitz while he was in the Hospital unable to command at Midway. You might want to consider Spruitz as one of the greatest Admirals if you are considering Nimitz.

Many more Admirals than the one's mentioned in this thread like Themisticles (who was actually a general) but conceived the deception at the Battle of Salamis which saved Greece from incorporation into the Persian Empire. My opinion is Salamis is the most pivotal naval battle of all time. Also you might consider the Battle of Lepanto where the naval forces of the Christian coalition defeated the Turks. That was commanded by Don John of Austria. This battle maintained Christian dominance in the Mediterranean. This is another very significant battle. This battle occurred at a time when the Turks were seriously threatening the Austria. They had 50 years earlier attacked Vienna.


Lepanto was in 1571, the great siege of Vienna was in 1683. It obviously had little long term effect on stopping the Ottomans. Along with the siege of Malta, Lepanto and its legacy is a little over egged by western scholars.

Midway did indeed rely on a lot of luck, cannot say the same about the Philippine sea 1 and 2 though. Also Nimitz was a commander at such a high level that his role cannot be seen in the same way as an Admiral on a gun deck.

As for Nelson, he could have gotten the plans from a girl in a brothel for all we know. The important thing is that it was Nelson making the decisions on the day of the battle.

You are quite right to point out the skills of ancient commanders, but again there is a problem when we compare coastal navies with blue water navies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scorpion



Joined: 15 Apr 2012

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What kills me is that the ATOP recruiter (in the link) claims that Yi was "the greatest admiral in the history of the world". But he can't even place him in the correct century. According to ATOP recruiting Yi accomplished his amazing feat during the Korean War (1952). This mistake is made twice in the post, so it's clearly not a simple typo. It would appear that he's just spouting Korean uber-nationalism without having a clue what he's talking about. I'm sure if one of called him up and ask him to mention three other admirals "in world history" the silence would be deafening.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Smithington



Joined: 14 Dec 2011

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rails old chap, I will freely admit that I had never heard of Togo, and I don’t know terribly much about Yin. You win on that point. However, what I do know that historians bring to any historical question a number of tools; foremost among them is a healthy skepticism. When someone tells a historian that Admiral ‘A’ with 12 ships defeated Admiral ‘B’, with 333 ships no historian will accept that without corroborating evidence. So before the historian even hears the names of the admirals, the nations involved, the location of the battle, or the year it was fought, she is already wondering whether the story has been embellished. She wants to know what the source materials for this claim are. She particularly wants to know if there are any neutral “outside” sources for this claim. Nationalist renditions of the past are, by their very nature, always suspect. Along comes someone who claims that the defeated party actually acknowledged the fact of the matter. The historian then thinks, “Wow, I’d love to see the primary source proving this.” That same person comes back with quotes from two “secondary sources”, both of which are written hundreds of years after the event and neither of which says anything about the matter at hand – 12 ships defeating 333. The historian scratches her head and thinks, “Is that it? Where is the mention of those 333 ships defeated by twelve? Surely he is basing his ‘outside’ source confirmation on more than this?” To her dismay there is nothing more to his claim, and she concludes that he has, despite his enthusiam, failed to prove the historicity of the traditional claim. That claim again being the astonishing one that a flotilla of 333 was defeated by a mere twelve ships.

The historian becomes curious about the person who provided the unsatisfactory (secondary) source material. It turns out that individual is a rabid defender and promoter of all things connected to the country of Admiral ‘A’. In fact, no one interviewed has any record of him EVER downplaying country ‘A’’s accomplishments. Indeed, it is alleged that he has a record of manipulating ‘facts’ to bolster that country’s reputation and status at every turn. He has a reputation for turning on anyone who criticizes country ‘A’ in any way. The historian concludes that this individual is simply unreliable as an historical source.

Sorry Rails, you just aren’t credible. But if you do have evidence that you’ve been withholding now would be the time to bring it forward. If you don’t have it, then one doesn’t need to know a great deal about either admiral, or the battle in question, for red flags to start popping up all over the place. Give us the evidence or accept the likelihood that the story has been embellished over the years.

Have a nice lunch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The historian becomes curious about the person who provided the unsatisfactory (secondary) source material. It turns out that individual is a rabid defender and promoter of all things connected to the country of Admiral ‘A’. In fact, no one interviewed has any record of him EVER downplaying country ‘A’’s accomplishments. Indeed, it is alleged that he has a record of manipulating ‘facts’ to bolster that country’s reputation and status at every turn. He has a reputation for turning on anyone who criticizes country ‘A’ in any way. The historian concludes that this individual is simply unreliable as an historical source.


As opposed to the person who rips another country at every chance, never has anything good to say about that country, and on top of that is blatantly ignorant of the issue at hand and military history in general?

I could travel back in time and bring every person from that battle here ala Bill n Ted and you'd still say that it was all a bunch of propaganda.

The only way you would be satisfied is if someone European was actually at the battle. Of course, European claims about battles 500 years ago can be taken at face value. After all, Knights and Kings never embellished their stories and records keeping and scholarship was at its height then. Rolling Eyes

Besides, I think at this point its incumbent upon you to disprove the historical record, rather than for me to prove it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Give us the evidence or accept the likelihood that the story has been embellished over the years.


For starters, the idea that this battle is embellished requires one to accept that the previous battle involving the near total destruction of the Korean fleet was somehow an act of collective delusion on the part of both the Japanese and Koreans.

Then of course, you have to accept that the actions following the battle do not indicate a significant defeat and that somehow China, Japan, and Korea all got the battle wildly wrong.

Now, you claim that possibly the Japanese Admiral wildly exaggerated the capabilities of the Korean admiral in order to save his face. This is strange, because the typical method of incompetent commanders is to blame overwhelming odds, not that the enemy was brilliant (implying their own incompetence).

Lastly, the reasons for the Korean victory have clearly been given- Superb use of terrain (tides, shadows, and most importantly funneling the Japanese through a straight), piecemeal Japanese attacks (The 300 ships didn't suddenly materialize out of nowhere around the Korean ships), Korean superiority of cannon, the fact that 2/3rds of the ships were transports and lightly armed, and retreating Japanese ships disrupting the ships coming up behind them. With all of those factors, the victory does not seem so improbable as to strain credulity.

Maybe if you had actually read something about the battle, and understood military principles in general, you might actually have a clue what you're talking about. Anyone who understands military principles and reads why the Korean's won that battle can "see it". This isn't some glorious charge of 13 ships against a swarm of 300, this is a victory brought about by military science and scientific principles. This wasn't valor, it was math.

The bottom line is that Yi wasn't facing 300 ships all at once, he was facing a fleet of 300 coming up in a row, piecemeal, meaning his 13 ships were likely facing an equivalent or no more than twice their number, which with their being obscured by the shadows, having superior gun platforms and cannon, and 'crossing the T' of the Japanese fleet, shows how this rapidly turned into a rout of the Japanese.

Now, this does not diminish Yi's accomplishment, rather it bears all the markings of a superb commander- using terrain and his force's unique capabilities to achieve a decisive result against a greatly numerically superior foe. A foe, that while technologically somewhat outclassed, would have likely made short work of his fleet had he not used terrain, tactics, and technology properly to their maximum advantage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RangerMcGreggor



Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Location: Somewhere in Korea

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've actually studied and researched on Yi Sunshin in college (funfact: he loved bow and arrows and alcohol). Just a few comments from stuff I've seen on this thread:

1.) Most estimates put the Japanese armada around 100-200 at most. Any estimate over 300 is probably counting the large amount of transportation ships that was following (and had no impact on the battle). Still 12 vs over 100 warships is pretty intense.

2.) The technology difference between Korean and Japanese warships are somewhat overstated. The killer for the Japanese was not the quality of their ships, but their lack of heavy firepower which made them vulnerable to longrange bombardments (Koreans were damn good at developing this type of technology) and to turtleships. At closer range, things became different as the Japanese relied on their heavy numbers and advantages in close combat to overwhelm people.

Remember: Admiral Yi only had 12 ships because the last navy battle (when he was in prison) at the Battle of Myeongnyang because the Japanese annihilated the Korean naval forces in a previous battle. Technology helps, but it only worked so well because Admiral Yi worked with what he got.

3.) Turtle ships are overrated and Admiral Yi really only had maybe a handful at most. He actually had none during Battle of Myeongnyang. The Panokseon was the backbone of the Korean navy (Sorta like the Hurricane vs Spitfire issue).[/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickGHBusan



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RangerMcGreggor wrote:
I've actually studied and researched on Yi Sunshin in college (funfact: he loved bow and arrows and alcohol). Just a few comments from stuff I've seen on this thread:

1.) Most estimates put the Japanese armada around 100-200 at most. Any estimate over 300 is probably counting the large amount of transportation ships that was following (and had no impact on the battle). Still 12 vs over 100 warships is pretty intense.

2.) The technology difference between Korean and Japanese warships are somewhat overstated. The killer for the Japanese was not the quality of their ships, but their lack of heavy firepower which made them vulnerable to longrange bombardments (Koreans were damn good at developing this type of technology) and to turtleships. At closer range, things became different as the Japanese relied on their heavy numbers and advantages in close combat to overwhelm people.

Remember: Admiral Yi only had 12 ships because the last navy battle (when he was in prison) at the Battle of Myeongnyang because the Japanese annihilated the Korean naval forces in a previous battle. Technology helps, but it only worked so well because Admiral Yi worked with what he got.

3.) Turtle ships are overrated and Admiral Yi really only had maybe a handful at most. He actually had none during Battle of Myeongnyang. The Panokseon was the backbone of the Korean navy (Sorta like the Hurricane vs Spitfire issue).[/i]


Excellent post.

I enjoyed reading this.

I read a couple of books on the period and I tend to agree the number of Japanese ships was overstated as was the impact of the turtle ships.

What I got from my readings was that Yi's impact was in his use of his ships, in understanding the advantages he had and making full use of them over the Japanese fleet and in completely destroying the Sea supply chain of the Japanese and thus affecting their landborne war efforts.

The battle od Hansando is to me one of Yi's greatest success because it came when Hideyoshi had ordred Japanese fleet to seek out and destroy Yi's forces. That would have removed the element of surprise where the Japanese ships tended to be caught unaware or underestimate Yi's forces.

In that battle Yi used a old tactic, that of baiting the enemy by engaging in a fake retreat. That drew the Japanese fleet to pursuit and into the trap. The result was the near total destruction of the Japanese battle fleet. From the records that I read, turtle ships played a small part as there was only 2-3 of them, the Panokson was the dominant ship of Yi's fleet and as was said in the previous post, the Koreans made full use of their superior firepower over range.

This traces an interesting parallel to how the British defeated the Spanish Armada while being outnumbered. They (British) had the better ships and the better gunnery over the longer range. The Spanish fleet was larger and intent on closing and boarding where their superior troops would prevail. The British never let them get close enough and instead battered them from range.

Yi did something similar and did not let the Japanese near until they had been battered by firepower at his disposal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RangerMcGreggor wrote:
I've actually studied and researched on Yi Sunshin in college (funfact: he loved bow and arrows and alcohol). Just a few comments from stuff I've seen on this thread:

1.) Most estimates put the Japanese armada around 100-200 at most. Any estimate over 300 is probably counting the large amount of transportation ships that was following (and had no impact on the battle). Still 12 vs over 100 warships is pretty intense.

2.) The technology difference between Korean and Japanese warships are somewhat overstated. The killer for the Japanese was not the quality of their ships, but their lack of heavy firepower which made them vulnerable to longrange bombardments (Koreans were damn good at developing this type of technology) and to turtleships. At closer range, things became different as the Japanese relied on their heavy numbers and advantages in close combat to overwhelm people.

Remember: Admiral Yi only had 12 ships because the last navy battle (when he was in prison) at the Battle of Myeongnyang because the Japanese annihilated the Korean naval forces in a previous battle. Technology helps, but it only worked so well because Admiral Yi worked with what he got.

3.) Turtle ships are overrated and Admiral Yi really only had maybe a handful at most. He actually had none during Battle of Myeongnyang. The Panokseon was the backbone of the Korean navy (Sorta like the Hurricane vs Spitfire issue).[/i]


I agree with a lot of what you say, but technology was important and the Japanese ships were no match whatsoever.

In Yi's battles he used his fleet to attack vessels at range because the Japanese couldn't return fire. The Japanese didn't have anything that could be called a warship, their tactics were to get close and overwhelm with a melee attack. The genius of Yi was to recognise this and to ensure that his ships didn't engage in close combat. Thus his battles became turkey shoots at slow moving targets. That by the way isn't a dig, it is exactly what he wanted.

Also as steelrails points out Yi was fighting in the coastal seas of Korea. He was able to use his superior knowledge of his home turf to his advantage.

All these things make him a great naval commander.

The Korean defeat at 칠천량 was their Islandlawana. A technologically advanced force being destroyed by incompetent tactics that negated their own technological advantage. The Japanese ships were useless at range, but up close they were invincible thanks to their superior numbers and melee tactics. Just as a Zulu impi were useless against mass ranks of repeating rifles, but unbeatable in hand to hand combat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickGHBusan



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At the same time, the British fleet made full use of its knowledge of the Channel when they defeated the Spanish. Nelson also made full use of his advantages. That seems like a basic rule of war: maximise your advantages and expose the enemy's weaknesses while staying away from their advantages!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 4 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International