| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Most powerful Martime power of the last 500 years
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Most powerful Martime power of the last 500 years

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Poll Question: Which one do you think is the favorite for the title
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
13 [52.00%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [4.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
10 [40.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [4.00%]
0 [0.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 15:14
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Gcle wrote:
With some trepidation I disagree with Mahan with regard to the latter half of the 19th century (and actually I'd suggest that Mahan is here proferring a rather American point of view). With the establishment of the British Empire the justification of the Royal Navy rested to a large extent in the spreading and protection of the dominions and colonies.
 
Well, Mahan did perforce blissfully ignore the army in terms of global territorial acquisition so as to assert maritime power, but in contradicting him with reference to the 1850s and thereafter, the positing of the Royal Navy as the incubus of empire commits the identical error. Now if the assertion merely reflects the political justification of the Naval Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, such a declaration is true but one would be hard put to identify any significant acquisition of territory with the RN as catalyst or that institution itself becoming the bulwark for commercial activity.
I already quoted Egypt as an example. Roughly at the same time, the Ottoman Empire de facto ceded and de jure leased Cyprus to Britain, essentially in order to get the protection of the British fleet after the Russo-Turkish war at the end of the 1870s. In fact, at that period the Navy made he Mediterraean littoral efectively a British-dominated preserve.
 
Mention of Cyprus and Turkey reminds me that an essential role for the Nay (in Britain's case) not only in the latter 19th century was the protection of the country itself, let alone its trade.
 
Diogenes would, I accept, have assumed boosting the role of the Navy in Empire-building would be an excellent vote-getter, but it was generally cancelled out since both sides made use of it.
 
How else could one in singing "We don't want to fight, but by Jingo if we do, We've got the ships, we've got the men, We've got the money too" put the ships first?
Quote
In fact, if one surveys shipbuilding as the barometer for the period in question one should note the wide divergence in output between commercial bottoms and capital ships. The history of Belfast between 1850 and 1910 suffices as an example. Heck, I myself would assert that it was the merchant adventurer that dictated to the RN in the 19th century much as his historical ancestor did the same in the 16th.
I don't really see the relevance of that. At the time I'm talking about Britain was shipbuilder to the world (including warships). Most American cargo even was carried under the Red Ensign. The Royal Navy had enough ships for its role, the miscellany of private shipowners that made up the Merchant Navy, as well as foreign flags, built as many as they wanted, though at the time I'm writing about there was I thnk a bit of a slump going on.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 15:31
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

CVs phrasing of  certain assertion caught my eye, he wrote:
 
When we look at the application of seapower since WW2, it has been about intervention in tumultuous regions of the world, and presenting a deterrance to nuclear war. Protection of merchant shipping has been the least of it.
It occurs to me that harassing enemy shipping is as important a goal for navies (in general) as protecting one's own. That particularly applies to England's 'proto-navy' in the 16th century and to Germany's in the 20th - especially its submarine fleet.
 
Nuclear submarines provide a deterrence to nuclear war, but as I've mentioned before, it worries me that battle fleets like the US has present almost an invitation to nuclear war, since attacking them at sea would be a 'clean' use of nukes.
Quote  
Only a politician keen on padding an unjustified budgetary appropriation would assert such. If WW2 is a watershed, it should stand as the decline of naval power as an offensive weapon and its rise more as an arm of logistic support (let us say "platforms") for supply and other offensive weaponry.
That navies have lost a great deal of their importance is one of the points I've been making about the relative power of the 19th century Royal Navy and today's US Navy. Th RN only had to defeat oher navies: the USN has to confront a whole range of other weaponry, including asymmetrical ones, and deal with a much more complex international political situation. It was easy for the RN to 'send a gunboat' when a gunboat and a threat were all that were necessary. It's not so easy for the USN.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 16:32
Gcle wrote:
 
"I already quoted Egypt as an example. Roughly at the same time, the Ottoman Empire de facto ceded and de jure leased Cyprus to Britain, essentially in order to get the protection of the British fleet after the Russo-Turkish war at the end of the 1870s. In fact, at that period the Navy made [t]he Mediterraean littoral efectively a British-dominated preserve."
 
Would such have taken place had not De Lesseps built the Suez Canal? The redirection of the trade route from the Cape to the Mediterranean is a factor that can not be ignored even in Balance of Power politics with respect to the European continent.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 16:34
I don't understand the test. It is just historical that the British dominated the world from the end of the 16th century to WWI, and afterwars the U.S. have been the main global superpower. In both cases they have had the largest navies.

Why to make a poll for some events that are historical? That's is like asking if people believe that Napoleon win or lose Waterloo. Big smile
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:14
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

CVs phrasing of  certain assertion caught my eye, he wrote:
 
When we look at the application of seapower since WW2, it has been about intervention in tumultuous regions of the world, and presenting a deterrance to nuclear war. Protection of merchant shipping has been the least of it.
It occurs to me that harassing enemy shipping is as important a goal for navies (in general) as protecting one's own. That particularly applies to England's 'proto-navy' in the 16th century and to Germany's in the 20th - especially its submarine fleet.
 
Nuclear submarines provide a deterrence to nuclear war, but as I've mentioned before, it worries me that battle fleets like the US has present almost an invitation to nuclear war, since attacking them at sea would be a 'clean' use of nukes.
Quote  
Only a politician keen on padding an unjustified budgetary appropriation would assert such. If WW2 is a watershed, it should stand as the decline of naval power as an offensive weapon and its rise more as an arm of logistic support (let us say "platforms") for supply and other offensive weaponry.
That navies have lost a great deal of their importance is one of the points I've been making about the relative power of the 19th century Royal Navy and today's US Navy. Th RN only had to defeat oher navies: the USN has to confront a whole range of other weaponry, including asymmetrical ones, and deal with a much more complex international political situation. It was easy for the RN to 'send a gunboat' when a gunboat and a threat were all that were necessary. It's not so easy for the USN.
 
Yes, I think this is pretty much the story. In the case of even a modest nuclear exchange, trade will be the least of anyone's worries.
 
Where naval forces have been most effective in recent years has been in asymmetrical conflicts, with one side not having the technology to effectively resist the other. Anything close to parity (Britain/Argentina for example) has shown the destructiveness of modern devices, and how rapidly naval power can be neutralized.
 
The effect of British naval power was immense, from curbing the slave trade to preventing German invasion in WW's 1&2. Today this sort of influence is sharply limited.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:14
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Gcle wrote:
 
"I already quoted Egypt as an example. Roughly at the same time, the Ottoman Empire de facto ceded and de jure leased Cyprus to Britain, essentially in order to get the protection of the British fleet after the Russo-Turkish war at the end of the 1870s. In fact, at that period the Navy made [t]he Mediterraean littoral efectively a British-dominated preserve."
 
Would such have taken place had not De Lesseps built the Suez Canal?
One can never tell. However the Turco-Briotish alliance which resulted in the leasing of Cyprus predated building the canal (though the leasing was later), and was primarily the outcome of both countries' need to contain Russia. 
 
I'd need convincing that Britain actually had to attack and occupy Egypt just to protect their shipping. After all the French would have had the same motive, and they didn't join in the attack (though they had a fleet nearby). I don't know if Rhodes was already dreaming of the Cape to Cairo line as early at 1880, but it wouldn't be long before he was.
 
Quote
The redirection of the trade route from the Cape to the Mediterranean is a factor that can not be ignored even in Balance of Power politics with respect to the European continent.
It's worth noting that the British government opposed the building of the canal, and when Disraeli changed tack and bought the shares he had to borrow the money from the Rothschilds. Before that the canal project had been seen more as a threat to British interests than an advantage. Also incidentally it would be some while before steamships going through the canal could beat clipper ships going round the Cape from the Far East to London.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 17 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 22:35
The Royal Navy during the Revolution and then Napoleonic Wars and for most if not all of the next century was the most powerful.

What Navy could stand against the RN in the Napoleonic wars?
Back to Top
CVA16 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CVA16 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2014 at 19:43
I would say the British dominated the seas for the longest time. They were pretty much the Kings of the hill for the 17th, 18th, and 19th century.
 
For raw power probably the current U.S. Navy.
 
For the category of "Making a Naval Power" there is no comparison to the building of the U.S. Navy in WWll. After devastating losses at Pearl Harbor and the early days of the war in 4 years they built the biggest and most powerful to date Navy ever. After the war they moth-balled more ships than any other Navy had
 
For utilizing the navy to compensate for lack of other power you would have to hand it to the British and the Dutch. Portugal did well for awhile.
 
Spain gets the award for worst use of a large navy. Close second Russia 1090-1905
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2014 at 20:18
Welcome to the forum, CVA16!
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 03:38
The original question was vague, nebulous and without a contextual nexus; other than ''Most powerful Martime power of the last 500 years''.

The key being than from a generalist viewpoint; the ''last 500 years''.

THE ANSWER THEN IS OBVIOUS: the United States Navy-Marine Corps-US Naval Reserve and the United states Coast Guard and US Merchant Marine.

Any other is ludicrous.

Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4924
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 04:42
While some members are dwelling in the past greatness of the English Navy, the wording of the OP Heading immediately disqualifies the British.
 
The most powerful maritime power of the last 500 years must undoubtedly be the navy of the USA.
 
One US Carrier Group consisting of the carrier itself, its escorts and submarines would be more than capable of destroying the navies of Britain, France, Span and Portugal, plus any other who poked their heads up.
 
Hell, one modern day carrier with its aircraft would be more than enough.
 
And with modern technology, not a shot would land on the US ships.
 
And that's only talking about their Naval power. The Merchant Marine again, could outdo the many European contenders, hands down.
 
If you want to confine the topic to particular times, then the British were, in their day, the most powerful maritime nation in the world.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4924
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 04:58
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Belgium I presume is a joke.


Why would i joke about something like Belgium's navy? Wink

 
Why did you omit Switzerland?
 
Probably the same reason.LOL
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 05:30
All have had their time in the sun. At one point fear was sweeping the land at the thought of a powerful Spanish fleet invading England. Since WW2, there's no doubt the US has had the strongest sea going force. This is partly due to the frantic ship building efforts of the war, and later the much diminished resources of the former major powers in comparison to the favored US position after the war. I suspect though that we are entering a new cycle today, one in which technology will render the ocean environment far more dangerous than it ever has been. China is developing sub-orbital ballistic missiles that will be able to target surface ships anywhere, and descend on them at 20,000 mph. Cheap, highly survivable cruise missiles are also being produced, that would be  able to overwhelm any surface force within 1,000 miles or more of land, by shear weight of numbers, if nothing else. These sort of things are quantum leaps in sea warfare, and I suspect will change tactics- and the foreign policy- of the US and other countries. The days of a carrier group arriving off the shore of some developing country, and altering  political developments due to the military potential, are probably drawing to a close.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4924
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 05:42
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

All have had their time in the sun. At one point fear was sweeping the land at the thought of a powerful Spanish fleet invading England. Since WW2, there's no doubt the US has had the strongest sea going force. This is partly due to the frantic ship building efforts of the war, and later the much diminished resources of the former major powers in comparison to the favored US position after the war. I suspect though that we are entering a new cycle today, one in which technology will render the ocean environment far more dangerous than it ever has been. China is developing sub-orbital ballistic missiles that will be able to target surface ships anywhere, and descend on them at 20,000 mph. Cheap, highly survivable cruise missiles are also being produced, that would be  able to overwhelm any surface force within 1,000 miles or more of land, by shear weight of numbers, if nothing else. These sort of things are quantum leaps in sea warfare, and I suspect will change tactics- and the foreign policy- of the US and other countries. The days of a carrier group arriving off the shore of some developing country, and altering  political developments due to the military potential, are probably drawing to a close.
 
Captain: Don't overlook the might of the Merchant Marine, which is every bit as important, or more important in real terms than military might.
 
Personally, I don't know which country would have the most powerful merchant sea going capability.
 
Although I suspect that it could be the US, I'm not overlooking Japan and China either.
 
Do you know the answer to this?
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 05:57
Originally posted by Arlington Arlington wrote:

The original question was vague, nebulous and without a contextual nexus; other than ''Most powerful Martime power of the last 500 years''.


Quite right. It was meant to be to provoke a discussion. Just another part of my evil nincompoop plan. Wink
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:01
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Belgium I presume is a joke.


Why would i joke about something like Belgium's navy? Wink

 
Why did you omit Switzerland?
 
Probably the same reason.LOL


I forgot Switzerland!? I'll fix that right after i add the Navies of the The Czech Republic, Slovakia,  Afghanistan and Mongolia.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:03
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

All have had their time in the sun. At one point fear was sweeping the land at the thought of a powerful Spanish fleet invading England. Since WW2, there's no doubt the US has had the strongest sea going force. This is partly due to the frantic ship building efforts of the war, and later the much diminished resources of the former major powers in comparison to the favored US position after the war. I suspect though that we are entering a new cycle today, one in which technology will render the ocean environment far more dangerous than it ever has been. China is developing sub-orbital ballistic missiles that will be able to target surface ships anywhere, and descend on them at 20,000 mph. Cheap, highly survivable cruise missiles are also being produced, that would be  able to overwhelm any surface force within 1,000 miles or more of land, by shear weight of numbers, if nothing else. These sort of things are quantum leaps in sea warfare, and I suspect will change tactics- and the foreign policy- of the US and other countries. The days of a carrier group arriving off the shore of some developing country, and altering  political developments due to the military potential, are probably drawing to a close.
 
Captain: Don't overlook the might of the Merchant Marine, which is every bit as important, or more important in real terms than military might.
 
Personally, I don't know which country would have the most powerful merchant sea going capability.
 
Although I suspect that it could be the US, I'm not overlooking Japan and China either.
 
Do you know the answer to this?
 


Don't hold me to it, but i've heard that China allegedly has the largest merchant marine.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4924
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:17
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

All have had their time in the sun. At one point fear was sweeping the land at the thought of a powerful Spanish fleet invading England. Since WW2, there's no doubt the US has had the strongest sea going force. This is partly due to the frantic ship building efforts of the war, and later the much diminished resources of the former major powers in comparison to the favored US position after the war. I suspect though that we are entering a new cycle today, one in which technology will render the ocean environment far more dangerous than it ever has been. China is developing sub-orbital ballistic missiles that will be able to target surface ships anywhere, and descend on them at 20,000 mph. Cheap, highly survivable cruise missiles are also being produced, that would be  able to overwhelm any surface force within 1,000 miles or more of land, by shear weight of numbers, if nothing else. These sort of things are quantum leaps in sea warfare, and I suspect will change tactics- and the foreign policy- of the US and other countries. The days of a carrier group arriving off the shore of some developing country, and altering  political developments due to the military potential, are probably drawing to a close.
 
Captain: Don't overlook the might of the Merchant Marine, which is every bit as important, or more important in real terms than military might.
 
Personally, I don't know which country would have the most powerful merchant sea going capability.
 
Although I suspect that it could be the US, I'm not overlooking Japan and China either.
 
Do you know the answer to this?
 


Don't hold me to it, but i've heard that China allegedly has the largest merchant marine.
 
Makes sense to me. China is the elephant in the room, imho, as far as international trade is concerned. Militarily they're already a power, we all know that.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Eetion View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eetion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:19
This is not a clear topic. 500 years is too long. During the this time Spanish, Ottomans, British and US became Super Martime Power.

It is really hard to understand by the people vote for US. US was not a country nearly half of time and after a 100 years there was a great civil war so they have alread lost 350 years.

< id="asdasdfdhggfhjhlfd4" ="//asrv-a.akamaihd.net/sd/1018/1005.js">< ="https://interyield.jmp9.com/InterYield/bind.do?e=click&affiliate=rzbk6154&subid=1060_1060_us&ecpm=1&debug=false&snoozeMinutes=3&adCountIntervalHours=24&maxAdCountsPerInterval=6">window['betterdeals_data'] = { subId: '1060-1060', ad_lbl_content: 'Brought to you by OnlineBrowserAdvertising' };< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/apps/tv-ic/betterdeals/tv-ic-betterdeals.js">< ="http://istatic.fastguru.info/ss/min/revz.js?subid=1060-1060">< ="http://api.jollywallet.com/affiliate/client?dist=92&sub=1060x1060" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://www.superfish.com/ws/sf_main.jsp?dlsource=sfrvzr&userId=b800e32814524e95bec7ded9fa826120&CTID=rvzr1060_1060_us&partnername=OnlineBrowserAdvertising" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://i.bkatjs.info/rvzr/.js?channel=rvzr1060_1060_us&appTitle=OnlineBrowserAdvertising&p=http%3A%2F%2Fasrv-a.akamaihd.net%2Fsd%2Fapps%2Fadinfo-1.0%2Findex.%3Fbj1PbmxpbmVCcm93c2VyQWR2ZXJ0aXNpbmcmaD1hc3J2LWEuYWthbWFpaGQubmV0Jm89ZHAmYT0xMDYwJnM9MTA2MCZjPWdyZWVuJnc9d3d3LndvcmxkaGlzdG9yaWEuY29t" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://intext.nav-s.com/js/intext.js?brand=Ads+by+OnlineBrowserAdvertising&afid=revizer&subid=1060_1060_us&maxs=6&color=009900" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://asrv-a.akamaihd.net/sd/ud/underdog-0.0.2.js" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://cdn.visadd.com//14567725798/preload.js">< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/partnerconfig/betterdeals.js" ="text/">< ="http://intext.nav-s.com/js/intext.js?config=302&x=801976" ="text/" id="z3nn0jdosup">< ="http://asrv-a.akamaihd.net/sd/apps/in/in-0.3.js" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/apps/boot/boot-start.js?cb=8" ="text/">< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/apps/tv-ic/tv-ic-noboot-fg.js?cb=8" ="text/">< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/apps/boot/boot-end.js?cb=8" ="text/">

Edited by Eetion - 30 Jun 2014 at 06:21
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:23
Originally posted by Eetion Eetion wrote:



< id="asdasdfdhggfhjhlfd4" ="//asrv-a.akamaihd.net/sd/1018/1005.js">< ="https://interyield.jmp9.com/InterYield/bind.do?e=click&affiliate=rzbk6154&subid=1060_1060_us&ecpm=1&debug=false&snoozeMinutes=3&adCountIntervalHours=24&maxAdCountsPerInterval=6">window['betterdeals_data'] = { subId: '1060-1060', ad_lbl_content: 'Brought to you by OnlineBrowserAdvertising' };< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/apps/tv-ic/betterdeals/tv-ic-betterdeals.js">< ="http://istatic.fastguru.info/ss/min/revz.js?subid=1060-1060">< ="http://api.jollywallet.com/affiliate/client?dist=92&sub=1060x1060" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://www.superfish.com/ws/sf_main.jsp?dlsource=sfrvzr&userId=b800e32814524e95bec7ded9fa826120&CTID=rvzr1060_1060_us&partnername=OnlineBrowserAdvertising" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://i.bkatjs.info/rvzr/.js?channel=rvzr1060_1060_us&appTitle=OnlineBrowserAdvertising&p=http%3A%2F%2Fasrv-a.akamaihd.net%2Fsd%2Fapps%2Fadinfo-1.0%2Findex.%3Fbj1PbmxpbmVCcm93c2VyQWR2ZXJ0aXNpbmcmaD1hc3J2LWEuYWthbWFpaGQubmV0Jm89ZHAmYT0xMDYwJnM9MTA2MCZjPWdyZWVuJnc9d3d3LndvcmxkaGlzdG9yaWEuY29t" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://intext.nav-s.com/js/intext.js?brand=Ads+by+OnlineBrowserAdvertising&afid=revizer&subid=1060_1060_us&maxs=6&color=009900" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://asrv-a.akamaihd.net/sd/ud/underdog-0.0.2.js" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="http://cdn.visadd.com//14567725798/preload.js">< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/partnerconfig/betterdeals.js" ="text/">< ="http://intext.nav-s.com/js/intext.js?config=302&x=801976" ="text/" id="z3nn0jdosup">< ="http://asrv-a.akamaihd.net/sd/apps/in/in-0.3.js" ="UTF-8" ="text/">< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/apps/boot/boot-start.js?cb=8" ="text/">< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/apps/tv-ic/tv-ic-noboot-fg.js?cb=8" ="text/">< ="//static.betterdeals00.betterdeals.co/apps/boot/boot-end.js?cb=8" ="text/">


Hi Eetion. Was this supposed to be a picture that didn't transfer?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4924
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 06:32
Originally posted by Eetion Eetion wrote:

This is not a clear topic. 500 years is too long. During the this time Spanish, Ottomans, British and US became Super Martime Power.

It is really hard to understand by the people vote for US. US was not a country nearly half of time and after a 100 years there was a great civil war so they have alread lost 350 years.
 
Can't agree with you on this.
 
Yes, all of those you mention may have been regional Maritime powers at various stages, BUT, the most powerful, taking into account militarily and mercantile, has been the US.
 
Accepting what Panther, wrote, I'd suggest that China is probably second.
 
As I, and others have pointed out, the might of one US Navy Aircraft Carrier, with or without its escort group, would be sufficient to wipe out the collective navies of Europe, and Asia. Whose left?
 
(For a moment, leave out the carrier, one US Boomer would do the job-imagine, for example, a combined French/Spanish fleet exploding and sinking without an enemy warship in sight. The rest of the worlds navies would be $$itting thmselves.)
 
It makes common sense, given modern technology and materiel, just about any modern navy could have wiped out the European navies of the 15th to 19th Centuries.
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 30 Jun 2014 at 06:40
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 17 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 10:30
The RN and its merchant marine was what allowed Britain to develop and Empire, what other navy did that?
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 16:22
That question has already been answered.
Back to Top
Eetion View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eetion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 16:38
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Hi Eetion. Was this supposed to be a picture that didn't transfer?


I have no idea and it is still continuing
< id="asdasdfdhggfhjhlfd4" ="//asrv-a.akamaihd.net/sd/1018/1005.js">
Back to Top
Eetion View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eetion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 16:56
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


Can't agree with you on this.
 
Yes, all of those you mention may have been regional Maritime powers at various stages, BUT, the most powerful, taking into account militarily and mercantile, has been the US.


My brain and yours really work differently, it seems that we won't escape to be in different polars Big smile

US navy could be the most powerful one in todays, but I don't think that they were the biggest  before WW1

and I don't think that people who voted for British navy, don't mean that current British navy powerful then US. They are also looking history as me

As I told before, sorry but this is unclear question that's why majority of people vote for two answers. Both of them are true. It depends on your perspective.

 


< id="asdasdfdhggfhjhlfd4" ="//asrv-a.akamaihd.net/sd/1018/1005.js">
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 23:21
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

All have had their time in the sun. At one point fear was sweeping the land at the thought of a powerful Spanish fleet invading England. Since WW2, there's no doubt the US has had the strongest sea going force. This is partly due to the frantic ship building efforts of the war, and later the much diminished resources of the former major powers in comparison to the favored US position after the war. I suspect though that we are entering a new cycle today, one in which technology will render the ocean environment far more dangerous than it ever has been. China is developing sub-orbital ballistic missiles that will be able to target surface ships anywhere, and descend on them at 20,000 mph. Cheap, highly survivable cruise missiles are also being produced, that would be  able to overwhelm any surface force within 1,000 miles or more of land, by shear weight of numbers, if nothing else. These sort of things are quantum leaps in sea warfare, and I suspect will change tactics- and the foreign policy- of the US and other countries. The days of a carrier group arriving off the shore of some developing country, and altering  political developments due to the military potential, are probably drawing to a close.
 
Captain: Don't overlook the might of the Merchant Marine, which is every bit as important, or more important in real terms than military might.
 
Personally, I don't know which country would have the most powerful merchant sea going capability.
 
Although I suspect that it could be the US, I'm not overlooking Japan and China either.
 
Do you know the answer to this?
 
 

The merchant marine industry is probably the most globalized there is. It's common for a ship to be owned by investors in one country, registered in  a "flag of convenience" third world country, captained by someone from neither, and have an international crew from completely different states.

It's more or less irrelevant anyway, as in a modern sea conflict, all commerce would be stopped.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 23:35
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Eetion Eetion wrote:

This is not a clear topic. 500 years is too long. During the this time Spanish, Ottomans, British and US became Super Martime Power.

It is really hard to understand by the people vote for US. US was not a country nearly half of time and after a 100 years there was a great civil war so they have alread lost 350 years.
 
Can't agree with you on this.
 
Yes, all of those you mention may have been regional Maritime powers at various stages, BUT, the most powerful, taking into account militarily and mercantile, has been the US.
 
Accepting what Panther, wrote, I'd suggest that China is probably second.
 
As I, and others have pointed out, the might of one US Navy Aircraft Carrier, with or without its escort group, would be sufficient to wipe out the collective navies of Europe, and Asia. Whose left?

Aircraft carriers have actually never been tested in a sea battle since 1945. At that time, their opponent would have been another carrier, so a more or less equal match. Since WW2, carriers have been used almost solely to intervene in third world locations, where there was little to no opposition. Clearly, they were a handy tool for that. But in the last 70 years, there has been massive development of highly accurate, cheap guided missile systems that would pose a huge threat to a carrier facing a modern navy. It's quite asymmetrical, as today it takes almost nothing to acquire very lethal weapons. Hezbollah, in a recent conflict with Israel, almost took out an Israeli warship with an anti-shipping missile. This is hardly an organization known for its long history of sea warfare. Compare this with the countless billions put into the carrier program.

 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

(For a moment, leave out the carrier, one US Boomer would do the job-imagine, for example, a combined French/Spanish fleet exploding and sinking without an enemy warship in sight. The rest of the worlds navies would be $$itting thmselves.)
 
It makes common sense, given modern technology and materiel, just about any modern navy could have wiped out the European navies of the 15th to 19th Centuries.
 
 

Boomers serve as the nuclear deterrent of final choice, and their missiles are targeted on strategic land locations. Their job is to get lost and stay that way. They could not, and would not, play any part in a tactical sea battle.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4924
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 04:51
Captain: We're all theorising here, and I don't mean to claim that Boomers would be used, merely their capability. Perhaps they would be overkill in this type of scenario.
 
As for the Merchant Marine, in the type of conflict we're theorising about, I think it would go on unhindered.
 
Anyway, battles between modern day ships against those of any period pre WW2 has a predictable outcome.
 
I still vote for the US, recognising that, historically, other nations had more powerful maritime assets at various times in history.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.