Dopers may be interested in the film Michiel de Ruyter.
Very weak argument !.
Battle plan: Deutchland’s ininiative… They were hoping to lure a substantial part of the British Fleet with bait, and destroy it with an ambush by the Deutch fleet… Perhaps demoralising the British navy and having it regarded as “best to keep it in port as a fleet in being”… ???
This then sets the British objective as “clear the North Sea and keep our reputation”… Detuchland totally failed to do any real damage, Britian totally succeeded in sending the Deutch back to port, for good (until the end of the war), demoralised, and not to be trusted.
The North Sea would be required to be kept clear, for example the USA forces will arrive be sea later on…
There was 12 against 12 at Minorca, 1756,
Brits had termed up with a hasty assembled fleet, and found France had already prepared for a naval invasion… France has its own 12 ships in top form and ready for the job.
France won the battle, Minorca was in French hands to the end of the war.
See
The brits devised a plan to ensure no further naval battles were lost… They court marshaled, and executed, the CO, Admiral John Byng… His only other option would have been to refuse to sail with ill prepared ships, so its rather a scapegoat action to kill him…
The British occasionally shoot a few Admirals to encourage the others.
-Voltaire.
:rolleyes:
No need to get so damn abrasive. If someone asked what was the biggest battle of the US Civil War, then the answer would be Gettysburg, in a single post. It is surprising that no one mentioned such an important battle in American history for 12 posts.
This is GQ after all, maybe you might spend your time better by telling how well known that Battle is in general. Rather than taking potshots.
Thanks. 
Back to the British, another involved Churchill and some high-ranking military officers:
Churchill: "We shall fight them in the hills…
"We shall fight them in the cities…
“We shall fight them in the villages!”
Admiral standing nearby: “I say! Have you thought of fighting them in GERMANY?!”
Abrasive? You were the one who snarkily questioned Americans’ grasp of their own history based on not instantly answering a question to your satisfaction in the early morning.
Regarding the Battle of the Chesapeake, it is quite possible that other posters chose, as i did, to refrain from bringing it up as too contentious for the actual GQ OP. While the battle was a huge strategic loss to Britain, preventing the relief of Cornwallis and advancing support for Washington, the battle as a battle, does not quite rise to the level of “defeat” as one regards Coronel, and I was reluctant to cause the thread to be hijacked into a discussion of that issue.
Then hardly any battle in history is a defeat, if your force is not destroyed or captured en mass. You really want to argue that failing to achieve your immediate objective and suffering an extremely adverse strategic consequence is not a defeat?
I disagree - if you search a bit, you may find this is a pretty common myth - Here’s the results of a quick Google search:
- Myths and Facts of the American Revolution: A Commentary on United States History as it is Written, Arthur Johnston
- http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/unit2/revolution.html
It fits in quite well with the myth that the vital role the French played in helping the U.S. win independence isn’t the first thing on the lips of most Americans when thinking of British naval defeats. I don’t think this thread is an example of that, but try asking the question of a random American not on the SDMB and see how long it takes.
Actually, there were multiple sorties by the German High Seas Fleet after Jutland in 1916 and in 1917 (none of which had any major impact on the war).
This pretty much ignores my actual post. The two fleets danced around each other for several days following the battle. The Brits scuttled one solitary ship. Neither side was forced to retire. In terms of a “battle as a battle,” it was hardly a crushing defeat. As I noted, it was a tremendous strategic loss. In the context of the OP’s question, however, one might always find persons willing to dispute the claim of a defeat–a hijack I hoped to avoid, yet you appear intent on expanding.
The line between tactical and strategic victories historiographically speaking is never so fine as when comparing French naval victories and defeats, because the neutral voice always wants to remain balanced when the French tactical doctrine aims to preserve the French total firepower at all costs. Who knows what later historians would say if the English would have regrouped and come in force to reinforce Yorktown? They would have called the Chesapeake inconclusive or a marginal victory (but was definitely not in any sense a British victory.)
Indeed? I shall check out your link. Thanks for fighting ignorance.
Yes, like at the aforementioned Chesapeake Bay…
They had obviously read Candide - “dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres”
Actually Voltaire wrote that as a comment on the execution of Admiral Byng after it had taken place
Voltaire wrote the novel Candide.
Voltaire ’ s comment, rendered in French here, sounds like you have to cut off one finger in order to appreciate the other nine.
Did I wander into the Trivia Dominoes thread…?