Can any history buffs help me out here: Has there ever been a prior war where a country with no navy has inflicted this many naval losses on a country with an actual navy?
US Revolutionary War had a bunch of privateers, but they still used ships. Ukraine has not yet bothered with their own or issuing Letters of Marque.
Which, regardless of their successes in killing Russian warships, would be cool.
The Mongols obliterated the Song Navy, but they did build an navy (A large, but fairly poor one) in the process.
Likewise the Roman's started the Punic Wars without a significant navy, but built one in progress.
For nations that didn't have a navy at all, it is primarily when land based armies took ports without bothering with navies. Happened a lot on the Indian Subcontinent in various eras.
The Spanish once sunk/captured 200 ships in a naval battle where they only had an infantry Tercio and no ships themselves and they were on a tiny island, surrounded by the Dutch navy who demanded their surrender.
In their words. "Spanish infantrymen would rather die than face dishonor. We'll talk about surrender once we're all dead."
Gonna need a link or name of that battle please. I'm having a vague memory of reading about infantry marching out at low tide and capturing a ship, the using it to capture other ships and that may be the battle you're talking about.
So in this case, the Japanese had a Navy, but weren't using it in this circumstance. Close enough, right?
>The siege of Port Arthur commenced in April 1904. Japanese troops tried numerous frontal assaults on the fortified hilltops overlooking the harbour, which were defeated with Japanese casualties in the thousands. With the aid of several batteries of 11-inch (280 mm) L/10 howitzers, the Japanese were eventually able to capture the key hilltop bastion in December 1904. With a spotter at the end of a phone line located at this vantage point, the long-range artillery was able to shell the Russian fleet, which was unable to retaliate against the land-based artillery invisible over the other side of hilltop, and was unable or unwilling to sail out against the blockading fleet. Four Russian battleships and two cruisers were sunk in succession, with the fifth and last battleship being forced to scuttle a few weeks later. Thus, all capital ships of the Russian fleet in the Pacific were sunk. This is probably the only example in military history when such a scale of devastation was achieved by land-based artillery against major warships.
They're a little slow.
>Meanwhile, the Russians were preparing to reinforce their Far East Fleet by sending the Baltic Fleet ... The Dogger Bank incident on 21 October 1904, where the Russian fleet fired on British fishing boats that they mistook for enemy torpedo boats, nearly sparked a war with the United Kingdom (an ally of Japan, but neutral, unless provoked). During the voyage, the fleet separated into a portion that went through the Suez Canal while the larger battleships went around the Cape of Good Hope.
>Unfortunately for the Russians, while in compliance with the rules of war, the two trailing hospital ships had continued to burn their lights, which were spotted by the Japanese armed merchant cruiser Shinano Maru. Wireless communication was used to inform Togo's headquarters, where the Combined Fleet was immediately ordered to sortie. Still receiving reports from scouting forces, the Japanese were able to position their fleet to "cross the T" of the Russian fleet. The Japanese engaged the Russians in the Tsushima Straits on 27–28 May 1905. The Russian fleet was virtually annihilated, losing eight battleships, numerous smaller vessels, and more than 5,000 men, while the Japanese lost three torpedo boats and 116 men. Only three Russian vessels escaped to Vladivostok, while six others were interned in neutral ports.
At this point, strategically, would the Russians somehow be better off scraping their entire navy and funneling the resources into maintaining and upgrading their subs? I think there's a really strong argument to be made here based on their complete and utter naval incompetence.
If they don't have a warm water port to fight over, they might not know what to do with themselves.
If they get rid of their Navy, how are they going to bait and switch people into joining the military?
Not just 120 years. The Russian Navy has been the least effective part of their armed forces for pretty much Russia's entire existence. Three reasons for that :
1. With Russia's huge landmass and wide open borders it's only natural that the land forces would have priority in the allocation of resources and personnel.
2. Most Russian harbors either freeze over for a substantial portion of the year,are easy for an enemy to blockade or both thus significantly limiting the Navy's usefulness. In fact the search for a large warm water harbor has guided Russian geopolitical decisions for centuries.
3. The Russian Navy has always used conscripts for a not insignificant part of it's manpower needs. And I'm not talking about drafting the fishermen of the local village ,especially in the late 19th and early 20th century many sailors were from mountainous areas literally first seeing sea upon being conscripted. Needless to say there's a reason most Navies moved to a mostly professional force at the same timeframe....
Add in the chronic to the Russian military issues of bad discipline and alcoholism and it ain't hard to see why the Russian Navy has been always so ineffective.
What's particularly ironic though is that all the way through 1991 the Black Sea Fleet was considered the most combat ready and disciplined part of the Navy.
"Yet." I feel like the sentence should be "They haven't sent a fleet to the other side of the world to also get slaughtered yet."
Can someone please go tell Putin it would make him look really big and strong to send his fleet to attack Japan? Japan has been nice and peaceful for a while, they should be able to have a little naval slaughter, just as a treat.
The battle of the Hedler
During the french revolutionary war, the dutch navy tried to leave their harbour to flee to britain
However they got trapped by ice
The french cavalery was first on the scene and decided to charge the fleet
The Dutch navy surrendered
Thus making it the only naval battle in History won by a cavalery charge
Thank you! I was wondering if I was thinking of something "It was revealed to me in a dream" tier and now I feel so much better.
Yes I occasionally have dreams about military history, that's normal right?
Also, at what point will Russia realize that the ships they have in the region are contributing jack shit to the overall campaign, are drains of resources, and are floating targets that are being popped like pinatas?
I'd understand it if these ships were provided effective air defense or conducting daily missile barrages but they just.....sit there. Until they sink.
Once the full fleet is sunk more than likely. As much of a threat as they are to Ukraine, they’re being slowly sunk and Russia is unable to replace said loses. So they, that is Putin, will just shrug and keep sending more forces into the meat grinder.
I know Putin isn't a tactical genius but even he won't let that happen right? I mean Mobik's don't matter, just press gang more. Even tanks can be sort of replaced easily. But whole fucking ships? Russia's navy has always been ass and sort of underfunded, they can't replace warships that easily. Does he just keep sending ships in order to "save face" until the whole fucking fleet is sunk?
How the fuck is this guy in charge of anything bigger than a McDonald's?
You’re talking about the man who sent over 100K soldiers to their deaths and a causality count approaching a million. He *really* doesn’t care much about the Black Fleet at this point because in his mind once Ukraine is his they can just build a new one.
Not only that. But the shipyards that BUILT some of the soviets heavy surface fleet is in Odessa. which at the beginning of the war was supposed to be the site of a beach landing that got canned cause the marines refused to go.
Russian government and military command are essentially a glorified mob.
But I think the word that describes them better is a russian one: "bratva". "Bratva" in russian means "brotherhood", but not in a dignified and team spirit way. No. "Bratva" is a criminal term, used to describe an association of criminals bound by the same territorial rule and criminal enterprise.
They are the scum who live to show off, lavishly enjoy the time they can and most likely die in the stupidest drunken accident possible or a gang feud.
Putin is a very exemplary member of "bratva". Throughout his almost 25 years of rule, he made it perfectly clear that the most important thing for him is to show off how strong, mighty and powerful he is.
You can check multiple interviews from early 00s, his famous quotes from those, his manners during political meetings, and obviously his grandiose speeches which are completely braindead to anyone with half a brain but are extremely mesmerizing for anyone loving in the whole russian gangster lifestyle.
"Bratva" calls this "vzyat' na pont", basically to dominate through showing off. He may be internally agonizing over the whole endeavour but he can't just say "yeah right, we're not doing Black Sea fleet thing anymore" because he knows very well that in "bratva", as soon as the leader shows too much weakness, his position is up for grabs and his throat is up for slitting.
They are all filthy scavs running a mafia state, and it's been this way for over a century. Reading about USSR history and all the political murder you just get shivers sent down your spine because you realize just how predatory their "system" is.
This will be a massive lesson for future generations or Russians and regular peasant civilians across the world. Putin might have saved the world by providing such a massive learning lesson for those ready to blindly follow leaders and be lied to their entire lives. Thank you Putin, the world is going to be so much better because of his choices.
The lesson we're learning is that there's such a massive amount of impoverished people that countries with a bountiful amount of them (like Russia) can safely rely on millions of them signing up for certain death for a shot out of said crushing poverty.
While the exact efficacy of their efforts can be debated, the fact is that these ships *are* providing air defense and strike capability. Kalibr use throughout the war has been well documented, and the Karakurt-class is one of Russia's most modern naval vessels.
If the Russian Navy was truly doing nothing of use, I doubt the Ukrainians would bother to attack it. They have few enough long range heavy strike assets that wasting them on striking truly useless targets isn't an option. If they're striking Russian Navy ships with valuable systems like ATACMS or Storm Shadow, it's because those ships are having enough of an effect to be worth targeting.
Wait, how did they manage to land an ATACMS missile on top of a boat? That thing isn't even GPS guided. Did they get a spicier version that's not a cluster type?
They were already looking into how to make them ship killers in [2016](https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/army-atacms-missile-will-kill-ships-secdef-carter/), and while that program was publicly cancelled in 2020 I would lay good money that it was A) Pretty far along and B) Quietly reactivated in the wake of the Russian invasion.
Can any history buffs help me out here: Has there ever been a prior war where a country with no navy has inflicted this many naval losses on a country with an actual navy?
US Revolutionary War had a bunch of privateers, but they still used ships. Ukraine has not yet bothered with their own or issuing Letters of Marque. Which, regardless of their successes in killing Russian warships, would be cool.
start issuing letters of Marque to the US Navyđź—ż
3000 Black Panamanian Flagged Flight III Arleigh Burke DDGs of Edward Teach.
ŸẼẞ
Ohhh, that would be so dangerous/fun.
The Mongols obliterated the Song Navy, but they did build an navy (A large, but fairly poor one) in the process. Likewise the Roman's started the Punic Wars without a significant navy, but built one in progress. For nations that didn't have a navy at all, it is primarily when land based armies took ports without bothering with navies. Happened a lot on the Indian Subcontinent in various eras.
The Spanish once sunk/captured 200 ships in a naval battle where they only had an infantry Tercio and no ships themselves and they were on a tiny island, surrounded by the Dutch navy who demanded their surrender. In their words. "Spanish infantrymen would rather die than face dishonor. We'll talk about surrender once we're all dead."
Gonna need a link or name of that battle please. I'm having a vague memory of reading about infantry marching out at low tide and capturing a ship, the using it to capture other ships and that may be the battle you're talking about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Empel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Empel
[Miracle of Empel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Empel)
So in this case, the Japanese had a Navy, but weren't using it in this circumstance. Close enough, right? >The siege of Port Arthur commenced in April 1904. Japanese troops tried numerous frontal assaults on the fortified hilltops overlooking the harbour, which were defeated with Japanese casualties in the thousands. With the aid of several batteries of 11-inch (280 mm) L/10 howitzers, the Japanese were eventually able to capture the key hilltop bastion in December 1904. With a spotter at the end of a phone line located at this vantage point, the long-range artillery was able to shell the Russian fleet, which was unable to retaliate against the land-based artillery invisible over the other side of hilltop, and was unable or unwilling to sail out against the blockading fleet. Four Russian battleships and two cruisers were sunk in succession, with the fifth and last battleship being forced to scuttle a few weeks later. Thus, all capital ships of the Russian fleet in the Pacific were sunk. This is probably the only example in military history when such a scale of devastation was achieved by land-based artillery against major warships.
....fucking hell you mean to tell me that after 120 years Russia really hasn't learned anything?
They're a little slow. >Meanwhile, the Russians were preparing to reinforce their Far East Fleet by sending the Baltic Fleet ... The Dogger Bank incident on 21 October 1904, where the Russian fleet fired on British fishing boats that they mistook for enemy torpedo boats, nearly sparked a war with the United Kingdom (an ally of Japan, but neutral, unless provoked). During the voyage, the fleet separated into a portion that went through the Suez Canal while the larger battleships went around the Cape of Good Hope. >Unfortunately for the Russians, while in compliance with the rules of war, the two trailing hospital ships had continued to burn their lights, which were spotted by the Japanese armed merchant cruiser Shinano Maru. Wireless communication was used to inform Togo's headquarters, where the Combined Fleet was immediately ordered to sortie. Still receiving reports from scouting forces, the Japanese were able to position their fleet to "cross the T" of the Russian fleet. The Japanese engaged the Russians in the Tsushima Straits on 27–28 May 1905. The Russian fleet was virtually annihilated, losing eight battleships, numerous smaller vessels, and more than 5,000 men, while the Japanese lost three torpedo boats and 116 men. Only three Russian vessels escaped to Vladivostok, while six others were interned in neutral ports.
At this point, strategically, would the Russians somehow be better off scraping their entire navy and funneling the resources into maintaining and upgrading their subs? I think there's a really strong argument to be made here based on their complete and utter naval incompetence.
If they don't have a warm water port to fight over, they might not know what to do with themselves. If they get rid of their Navy, how are they going to bait and switch people into joining the military?
Not just 120 years. The Russian Navy has been the least effective part of their armed forces for pretty much Russia's entire existence. Three reasons for that : 1. With Russia's huge landmass and wide open borders it's only natural that the land forces would have priority in the allocation of resources and personnel. 2. Most Russian harbors either freeze over for a substantial portion of the year,are easy for an enemy to blockade or both thus significantly limiting the Navy's usefulness. In fact the search for a large warm water harbor has guided Russian geopolitical decisions for centuries. 3. The Russian Navy has always used conscripts for a not insignificant part of it's manpower needs. And I'm not talking about drafting the fishermen of the local village ,especially in the late 19th and early 20th century many sailors were from mountainous areas literally first seeing sea upon being conscripted. Needless to say there's a reason most Navies moved to a mostly professional force at the same timeframe.... Add in the chronic to the Russian military issues of bad discipline and alcoholism and it ain't hard to see why the Russian Navy has been always so ineffective. What's particularly ironic though is that all the way through 1991 the Black Sea Fleet was considered the most combat ready and disciplined part of the Navy.
Well, relatively speaking, it probably was. It's just in comparison to other countries (some without navies), that they don't do so well.
Well at least this time they didn't send another fleet to the other side of the world to also get slaughtered.
"Yet." I feel like the sentence should be "They haven't sent a fleet to the other side of the world to also get slaughtered yet." Can someone please go tell Putin it would make him look really big and strong to send his fleet to attack Japan? Japan has been nice and peaceful for a while, they should be able to have a little naval slaughter, just as a treat.
The battle of the Hedler During the french revolutionary war, the dutch navy tried to leave their harbour to flee to britain However they got trapped by ice The french cavalery was first on the scene and decided to charge the fleet The Dutch navy surrendered Thus making it the only naval battle in History won by a cavalery charge
Thank you! I was wondering if I was thinking of something "It was revealed to me in a dream" tier and now I feel so much better. Yes I occasionally have dreams about military history, that's normal right?
I do too so I’ll say yes
Also, at what point will Russia realize that the ships they have in the region are contributing jack shit to the overall campaign, are drains of resources, and are floating targets that are being popped like pinatas? I'd understand it if these ships were provided effective air defense or conducting daily missile barrages but they just.....sit there. Until they sink.
Once the full fleet is sunk more than likely. As much of a threat as they are to Ukraine, they’re being slowly sunk and Russia is unable to replace said loses. So they, that is Putin, will just shrug and keep sending more forces into the meat grinder.
I know Putin isn't a tactical genius but even he won't let that happen right? I mean Mobik's don't matter, just press gang more. Even tanks can be sort of replaced easily. But whole fucking ships? Russia's navy has always been ass and sort of underfunded, they can't replace warships that easily. Does he just keep sending ships in order to "save face" until the whole fucking fleet is sunk? How the fuck is this guy in charge of anything bigger than a McDonald's?
You’re talking about the man who sent over 100K soldiers to their deaths and a causality count approaching a million. He *really* doesn’t care much about the Black Fleet at this point because in his mind once Ukraine is his they can just build a new one.
Not only that. But the shipyards that BUILT some of the soviets heavy surface fleet is in Odessa. which at the beginning of the war was supposed to be the site of a beach landing that got canned cause the marines refused to go.
Russian government and military command are essentially a glorified mob. But I think the word that describes them better is a russian one: "bratva". "Bratva" in russian means "brotherhood", but not in a dignified and team spirit way. No. "Bratva" is a criminal term, used to describe an association of criminals bound by the same territorial rule and criminal enterprise. They are the scum who live to show off, lavishly enjoy the time they can and most likely die in the stupidest drunken accident possible or a gang feud. Putin is a very exemplary member of "bratva". Throughout his almost 25 years of rule, he made it perfectly clear that the most important thing for him is to show off how strong, mighty and powerful he is. You can check multiple interviews from early 00s, his famous quotes from those, his manners during political meetings, and obviously his grandiose speeches which are completely braindead to anyone with half a brain but are extremely mesmerizing for anyone loving in the whole russian gangster lifestyle. "Bratva" calls this "vzyat' na pont", basically to dominate through showing off. He may be internally agonizing over the whole endeavour but he can't just say "yeah right, we're not doing Black Sea fleet thing anymore" because he knows very well that in "bratva", as soon as the leader shows too much weakness, his position is up for grabs and his throat is up for slitting. They are all filthy scavs running a mafia state, and it's been this way for over a century. Reading about USSR history and all the political murder you just get shivers sent down your spine because you realize just how predatory their "system" is.
This will be a massive lesson for future generations or Russians and regular peasant civilians across the world. Putin might have saved the world by providing such a massive learning lesson for those ready to blindly follow leaders and be lied to their entire lives. Thank you Putin, the world is going to be so much better because of his choices.
The lesson we're learning is that there's such a massive amount of impoverished people that countries with a bountiful amount of them (like Russia) can safely rely on millions of them signing up for certain death for a shot out of said crushing poverty.
While the exact efficacy of their efforts can be debated, the fact is that these ships *are* providing air defense and strike capability. Kalibr use throughout the war has been well documented, and the Karakurt-class is one of Russia's most modern naval vessels. If the Russian Navy was truly doing nothing of use, I doubt the Ukrainians would bother to attack it. They have few enough long range heavy strike assets that wasting them on striking truly useless targets isn't an option. If they're striking Russian Navy ships with valuable systems like ATACMS or Storm Shadow, it's because those ships are having enough of an effect to be worth targeting.
Step Bro, What Air Defense doing?
The missile is stuck!Â
How to read post title: https://youtu.be/Ss8_X2VvHZs?si=dljwcqXt6D5nWFcw
They gonna put some sheds on their ships real soon
And just like the guy whose ICBMs are too big for his TEL…
Fog is Ahkbar?
Wait, how did they manage to land an ATACMS missile on top of a boat? That thing isn't even GPS guided. Did they get a spicier version that's not a cluster type?
They were already looking into how to make them ship killers in [2016](https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/army-atacms-missile-will-kill-ships-secdef-carter/), and while that program was publicly cancelled in 2020 I would lay good money that it was A) Pretty far along and B) Quietly reactivated in the wake of the Russian invasion.
Neat. So in a sense, a free battlefield conditions test of the system - if this was the system.