Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Badbeat by weather, naval history question

04-26-2011 , 02:18 AM
Is there an example of a famous naval battle in which bad weather played a decisive role? I'm thinking of something as dramatic as a sudden storm which snatched victory away from a superior fleet (age of sail example if one exists would be ideal). For example, the storm that occurred after the Battle of Trafalgar sank a number of damaged French prizes - if such a storm occurs during the battle instead of after, could the outcome be different i.e. could both fleets get decimated, could the British have lost?

Any responses welcome from factual to speculative. Also any book recommendations about that era which might cover issues relevant to this.
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote
04-26-2011 , 02:52 AM
dont know of the battle name, but "kamikazee" is "divine wind" from when a typhoon knocked out the mongol invasion fleet.
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote
04-26-2011 , 04:33 PM
The Spanish Armada iirc
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote
04-26-2011 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eatmynuts123
The Spanish Armada iirc
They lost a couple of engagements and subsequently sailed around Scotland and eventually a bunch of their ships got wrecked off Ireland's shore because of bad navigation and strong winds.
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote
04-27-2011 , 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifes3ps
dont know of the battle name, but "kamikazee" is "divine wind" from when a typhoon knocked out the mongol invasion fleet.
This is probably the best example I can think of, or at least the most prominent. Because Japan was in for BIG trouble if the Yuan fleet had managed a successful landing.
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote
04-28-2011 , 10:43 PM
Although often glossed over because its story is rather unremarkable compared to the battle occuring on land and ultimately they lost, but the Greek fleet at Thermopylae held off the Persian fleet for three days to allow the battle to be fought on land. Thermopylae was obviously fought on land, flanked by the mountains and sea, so the Persians attempted to flank the Greeks on ships. However, the (outnumbered, but the battle at sea, as on land, was fought in limited space, so the numbers disparity played less of a role) Greek fleet twice defeated the Persians allowing the main army to hold their ground and not retreat in defeat. It was on the second day I believe that a storm off the coast destroyed a significant number of Persian ships which were sailing around a nearby island to flank the Greek fleet. That storm thus allowed the Greeks to hold out for another day, allowing the famous last stand of the 300

Last edited by The 1 Inch Warrior; 04-28-2011 at 10:43 PM. Reason: typo
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote
04-28-2011 , 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The 1 Inch Warrior
Although often glossed over because its story is rather unremarkable compared to the battle occuring on land and ultimately they lost, but the Greek fleet at Thermopylae held off the Persian fleet for three days to allow the battle to be fought on land. Thermopylae was obviously fought on land, flanked by the mountains and sea, so the Persians attempted to flank the Greeks on ships. However, the (outnumbered, but the battle at sea, as on land, was fought in limited space, so the numbers disparity played less of a role) Greek fleet twice defeated the Persians allowing the main army to hold their ground and not retreat in defeat. It was on the second day I believe that a storm off the coast destroyed a significant number of Persian ships which were sailing around a nearby island to flank the Greek fleet. That storm thus allowed the Greeks to hold out for another day, allowing the famous last stand of the 300
Indeed, the naval action was far more significant. In strategic terms, the last stand of the "300" (plus a bunch more) was relatively meaningless, except as a rallying call for subsequent Greek military action. After all, the Persians still marched a path of destruction across Greece and sacked Athens after Thermopylae.
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote
04-29-2011 , 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The 1 Inch Warrior
Although often glossed over because its story is rather unremarkable compared to the battle occuring on land and ultimately they lost, but the Greek fleet at Thermopylae held off the Persian fleet for three days to allow the battle to be fought on land. Thermopylae was obviously fought on land, flanked by the mountains and sea, so the Persians attempted to flank the Greeks on ships. However, the (outnumbered, but the battle at sea, as on land, was fought in limited space, so the numbers disparity played less of a role) Greek fleet twice defeated the Persians allowing the main army to hold their ground and not retreat in defeat. It was on the second day I believe that a storm off the coast destroyed a significant number of Persian ships which were sailing around a nearby island to flank the Greek fleet. That storm thus allowed the Greeks to hold out for another day, allowing the famous last stand of the 300
this and 100 years earlier was teh battle of salamis, even bigger naval, but neither were because of weather
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote
05-01-2011 , 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifes3ps
this and 100 years earlier was teh battle of salamis, even bigger naval, but neither were because of weather
Battle of Salamis actually occurred after the Battle of Thermopylae and as a direct result of it. However, you are right that neither was decided by the weather but it did play a role
Badbeat by weather, naval history question Quote

      
m