Worst Admiral

I think the worst Admiral by far was Raeder, leader of the German Navy, and here is why.

1.He did not understand why Carriers would become decisive even when the Jappenese and British were making extensive use of them. He was the only one not to get at least a few. Even Admiral Darlan of the french navy understood that some carriers were needed.

2.His biggest interest was gigantic ships at a time when Admiral Yamamato of Japan said the Battleship would be as useful in modern warfare as the Samurai Sword.

3.He lost many big ships in the Norweigh Campaign that should not have been lost and would have lost the entire surface fleet if the British didn't have too much caution.

4.He wanted to go to war with the US so his submarines could sink their merchant shipping ignoring the fact that the US had the industrial power to build plenty of destroyers to cover the Atlantic while fighting in Pacific, a fact Admiral Yamamato himself acknowledged.

5.He didn't even try to seize the French Fleet, and the only attempt at doing so was by Von Rundstedt during operation Anton, and it should be remembered that there were enough French Ships to scare Churchill.

Who would you say was the worst and why?

 

Gunther Lutjens gets my vote. His operational handling of the BISMARK/PRINZ EUGEN breakout attempt sucked sewage.

 

Royal Navy Admiral Beatty for his persistant failures to communicate to both his suboardinates and superiors. At Jutland he managed to leave the Fifth Battle Squadron behind ( four Queen Elizabeth Class Battleships! ) and left the British CinC Jellcoe basically guessing where the enemy was.

 

I'm not sure, Ebar, but I think he meant the worst admiral of WW2. Of course, that is not made clear by the topic title.

 

And now Notmi takes cover.

 

Admiral King

We might be OK, this is not the Warships1 board.

 

Admiral Yamamoto. He twice threatened to resign if his plans were not carried out (Pearl Harbor and Midway). He would have served Japan better if he had threatened to resign if Japan attacked the US, a war he knew Japan could not win.
His Midway plan was impossibly complicated and operations in the Solomons never took full advantage of Japanese naval strength.

 

Yamamato was much better then Raider.

He tried to keep Japan from attacking the US, and the Jappenese did under his command take the Solomons Islands didn't they?

Midway may have been to complicated, but Pearl Harbor is studied and memorised by US Naval Officers today as America's greatest naval defeat.

Also his rejection of the Battleship in favor of the Carrier as the ultimate weapon was a stroke of brilliance.

It is true he could have done a much better job in threatening to resign by making the threat over will Japan go to war or not, but that would make every German General and Admiral bad because they to followed a leader who started unwinable wars.

"The Battleship is about as useful in modern warfare as the Samurai Sword"-Admiral Yamamato.

 

2nd Legion:

The Japanese under Yamato seized the virtually undefended Solomon islands. The Japanese couldn't hold the Solomons under Yamamto. The Imperial Japanese Navy and Naval Air Force were ruined in the battles in the Solomons and Midway. Yamamto himself was killed in the Solomons.

His rejection of the battleship wasn't complete. At Midway he chose to travel with the battleship division rather than the carriers, even though he had doubts about Nagumo's ability to command. According to the plan the Battleship division was to deliver the final blow destroying the US Navy.
He never realized the potential of submarines. He never saw the potential of using the old battleships for bombardment as did the USN.

Pearl Harbor is studied as an example of unprepardedness, surprise and complancey. I think Savo Island is usually considered a greater defeat becasue the force there had no reason to be unprepared, surprised or complacent and was defeated by an inferior scratch force.

I do think he was better than Raeder, or most any other German admiral for that matter. I wouldn't seriously consider him the worst, it's just that he gets too much credit and too little criticism.

 

I thought yamato is the name of the super battleship, yamamoto is the name of the admiral

 

You are right!

Yamato = Battleship!


Yamamoto = Admiral

Worst Admiral.....
Don't know if you count first Lord of the Admiralty to admirals or i would say Winston Churchill for the debacle at Gallipoli...
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ga ... 201915.htm

You almost start to wonder how that man could be prime minister?!

 

Well, Gallipoli could have been a bit more successful if the British soldiers had not stopped for a cup of tea after securing the beaches.
(according to my Military History lecturer at Uni!)

 

According the the book Castles of Steel the navy came very close to forcing the passage without a landing. The Turkish shore battries were in bad shape and running low on ammo. It was basically one of those actions which was decided by which side cracked first.

 

Don't forget Ataturk was leading the Turks.

Losing to him doesn't mean you were a bad tactician or leader, that would be like saying Pompey was bad because he lost to Caeser.

 

I personally think Gallipoli would have been more successful had the assault troops been landed on the right beaches! :roll:

 

and if they had up to date maps

 

And if they'd managed to keep preparations secret from enemy...

 

And the list goes on...

 

Opps! I'm a lousy typist. I really know the difference.

 

That's okay, canambridge; we forgive you. All of us suffer from dyslexic fingers from time to time while typing.