Most important military or naval victory by country?

[Athelstane]

Or, overall for England/Britain/UK, Trafalgar or the Armada?

Best,

The Armada - mainly at Gravelines - is probably the closest competitor to Trafalgar I can come up with. Many of its fruits were squandered over the next fifteen years, but unquestionably it averted an occupation of much of England that would have had massive consequences. I still come down on the side of Trafalgar, because Napoleon had a far greater capability to sustain a full occupation (and ideological transformation, albeit not necessarily the one intended) of Britain than Philip II did had either gone the other way, and because Britain gathered the full fruits of Trafalgar in a way that it did not from the Armada. But I can see an argument for the Armada.

But since I now realize that the original question asked about the Twentieth Century, I would be able to answer that readily enough: Battle of Britain. To the extent that First Marne saved France, Britain must have a share of that, too, if I'm feeling more revisionist...

 

[Riain]

They had 'Charles Upham' for a while.

 

[Athelstane]

Whatever happened to the China experts here?

Anyway, 20th century is kind of a hard one for China, not to mention the Communist regime had covered up many significant KMT victories over the Japanese in order to paint the KMT in a bad light over the years, leading to insufficient data.

Here's my take, feel free to correct and supersede this.

1938: Taierzhuang (KMT) - First Chinese victory, shattered the myth that the Japanese were invincible and rather than a swift conquest, Japan found itself bogged down in China for another 7 years.

1948: Liaoshen (CCP) - After this victory, the CCP secured the vast resources of Manchuria, and the KMT were forced into the defensive for the remainder of the civil war.

I hate using cases from national civil wars - after all, the enemy is your own countrymen - but these are almost certainly the ones I'd pick for China in this century.

 

[Athelstane]

They had 'Charles Upham' for a while.

Eminently worthy of a ship.

 

[Kome]

I hate using cases from national civil wars - after all, the enemy is your own countrymen - but these are almost certainly the ones I'd pick for China in this century.

The enemy is also the enemy. I would say some of the Korean War victories were more impressive, though its debatable whether establishing China's international position could be considered as important as simply surviving.

 

[TFSmith121]

Those are both interesting; any chance either or both

Le Quesnoy for WW1 (it was the only actual battle fought exclusively by New Zealand troops), and Kamimbo Bay in WW2 (okay, not the official name of the skirmish, but sinking a Japanese Submarine with two ships that together didn't match the surfaced displacement of the submarine ought to count).

Pretty much everything else has been either bloody losses (Gallipoli, Crete, etc), or small portions of big plans.

Those are both interesting; any chance either or both would be seriously considered?

HMNZS Quesnoy
HMNZS Kamimbo

They both sort of neatly avoid the English/Maori question, since neither location is either; plus, if there were Maori soldiers at Quesnoy, or aboard the corvettes/trawlers, there's a reasonable element of "honoring ALL New Zealanders" inherent in both...

Best,

 

[Flying Sorcerer]

United States: The Battles of Saratoga, 1777
-Saratoga convinced the French and the Spanish that the Americans meant business, and that we had a real shot at winning. Without the victory at Saratoga, help from France and Spain might never have come, and the USA might not exist today.

I nominate Pearl Harbor. The attack not only drew America into the Second World War as a full belligerent, it discredited American isolationism and put the US on the path to becoming the preeminent global power that it has been ever since.

 

[TFSmith121]

That was sort of my thought re Armada; it is almost foundational

The Armada - mainly at Gravelines - is probably the closest competitor to Trafalgar I can come up with. Many of its fruits were squandered over the next fifteen years, but unquestionably it averted an occupation of much of England that would have had massive consequences. I still come down on the side of Trafalgar, because Napoleon had a far greater capability to sustain a full occupation (and ideological transformation, albeit not necessarily the one intended) of Britain than Philip II did had either gone the other way, and because Britain gathered the full fruits of Trafalgar in a way that it did not from the Armada. But I can see an argument for the Armada.

But since I now realize that the original question asked about the Twentieth Century, I would be able to answer that readily enough: Battle of Britain. To the extent that First Marne saved France, Britain must have a share of that, too, if I'm feeling more revisionist...

How about?

HMS Armada
HMS Trafalgar

for the two new CVs...with all due respect to the monarch(s), seems a little more "national" in appeal/

Likewise,
HMS Marne
HMS Britain
+ various other "battles" (with due attention to English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, and "neighborly" sensitivities)

for the new AAW destroyer/cruisers, would seem more appropriate than the alphabetical classes, plus gives an opportunity to elide some of the "devolution" and "union"-related issues...

Any thoughts on four more "battle" names for the Type 45s that would address the political issues? If Marne gives a nod toward Europe, and Britain toward, well Britain, what would the best choices for the English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh honorees?

Seriously, I mean - HMS Ethandun, Carraig, Sruighlea, and Baddon?

Best,

 

[MrHaakwood]

Völkerschlacht bei Leipzig and Königgrätz

 

[Perfidious Albion]

It depends what you mean. Would a victory that destroyed lots of enemy troops or secured a great swathe of territory (the accomplishment) achieved at the cost of great national sacrifice be considered (A) worthier than or (B) less worthy than a fairly swift, dull victory that was nonetheless extremely important in regard to its effects on the broader war?

For the UK (presuming 20th century only), then…

…if (A): Battle of Britain, beyond a shadow of a shadow of a doubt.

…if (B), I'd vote for the Second Battle of El Alamein. Had we lost the Battle of Britain, there would have been lots of lost morale but we would just have relocated the RAF to the North and kept on fighting; there would have been great civilian suffering with greater Luftwaffe power but it didn't win the campaign in Western Europe in the way that 2nd El Alamein won the campaign in North Africa. (Yes, the Axis powers kept fighting in North Africa after it, but they also kept fighting in Europe in 1945.)

We had HMS Trafalgar once. We used to be much better with warship naming than the current wastes of breath; I'm as proudly royalist as any Briton, but HMS Agincourt, HMS Hercules, HMS Iron Duke, HMS Colossus, HMS Monarch and HMS Conqueror make the likes of Illustrious, Ark Royal, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales sound dull and tame, whatever their illustrious histories (I'm so sorry for that), though HMS Invincible is up to the very best standards (especially given the continuous Argentinian statements that it had been sunk, only for it to survive the war).

And the day we start being politically correct about naming warships in accordance with the ideal of devolution and delicate separate identities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the day I march into the Ministry of Defence with a machinegun. If we can't be proudly and unashamedly British even in a common British institution that has served our country well for centuries, we're not really a country any more.

[/off-topic rant]

 

[MattII]

HMNZS Quesnoy
HMNZS Kamimbo

Well, HMNZS Le Quesnoy and HMNZS Kamimbo Bay anyway

They both sort of neatly avoid the English/Maori question, since neither location is either; plus, if there were Maori soldiers at Quesnoy, or aboard the corvettes/trawlers, there's a reasonable element of "honoring ALL New Zealanders" inherent in both...

Well I can't be sure of maori participation at either battle, but it seems probable. Could also consider Messines Village, which was another almost exclusively New Zealand action (albeit as part of a larger action by Empire forces) that certainly did involve Maori troops in the form of the The New Zealand (Maori) Pioneer Battalion, as well as troops in other units.

 

[Star Chamber]

For the US--Gettysburg. Without a doubt.

 

[Fairdowner]

New Zealand? A major warship? 2014?

 

[Athelstane]

…if (B), I'd vote for the Second Battle of El Alamein. Had we lost the Battle of Britain, there would have been lots of lost morale but we would just have relocated the RAF to the North and kept on fighting; there would have been great civilian suffering with greater Luftwaffe power but it didn't win the campaign in Western Europe in the way that 2nd El Alamein won the campaign in North Africa. (Yes, the Axis powers kept fighting in North Africa after it, but they also kept fighting in Europe in 1945.)

The thing is, though, Panzer Army Afrika in October 1942 was pretty much at the end of its thread, badly depleted, stripped of most useful air support, and at the end of a long, tenuous supply line, with hardly the fuel to maneuver, let alone retreat. The only reason it stayed at Alamein after August was because of Hitler's insistence on a no retreat policy.

Montgomery's victory eviscerated what was left of it; but Torch guaranteed that it would have to retreat in some form anyway. The Battle of First Alamein had great import in that it was Rommel's last best shot at penetrating to the Nile Valley and the Canal.

We had HMS Trafalgar once. We used to be much better with warship naming than the current wastes of breath; I'm as proudly royalist as any Briton, but HMS Agincourt, HMS Hercules, HMS Iron Duke, HMS Colossus, HMS Monarch and HMS Conqueror make the likes of Illustrious, Ark Royal, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales sound dull and tame, whatever their illustrious histories (I'm so sorry for that), though HMS Invincible is up to the very best standards (especially given the continuous Argentinian statements that it had been sunk, only for it to survive the war).

Can't disagree with any of that.

And let us not forget Fighting Temeraire, or Dreadnought...

 

[edvardas]

Germany: Teutoberg
Without it, there have been no more German people and language than Celtic people and language.

 

[TFSmith121]

Well, I was thinking something other than "city" names;

And the day we start being politically correct about naming warships in accordance with the ideal of devolution and delicate separate identities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the day I march into the Ministry of Defence with a machinegun. If we can't be proudly and unashamedly British even in a common British institution that has served our country well for centuries, we're not really a country any more.[/off-topic rant]

What would the next four after Armada, Trafalgar, Marne, and Britain be?

And I realize that Britain is somewhat clunky, but I'm not sure what else to chose for the 1940 defense; any thoughts?

Best,

 

[Perfidious Albion]

What would the next four after Armada, Trafalgar, Marne, and Britain be?

HMS Agincourt beyond a doubt (we had a dreadnought with that name once), HMS Waterloo (ditto), HMS Alamein, HMS Lagos and HMS Quiberon Bay (though those two sound bad, they were Trafalgars before Trafalgar), HMS Normandy (not just a British operation but an incredibly important one to the war effort and one in which British troops were greatly involved), HMS Poitiers (perhaps with an HMS Black Prince to go with it) and HMS Reading (we can't forget the Glorious Revolution). Probably not any of the battles from the English Civil War, because both sides were pretty bad (though Cromwell was worse, in my opinion) and it would just antagonise people.

I suppose HMS Poitiers might be considered a poor name since it was part of an aggressive war waged against the French, but that never stopped us from commemorating Agincourt, so the French will just have to live with our ceaseless boasting.

And I realize that Britain is somewhat clunky, but I'm not sure what else to chose for the 1940 defense; any thoughts?

Best,

You might pick HMS Battle of Britain, because otherwise the fact that you're actually referring to the battle is ambiguous.

Sadly, we don't have enough ships to give them all the great names imaginable… but anyone with a creative mind could do better at naming British ships than the lot who do it nowadays. I mean, Astute and Ocean and Talent (not to mention the dreaded Dukes)? When we could call them things like HMS Gloriana and HMS Hercules? That's just sad.

I agree with you that names for random cities, rivers and duchies are just poor and unimaginative.

I agree with HMS Edington plus the others you mentioned, though I'd go for the current names rather than the old ones; it makes it seem more relevant to hear of Englishmen fighting at Edington than of Englishmen fighting at Ethandun, in my opinion.

As for the world outside Great Britain (regrettably I must acknowledge its existence sometimes ) I agree with Teutoberg for Germany. Germany too could use Waterloo (or whatever it is in German), perhaps with a Blücher too. It doesn't strictly come under 'battles', but Valkyrie and Frankfurt Parliament would be good ones, and certainly couldn't be accused of celebrating Prussian militarism and Nazi cruelty. Various names from the Austro- and Franco-Prussian Wars could be accused of that, so those seem unlikely to be adopted by the FRG's military, whereas it has already shown itself to be happy to take on the legacy of the Frankfurt Parliament and the plotters against Hitler.

 

[Kinny Riddle]

The problem is the KMT army struggled most of the time (against the Japanese) to maintain internal cohesion, leading to a lack of decisive battles on the lines of Stalingrad or Leningrad. I don't think civil wars count in this thread.

My entry is Chosin Reservoir in December 1950. Prior to that, the US was pushing to the Yalu River and promised "home by Christmas", ridiculing the Chinese threat to intervene. The ensuing onslaught proved that China must be reckoned as a major military power. It was also the first Chinese victory over a foreign enemy for which it is entirely responsible (token Soviet assistance aside) in centuries, boosting the CPC's nationalist credentials.

Besides Chosin Reservoir, which was more of a pyrrhic victory for the PLA, how about the Sino-Indian War (1962), probably the only instance in the 20th century I could think of where the PLA totally owned a foreign enemy?

Don't think the PRC made any significant gains in the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979), as it was more a ploy by Deng Xiaoping to keep the PLA generals busy while he consolidated his power.

 

[CalBear]

What would the next four after Armada, Trafalgar, Marne, and Britain be?

And I realize that Britain is somewhat clunky, but I'm not sure what else to chose for the 1940 defense; any thoughts?

Best,

If we have moved away from 20th Century battle to ship names Angincourt, Poitiers, Crecy, Quebec, and Waterloo have to be strong contenders.

 

[Magniac]

Pretty much everything else has been either bloody losses (Gallipoli, Crete, etc), or small portions of big plans.

Making Crete be a victory that was almost too unbearable for Adolf Hitler, I think that counts as a strategic effort worth commemorating.

I'd team Kokoda with Coral Sea since it was the sea victory that lead to the land campaign.

I wouldn't go with anything other than Milne Bay as an 'appendage'; you bring the fleet battles in, it starts to get awkward; if you get to Guadalcanal, then the whole premise of responding to the OP'ers subject becomes impossible.