Unbelievable battles

French SNLE (= SSBN)

S615 - L'Inflexible
S616 - Le Triomphant
S617 - Le Téméraire
S618 - Le Vigilant

Most of the time, we name our ships from former sailors

Excuse my ignorance but what does Téméraire mean?

Triomphant is an ironic name for a SNLE, although perhaps Vanguard is more troubling when you consider their role.
 
You are aware of the historical tradition of (re-)naming one's ships after defeated/captured enemy vessels? A lot of the names of RN ships were originally the names of French navy ships, but more or less Anglified. It seems to have been a way of bragging, but makes for a considerable number of French named RN ships.
Wow, and I thought It was weird naming ships after other peoples territories:
Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal, Tripoli, Inchon etc. Especially considering we work with the owners of some of those places now.
 
The Royal Navy was not in the habit of naming its ships after enemy vessels.
All the French names you see in the list were ships captured from the French
which then served the RN. Often the French name was bequeathed to a later
ship, as in the case of Achille. Foreign names were sometimes changed or
anglicized, especially for some of the Dutch jawbreakers.
 
Battle of Mu'teh

According to later Muslim historians, Muhammad dispatched 3,000 of his troops to the area in Jumada al-awwal of the year 8 A.H. 629, for a quick expedition to attack and punish the tribes. The army was led by Zayd ibn Haritha; the second-in-command was Jafar ibn Abi Talib and the third was Abdullah ibn Rawahah.[5]

The leader of the Ghassanids is said to have gained word of the expedition and prepared his forces; he also sent to the Byzantines for aid. Muslim historians report that the Byzantine emperor Heraclius himself gathered an army and hurried to the aid of his Arab allies. Other sources say that the leader was the emperor's brother, Theodorus. The combined force of Roman soldiers and Arab allies is usually reported to be 100,000[3] to 200,000[5] according to Muslim sources.

When the Muslim troops arrived at the area to the east of Jordan and learnt of the size of the Byzantine army, they wanted to wait and send for reinforcements from Medina. Abdullah ibn Rawaha scolded them for their timidity, so they continued marching towards the waiting army.

[edit] The battle

The Muslims attacked the Byzantines at their camp by the village of Musharif and then withdrew towards Mu'tah. It was here that the two armies fought. During the battle, all three Muslim leaders fell one after the other as they took command of the force: first, Zayd ibn Haritha, then Jafar ibn Abi Talib, then Abdullah ibn Rawaha. Al-Bukhari reported that there were fifty stab wounds in Jafar's body, none of them in the back. After the death of the latter, the troops asked Thabit ibn Arkan to assume command; however, he declined and asked Khalid ibn al-Walid to take the lead.[5]

Khalid ibn Al-Walid reported that the fighting was so intense that he used nine swords which broke in the battle. Al-Walid, seeing that the situation was hopeless, prepared to withdraw. He continued to engage the Byzantines in skirmishes, but avoided pitched battle. One night he completely changed his troop dispositions and brought forth a rearguard that he had equipped with new banners; all this was intended to give the impression that reinforcements had arrived from Medina. He also ordered his cavalry to retreat behind a hill, hiding their movements, and then return, raising as much dust as they could. This also was intended to create the impression that further reinforcements were arriving. The Byzantines believed in the fictitious reinforcements and withdrew, thus allowing the Muslim force to safely retreat to Medina.

Muslim commentators on the battle have often praised the skirmishing tactics of Khalid ibn al-Walid, and regard him as one of the finest military commanders in history.[3][5]


Summery: 3,000 Muslims against 200,000 Byzantian soldiers. After the death of many leaders, finally Khalid Ibn Al Walid takes the leadership and succeed in letting the Byzantians believe that Muslims have received reinforcements, they fight and moved forward forcing Byzanitnas to retreat, then they moved safely to Medina.

I think it is impossible for 3,000 to completely defeat an army of 200,000 soldiers. But the trick Khalid have done to force them to retreat was unbelievable and deserve to be mentioned here I guess. :)
 
:goodjob: That's really awsome. It's also refered to as the Battle of Muta in a number of sources.
 
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but Battle of Yarmouk. Arabia, lead by Khalid ibn al-Walid, had about 30,000 troops. Byzantium had roughly 125,000. Islam lost 3,000 troops, Europe lost over 100,000.

Khalid is truly one of the greatest generals in history. Second only to, and perhaps greater than Hannibal himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
 
Wow, and I thought It was weird naming ships after other peoples territories:
Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal, Tripoli, Inchon etc. Especially considering we work with the owners of some of those places now.

A number of American vessels were named after famous battles in US history (won by the Americans). For example, the WW2 US carriers: Yorktown, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Bennington, Cowpens were all named after Revolutionary War battles. Some like the Antietam were named after later battles. Carriers like the Midway were built later in the war, and obviously referred to an earlier engagement. But all the locations you listed above were, despite being foreign territories to the US, military victories.

I wish we went back to that tradition of naming carriers after battles. Naming them after presidents, especially those who were not all that bright like Ford, really doesn't strike the right chord with me.
 
A number of American vessels were named after famous battles in US history (won by the Americans). For example, the WW2 US carriers: Yorktown, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Bennington, Cowpens were all named after Revolutionary War battles. Some like the Antietam were named after later battles. Carriers like the Midway were built later in the war, and obviously referred to an earlier engagement. But all the locations you listed above were, despite being foreign territories to the US, military victories.
Yes, I know that, but its got to be really akward when they do naval exercises with the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. :lol:
 
If the Zero had better armor, and Japan had mass production, the Zeros would probably kick ass until perhaps 1950. :) (Or maybe in 1945 if the US used the A-bomb and Japan surrendered like in OTL)

Obsolete already by 43.
It only had a 1000HP engine which meant its ceiling was limited. Light weight for range and lacking basic self sealing fuel, plated armour and advanced refined features were not possible without reduced performance.

heavy US aircraft starting with the twin engine lighting with its 2000H engines would cruise very high ceiling at which the zeros weak engines would mean poor performance. Simply move into position and enter a steep dive in which there heavy amoured and powerful aircraft would pick up tremendous speed. It would then unlease its firepower and dive away at speed no light weight zero would match. Having broken formation the zeros were then simply "jumped" by the follow up aircraft.

Allied aircraft would not engage at set dogfights unless the odds were to there favour or when the situation demanded it. (defensive battles or escorting)

best Japanese fighter of the war was the Raidien though it had its share of technical problems being rushed with the newer 2000HP engine and numerous other aspects which were never ironed out.
 
The seige of malta. Three biplanes hold off the Italian air force, famously called Faith, Hope, and Charity. Later a reinforced but still underwelming defence holds out against almost 12 thousand sorties in a little over a month.

Pffff ITALIANS
Those three craptastic fighters were actually abandoned wrecks and put together from scrap parts. The italian bombers were in fact faster and the maltese pilots had to climb up high into position then dive down in order to pick up enough speed to catch up with the Italian bombers.

:goodjob:
 
Pffff ITALIANS
Those three craptastic fighters were actually abandoned wrecks and put together from scrap parts. The italian bombers were in fact faster and the maltese pilots had to climb up high into position then dive down in order to pick up enough speed to catch up with the Italian bombers.

:goodjob:

...said the Italophobe.
 
Yes, I know that, but its got to be really akward when they do naval exercises with the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. :lol:

I would bet so. Hey Japan, you remember Midway, right? Here's a carrier named after it! Why not name carriers after Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

I always thought the most awkward, though, would be giving ships names like USS Jap Killer. I think that takes the cake in awkward naming. :)
 
I don't know how Europe Manages to avoid this Problem, Imagine a Joint German, French, British fleet filled with names like
Sedan, Trafalgar, Waterloo, etc. etc. :lol:
 
Well, German ships are mostly named after cities or states. Nevertheless if there is a new Leipzig that can give some quarrels with France. Anyway to name a ship after a battle is not done so in German main warships since the Weißenburg class predreadnoughts. Only coincidentally there might have happened a battle at these places. At this moment btw only the SSBN HMS Trafalgar is named after a battle in these forces.
However you can have ships in a European fleet named Emden, Surcouf and Edninburgh. Germany is atm not naming ships after persons because of political correctness. Some idiot will still be found to say why the person is not such a good choice. I would not evade such conflicts though...

Adler
 
I don't know how Europe Manages to avoid this Problem, Imagine a Joint German, French, British fleet filled with names like
Sedan, Trafalgar, Waterloo, etc. etc. :lol:

Or an American fleet named "America".
 
Sorry, didn't follow that one. Funny enough, there was a carrier named the USS America, though, so that is at least a single ship.

Germany, France and Britain have all fought against each other. With my statement, it implies that America fights against itself, that the American people are always fighting each other, or perhaps it relates to the fact that there are many German-Americans and British-Americans, and that these people were called by the loser to be fighting.
 
Sorry, didn't follow that one. Funny enough, there was a carrier named the USS America, though, so that is at least a single ship.

The Germans had a battle cruiser named Deutschland at the start of the War. But Hitler had them change the name because having a ship of that name go down would be a big blow to German morale.
 
Back
Top Bottom