Talk:Naval warfare

Comments
This redirection makes a hash of two distinct concepts; naval warfare in the general sense, which as a concept should be "timeless" and draw upon multiple periods to mention ramming, guns, boarding, etc, while naval history is more of the narrative. Another way to put it is that one is a "how to do it", and the other is a "how was it done". Stan 19:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would think it is comparable to siege warfare, nuclear warfare, chemical warfare, biological warfare, and guerrilla warfare all of which have the history and modern elements handled in the same article. - SimonP 19:44, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point, although those are rather smaller in scope. There's plenty of "how to" material for a non-history naval warfare article, it's just scattered all over the place right now, very disorganized (too bad I have a day job :-) ). Stan 21:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yamato
Since when was she 72000 tons? Is this full load, maximum overload, or what? Her standard displacement was 64000. --K D Faber


 * Japanese battleship Yamato says displacing 72,800 tonnes at full load.

666
Just wondering what the importance is of having "666 sign of the devil" beneath the External Links. Seems just like a stupid joke to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.20.212 (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) did u know that there is a bad virus giong in ur computer right now because of my hacking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.195.32 (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird Timeline
Doesn't anyone find it odd that the same trireme ships were being used in 800 BC by the Phoenicians, as well as the 16th century Venetians at the battle of Lepanto? There is a famous painting of that battle and the ships being used can be seen clearly.

I can see two solutions to this problem, first that there virtually no progress for 2300 years, or second, that during the dark ages people forgot all the old technology, and went back to dugout canoes, only to be rediscovered much later during the renaissance when for some unknown reason they decided to copy 2300 year old ships.

So which is it?

This is, by a long shot, not the only example of this kind in history. 67.206.184.46 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Galley has more thorough info on development of ship design. Classical three-banked galleys disappeared from use some time during late Antiquity. Which painting are you refering to here exactly?
 * Peter Isotalo 11:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naval warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030230524/http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/B.20050301.AlterFleetStdy/B.20050301.AlterFleetStdy.pdf to http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/B.20050301.AlterFleetStdy/B.20050301.AlterFleetStdy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion
The article "Naval history" is a level-5 vital article, but has virtually no content. The header sections indicates it covers the same topic as this article. I'm suggesting it be merged/redirected into this article. Praemonitus (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Text hasn't changed much since 2006 (save the Further reading section), and unlikely to expand imo. I think most things to do with naval history but not naval warfare can probably come under Maritime history. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've completed the merge. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Strange phrasing
Just mentioning, the article seems to, at least as far in as I am at the medieval history section, have a significant romantic style to it. It's not enough to make it hard to read, or to make me try and edit it, but a lot of the phrasing is just a little bit off, a little bit too emotional/personally attached to the concepts of historical navy.

If anyone has suggestions on whether/how to handle this please say 86.19.86.233 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * quick addition to give an example
 * "The Persian Empire – united and strong – could not prevail against the might of the Athenian fleet combined with that of lesser city states in several attempts to conquer the Greek city states. Phoenicia's and Egypt's power, Carthage's and even Rome's largely depended upon control of the seas.
 * So too did the Venetian Republic dominate Italy's city states, thwart the Ottoman Empire, and dominate commerce on the Silk Road and the Mediterranean in general for centuries."
 * Aside from the many redundancies and awkward grammar, "United and strong"? Especially the second paragraph, which I also had to edit a minor grammar issue in, outside of what is quoted, it just seems overly literary, almost like it was copied from a random book and just plopped here, dramatic emphasis, poetic phrasing, and all. 86.19.86.233 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @86.19.86.233 100% agree. needs a full tidy up. without being accused of vandalism. anyone going thoroughly over this article would be doing a service 86.19.86.233 (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)