In those days they fought in formations and had to keep their station at first.

When ever large groups fight in battle, whether it be ships, men, airplanes, whatever, they will always fight better in organized formations. But the fact remains that in a ship ramming battle, the faster ships will have control of this situation and always have the advantage.

Thus, based on Thukididis, the developer of the trireme was a Korinthian by the name of Ameinoklis and the ship was first developed around 705 BC

I said it before, Ill say it again, the Phoenicians were the first known to use the trireme.


http://www.cedarland.org/ships.html

“The Japaneese were mainly inspired by the success of the British torpedo bomber attack on Taranto.”
It may be that the primary inspiration for the Pearl Harbor attack came not from Taranto but from Port Arthur. I don’t see much influence from the Taranto raid except as an encourager to go ahead with plans already being formed. As early as November 1936, Japan’s naval war college was setting an air raid on Pearl as the starting point for a war against the US.

Thats probably so. I heard that Japan sent people to inspect Taranto after the fact, so I assumed that was their main point of influence.

What is your proof in disregarding all these, please. By the way, why is a ship of 30 meters long that achieved almost 10 knots, a large manstrocity?

Because 10 knots is slo-o-o-o-w. Even Venetion galleys of the Battle of Lepanto which looked more like giant barges were able to make 8 knots with 7 men at each oar. Since a Trireme was a ramming weapon, it had to be fast or it was useless, almost 10 knots is not fast.

I know its not fair of me to make a claim and not have available proof, but I didnt know it was a contestable issue at the time and so didnt record my facts. So think of my statement that there were two banks of oars on a trireme as a puzzel I offer anyone to solve rather than a assertion of truth.

The British were the premier sub-hunters. The Germans, surprisingly, were very poor at it. German destroyers accounted for only one or two submarines during the entire war. (Not that there were a whole lot of German destroyers running around.) Apart from the great success in mining the outlet to the Gulf of Finland, German ASW was a flop.

The Germans didnt have sonar, you can imagine how difficult it was to find subs only using hydrophones.

Mixtec,

trust me. Triremes were ships with three rows of oars. There is plenty of proof of that here in Greece from paintings on vases and from scripts describing the ships. There are even different names given for each row of men on the oars (Thranites, Thalamites & Zigites—If I am not mistaken). The Hellenic Navy along with the help of Athens University and other Organizations have actually built a trireme based on the ancient plans and descriptions and it is now an honorary part of the fleet. Her name is “OLYMPIAS” and you can find a lot of relative data on the official Hellenic Navy site.

What are your sources that make you think this is not the case?

Paintings on vases clearly show 2 banks of oars and not 3, and greek painters had a high attention to detail and realism. That is interesting that you mention there are 3 names for the different men at oars, that is something that comes closer to proof, and I would be interested in seeing more about that. And I am aware of that monstrosity that was built for the Hellenic navy, there is no way that thing is accuarate, it is way to large and heavy to be used in the role of a fast moving ramming weapon. No, you still have to come up with proof, and you havent any so far. And lets be honest, a lot of what is believed about history is conjecture built apon opionions of scholars, and when new evidence is revealed, this changes what we know. Its really a shame that people are willing to swallow academics conjecture at face value and not try and research the evidence on their own, and make an opinion from that. Unfortunately my “research” wasnt done formally, but just reading Ive done on my own, and so Ive forgotten the historical pieces which I used to put the puzzel together. But I still defy anyone to prove me wrong.

The question of Japans opening strategy on the US and their loss at Midway is a big one. As far as I know, the Japaneese never used a strategy of strangling merchant shipping as was used by the US and Germany. I think Japan was in a position to try and at least cut off the oil supply of the US by sinking tanker ships, and they never took it. Their submarines were always used against warships. As for Midway, loosing 3 carriers was enough to reduce Japans advantage in quantity and quality of naval strength enough to buy the US time. Code breaking and radar played a large part in that victory, but overall I think luck was the deciding factor.