3 ms·
Losing a ship (boat?) during peacetime is a PR disaster. Losing one during wartime can cost you the war. An inefficient one that probably won’t sink due to co
by UncleEntity 4y ago
Losing a ship (boat?) during peacetime is a PR disaster.
Losing one during wartime can cost you the war.
An inefficient one that probably won’t sink due to combat damage can stay in the fight long enough to matter.
- WJW 4y agoSubmarines are referred to as boats rather than ships due to naval tradition. As a former naval officer I can only say that technically losing any vessel could be the one that loses a war, just as any soldier lost could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. But if your navy is so rickety that the loss of a single vessel is enough to lose then the main deficiency was in planning rather than any specific warship loss. Losing one in peacetime should never happen but is not unheard of even in modern times. See eg the Kursk or the Fitzgerald.
- UncleEntity 4y agoIt’s also not unheard of for a single vessel to have outsized effects on an entire war https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/20/enigma-code-u-boat-u559-hms-petard-sebag-montefiori https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/20/enigma-code-u-... It could also be argued that the Romans capturing a single Carthaginian warship turned the tide for their entire empire.