Talk:Battle of Tsushima
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tsushima article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 27, 2004, May 28, 2005, May 28, 2006, and May 28, 2007. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Confusing Paragraph
[edit]Tōgō's greatest advantage was that of experience, having five of the ten fleet commanders in either navy with combat experience aboard modern warships on his side,[r] while Rozhestvensky had none. The others were all Russian admirals whom he had defeated, including Oskar Starck, who had been relieved of his command following his humiliating defeat in the Battle of Port Arthur; Admiral Stepan Makarov, killed by a mine off Port Arthur; Wilgelm Vitgeft, who had been killed in the Battle of the Yellow Sea; and Admiral (Prince) Pavel Ukhtomsky who was relieved and recalled to Mukden by Viceroy Yevgeni Alekseyev[s] after six battleships of the Pacific Squadron failed to reach Vladivostok as a result of the Battle of the Yellow Sea.[36] Admiral Karl Jessen, who experienced the Battle off Ulsan, remained in Vladivostok.
Who are "the others", and how are there so many of them?
Assuming "the others" are the 5 fleet commanders with experience not on Japan's side, wouldn't that give each side 5 experienced commanders? If so, how did Rozhestvensky have none? What happened to the other 5 fleet commanders with experience? And how is one of them a commander who had been killed in the Battle of the Yellow Sea, and another another a commander who had been killed by a mine off Port Arthur? How are already-dead commanders participating in this battle?
Either I'm reading it wrong, or it's extremely confusing.
Mr. Moral Panic (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Compass Reference
[edit]I don't know too much about naval science but isn't "west-north-east" as mentioned in this article impossible? Kent Wang 19:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes it is. A quick search of Wikpedia yields this page on compass points:Boxing_the_compass. "West-north-east" isn't among them. Difficult to tell what direction the author actually meant to type, though, and I'm having no luck looking for reference material with sufficient detail. Iulianus 09:39, 27 May 2004 UTC
- I think he meant that the ships moved west, then north, then east, although I can't be entirely sure.
About the course: Rozhestvensky ordered the Russian task-force to keep moving towards Vladivostok on the course of North-East 21 degrees.
- if you route on 270° (west), tou can have only N, W, South in the 3 letters, not East, meaning route on 90° ! ;D Alvaro 23:36, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Pusan is WNW
[edit]- Given the map I added, the Japanese Fleet approached from the NNW southerly, or hugged the coast southerly, then cut eastwardly, thus possibly approaching from the WNW. I would infer the Japanese would not allow them selves to travel south of the Tsushima Islands. In any event, with such a speed advantage, they were dominent before the battle fired shot one. [[User:fabartus |fabartus] 15:48, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
- Jukes essential history (See full reference in following section) shows the Combined Japanese fleet approaching the Russian on a near reciprocal course, to wit, on a heading of 202 to 212 degrees true (by my estimate). He was ahead (North of) and Eastward of the Russians at that time moving dead slow, lurking over the area he expected the Russians to appear near given the scouting report of the night before. He'd also had two fleet detachments make contact and shadow the Russians from early morning on. By 09:45 hrs, his third division (Old captured Chinese Battleship Chin Yen plus three cruisers) had parralleled the Russian fleet about 7 nautical miles off starting when they were even with the south Island of TsuShima Islands. Fearing the coastal batteries on the Islands, the Russians were transiting closer to Kyoto in the approximately fifty mile wide channel, which gave sufficient sea room for the third division.
After that he made a number of course changes crossing and recrossing the Russian 'Tee' so that his track is pretty close to a twisted pretzel. The Russians came along the same course, but gradually bent more and more westerly.Fabartus 20:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Japan
The Japanese
Speed
[edit]I got a lot of questions. Why russian speed is 8 knots? All russian sources talk about 9 knots, and they also insist that the speed was determined by erratic decision of Рождественский to keep transports with the squadrones, while fighting. Russian battleships could move with 12-knots speed. Manchjurshi
Economic consequences of naval development
[edit]There is a podcast[1] (number 3 of 3 on the battle) by the Society for Nautical Research. One point included is that Japan took out substantial loans to pay for their technologically advanced navy - so giving rise to political problems, despite the advantages of the decisive victory. Japan was disappointed by the peace treaty at the end of the war, which contained no substantial financial benefits to the victor. Consequently the Japanese taxpayer was left with the burden of paying for the navy that had defeated the Russians.
The podcast is based on a PhD thesis, but is discussed by the historian Sam Willis, so seems reasonably well supported as a potential RS.
The financial cost of Japan's navy does seem to be an important point that goes beyond the simple technological, tactical and strategic considerations. With cost being a major factor in all navies throughout history, I suggest that the effect of the big Japanese spend on their fleet for this battle seems worthy of inclusion in the article. I would not normally edit an article on Japanese naval history, so will leave this to other editors. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The podcast seems quite accurate about the substantial debt incurred by Japan, and the public outcry in the forms of demonstrations (e.g., Hibiya riots) and newspaper editorials were so severe that the government had to declare a Martial Law, and then the Cabinet resigned (as if they're responsible for a lost war) in December, 1905. The almost pro-Russian conditions in the Treaty of Portsmouth is generally accepted now in Japan to be a reflection of the judgment by President Theodore Roosevelt (who had expressed pro-Japanese sentiments during the war, and acted as the mediator for the treaty) that it is not for the national interest of the U.S. to let Japanese economy recover quickly from the scars of the war with its strong Navy intact (going into the period of WWI).
- This public dissatisfaction remained for a long time, and in my opinion, contributed greatly to the Japanese public accepting the series of military-led governments going into WWII. And Komura Jutarō (Foreign Minister and the signer of Portsmouth Treaty) had to fear assassination attempts for life.
- However, these are the effects of the War, and not directly of the Battle of Tsushima, so I consider their inclusion in this article to be unwarranted. Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- p.s. I expanded Russo-Japanese_War#Effects_on_Japan to address your concern. Hope it meets your approval. Yiba (talk | contribs) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Modern steel battleships
[edit]The ships involved in this battle are, all bar two, no longer extant (and of the capital ships, all bar one) and they represent a variety of types which are all wholly obsolete by modern standards (and long obsolescent by the time of WW2). These were fleets of a type which one may consider 'early modern', as long as 'modern' is taken to mean the age of widespread steel construction. Even that is debatable. I would recommend the deletion of the term 'modern' when describing these fleets. 'Steel battleships' - a now historic class of fighting vessel - ought really to suffice. Views? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:1DCB:F07B:1DEB:3812 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Destroyers and auxiliaries
[edit]Citation added. (125) --ThomasJa276 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
- B-Class Operation Majestic Titan articles
- Operation Majestic Titan articles
- B-Class Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) articles
- Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- B-Class Shipwreck articles
- Mid-importance Shipwreck articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles