Talk:Battle of Tsushima/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Route of Russian fleet

The chart showing the routes of Russian ships was tagged "dubious - discuss" back in August 2013 by User:Soerfm as "Key is missing and route seems to contradict claim about Russians not being allowed to use Suez channel" , though it wasn't actually raised on the talk page. It is indeed unfortunate that the Wikimedia image has no legend (and the originator Tosaka has no talk page). However it is present in the [WP aticle on the 2nd Pacific Fleet]. I have added it ad interim. That doesn't resolve the apparent conflict with the statement that Suez was barred. According to RuWP, much of the 2nd Pacific fleet (including the Navarinos, was detached and taken by Admiral Felkerzama via Suez to the rendezvous in Madagascar; Dobrotvorskiy's "catch-up squadron" included of two protected cruisers three auxiliary cruisers and five destroyers; Nebogatov's squadron consisted of an old battleship, coastal defense battleships and an old cruiser. Perhaps the (unreferenced) alleged barring of the use of Suez was for certain vessels only? (Sorry, but I do not have the means to clarify this further.) Davidships (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

—Thanks, I will make a note that the key issue is solved. Soerfm (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense in the Lede

"Although both sides had early wireless telegraphy, the Russians were using German sets and had difficulties in their use and maintenance, while the Japanese had the advantage of using their own equipment."

That implies that the Japanese officers and/or radio operator built their radios themselves ("own equipment"), which is almost certainly not the case. They simply were better educated in their use. Both Japanese and Russian equipment was built in some factory by people other than the radio operators.

The sentence is nonsense.-217.248.0.104 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I hate the word lede. It's one of those show-offy words that students use. Like protagonist. Your criticism is no good. It's an absurdly literal reading of the sentence. You might as well argue that the combatants weren't sides, they were three-dimensional shapes. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Units of measurement

The use of units in this article is a mess. Referring to yards, miles, nautical miles and so on. Neither Japan nor Russia had completed metrication at this time, but neither used Imperial units, so the only measurement units that makes sense is SI, or perhaps nautical miles since this is a maritime article. If the unit is nautical miles, please use nm rather than miles. BFG (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian casualties

The number of the dead is for the first day only; there also were a night action and than a day action next day. Overall, more than 5000 dead and some 800 wounded. Let me find a source, and I'll fix it. Mudriy zmei (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Battleships: The Duel of Kings

The difference between battleship fleet admirals and lesser naval admirals is that battleship admirals represented "their" countries; hence the title, "Capital" ships. When Rozhestvensky battled Togo in the Tsushima Straits that day in 1905, the sea engagement was not between the Russian Navy and the Japanese Navy; the battle was actually between the Russian Czar and the Japanese Emperor, with Rozhestvensky and Togo acting as surrogates for their respective "Kings" (figuratively). The same held true for Jutland in 1916, Scheer and Jellicoe represented their nations, and Jutland was actually fought between the "King" of England (or Prime Minister) and the German Kaiser; with Jellicoe and Scheer acting on their behalf. As Churchill said, "...Jellicoe was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon!" He didn't say that about one his generals, armies can be raised in 90 days (just draft the men and hand them a pitch-fork/bayonet/or rifle), but it takes 3 years to build a battleship (Dreadnought was an exception being built within one year).

This is the difference between battleship fleet actions and lesser naval actions.

And Wiki works off Reliable Sources, not a person's personal viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.254 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding proper illumination

The Hospitalship Orel had its credentials/emblems illumminated in accordance to international regulations. How many hours of the day is such illumination required? --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Economic consequences of naval development

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

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)