Talk:Battle of Tsushima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Vernet's Shipwreck This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

An event mentioned in this article is a May 27 selected anniversary.

Contents

[edit] Compass Reference

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)

[edit] Pusan is WNW

  • 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

[edit] Admirals Name is Spelled 'X'

First of all: the family of the Russian commander was Rozhestvenski, without "D" letter!

  • There are six acceptable western renderings of his name... depending upon the lexigrphical convention used by a given translator, they break down into two major familys per one historian whose reference seems to be up on the third floor attic at the moment. He used it as an illustration of how difficult the multi-language renderings were to remain consistant with current usage (When ever he wrote that is - still true today, only worse). See one of:
  • F.R. Sedwick, (R.F.A.), The Russo-Japanese War, 1909, The Macmillan Company, N.Y., 192 pp.
  • Colliers (Ed.), The Russo-Japanese War, 1904, P.F. Collier & Son, New York, 129 pp.
  • William Henry Chamberlain, Japan Over Asia, 1937, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, 395 pp.
  • Edwin O Reischauer, Japan - The Story of a Nation, 1970, LoCCC# 77-10895 Afred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. Previously published as Japan Past and Present (4 Eds., 1946-64)
    • Dennis and Peggy Warner, The Tide At Sunrise, 1974, Charterhouse, New York, 659 pp.
    • Frank Theiss, The Voyage of Forgotten Men, 1937, Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1st Ed., Indianapolis & New York, 415 pp.
    • Geoffrey Jukes, The Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905, 2002, Osprey Publishing, Oxford, Ox2 9LP (Britain), ISBN 1-84176-446-9, 95 pp.
    • Richard Hough, "The Fleet That had to Die", LoCCC# 58-9650, The Viking Press, New York, 1958, 212 pp.

I can not find the discussion again quickly, but suffice it to say that Hough, Theiss, and Warner are all considered authorative, and give the two opposing spellings as Ro zhest ven sky and Ro zhd est ven ski respectively two to one. Jukes makes it 3 out of four and it's outside the scope of the first four references, save Chamberlain introduces yet another variant: "Roz daev sky". Thiess is a translation.

  • Ahhhhh, Theiss translated by Fritz Sallagar covers the matter on a "Translators Note" just after the dedication page, and before the texts TOC. Some stranger spellings: A doubled end using "ii" close to that used by the Warners, and alternate with "D" Rozhdestvenski, and Kruiz hanovsky among others with leading 'K'.

J.N Westwood, Witnesses of Tsushima, 1970 uses Warners, and encyclopedia of Asia History 1988 uses the "D" variant mentioned in the translators note above... making the tally 3 : 2 : 1 :1. The encyclopedia references Warner and The Japanese Oligarchy and the Russo-Japanese War by Shumpei Okamoto, 1970 this later reference presumably led to adopting this later variant.

  • The preponderence of notable historians having spoken, I conclude the the spelling should be X.Fabartus 20:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I don't know if there is any "official" spelling, but since in Russian it is Рожественский, the simplest way would be Rozhestvenski. Definitely there should be no "D"!. A pronunciation of ending part of such Russian (and Polish) names is exactly like "ski" in English (not "sky"). Pibwl 20:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The admiral’s name was Рожественский. It does not contain the letter “д”, the Russian equivalent of “d”. There is no question about it, as anyone who speaks Russian will find soon enough if they consult Russian sources on the subject. The corresponding English spelling is Rozhestvensky (or Rozhestvenski, or Rozhestvenskiy, or Rozhestvenskii), and there is no reason on earth (transliteration rules or anything else) why a “d” should be added.

The ending is not that important. Whatever variant you use, it does not turn this name into a different one. What really matters is that the addition of the "d" does turn it into a different Russian family name (cf. Johnston/Johnson). It is true that the family name Rozhdestvensky (with a “d”) is much more common in Russia than Rozhestvensky (which probably explains why this unfortunate error occurred in the first place), but this is no reason to use one family name in place of the other.

I hope the above will convince whoever wrote/edits this and related articles that this is not a matter of “prevailing” or “official” English spelling and that the spelling with a “d” is wrong whether supported by “authoritative” English reference sources or not. If not, I encourage you to do some further research. The poor guy might have been the worst (or most unlucky) admiral ever, but he deserves his name to be spelt right, as do Wikipedia readers. --80.94.225.222 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese art of war

  • Japanese are full of resources: they managed to sink 21 ships, capture 7 ships and disarm 6 ships, when the Russian fleet was composed of 12 battleships and 8 cruisers!
  • Out of joke: someone should check the numbers! --Panairjdde 16:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is best handled by a table, which I'll re-edit and insert below shortly. Fabartus 20:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's see:
    • sunk: battleships: Suvorov, Alexander III, Borodino, Navarin, Oslyabia, Sisoy Veliki, Adm. Ushakov (coastal), cruisers: Adm. Nakhimov, Vladimir Monomakh, Dimitr Donskoy, Svetlana, Izumrud (run aground after a breakthrough near Vladivostok), Ural (in fact auxiliary cruiser, made of a liner), 5 destroyers. 3 auxiliary transports were also sunk, what gives 21, but it is arguable if to count them.
    • captured: battleships: Orel, Nikolay I (old), Adm. Senyavin, Adm. Apraksin (both coastal), 1 destroyer (+2 transports)
    • interned: cruisers: Oleg, Avrora, Zhemchug, 1 destroyer
    • broke through: Almaz (cruiser, in fact armed yacht), 2 destroyers Pibwl 20:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've seen Borodino's sinking credited to the last major salvo of the battle, by Adm Yawara Matsumoto. Trekphiler 12:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] casualty numbers

The Japanese sunk 21 ships when the Russians had only 19 in their fleet? I think there is a little mix up here lol. Maybe the Japanese and Russian number of ships were switched?

I think the Russian number includes auxillary ships such as destroyers and coal carriers which are missing from the article. --Revth 05:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet return

IIrc Togo, who had studied in England, deliberately kept the fleet at sea only returning to port on the 21st of October (Trafalgar Day) as a symbolic gesture.Alci12 17:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Brits had a mutual defense pact with the Japanese which kept the other European Powers (especially Germany and France, the Tsar was cousin "Nicky" to the Kaiser) out of the war. The Russian Baltic fleet had even mistakenly shot up some British fishing vessels while transversing the North sea. Pproctor 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Tsushima_3cdd.html"