Talk:Russian cruiser Varyag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Where did the 32/90 casualty rate come from? Somebody is persistant. It is not what the cronicles at the St.Petersburg Admiralty say.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorf (talk • contribs) .

Hi, Dorf, thanks for creating an account. First of all, all previous edits were reverted by me, as they were coming from a different IP address every time, and looked a lot like vandalism. The anonymous editors (were they you?) did not even make changes consistently—the numbers were often different with every edit.

Anyway, back to your question. The 32/90 casualty rate is given by several sources. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, along with other, less reputable sources, for example, gives 122 killed and wounded, but does not provide a break-down. Encyclopedia Japan from A to Z (Yaponiya ot A do Ya) quotes "various sources" and says that 32 crew members were buried in Chemulpo.

I am not going to revert your changes for now, but if you could provide a reference to your 82/190 rate, it would be helpful. I will also consider posting the article for review—it needs expansion anyway. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, friend. The source is as follows: Russian State Naval Archive (St. Petersburg), Funds 1659-1940, (Document 6539, as I recall it). The envelope incudes letters sent by a Full Admiral Grand Duke Alexei to the Admiralty in St. Petersburg on January 30th 1904. Basically, the admiral was describing the matters to the Fleet Command, asking them to withdraw "Varyag" and "Koreets" from the Navy registers, and makes a brief report of casualty rates on both sides. According to this report, on the Russian side 32 were "immidiate KIA" and had been buried ashore, 19 were blown to bits by artillery and, due to that, "given sea burial", 27 had died in the ship's hospital from their wounds and other 4 were unaccounted for. The total number of wounded stands as written by me in the previous edit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorf (talk • contribs) .

Thank you as well; this is very useful information. I am, however, not quite sure what you mean by "as written by me in the previous edit". Could you please clarify (again?) where the 190 number comes from?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, apololgies, by saying "the previous edit" I only meant that the number was 190. There was a caualties report attached to the letter of the Grand Duke. Most of the wounded (including light wounds) were the crewmembers who serviced deck artillery - none of Varyag's deck mounted 152mm guns had protective shields. One of the rumours has it that shortly after the cruiser was commissioned it was incorporated into the Baltic Guards Division, then commanded by the Grand Duke, who liked to observe the cannons being loaded and polish the actions of ship's loading crews. The shields were removed because they blocked his vision.

This is, of course, only a gossip-like story, but the facts are there - the guns were left unprotected. Hundreds of small splinters would have set the deck on fire and bounce off virtually every metal surface, cutting the sailors down like grass. When ones would have fallen the replacements would soon be subjected to the same 'treatment', making the wounded numbers of the Grand Duke's report quite reasonable indeed.

Giving you all this information would like to add as a historian: concerning the background/service record of the Grand Duke it would not be surprising if some of the info that he provided the Admiralty with was different in reality. The documents exist, but their accuracy levels are still to be verified.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorf (talk • contribs) .

Again, thank you—this is all very interesting. Would you consider adding this information to the article, as you obviously know quite a bit about the subject? Sincerely,——Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, will definately do so when I have time