Talk:Battle of Tsushima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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)

Sorry, but I'm russian-speaking and I studied history of Russia in the XX-th century for five long years in a Russian university. And I can assure you: his surname is "Рождественский", with "д" ("d")."Rozhdestvenski" is a variant that I can offer. You also may check russian Wikipedia to be sure. Manchjurshi

There is no "d" in Rozhestvenskiy family name. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2007 (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)

[edit] Article's "B" Quality Rating questioned

The article is rated as being of B Quality. However, one of the requirements for a B grade is that the article be adequately cited. Although there is a list of references at the end of the article, there are no citations within the text. Should this article not be downgraded? Or, at least, flagged with a "citation needed" notice at the top? I would particularly like to see citations for the Naval Tactics section, given such statements as "and this was something Togo wanted to avoid." Did Togo actually say this? If so, I'd like to know the source.

I also noticed that the pictures in the battle section over run the text, though that may just be my browser displaying things improperly. Agoodall 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed

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

[edit] U-turn

Does somebody really think that 4,5-5 kilometers-long Japanese squadrone coud make U-turn during only FIVE MINUTES??? Did it really move with 54-60 km/h speed??? The russian withnesses spoke about 15 m. 'Mikasa' did her turn in 2 minutes (if article's timing is true) and the rest of squadrone - 3 m. later. But 'Mikasa' was first ship in the formation. If your timing is right, then 11 Japanese ships turned with speed of 80 km/h. That's impossible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchjurshi (talk • contribs) 09:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

"11 Japanese ships turned with speed of 80 km/h. That's impossible." Oh? You're assuming (I think) they all ran to a point & turned. If all they did was reverse in their own lengths (essentially swap lead ship & tail), it's far from impossible, absent evidence to the contrary (& I'm too ignorant of their tactical evolution to comment). Trekphiler 09:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outlandish and inaccurate statement?

"The Battle of Tsushima was the only sea battle in history in which steel, engined-powered battleships fought a decisive fleet action." Does anyone else think this sentence is a bit over the top. What about the Battle of Jutland or any of the numerous battles in WWII in which battleships were a part of? Note: Jutland was NOT a decisive battleship FLEET action. Additionally, Jutland was primarily fought with battlecruisers; those were the largest losses sustained. WWII was dominated by carriers. HMS Hood was a battlecruiser. Prince of Wales and Bismark were single units. -Brozozo 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe that is why it says "was the only sea battle." --ScottyBoy900Q 04:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crossing the T twice

Togo managed to cross the T twice. Why is it only mentioned once on the article's command section? To cross it twice don't you need to turn twice? Do someone have a good battlemap for this battle?ParallelPain 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Z flag?

The special "Z" flag is mentioned twice, but what was its meaning? Jpatokal 11:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I can unpack my books after I finish moving this weekend, I'll list the English text of the meaning of the signal. It means something like "The fate of the nation is at risk. Let every man do his duty," and is a deliberate homage by the Japanese to the immortal memory of Lord Nelson. GABaker 16:08 20 July 2007