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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
About the course: Rozhestvensky ordered the Russian task-force to keep moving towards Vladivostok on the course of North-East 21 degrees.
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
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
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 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)
Citation added. (125) -- ThomasJa276 ( talk) 11:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)