Talk:Battle of Port Arthur

Before Port Arthur on a Destroyer; Diary of a Japanese destroyer commander
Like Nostradamus, who encoded his prophecies (to avoid being executed) IJN destroyer captain Hesibo Tikovara must have encoded his warship's name; both his destroyer and later his cruiser. As the names mentioned in the book cannot be found in the order of battle for the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Although they sound close. Generally during wartime, in "most" services, keeping a diary is NOT AUTHORIZED, because they will naturally contain classified information. If those diaries fall into un-authorized hands, disaster can be-fall the service that the diarist is serving in. Therefore, again, like Nostradamus, Commander Hesibo must have coded the names of this warships (including posibly his real name).

With that said, it was interesting to read a contemporary book (1907) from that era. Hesibo describes the Japanese (naval) side of the Russo-Japanese War, and another author from the same era (1906), Captain Semenov (also spelled Semenoff) describes the war from the Russian side. However, Semenoff's Russian navy may have not been as strict or possibly his job was to document the battles, because his book, "The Battle of Tsushima" mentions all the men's names, and all the actual names of both the Japanese and Russian warships during the war.

All things noted, it is refreshing to read about a battle from the actual participants perspective, rather than today's historians who MUST write their works based upon what they've researched; which of course came from the original fighting men themselves: Hesibo & Semenov! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

1st Person Accounts of Semenov's "Tsushima" & Grant's "Before Port Arthur in a Destroyer"
During WWII it was common procedure for the US Navy to censor the mail of military personnel; editing or removing such things as ship movements, numbers of vessels (or numbers ON vessels), as well as the names of men and ships.

It would be standard military procedure for Commander Hasibo (Grant's book) to have changed the names of his destroyer and later, his cruiser (if indeed he did) while writing his journal (diary). Captain Semenov (or Semenoff) on the other hand may have been commissioned specifically by his high command to write about the naval aspect of the Russian navy's role in the Russo-Japanese War, as it was the practice of the Tsar's navy to learn as much from as many sources as possible about modern navies. For example, in the 1700 and 1800s the Russian navy actually hired foreign naval officers to command Russian warships, as Russia had few experienced naval officers; American Revolutionary War hero John Paul Jones had been one of those naval officers. It was probable that that was the reason Semenov used the actual names of warships and men in his book "The Battle of Tsushima."

The Russians also commissioned their famous war artist Vasily Vereshchagin (1842-1904) to paint battle scenes of their forth coming sea battles with the Japanese navy. Vereshchagin was an invited guest aboard Admiral Stepan Makarov's flagship, the battleship Petropavlosk, both men were lost when their battleship struck mines in the Yellow Sea in 1904. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.47.106 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

knots?
because he was more than three knots away from the Russian fleet

A knot is a unit of speed not distance. Anyone know the proper distance? Three nautical miles? GreatWhiteNortherner

Actually in this period the term knot was used interchangeably, and in fact the speed in the era was often cited as knots per hour. Therefore the use is anachronistic for today, rather than incorrect. Brooksindy 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you could provide evidence for this assertion I might believe you, but I very much doubt you can. The knot has always been a measure of speed, not distance. People have made this mistake for aeons, though.Cliff 10:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

merge?
A fairly long (and as far as I can see) fairly well written article Siege of Port Arthur has been written by an anonymous user. It is not a duplicate, but I think that a merge may be in order? Sjakkalle 08:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me that these are the same event. The Siege of Port Arthur article looks at the land battle leading to the capture of Port Arthur while this page is about a Sea Battle befor the Siege. It looks like the Russo-Japanese War page calls these by different names so I sugest keeping the two pages (but wouldn't like to force the issue). Both pages could use work though - context would be nice. Andreww 06:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also these are two events 5 Month's appart - I am now strongly against merging and will try to improve the pages. Andreww 06:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No merge is needed - different battles around the same port. I placed a clean on it for probably the same reasons you might have thought so -- some material (Nogo's loss of sons, and other allusions to land  battle) need revised.


 * Also wanted a clean as many of the Russian ships which survived this battle (most) were not sea worthy afterwards, hving run aground during a Japanese torpedo attack; subsequently those so disabled were sunk in port during the climax of the siege of Port Arthur, whereas the others attempted an escape that became the battle of Shantung. Which was which needs ennumerated.  The later battle gives a partial list of ships healthy enough to leave port - but not of which ships had to remain. Fabartus 07:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Go for it - but I wouldn't have thought that a the Cleanup tag is needed, just go ahead anf make the changes. BTW, if something needs cleaning up it should be added to Cleanup as well as having the tag added at the top of the page. Andreww 09:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Pibwl
I'm afraid this article has wrong emphasis and might need total rework. In my opinion, there should be more on naval battle itself, instead of a large Impact on History section (btw, I don't think the Impact on History section refers specifically to this less important opening battle - rather to a siege, or even whole war). Therefore, it's hard to say what the article is about -- I guess, it is only about opening naval battle (but I can't see a mention on Japanese torpedo attack, which was its opening and most important part!). But I think it should treat also on naval defence of Port Arthur until its fall. Later there were more important events around Port Arthur, especially in a mine warfare (like sinking of Russian cruiser Boyarin on own mines, sinking of two Japanese battleships and a couple of cruisers and gunboats on mines, sinking of Petropavlovsk with Admiral Makarov aboard). I've corrected only the most obvious error as for Russian ships damaged, as for now. Pibwl 20:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Fabartus
Fabartus 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Below is a pending revision -- I need to verify my interpretation and the authors intent as I ended up massaging the battle text far more than I had intended, after filtering stuff through my own knowledge and experience... but until I check facts and revise, this should be considered fiction... Not the Top and Bottom Adds and amends - they're fine - just my interpretation of the battle itself. I'm cutting everything after Battle Outcome into the Wiki in 2 mins - it's solid. The project needed more references in any event. Any suggestions? Fabartus 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Copy of Revised Article cut and moved to temp user space User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 00:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We need to get our heads together
To User Talk: Pibwl Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Port_Arthur&diff=0&oldid=15512534


 * You changed information from cited references. Please provide your sources and I'll dig out mine and recheck the data I entered. I stand corrected on whether they were repaired for later segments, that was an inference from information that some naval guns were landed and added to the harbor defenses. Other refs made it clear they were later in service, but our lists of ships definitely need reconciled. Also, I didn't yet add a battle source ref. to this article, only Theodore Rex which deals with background. Thanks, User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 23:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Death of Admiral Makarov
On 13 April 1904, Makarov [...] At 09:43, Petropavlovsk struck three mines, exploded and sank within two minutes. The disaster killed 635 officers and men, along with Admiral Makarov. [...] Makarov was officially replaced by Admiral Nikolai Skrydlov on 1 April 1904;

Gregorian calendar - Julian calendar --DOMartin (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)