Talk:Battle of Tsushima

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)

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

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

Economic consequences of naval development
There is a podcast (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 podcast seems quite accurate about the substantial debt incurred by Japan, and the public outcry in the forms of demonstrations (e.g., Hibiya riots) and newspaper editorials were so severe that the government had to declare a Martial Law, and then the Cabinet resigned (as if they're responsible for a lost war) in December, 1905. The almost pro-Russian conditions in the Treaty of Portsmouth is generally accepted now in Japan to be a reflection of the judgment by President Theodore Roosevelt (who had expressed pro-Japanese sentiments during the war, and acted as the mediator for the treaty) that it is not for the national interest of the U.S. to let Japanese economy recover quickly from the scars of the war with its strong Navy intact (going into the period of WWI).
 * This public dissatisfaction remained for a long time, and in my opinion, contributed greatly to the Japanese public accepting the series of military-led governments going into WWII. And Komura Jutarō (Foreign Minister and the signer of Portsmouth Treaty) had to fear assassination attempts for life.
 * However, these are the effects of the War, and not directly of the Battle of Tsushima, so I consider their inclusion in this article to be unwarranted. Yiba  (talk | contribs) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. I expanded Russo-Japanese_War to address your concern. Hope it meets your approval.  Yiba  (talk | contribs) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Modern steel battleships
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)

Destroyers and auxiliaries
Citation added. (125) --ThomasJa276 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)