PDA

View Full Version : The Battle of Tsushima Straits


astraltrader
06-03-2008, 02:53
Battle of Tsushima Straits: May 1905

Prelude to Conflict.

The seeds for this shock victory by the Imperial Japanese Navy over what was the then World`s 3rd or 4th largest naval power can be traced back to
the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, which was won in ruthless fashion by a swiftly created and modernized Japanese Army.

The result of this conflict left the Japanese with a foothold on the Chinese Mainland, along with Taiwan and perhaps the most coveted prize of all - the strategically sited deep-water harbour at Port Arthur in Manchuria.
Unfortunately Russia had her eyes set on firmly on Port Arthur to fullfill a long held desire to possess a harbour free from ice all the year round and which would cement her place as a power in the Pacific Ocean...

In 1895 Japan was forced by an alliance of France, Germany and Russia to cede much of its gains from the 1894 Sino-Japanese War back to China and to an independent Korea.

Russia, using its diplomatic power among western nations, forced China to sign a lease giving Port Arthur back to Russia, which the Japenese were forced to relinquish. The Boxer Rebellion of 1900 had left Russian "peace-keeping" troops in China, and Russia seized on a pretext to use them to occupy and fortify Port Arthur.
As well as this a powerful Naval Squadron was swiftly dispatched there.

The loss of face felt by the Japanese over this was huge. People in Japan began to voice outrage over the lack of response from her Government as well as from her armed forces. Tensions remained high from 1901 on, and although negotiations were in progress, and Japan arranged a treaty with Britain securing British aid if a power other than Russia became involved, the crisis turned into a stalemate. Japan began to make threats.

Instead of taking this threat seriously Russian Government and in particular her Naval Ministry seriously underestimated Japan's will and capability to wage modern war.

1904

In February 1904 tensions boiled over, and Japan launched what amounted to a surprise attack against the Russian fleet on February 6. The attack succeeded in damaging several Russian ships, but left much of the Russian force intact. Japanese naval activity for the next several months concentrated on preventing the escape of the Russian fleet by means of a blockade. Her forces were led by Admiral Togo.
The Russian naval forces lay dormant and did not engage the Japanese, resulting in unopposed Japanese troop landings in Korea. The Russian Generals and Admirals were both hesitant and weak.
Then the Russians were revitalised by the arrival of Admiral Stepan Makarov and they were able to achieve some degree of success against the Japanese. However, Admiral Makarov's flagship battleship Petropavlovsk struck a mine, which resulted in the death of the admiral...

Makarov's successors failed to challenge the Japanese Navy; as a consequence, the Russians were effectively bottled up in Port Arthur. By May, the Japanese had landed forces on the Liaodong Peninsula and in August began the siege of the naval station. In August, the Russian leadership finally decided to sortie the First Pacific Squadron and link up with the Vladivostok Squadron and then challenge the Japanese. However, both squadrons of the Russian Pacific Fleet were dispersed at the battles of the Yellow Sea and Ulsan on 10 August and 14 August 1904 respectively.

On August 10 the Russians made a break for it. Admiral Togo in his flagship the Battleship Mikasa led the Japanese squadron that confronted the Russians. The Japanese crossed the Russian "T", meaning that they could use all of their guns while the Russians could only fire their forward batteries. In spite of superior Russian numbers, the Japanese prevailed and forced the Russian fleet back into Port Arthur with severe losses. The admiral of the Russian fleet was killed by a shell from Mikasa, which itself suffered significant damage.
The Russian Pacific Fleet was no more - four battleships, two cruisers, and fourteen gunboats – most sunk in shallow water - fell to the Japanese.

The Tsar fortified with advice from his cousin the German Kaiser issued orders
to re-establish land and sea power in the region.
These led to the Russian Baltic Fleet being renamed the Second Pacific Squadron, placed under the command of Vice Admiral Zinovi Petrovitch Rozhdestvenski and joined by several 1880s vintage cruisers under Admiral Nebagatov along with a fleet of transports.

1905
In a feat of seamanship overshadowed by his subsequent defeat, Rozhdestvenski led this huge fleet more than 18,000 nautical miles around the top of Russia and via the North sea, arriving in the Pacific months later. His goal was to land his troops at Vladivostok, the only Russian port available. Japanese Admiral Togo knew this, and deployed ships to watch the three possible approach routes.

The Russian fleet was sighted when two trailing hospital ships were discovered by a Japanese cruiser fleet in the mist-shrouded waters of the Tsushima Strait on the evening of 26 May, 1905. On the afternoon of 27 May, 1905, the Russians joined battle deployed in a line running from south-south-west to north-north-east; the Japanese fleet from west-north-east. The Russian fleet totaled 45, including 12 battleships and 8 cruisers, joined by destroyers and support vessels. The Japanese fleet included 4 battleships. Seeing the way the fleets lay, Admiral Togo took a risk and ordered his fleet to turn in sequence, which enabled his ships to take the same course as the Russians, though hazarding each battleship in turn. This aggressive move startled the Russians, and was possible only due to the high proficiency of the Japanese crews.

Rozhdestvenski's flagship Knyaz Suvorov opened fire first, followed by Admiral Togo's flagship, the battleship Mikasa. The two lines of battleships stabilized their distance at 6,200 meters and exchanged gunfire. The Japanese rate of fire was terrific, estimated by one observer at more than 2,000 heavy rounds per hour. Furthermore, the Japanese used a new explosive formula in their shells, firing at the upper works of the Russian vessels and causing fire to break out all over any ships that were hit. Their accuracy astounded the Russians. One Russian officer, Captain Semenoff, remembering an hour-long skirmish with a Japanese ship in which few shells had hit, took out his notebook to jot down the places and times of impact. Within seconds, he wrote, "I had not only never witnessed such a fire before, I had never even imagined it. Shells seemed to be pouring on us incessantly, one after another."

The Japanese ships could reach 16 knots, but the Russian fleet could reach only 8 knots, in part hampered by their trailing transports. Togo was able to use this speed, and the hard-earned competence of his crews, to outmaneuver the Russians, "crossing the T" twice to cause further damage. Efficient Japanese use of a new weapon, the torpedo, added to the toll. At one point 30 Japanese destroyers launched a massed torpedo attack, releasing 74 torpedoes into the churning waters and immediately destroying the Russian battleship Sisoy Veliky and two cruisers.

Admiral Rozhdestvenski was knocked out of action with a shell fragment in his skull. A few of the ships and commanders fought bravely, at times in situations where a damaged Russian vessel, cut off, was surrounded by many Japanese foes. But in short order, although the battle continued into the night, the Russians lost the battleships Suvarov, the Oslyabya, the Alexander III, and the Borodino. Five other battleships under Admiral Nebagatov were forced to surrender the next day. Three cruisers made it to the United States naval base at Manila and were interned. In the end, only two Russian destroyers, both damaged, and a small support vessel arrived in Vladivostok.

The final toll reflected the magnitude of the Japanese victory. The IJN lost 117 dead, 583 injured, and three torpedo boats. The Russians lost 4,380 dead, 5,917 injured, more than 4,000 captured, and their Pacific, Baltic and Reserve fleets had ceased to exist as significant forces."

Consequences of Japanese Victory

U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt hosted the peace conference in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and the treaty was signed on 6 September 1905. Russia withdrew from Manchuria, recognized Korea as a Japanese sphere of influence, agreed to allow Japan to lease the Liaotung Peninsula and gave Japan control of the South Manchuria Railway in that area, ceded Sakhalin Island south of the 50th Parallel, and gave Japan certain fishing rights.

Roosevelt recognized the birth of a new tiger in the East. He wrote in 1906, in a private letter: "In a dozen years the English, Americans and Germans, who now dread each other as rivals in the trade of the Pacific, will each have to dread the Japanese more than they do any other nation…if we try to treat them as we have treated the Chinese, and if at the same time fail to keep our navy at the highest point of efficiency and size—then we shall invite disaster."

It is ironic that this amazingly accurate prediction of the capabilities of the Japanese military should be forgotten by the leading Western Powers so quickly. A mere 35 years later this would come down on them with a vengeance

The reaction of the Japanese public was one of betrayal. The precept of fukoken kyohei (rich country/with strong army) was the basis of what they felt was the new power of their country. Their feeling that the treaty had robbed them of rightful gains, and that the civilian ministers had erred, while the military had triumphed, was a factor in the growth of the movement that would eventually overwhelm the Meiji government and create the military dictatorship that led Japan into World War II.

Japan now had sea superiority to support its moves into Korea, Manchuria and elsewhere. For the next three decades, the major western powers were dealing with World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the rebirth of Germany, and gradually receded from the Asian stage. Yamamoto rose to command the Japanese fleet, the lessons of Tsushima and Port Arthur guiding his military philosophy. And the stage for the economic, political and military forces that led to the next Pacific War was set.

herakles
06-03-2008, 04:44
This s an outstanding post Terry. So thorough and so well explained.

I guess the campaign is widely forgotten now though its memory lingers on as there is still a dispute.

It is one of the most significant campaigns of the 20th Century. How the British and Americans forgot the lessons learned is a mystery to me.

Japan went on to commit so many atrocities in China before launching their brilliant attack on Pearl Harbor.

Australia warned Britain as early as 1908 that the treaty with Japan was dangerous. It's partly because of their misgivings that they invited the White Fleet to Australia.

But all was forgotten when it was realised that there could be excellent trade with Japan.

And Terry, my congratulations of your new position here.

astraltrader
06-03-2008, 13:24
Thanks Herk - to be fair there was a lot more that I did want to say - but with a subject that momentous I would have been at it all night!

John Brown
07-03-2008, 13:56
Terry

An excellent account.

Worth mentioning is the ‘Dogger Bank’ incident which took place in the North Sea on 21st October 1904. Rumours of Japanese laid minefields and torpedo boats in the area had made the Russians very nervous. The Captain of the supply ship ‘Kamtchatka’ mistook a passing Swedish ship for a Japanese torpedo boat and radioed that he was under attack. Later that night the Russian Fleet came upon around 30 trawlers of the Hull fishing fleet and again mistook them for Japanese torpedo boats. The Russians opened fire and the trawler ‘Crane’ was sunk with two men (the capt George Smith and William Legget) being killed. On the other boats six men were wounded and one (Walter Whelpton, skipper of the ‘Mino) died later.

The Russians were in such a state of panic that they started firing upon each other. A Russian priest was killed as was at least one sailor. Heavier losses were only avoided due to the poor accuracy of the Russian gunners. One battleship is reported to have fired over 500 rounds without hitting anything.

The incident led to diplomatic conflict between Britain and Russia made all the more serious by the alliance that Britain had with Japan at the time.The Russians eventually paid nearly £70,000 compensation to the fishermen. In 1906 a memorial to the dead fishermen was unveiled in Hull. The statue was funded by public subscription.

One of the things that has always puzzled me about this incident is…….Where did the Russians think any Japanese torpedo boats would have been based? Unless they assumed, because of the alliance, that Britain had made facilities available to them. Any thoughts?

A piece of trivia re Tsushima………Admiral Togo’s battle flag was flown again on the Akagi for the attack on Pearl Harbor 36 years later.

Picture is of the fishermens memorial.



Regards....John

astraltrader
07-03-2008, 14:34
You beat me to it John! That was the main bit that I left out that I did intend to add - but never mind your account was excellent. With regard to your question about the alleged Japanese Torpedo boats in the North Sea - I have always put that down to a feeble excuse by the Russians to try and explain the outrage! For me the question is what did they really think they were firing at??

Harley
07-03-2008, 17:22
To be fair to the Russians, the Japanese had always had for many years 1890s-early 1910s a large number of vessels building in British shipyards, from battleships to torpedo boat destroyers - and these all had to be crewed in British waters by Japanese sailors. And while the British government was officially neutral, it's not inconceivable that we would have allowed our ally to take on the Russian fleet so soon after the commencement of their epic journey.

Harley

astraltrader
07-03-2008, 17:28
I take your point, Simon - but to have done so would have been unprecedented as far as I am aware...

herakles
07-03-2008, 19:49
Your addition John was well worth making. Quite extraordinary!

John Brown
07-03-2008, 22:46
Harley

Yes, a reasonable explanation. In the light of the Japanese sneak attack on their fleet earlier that year it's not hard to under stand that the Russians would be suspicious of Japanese ships in British waters.

Thank you....John

astraltrader
08-03-2008, 00:55
You two together do make a reasonable supposition - but I feel that its major strength is a lack of any other explanation!!

kc
08-03-2008, 01:56
Interesting post Terry.

I am sure we have some photos of the British trawlers which were attacked by the Russians somewhere, coming back into port. They are either already on the site (I could not find them) or are in our backlog of photos to be added.

In the meantime, we also have this article on the battle from "Battleships in Action" by H W Wilson: http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/battle_of_tsushima.htm

We had someone here once who spent a lot of time either scanning and correcting or just typing out a lot of the articles from old books, those which are out of copyright, and this is from one of them.

herakles
08-03-2008, 02:07
My word Kc, That is the definitive statement! What extraordinary detail and it made such good reading.

Everything you needed to know and were afraid to ask!

astraltrader
08-03-2008, 02:25
Absolutely incredible Kc - I have saved it to read it at length later.
In one way I wish I had read it before I wrote mine - but in all reality if I had - I probably wouldn`t have been so keen to try!! I wouldn`t mind getting a copy of the Wilson book that it came from. Impressive...

There is some more interesting stuff in there Kc - I never had a clue that this sort of article was also on the battleship and cruiser site.
I really like the look of "The siege of Tsingtau" exerpt as well!

John Brown
08-03-2008, 08:42
Guys

Am I doing something wrong? when I cick on the link I am taken to the page but am unable to scroll up and down. Left and right are ok.


regards....John

herakles
08-03-2008, 09:15
Guys

Am I doing something wrong? when I cick on the link I am taken to the page but am unable to scroll up and down. Left and right are ok.


regards....John

John, I loaded it again as soon as I read your plea! Works perfectly.

I do use Firefox mind you.

John Brown
08-03-2008, 20:56
Ok thanks Herakles. I've tried it again and on another PC but no luck. I get the other articles to work ok e.g Coronel and Jutland. I'll try on my PC at work on Monday.

Thanks again....John

herakles
08-03-2008, 21:18
I'm blowed if I can understand the problem John.

If you like,I will copy it as a txt file and send it to you. It really is well worth reading.

astraltrader
08-03-2008, 21:20
I am pleased you eventually found it!

John Brown
08-03-2008, 21:30
Thanks Herakles.

I'll try my work PC and get back to you if I have no joy.

John

John Brown
09-03-2008, 10:40
Thanks Herakles.

I'll try my work PC and get back to you if I have no joy.

John

Ok Guys

I've got it now. It looks a sustantial piece of reading so I'll save it for later.


John

kc
21-03-2008, 16:04
I found a couple of the photographs I mentioned earlier of the Dogger Bank incident. It's not the ones I remember so there may be ore to come later. Anyway, here are the two I found and the part of the article I posted that goes with them....

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/phx0729_trawler.jpg
Trawlers of the Gamecock Fleet, damaged by Russian warships, 22nd October 1904.

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/phx0730_trawler.jpg
Shot holes in the 'Moulmein'.

As for the Russian reinforcing fleet, which was generally known as the Baltic Fleet, though its official title was the Second Pacific Squadron, the first portion of it left Libau on October 15th 1904, under Vice Admiral Rojestvensky, who was fifty-seven years of age, and was regarded as one of the best officers in the Russian Navy. He had with his seven battleships (KNIAZ SUVAROFF, IMPERATOR ALEXANDER III, BORODINO, OREL, OSLIABIA, SISSOI VELIKI, and NAVARIN); two old armoured cruisers (ADMIRAL NAKHIMOFF and DMITRI DONSKOI); four light cruisers (AURORA, SVIETLANA, JEMCHUG, ALMAZ); seven destroyers, and nine auxiliary and store ships. The Russian Government with the German Hamburg-Amerika Company had concluded a contract, by which that company undertook to coal the Russian ships. Before he left the Baltic, Rojestvensky showed extraordinary nervousness about the possibility of Japanese torpedo attack, and on passing through the Great Belt he ordered the channel to be swept for mines, though owing to the inexperience of his crews the order could not be properly carries out.

His ships seem to have made it a practice to fire at any craft, which they saw and which looked at all like a torpedo vessel. When off the Skaw they shelled Norwegian steamers but without hitting them. During daylight on October 20th, the Russian auxiliary steamer KAMCHATKA fired at the Swedish steamer Aldebaran, the French sailing ship GUYANE and the German trawler Sonntag. In the night of October 21st-22nd Rojestvensky’s fleet steamed right into the midst of the British trawler fleet on the Dogger Bank, the presence of which was well known and noted in the Sailing Directions, and about 1 a.m. opened fire, professing that there were Japanese torpedo boats among the trawlers. The fire was maintained for several minutes. One trawler, the Crane, was sunk, and five more were hit. Two British fishermen were killed and 6 were wounded. What caused the more astonishment and indignation was that, when the Russians were aware they had made a mistake, they gave no aid to the trawlers and did not send in a ship to a British port to report the mistake and apologise for it. Thus they violated one of the great customs of the sea. In their confusion the Russian vessels turned their guns on one another, and the AURORA was hit five times and had her chaplain mortally wounded.

The danger to non-combatants of a fleet, which thus fired recklessly on vessels that it happened to meet when it was thousands of miles from any possible adversary, was most serious. But the British Government was anxious to avoid a breach with Russia, and in the end, after a promise had been given by the Russian authorities that there would be no more of these attacks on neutral shipping, the matter was referred to an International Commission. This sat at Paris from December 1904 to February 1905, and issued a “white washing” report exculpating Rojestvensky, but regretting that he had not informed the British Government of his mistake. The Russian Government paid compensation to the amount of £65,000 to the victims and their relatives.

astraltrader
21-03-2008, 16:57
Interesting fine detail about the "outrage in the North Sea", Kc.
I suppose £65,000 was a lot of money in those days.
The general public were treated to the sort of interpretation of the debacle illustrated in this postcard released just afterwards...

kc
21-03-2008, 18:00
Yes, I spotted that figure too, which is why I inlcuded it with the photos. I did not know much about the incident but it seems to have created quite a stir at the time - enough of a stir to prompt Russia into paying the victims' families £65,000. Can anyone estimate how much that would be these days?

astraltrader
21-03-2008, 18:17
I would estimate c.£5 Million...

astraltrader
26-03-2008, 23:16
This is a rare postcard of the Hospital Mission Steamer Joseph and Sarah Miles which was also involved in the North Sea melee, providing care and assistance to the fishermen "wounded and maimed" by the Russian fleet on 21st October 1904.

kc
26-03-2008, 23:43
I expect that is a nice rare card for your collection Terry, well done, and thanks for bringing it to this thread too. I'll keep my eyes peeled for more cards.

astraltrader
28-04-2008, 00:16
I remembered I had this card which despite the printing in English on the front is a Japanese card.

Commodore Armiger
28-04-2008, 10:22
Does anyone know how many of the ships at Tsushima were british built?

BB60
28-04-2008, 14:31
Does anyone know how many of the ships at Tsushima were british built?

Of the 28 capital ships (protected cruiser and larger) 12 of the 28 were built in British shipyards, 7 Japanese, 2 Italian, 3 French, 2 German and 2 United States.

I did not count destroyers and torpedo boats.

John Odom
17-06-2008, 19:33
The battale of Tsushima Straights is prominent in the Japanese history curriculum in Japanese High Schools.

The terms of the 1905 treaty, are taught as being very unfavorable to Japan. This is ascribed to racial prejudice of the western nations. Japanese students ARE (present tense) taught that the western nations were unfovorable to considering Japan an equal because of racial prejudice. This is the reason stated for Japan't later withdrawal from the League of Nations.

astraltrader
17-06-2008, 20:22
TBF they are quite correct with that belief. Racism and in particular Nationalism were very much the order of the day back in the early 1900`s...

christophe
01-07-2008, 15:51
and some 17 years later, Washington treaty was seen the same way...

Christophe

John Brown
01-07-2008, 17:43
The battale of Tsushima Straights is prominent in the Japanese history curriculum in Japanese High Schools


I understand though that the events of WW2 are not extensively taught to Japanese kids....funny that!

Might explain why we don't get too many Japanese (or German, come to that) members in the forum.


regards...John

John Odom
01-07-2008, 18:19
Yes, The curriculum looks warped to our eyes. But curricula are all biased. I took Philippine History in the Philippines, from Filipino teachers, and the same subject matter in the US from American teachers. Little other than the names and dates was the same.

In 1996, I had a japanese history teacher, and a student translate large sections of the 10th grade Japanese history text for me. They teach that Japan was soley a victim in WWII, and Pearl Harbor was purely defensive. The actions in China and Manchuria were only following the lead of Britain and the US in maintaining rights under the "Open Door" policy. Britain and the US were racially discriminatory against Japan for doing the same things they did. The Atrocities DID NOT occur. There were NO "comfort women." There were prostitutes who voluntarily followed the forces for money.

Read my posts under the "Atrocities" heading in the Japanese ships and crews section.

killerr
02-10-2009, 15:19
Does anyone have an idea what the weather conditions were at the Battle of Tsushima ?

i.e.

Wind speed

Wind direction

Visibility

Sea state

patroclus
02-10-2009, 22:48
“A very stiff breeze (Corbett says 5-7) was blowing from the south and west, and though, owing to the proximity of land, no heavy sea was able to rise, great inconvenience was suffered throughout the day from the water dashed through turret and casemate ports, and from the spray that constantly wetted the object glasses of the sighting telescopes”. These handicaps would have been particularly noticeable when the wind was forward of the beam.

There was also present “a thick haze which a bright sun overhead seemed quite unable to dispel, hung over the sea, making objects indistinct outside distances of about 5000 m”. This seems to have been the major weather influence on the battle.

These conditions existed until late afternoon on the 27th May.

The above observations are derived from the Report of the British Naval Attache, Captain William Pakenham RN, on board the Japanese battleship ASAHI. Pakenham also remarked that the battle was “fought in obscurity, terminated in uncertainty – a Battle of Shadows”.

astraltrader
03-10-2009, 00:38
Hi my friends we already have a thread in existence about this battle so I have added your posts to there...

designeraccd
03-10-2009, 20:15
Very interesting about the "history" as taught in Japan. While, from what I've read of our History (US) there are some grains of truth there; the emphasis which has been related certainly seems to only very very vaguely resemble actual history.

Packed away someplace I have a book about the voyage and battle written by a Russian who survived (obviously!). I don't remember his name or the book's but the state of the Russian Navy was pathetic, as was shown by the lopsided Battle. Truly a waste of lives! DFO :eek:

Here is a link to a site about this war: http://www.russojapanesewar.com/naval_links.html

Also on it are excerpts from the book I have.............

Gone Asiatic
04-10-2009, 03:53
One consequence of the battle on Japanese strategic thinking was the notion that war could be decided by the outcome of a decisive fleet engagement.
A war of attrition against a determined opponent was a scenario Japan didn`t count on. Even after the smoke settled from the gunfire in the Sea of Japan, Russia was preparing to send another army to the east via train. Japan was utterly exhausted and had no further financial or manpower resources. The Japanese were happy to settle matters quickly and weren`t overly discontented not receiving cash from Russia like she did from China ten years before.

Japan would probably would have lost the war if it had extended another year.

killerr
04-10-2009, 11:48
“A very stiff breeze (Corbett says 5-7) was blowing from the south and west, and though, owing to the proximity of land, no heavy sea was able to rise, great inconvenience was suffered throughout the day from the water dashed through turret and casemate ports, and from the spray that constantly wetted the object glasses of the sighting telescopes”. These handicaps would have been particularly noticeable when the wind was forward of the beam.

There was also present “a thick haze which a bright sun overhead seemed quite unable to dispel, hung over the sea, making objects indistinct outside distances of about 5000 m”. This seems to have been the major weather influence on the battle.

These conditions existed until late afternoon on the 27th May.

The above observations are derived from the Report of the British Naval Attache, Captain William Pakenham RN, on board the Japanese battleship ASAHI. Pakenham also remarked that the battle was “fought in obscurity, terminated in uncertainty – a Battle of Shadows”.


Thank you for the information, i'm putting together a little Fighting Steel scenario about the battle, but couldn't find any info on the net.

Killerr

steve roberts
12-12-2009, 11:18
Hi there, with regarda to the above battle there is an excellent but very old book titled "THE FLEET THAT HAD TO DIE" for the life of me I cant remeber the author, though he wrote mostly about diasterous allied air raids in ww2. Back to the main topic, the book covers every aspect from the reasons for the war, the Port Arthur defeat, the gathering and sailing of the fleet, the Dogger Bank incident, coaling and diplomatic problems and hove the ships that the russian admiral had not wanted included in his fleet caught up with him. Also of course the battle its self and the sftermath. I believe Admiral Togos flag ship "Mikasa" is still preserved in Japan. Regards Steve Roberts.

designeraccd
12-12-2009, 11:23
Not from this battle, but from this war......a Russian BB survivor-AFTER meeting the IJN! Oopzz! DFO :eek:

Also, the OREL after the battle upon surrendering......

neil6814
12-12-2009, 16:07
The book: "THE FLEET THAT HAD TO DIE" is by Richard Hough and is avaiable from Amazon from £0.01 (ie. one penny) all you pay is the postage.
Neil.

Gone Asiatic
13-12-2009, 04:02
The book: "THE FLEET THAT HAD TO DIE" is by Richard Hough and is avaiable from Amazon from £0.01 (ie. one penny) all you pay is the postage.
Neil.


It`s a good book.

MMM
13-12-2009, 15:39
The battale of Tsushima Straights is prominent in the Japanese history curriculum in Japanese High Schools.

The terms of the 1905 treaty, are taught as being very unfavorable to Japan. This is ascribed to racial prejudice of the western nations. Japanese students ARE (present tense) taught that the western nations were unfovorable to considering Japan an equal because of racial prejudice. This is the reason stated for Japan't later withdrawal from the League of Nations.

Portsmouth Treaty was very favorable for Japan.
The war was over due to so-called Western Democracies' pressure on Russia to accept the peace conditions.
In spite of Tsushima disaster, fall of Port Arthur and Mukden Battle, Russia was in far better financial condition when compared to Japan which was bancrupt. Only Nicolaus II's hasitation and weakness let the Japan complete the war with any income.
Also the 1905 Revolution had an influence on Governement's will to complet this war.
Any way in my opinion sooner or later Russians would "cover the Japs with their caps" and only so-called Western Democracies with their own interests
(usually very selfish) let the Japan stood as victor.
It (Japan) was one of Frankenseins' row created by lack of ability to foresee the future result and "divide et impera" formula in British diplomacy at that time.

Cicero
18-02-2010, 20:35
In a way Tsushima could be viewed as a proxy war between British and French battleship designs of the era. The Mikasa was built in Britian, based on the Majestic design, while the remaining 3 built to her British design in Japan. The Borodino class Russian battleships were built in Russia based on the French designed and built Tsesarevich.

qprdave
04-03-2010, 05:02
Here is how the Times published a report on The Battle of the Sea of Japan (as it was called then) on 22nd August 1905

steve roberts
04-03-2010, 09:55
Another good one Dave.Very interesting reading! Do you have access to every microfiche the Times has ?...Regards Steve.

qprdave
04-03-2010, 17:41
I have access from 1785 to 1985. 1985+ to come later

steve roberts
04-03-2010, 17:54
Thanks Dave.Now I know where to come if I need info...Many Regards Steve.:D

emason
08-01-2011, 21:51
I found this shot of the Russian Sissoi Veliki, which I believe took part in the Battle of Tsushima.

91858

astraltrader
08-06-2011, 01:52
Going back to the fascinating photo kindly shown originally in Kcs post #21.

I have just bought this postcard that shows the same row of damaged trawlers but at a slightly different time.

There is one very peculiar fact that I have noticed when comparing them side by side. In my postcard the main trawler featured has two shell holes - in Kc's photo there is only the mere one !!

For a brief moment I thought that they must have been taken at a slightly different point in the line of the trawlers but this is not the case - it is clearly the same place!! :confused:

Could this be an early case of insurance fraud?? :D;)

[Note: The first picture is the one posted by Kc and my card the second one].

patroclus
08-06-2011, 02:22
I think that it is the card photo that has been altered. In the process they have had to avoid the halyard.

astraltrader
08-06-2011, 21:55
I think so too.

I wonder why it was deemed appropriate to add another shell hole?? :confused:

patroclus
08-06-2011, 22:21
I think so too.

I wonder why it was deemed appropriate to add another shell hole?? :confused:

That card is a very interesting find. It opens the door to a host of conspiracy theories.:D

John Odom
09-06-2011, 00:27
A most interesting set of questions arises!

astraltrader
09-06-2011, 23:21
Unless they filled a shell hole in ?? :D