Re: Port Arthur/Tsushima

From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>

> Comments from a friend of mine who's a naval history buff:
>
> > Well, yes.	No doubt the Russians were not as incompetent as painted
by
> > popular history.  The circumnavigation (of Asia, if not the globe)
in
> > short-ranged coal-burning vessels was a spectacular achievement. 
But I
> > seriously question the assertion that:
> >
> > "It made the US progression through the Pacific and the Normandy
landings
> in
> > WW2 look amateurishly inefficient."
> >
> > Both those efforts were frankly on a vastly larger and more complex
scale.

Conceded. But also consider the resources behind them.

> > Personally I doubt the early death of the Russian leader was
especially
> > important, or the condition of the Russian fleet itself.  I
generally
have
> > concluded that the condition of the Russian strategy was to blame.

I'll see if I can find the primary sources that gave rise to my own
conclusion.
It would be interesting to gain some info from someone with a different
view.

> > Tshushima Strait was one of those revolutionary battles in which new
> > technologies are used by innovative minds in ways unforeseen by one
side.

Not sure I agree here: both sides were shocked by the effects of Picric
Acid/
mellinite etc shells.

> > The Japanese, partly through their observation of the Royal Navy,
had
> become
> > convinced that main gunnery could be made effective through improved
> > technique (centralized fire control, "timing" the salvo to the wave
> crests),
> > new technology ("gunnery clock" calculators, telephonic
communication
with
> > better-placed observers, and better optics), and ceaseless exercise.

And of these, the latter - "ceaseless exercise" - was worth more than
the
rest
put together. The Japanese weren't as good, nor the Russians as bad, in
the technical areas as has often been claimed.

> >They
> > then worked at these improvements.	Their idea was to rapidly and
> accurately
> > deliver main-gun ordnance at ranges far outside an enemy's secondary
> > batteries, before an enemy was even expecting to engage.  And to
deliver
> > masses of this fire, not just a few shells.  No one else had
accomplished
> > this, but their expectations were annihilatory from the start, like
Nelson
> > at Trafalgar; whereas the Russians were basically hoping to avoid a
> > confrontation or make a fighting withdrawal.

This was a conclusion after Tsushima, not  an expected result, from my
own
reading.
There were a few pointers in the Chinese-Japanese naval conflict of a
few
years
previously, but no real concensus. All one has to do is read the
commentary
on
the 1905 issue of Jane's to know what a surprsie this was to many.

> > Basically, I am placing the "blame" for Tsushima on the Japanese
approach,
> > not Russian incompetence.  Other navies of the day (British or
American)
> > would have fared much better perhaps, but all would have been
surprised
> and
> > badly beaten.  Only seven years before (1898), the American
watchword
had
> > been "You may fire when ready, Gridley."  Well, the Japanese would
have
> been
> > delivering rounds on target long before Gridley would have been
ready.

Agree.

> > Even the Japanese themselves might have lost had the same methods
been
> used
> > against them; they were expecting the Russians to behave in a
certain
way
> > and something different might have changed the outcome.

And they nearly came a cropper on more than one occasion, Togo was very
lucky indeed to catch the Baltic fleet before it made it to port and
re-supply.
They out-admiralled him here.

> > On a side note, the story of the "torpedo boat" in the English
channel,
> > where the Russians got bad PR for firing at nearby vessels,
contrasts
> > ironically with the ironclad self control of the USS Cole's gunners.
Both
> > navies had intelligence reports of hostiles in the area.  Which was
the
> more
> > competent?

I don't wish to defend the Russkis of 1905 by rubbishing the USN of
1942,
or for that matter 2000. To do so would reflect more on my own
intellectual
honesty than be a valid point of debate.

But what got my goat was the statements about the Russians being one of,
if not the, most incompetent Fleet in history. That ain't so. I can
think of
about
a dozen navies at the moment which would easily outclass them in this
regard.

The Russian achievement of getting there (and then getting their arses
wiped)
should best be compared to Ney's achievement in the retreat from Moscow.
Brilliant, though ultimately leading to abject failure.

Let's see, things that come to mind when I think of the Cole: Vincennes
shooting down the Airbus Stark getting hit by 2 Exocets. Sheffield by
one.
British Battlecruisers blowing up. Taranto.

None of the above navies involved above could be described as
"hopelessly
 incompetent". In the words of the Classics, "Shit happens". OK, I've
seen the Video, the crew on the bridge of the Vincennes were hopelessly
incompetent, and not to be compared with the cool professionalism shown
by the crew of the Cole, or the Starke. But compared to every one of the
people in the USN I've talked to and worked alongside, they were a bunch
of clowns.