Beth wrote-
> Given where we live that would've been ironic (Port Arthur the ex-penal
> colony and sight of Australia's worst modern day massacre being about
No, wrong port arthur. This port arthur was the sight of the russian
navel base for the pacific/asia area. It was situated at the base of the
korean peninsular, and was part of where the chineese gun their buts whiped by
the russians & japs. The japs took the korian peninsular to protect the
homeland, and prevent invasion of the japanise islands. The russians were
expanding into asia, and came into conflict with the japs, who attacked the
base, sinking 3 rrussian warships, and blockading the rest of the fleet. The
russians sent the black sea fleet (I think, anybody want to clarify?) around
africa to break the blockade (a 7 month jurney), and had to pass the jap
islands somehow to reach port arthur. They chose the direct route, and when
the 2 fleets met, the japs were using new armour piercing shels, even though
outnumbered by russian BB, sank everything in the russian fleet except 3
ships, for only a couple of torpedo boats lost! The figures were 5 thousand
dead, same again captured on the russian side, and 120 to 150 dead on the jap
side. Now you understand why the japs are so proud of this sea battle, it was
an even greater victory than admeral nelsons. If I`ve got anything wrong in
this, I`m sure someone will correct me.
Actually, I believe that the fleet actually is the baltic fleet. Tsar Nick
himself saw it offf, as most of St.Petersburg fell under a strike behind him,
he was in his royal barge.
A quote from a book on Rasputin, that happens to have some information about
this fleet:
"A catastrophe in the making [the naval expedition]. Rarely-never? - has
a naval expedition been so botched. The commander, aging Vice Adm. Zinovy
Roxhdestvensky, called his number 2 "the sack of shit". The equally obese
commander of the cruisers was known as "the vast space." Three ships collided
almost at once, and the funeral party for a dead petty officer was unable to
fire a last salute because they did not know how to load their
rifles. Paranoia sailed with them.... Six days out the Russians mistook
British herring smacks in the North Sea for Japanese torpedo boats. Their
gunnery was so poor that they missed most of the trawlers but put six shells
into one of their own cruisers. The nearest Japanese warship was more than ten
thousand miles away."
It goes on to say, in the second paragraph how they conducted no gunnery
drills because the coal was piled so high on the decks due to the fact that
the commander was worried about running out fuel.
The baltic fleet was two weeks out of Port Arthur when Port Arthur surrendered
because of the lopsided Japanese victory over the Pacific fleet.
While I don't have any specific evidence either way, the Pacific fleet must
have been in a similar state in order to suffer so large a defeat.
On another note, I believe the loses included at least on destroyer on the
Japanese side during the Port Arthur engagement, and I believe the Russian
flagship struck a Japanese mine and sunk, and another battleship may have as
well.
> On Mon, 05 February 2001, Corey Burger wrote:
> While I don't have any specific evidence either way, the Pacific fleet
It was a bit better prepared, but not by much. Earlier in the war, it suffered
from poor gunnery and very poor morale. The first attack on Port Arthur was by
torpedo boats, but the results were less than spectacular. Funny enough, this
has an interesting impact on naval theory, as there were people who thought
torpedo boats would make battleships obsolete.
After this, there was a battle outside of Port Arthur with the Russian ships
under the protection of big coastal guns. It was inconclusive. Admiral Makarov
took over, and it was obvious he knew what he was doing. He increased morale,
and on several occasions Russian ships chased away Japanese ships. Admiral
Togo laid a trap for him in April, 1904. They laid mines outside of Port
Arthur and had a cruiser squadron pull several Russian ships under Makarov out
as bait. Waiting in the fog was Togo's battle line. But the fog lifted in time
for Makarov to see funnel smoke. He turned the fleet back around, but the
Petropavlovsk, his flag ship, hit a mine and sank within a minute, taking him
with it.
There were a few other engagements. The Russian Admiral, Vitgeft, who took
over was more than willing to keep the fleet in port. He even threatened to
remove Captain Ivanov of the Amur for going out of the port to lay mines!
Ivanov noticed that the Japanese ships travelled in particular lanes towards
the harbour. The Amur laid mines in those
lanes, and the Japanese ended up losing the pre-dreadnoughts Hatsuse and
Yashima (the loss of the latter they kept hidden for a year).
In August 1904, Japanese troops besieged Port Arthur. The Russians tried to
pull out the fleet and run for Vladivostok. The Japanese chased them in the
Battle of the Yellow Sea. The Russian gunnery was actually fairly accurate and
held off the Japanese until shells exploded on the flag ship, killing the
admiral and wiping out most of the bridge crew. The fleet dispersed, some
ships to Port Arthur and some to China. Only one made it to Vladivostok. After
that, the Russian Pacific Fleet had little influence on the battle.
> On another note, I believe the loses included at least on destroyer on
The Petropavlovsk was the ship that hit the mine. Another
pre-dreadnought, the Pobieda, also struck a mine. She hit it under her
main coal bunker, but she was repaired by June. She was hit with 21 11" shells
at the Yellow Sea. She made it back to Port Arthur, but sunk there. She was
raised by the Japanese, and served as the Suwo until she was scrapped in 1922.
I'm doing a pre-dreadnought game based on Full Thrust (with a liberal
amount of stealing from General Quarters). I was going to do Tsushima at
the GZG-ECC but those plans fell through. I have a playtest set almost
done now, including advanced rules, but I'm working on a quick play rules page
for it. I also have to put together the stats for all of the ships (I only
have some of the more important ships done). It's taken me a while...
G'day Bif
> No, wrong port arthur....
Now you're catching on;)
Beth
And, not only were the baltic fleet content with putting shells into one their
own cruisers, but when they were off the west coast of africa, they did some
target practice with the BBs, and the only thing they hit (they only hit with
one shell) was their destroyer that was towing the target! I don`t think you
could make up a more incompetent navy even in fiction. Anybody got any more
info on these clowns?
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:48:30 -0000, "Bif Smith"
<bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Anybody got any more info on these clowns?
When the fleet got out of the Baltic, they discovered Japanese torpedo boats
waiting for them. They fired on them, but missed for the most part. They did
sink one, though. Unfortunately, the torpedo boats were British commercial
trawlers. Something like 4 people were killed. The British demanded the
captains of the firing ships held for an inquest. Russia refused, which
resulted in Britain putting pressure on neutral nations to close coaling
stations. The Russians eventually relented.
The Admiral had a habit of being a harsh task master. If a ship got out of
formation, he would take his launch to the ship and berate the captain. The
result was that the fleet captains feared mistakes, which meant that they
never got proficient at manoeuvres. It also meant that morale plummetted every
time the Admiral showed up.
I think it was pointed out that they didn't do live fire exercises during the
trip.
Just before Tsushima, the second in command Admiral died from natural causes.
However, in an attempt to maintain morale, the commanding Admiral didn't tell
the rest of the fleet; he kept the second in command's flag flying.
During the Battle of Tsushima, one division (or part of one, I'd have to
check) pulled a rather novice move and a couple of ships ended up screening a
couple of other ships, so that those other ships couldn't fire. This was an
obvious mistake due to unfamiliarity of manoeuvring.
Also, when the Admiral was wounded and had to leave his flag ship, the third
in command was suddenly surprised to find that HE was now commander! This
caused confusion in the Russian fleet at a crucial moment. The result was a
disaster.
The Russian ships were generally inferior to the Japanese. They had inferior
armour for the most part. Even still, they were similarly armed and
outnumbered the Japanese ships. The Russian fleet should have been at an
advantage, but they were badly mauled.
From: "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
> And, not only were the baltic fleet content with putting shells into
I must disagree.
Some more data:
a) The Baltic Fleet was actually composed of 2 fleets - the Admiral got
lumbered with a gaggle of hopelessly obsolete reinforcements that had
previously been jusdged to be worse than useless. These were known
as the "self-sinkers". Despite this, they actually did rather well,
eventually rendezvousing with the main fleet in the Indian Ocean.
b) The Russki fleet got some severely bad PR for being total imbeciles based
on one incident in the English Channel. Basically, they started firing at what
they thought were "Japanese Torpedo Boats" and ended up hitting several
English fishing vessels. Complete idiots, right? Japanese torpedo boats in the
North Sea!!!
Well, about 1980 it was revealed that a Japanese torpedo boat tender was known
to be operating in the area at the time, with the UK government's acquiesence
if not approval. On the balance of probabilities, there really was an attack,
and the Japanese used the UK fishing fleet for cover.
c) And most importantly.... most people only remember that the Russki fleet
got utterly smashed by the Japanese. They don't realise that to get even a few
ships, let alone a whole fleet, of coal-fired vessels halfway round the
world, with not a single allied coaling station along the way was a feat of
naval logistics unparalleled in history. It made the US progression through
the Pacific and the Normandy landings in WW2 look amateurishly inneficient.
The Royal Navy had established at great cost in blood and treasure a whole
chain of refueling
stations stretching throughout the world. Others - the Germans, the
French -
had very few, not enough to even contemplate sending more than 3-4 ships
(2 of whom would be coal-carrying merchants) from Europe to Asia at a
time.
The Russki fleet had many problems, from untrained seaman, to politically
appointed hopeless incompetents as officers, to poor explosive technology and
obsolete ship designs. It's no wonder they got wiped. But had Makharov(?) not
been slain so early, and had his replacement not been a hopeless joke, they
would have done much better. Probably still lost, but at least it would have
been a fight not a slaughter.
Good comparisons are the battles of the Java Sea, Ironbottom Sound, and Pearl
Harbor
> And, not only were the baltic fleet content with putting shells into
The Italian fleet at Lissa (1860 or 66? Hazy memory, no ref book to
hand...) came pretty damn close.... ;-)
1866 - hazy memory forgiven.
Wasn't this the battle in which the ramming of a single Italian ship caused
every navy to build their ironclads with ram bows for the next 30 years?
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
***
But had Makharov(?) not been slain so early, and had his replacement not been
a hopeless joke, they would have done much better. Probably still lost, but at
least it would have been a fight not a slaughter.
***
I was reading in scenerio notes of Great War at Sea: 1904-1905, that
Marakov (my memory of the spelling, but no more likely right than yours) died
in the mine sinking of his flagship, after avoiding an ambush laid by the
Japanese. Togo was said to have had his fleet lower their flags to half mast
in honor of a 'samurai'. Or maybe a warrior with the soul thereof.
I gather he was on station for a relatively short time, and impressed the
Japanese far more than his superiors and fellow fleet commanders, as his calls
for support and coordinated actions were regularly denied.
I remember being certain that one ship of my beloved ESU fleets had a class
named after him, but I must have been dreaming.
Of course, most of the above are just from the GWaS author notes; you have
to wonder about a guy that uses game notes as a historical source. ;->=
***
with not a single allied coaling station along the way was a feat of naval
logistics unparalleled in history.
***
Probably with good reason; the game also points out that the fleet stopped off
at Shanghai to top off it's coal supply, a very busy international port. As if
the Japanese fleet hadn't enough forewarning before...
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
No, but my uncle told me a story of when he was in the South African Navy, a
conscript, a they had they destroyers firing at a small stationary boat for
about 30 min, and they only destroyed in by actually going out and planting
explosives aboard.
Corey
> At 12:48 PM 2/6/01 +0000, you wrote:
Just a word of clarification.
The Russian Pacific Fleet was destroyed at Tsushima. The Russian Baltic
Fleet, which fired upon the maybe/ maybe not British Fishing boats
sailed around the Cape of Africa, and had the ramming incident within it own
fleet. The Baltic Fleet never made it Port Arthur, as Port Arthur had
surrendered two weeks previous
> At 08:23 AM 2/7/01 -0600, you wrote:
> ***
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:10:56 +1100, "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
> Well, about 1980 it was revealed that a Japanese torpedo boat tender
Alan, do you have a citation for this? Nothing I have, even stuff written well
after 1980, references this.
To be honest, I'm skeptical. From my studying of history (both in
post-secondary school and on my own) "balance of probabilities" doesn't
equate to "actually happened", particularly when the reference is to a tender
and not the destroyers themselves.
I'm not saying that it's impossible, or even improbable. I'm not saying that
there was no tender there. But I would like references. Japan and Britain were
allies, and Japan bought a number of ships from Britain. Japan had a lot of
people trained in Britain, including Togo, if I remember correctly. There
could be a number of reasons for a Japanese tender to be in British waters, if
there was a tender.
You all with access to a REALLY big library ought to look for the following
book:
"The War Between Japan and Russia" by Richard Linthicum and Trubull White
Copyright 1904 by W. R. Vansant. 448 pages. Includes 86 illustrations.
I am very carefull with this book...see'n that in a few years, it will be 100
years old.
One thing I found interesting is the book is written in a "just reporting the
facts" style.
The book doesn't say, but I got the feeling that it was written within a few
months of the war's end.
According to the title page, the two authors had also written other
interesting books: "Boer and Britisher in South Africa", "War in the East" (a
history of
the Chinese-Japanese war of 1895),"Our War with Spain", ect., ect.
So visit those big libraries...and start digging up these interesting
books...
Donald Hosford
> agoodall@canada.com wrote:
> On Mon, 05 February 2001, Corey Burger wrote:
Admiral Makarov took over, and it was obvious he knew what he was doing. He
increased morale, and on several occasions Russian ships chased away Japanese
ships. Admiral Togo laid a trap for him in April, 1904. They laid mines
outside of Port Arthur and had a cruiser squadron pull several Russian ships
under Makarov out as bait. Waiting in the fog was Togo's battle line. But the
fog lifted in time for Makarov to see funnel smoke. He turned the fleet back
around, but the Petropavlovsk, his flag ship, hit a mine and sank within a
minute, taking him with it.
> There were a few other engagements. The Russian Admiral, Vitgeft, who
The fleet dispersed, some ships to Port Arthur and some to China. Only one
made it to Vladivostok. After that, the Russian Pacific Fleet had little
influence on the battle.
> > On another note, I believe the loses included at least on destroyer
shells at the Yellow Sea. She made it back to Port Arthur, but sunk there. She
was raised by the Japanese, and served as the Suwo until she was scrapped in
1922.
> I'm doing a pre-dreadnought game based on Full Thrust (with a liberal
From: "Allan Goodall" <awg@sympatico.ca>
> >Well, about 1980 it was revealed that a Japanese torpedo boat tender
Don't worry about being diplomatic, though your diplomacy is certainly
appreciated. Thanks for not just screaming "Horse Puckey!" or the equivalent.
I'll see what I can do to convince you (or show my own memory to be faulty).
> To be honest, I'm skeptical. From my studying of history (both in
doesn't equate
> to "actually happened", particularly when the reference is to a tender
Torpedo Boats - we're talking 150 tonnes max here, steam launches rather
than ships.
> I'm not saying that it's impossible, or even improbable. I'm not
I'll see if I can dig em up.
The data was released under the (75?) year rule for cabinet Documents, and
actually
made the popular press - but no-one gave a tuppeny damn, and the Sir
Humphreys managed to lay a pretty good smokescreen about "A Torpedo Boat
tender with its attendent torpedo boats being within 20 miles (or whatever it
was) could have been completely coincidental, there's no written evidence in
Japanese archives that the attempted attack ever got near" etc etc for those
few who did.
Considering much of said archives went up in flames in 1945, this was a trifle
misleading.
In looking for some sources on the web, I found
http://www.navy.ru/history/hrn10-e.htm
which has astoundingly little on the epic voyage from the Baltic to the
Pacific. A good vignette is provided at
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1905coaling.html
I'm still looking: the incident happened 1904 21 October.
Lebow, Richard N. Accidents and Crises: The Dogger Bank Affair. Summer
1978:66-75
would be just before the revelation, and that's the best the US Naval War
College
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/ has on the subject.
http://www.navalhistory.co.uk
is a bust too.
If you have access to the Times archives, there should be something on it,
round about
1979-1981 if memory serves. Maybe 1984? as I said, it even made the
popular press (down here anyway).
Remember the Russians had to pay reparations too, after an International
Tribunal found that they'd made a huge gaffe. Sleeping Dogs and all that. And
who, except for a few (we happy few.. we band of brothers...) like us are
interested in what happened nearly a century ago, anyway?
As to why... "In a letter dated 22 December 1904 (but not received until 26
January) the British minister in Tokyo reported a conversation with the
Japanese Foreign Minister, Baron Komura, who expressed his hope that "should
the war end
successfully for Japan, the present Anglo-Japanese Alliance might be
strengthened and extended" -
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 08 February 2001, "Alan and Carmel Brain" wrote:
> Don't worry about being diplomatic, though your diplomacy is certainly
Well, there is no sense NOT being civil! *L* And I'm not so much doubting you
as showing a healthy skepticism. I think, online, a lot of people don't know
how to show the distinction.
I'm thoroughly capable of being convinced (and it would be an interesting
excercise in P.R. if it is, indeed, true!).
> > to "actually happened", particularly when the reference is to a
That was clearly my mistake! I didn't even mean "destroyer" but "torpedo boat
destroyer". The Japanese TBDs ran about 350 tons. So I had the wrong class of
boat as well as the wrong name! *L*
Japanese torpedo boats averaged around 150 tons. They had one class in the 200
ton area. (For the general list watching this thread, most were much smaller.
The second class torpedo boats ran an average of about 80 tons, and the third
class about 50 tons. They COULD be mistaken for fishing boats, and vice
versa.)
> In looking for some sources on the web, I found
I did a web search myself. All I could find was information on the battle,
with a little bit about the voyage. I checked the online book stores and
there's very little out about the war. I do have (Corbitt's? Sorry, I've got
most of my books packed for moving at the moment) two
volume history of the war. It came out soon after, but was re-printed by
the US Naval Institute Press a few years ago. Of course, it's a contemporary
account and doesn't have the secret information in it.
> Remember the Russians had to pay reparations too, after an
Yes, us, and historical researchers. That period of history isn't a biggie,
particularly in North America. It's a fascinating period, though.
> I'll see what I can find in the ADFA library, but as I said, your best
Thanks, Alan. I'll look into it. The motive was definitely there. I suppose,
too, if Russia was in better shape it might want to clear up its name on this
account. I'm sure, though, that they just want to keep Czarist history
dormant. It will be interesting to see if anything else comes out in the next
3 or 4 years, for the anniversary. And I certainly
hope the historical conventions use this as a theme in 2004/2005.