Port Arthur/Tsushima

Comments from a friend of mine who's a naval history buff:

> Well, yes. No doubt the Russians were not as incompetent as painted
They
> then worked at these improvements. Their idea was to rapidly and
Both
> navies had intelligence reports of hostiles in the area. Which was

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

> Comments from a friend of mine who's a naval history buff:
in
> > short-ranged coal-burning vessels was a spectacular achievement.
But I
> > seriously question the assertion that:

Conceded. But also consider the resources behind them.

> > Personally I doubt the early death of the Russian leader was

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

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,

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

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

Agree.

> > Even the Japanese themselves might have lost had the same methods

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
Both
> > navies had intelligence reports of hostiles in the area. Which was

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