Tsushima battle. "Pearls" in battle

278
In this article we return to the description of the actions of the Pearl type cruisers in the Tsushima battle. It might seem that, arguing about the intentions and decisions of Z.P. Rozhdestvensky, the author has excessively gone from the topic, but all this was absolutely necessary for understanding why our high-speed reconnaissance cruisers were not used for their intended purpose, that is, to detect the main forces of the enemy.



And yet: why?


In the classic sea battle, when both squadrons are looking for a decisive battle, reconnaissance is necessary, as it allows the admiral, who produces it, to detect enemy main forces in advance, which allows him to arrange and build up his squadron at the time of visual contact with them. fight in the most rational and profitable way.

In previous articles of this series, the author showed that the Russian commander, fully aware of the advantages that H. gives. Togo's high squadron speed of his ships, did not have the slightest hope. The problem was that the main forces, even in conditions of poor visibility, could see each other for seven miles, and the distance of decisive artillery battle, at which it would really be possible to cause significant damage to enemy ships, was less than 4 miles, i.e. 40 cable. In other words, Z.P. Rozhdestvensky could not have “trapped” the Japanese fleet, lined up in one way or another: having discovered that the situation was not in his favor, H. Togo would always have been able to evade, retreat and begin rapprochement in a new way. Moreover, the superiority of the Japanese fleet in speed, it provided him with an unconditional tactical advantage, which, with proper maneuvering, allowed the Russians to set the “crossing T” and defeat the Russian squadron.

According to the author, which he substantiated in detail in previous materials, Z.P. Rozhestvensky, understanding the advantages of the Japanese, found a very original way out of a seemingly intractable situation. He planned to follow the march consisting of two columns, and to unfold in battle formation only when the main forces of the enemy were within his sight, and their intentions would become clear. In other words, since the Japanese could have crushed any Russian squadron in any military formation, which the Russian squadron could only accept, Zinovy ​​Petrovich decided not to take any order, and to make a reorganization into battle order only at the very last moment.

Oddly enough, this tactic in Tsushima worked - H. Togo went to the left shell of the Russian squadron to attack the relatively weak left column, led by the battleship Oslyabya, consisting of the old ships 2-oh and 3-his armored troops. According to the author, the fact that Z.P. Rozhdestvensky nevertheless managed to bring his newest battleships of the Borodino type into the left column head, it became a most unpleasant surprise for H. Togo, so instead of crushing the weakest part of the Russian ships or setting up the "crossing T" he was forced to portray a maneuver, later called the "Loop Togo". Its essence was to turn consistently under enemy fire, and it is difficult to assume that this maneuver was pre-planned by the Japanese admiral: not only did he put the Japanese in a vulnerable position at the stage of its execution, he also did not give great tactical advantages. If H. Togo needed to simply bring the columns of his battleships and armored cruisers into the head of the Russian squadron, he could have done this in a much less extreme way.

However, to understand the role that Z.P. took to “Pearl” and “Emerald”. Rozhdestvensky, the consequences of maneuvering the Japanese and Russian squadrons are not so important. The key is the plan of the Russian commander, which consisted in not doing any rebuilding until the main Japanese forces appeared on the horizon and showed their intentions. In other words, Z.P. Rozhestvensky was not going to rebuild before the main forces of the Japanese appeared.

But if so, why would he conduct reconnaissance?

Of course, from the point of view of the classic tactics of the sea battle, intelligence was extremely important, but the whole point was that the Russian commander was going to act completely unclassical. His non-standard plan for the outbreak of battle made reconnaissance by cruisers unnecessary, so there was no point in sending Pearls and Emeralds to it.

Of course, for cruisers intended for service during the squadron, there was another task: to prevent the enemy from conducting reconnaissance. But, first, this was never charged to the domestic "second-class" ships of this class - after all, they were too weak for that. Secondly, it was required to drive away the enemy's cruisers in order not to let the enemy know about their intentions, in order to hide their location, range, course and speed, but Z.P. Rozhestvensky, who made the decision to unfold in order of battle in view of the enemy, all this was not necessary.

And, finally, the third obvious reason for refusing to interfere in enemy reconnaissance was the sheer weakness of the cruisers 2 and 3 in the Pacific Squadrons. The Japanese had an overwhelming numerical superiority in armored cruisers over Z.P. Rozhdestvensky. In addition, as was known from the experience of fighting at Port Arthur, they often supported the latter with armored cruisers H. Kamimura: at the same time, the Russian commander did not have ships capable of providing such support to our armored cruisers.

As is known, the Russian commander expected the appearance of the main Japanese forces from the north. It was from there that the 5 combat squadron appeared, consisting of the old battleship Chin-Yen and the armored cruisers “Itsukushima”, “Hasidate”, and “Matsushima”, and on the Russian squadron they were also believed to be accompanied by “Akitsushima” and “Suma” . In fact, in addition to these two cruisers, the 5 squadron also accompanied the Chiyoda. There was no point in directing Russian cruisers against such forces: it is possible that they could drive away the Japanese ships, but at what cost? And if one more cruiser detachment approached the Japanese, then the battle would become unequal.

In other words, the cruisers of Z.P. Rozhdestvensky was a little, and they were not too strong (excluding "Oleg"). The Russian admiral decided to use them to protect the transports, as well as to cover the main forces from the attacks of the destroyers and the role of repetitive ships. Accordingly, any other use of them was possible only for the achievement of some important, significant goals: an attack by Japanese intelligence officers, obviously, was not such a target. Z.P. Rozhestvensky won absolutely nothing because Japanese scouts would not have seen his squadron - on the contrary! Recall that the decision to attack the left column of the Russian squadron X. Togo made long before coming on direct visibility, guided by information received from its cruisers engaged in reconnaissance.

Strictly speaking, to implement the plan Z.P. Rozhestvensky should not just hide the Russian squadron, but proudly demonstrate its marching system to the Japanese scouts. Only in this way it would be possible to “convince” H. Togo to abandon the “crossing T” and to attack one of the columns of the Russian ships. Perhaps this is the reason for the strange reluctance of the Russian commander to discourage Japanese intelligence officers: the prohibition to interrupt Japanese radiograms, the rejection of the Izumi attack, etc.

Thus, the Russian commander did not have a single reason to send the Emerald and the Pearls to reconnaissance, but there were many reasons not to do so. In any case, intelligence itself is not an end in itself, but a means to put the enemy at a disadvantage: and, since it was the Japanese who got into it, there is no reason to consider this decision of Z.P. Rozhdestvensky erroneous.

The consequence of this decision of the Russian commander was a completely non-heroic stay of "Pearls" and "Emerald" under the main forces of the squadron. And although “Zhemchug” before the battle began, the main forces managed to “clarify” the Japanese ship trying to pass under the nose of the squadron, and “Emerald” even fought a little with the Japanese cruisers when an occasional shot from the Eagle in 11.15 put an end to the short ten-minute Russian exchange of fire Armadillos with the ships of admirals Kataoki and Deva, but, by and large, nothing interesting happened to these cruisers.

The beginning of the battle


After a small skirmish with the Japanese cruisers, during which the Emerald, while firing, switched to the right flank of the Russian squadron, he was instructed to be in the battle from a non-shooting side. At that time, both Russian cruisers along with the 1 detachment of the destroyers were aboard the "Prince Suvorov", while the "Emerald" was going to the wilderness of the "Pearl". But, approximately in 12.00 Z.P. Rozhestvensky ordered them to retreat a little, having shifted to the traverse of the Eagle, which was executed by the cruisers.

The main forces of the Japanese were found at Zhemchug at about the same time as they were seen on Prince Suvorov, that is, somewhere in 13.20, when they were still on the right shell of the Russian squadron. From a cruiser, just in case, they made a shot from the nose 120-mm guns, so that the Japanese battleships would not overlook the flagship. Then, after the ships of Kh. Togo and H. Kamimura crossed to the left side, they were lost on the Pearls, and were seen again only after the Japanese, carrying out the “loop of Togo”, opened fire on the Oslyab. But on the “Pearl” battleships H. Togo, nevertheless, saw badly. However, the Japanese shells that gave the flight went near the “Pearl”, and even fell into it. The commander of the cruiser PP Levitsky ordered to open a return fire - not so much in order to damage the enemy, who was almost invisible, but rather to raise the morale of the team.

For some time nothing happened for “Pearls”, and then the real adventures began. As you know, the 14.26 on the "Prince Suvorov" was disabled wheel, and he turned to 180 hail. (16 points), rolled right. Initially, "Alexander III" turned behind him, and only after it was realized that it was not a maneuver, but an uncontrolled movement of a damaged ship, "Alexander III" led the squadron further.

However, at the "Pearl" these events saw that the main forces of the squadron unfold. And at the same time, they found the Japanese flagship Mikasa, which seemed to be cutting across the Russian course. This was not true, since at that moment squadron courses were closer to parallel ones, but the commander of Pearls suggested that the Japanese were moving to the right side of the Russian system. Accordingly, staying at the same place “Zhemugug” risked being between the main forces of the Russians and the Japanese, which was unacceptable: the order of Z.P. Rozhestvensky determined the place of 2 rank cruisers behind the formation of Russian battleships, and nothing else.

Accordingly, P.P. Levitsky led his ship to the left side of the Russian squadron, sending "Pearls" in the gap formed between the "Eagle" and "Great Sisoy" after the failure of "Oslyabi". However, this, seemingly the right decision, led to the fact that the Pearl was no more than an 25 cable from the end armored cruisers of the 1 of the Japanese military unit, Nissin and Kasuga, which immediately fired at the small Russian cruiser. However, it is possible, of course, that some other ships fired at Pearl, it is only certain that shells were falling around it.

P.P. Levitsky quickly realized that he was mistaken in his assumption, and made an attempt to return to the right side of the squadron. For some reason, he could not return just as he had come — that is, through the gap between the “Eagle” and “Sisoy the Great”, and therefore he went along the Russian squadron.

“On the Internet,” the author repeatedly encountered the opinion that the 3 Pacific Pacific Squadron was well trained in maneuvering. However, at the "Pearl" saw a completely different, PP In his testimony of the Investigation Commission, Levitsky stated: “Seeing that the vessels of Admiral Nebogatov were stretched to such an extent that the intervals between them reach the 5 cable and more ...”. In other words, with commander intervals set at 2 cabel, the length of the entire squadron system was about 3 miles, but only 4 of the Nebogatov ship managed to stretch at least 1,7-1,8 miles!

Taking advantage of large intervals, the Zhemchug passed under the stern at coastal defense battleship Admiral-General Apraksin, who was following the Emperor Nicholas I, in the gap between him and the Senyavin, and returned to the right side of the squadron.



Clash with "Ural"


P.P. Levitsky saw that the Russian cruisers, to the right of transports going a little way off, were fighting with their Japanese "classmates", and that the Apraksin was trying to help them - apparently, the ships of the main Japanese forces were too far for him, or on the battleship coastal defense did not see them. The commander of the "Pearl" then reported that both towers of the Apraksin were aimed at Japanese cruisers trying to break through to the transports. Not wanting to shoot them down, PP Levitsky reduced the speed of his ship to small — and it was here that the auxiliary cruiser “Ural”, which tried to keep closer to the battleships, and made a pile on the “Pearl”.

P.P. Levitsky ordered an increase in the course immediately after the main caliber of the Apraksin, but this was not enough, since the Ural was in contact with the bow of the Pearls astern. Damage was not fatal, but unpleasant:

1. The edges of the blades of the right propeller were bent;

2. The square, fastening shirstrekovy belt side plating with deck stringer in the stern, was dented;

3. The scoop of the stern mine apparatus broke, the mine itself, charged into it, broke, and its charging compartment fell into the water and sank.

I must say that the stern mine apparatus was on the cruiser the only one made for battle: the airborne, with that excitement and draft of the cruiser, could not be used. Thus, the bulk of the "Ural" has deprived the cruiser of its torpedo armament: however, given the meager firing range, it was still completely useless. There was one more thing - the right machine of the latter stopped from the impact of the “Ural” on the “Pearls” body, and steam was immediately blocked off: but then it was gradually added, and the car acted quite freely, obviously without receiving any damage.

But why in the "Ural" did not do anything to avoid a collision with a cruiser reduced course? The fact is that by this time the "Ural" received quite serious damage.

Tsushima battle. "Pearls" in battle


About half an hour after the start of the battle, according to the commander of the cruiser, a “at least ten-inch” projectile hit him, as a result of which the “Ural” got an underwater hole on the port side, in the nose. The water immediately flooded the front "bomb cellar", as well as the coal pit, which turned out to be empty, which caused the Ural to have a strong trim on the bow and roll on the port side. As a result, the auxiliary cruiser, built as a passenger airliner, and not a warship, became ill to obey the helm. But, as if this was not enough, the enemy shells damaged the telemotor and killed the steering pipe's steam pipe. As a result, the ship completely lost the helm and could only be controlled by machines.

All this, of course, in itself, extremely difficult to control the cruiser, but, as if all of the above were not enough, almost immediately interrupted the machine telegraph. This has not completely broken the connection with the engine room, because, in addition to the telegraph, there was also a telephone, on which the commander of the Ural Istomin began to give commands. But then the watch mechanic Ivanitsky appeared to him and reported on behalf of the senior mechanic that because of the roar of shells and the fire of his own artillery in the engine, they could not hear the phone at all ...

In the light of the foregoing, by the time when Zhemchug dropped the turn in order not to interfere with the Apraksin shot, the Urals was almost out of control, which led to bulk. It is interesting, by the way, that the commander of the Ural believed that he was confronted not with the Pearl, but with the Emerald.

Having completed his “run” between the squadron battling the main forces and returning to the right side of the Russian column, PP Levitsky, as it seemed to him then, finally considered the plight of the flagship battleship "Prince Suvorov" and went to him. Later on the "Pearl" we learned that in fact it was not the "Suvorov", and the battleship "Alexander III". On the way, “Pearls” had to dodge “Sisoi the Great”, which, according to the words of the “Pearls” commander, he went to intercept. It was not possible for the author of this article to find out what it was, because there is no evidence that Sisoy the Great would leave the column at this time (closer to four o'clock in the afternoon). Around 16.00, the Pearl came under the stern of Alexander III and partially stopped the course: two destroyers were seen leaving the battered flagship, one of which began to unfold, as if having a desire to approach the starboard of the Pearls. On the cruiser, they noticed that flag-captain Clape de Colong was on board the destroyer, and they decided that the rest of the headquarters and the admiral were also there, and that they probably all wanted to go to the cruiser. Accordingly, “Pearls” prepared to receive people on board: the entrance to the right ladder was open, ends were prepared, stretchers for the wounded and began to launch the whaleboat.

However, when the whaleboat had already begun to lower, PP Levitsky discovered that the destroyer was not going to approach the Pearl at all, but went somewhere further to the right of the cruiser, with the second destroyer moving behind him. And on the left, the Japanese battleships appeared, and the range finder showed that there was no more than 20 cables to them. The enemy immediately opened fire, so that around the "Alexander III" and "Pearls" immediately began to tear shells. Having lost his only mine apparatus capable of using torpedoes, PP Levitsky lost even theoretical chances to harm such a strong opponent, and was forced to retreat, especially since his battleships could not be seen. From the “Pearls” they saw only Borodino and the Eagle, which passed under the stern of the cruiser and disappeared from view. The cruiser made a full turn and, turning to the right, went after the destroyers leaving the Alexander III.

Perhaps someone will be able to see this as a lack of PP Morale. Levitsky, who left the "Alexander" alone in the face of a detachment of Japanese battleships. Perhaps someone will remember the actions N.O. von Essen, fearlessly leading his Novik to Japanese armored ships. But let's not forget that Nikolai Ottovich still “attacked” the Japanese flagship because of the whole port-arthur squadron, to which the Japanese fire was diverted, and here at Pearl, dare he do that, there was no such cover. Decision P.P. Levitsky, of course, was not heroic, but it can’t be considered cowardly in any way.

Why on the "Pearls" could not distinguish the "Alexander III" from the "Suvorov"? Flagship battleship ZP Rozhestvensky was on, already without pipes and masts, and was not seen from the cruiser. At the same time, "Alexander III" by that time had already been badly burned and was so smoked that the inscription on the stern of the armadillo became completely indistinguishable. Although P.P. Levitsky later admitted that someone from his team could still read it when Pearls, turning to the right, briefly approached the battleship.

At the departure, “Pearls” received damage: it was at this time that an impact occurred, the consequences of which PP Levitsky described in his testimony in detail. The enemy shell hit the middle pipe and severely damaged it, fragments flew into the stoker, and the gases from the gap blew the flame out of the fireboxes. But the majority of the fragments hit the place where the right-side 120-mm cannon was located, the commanders serving him were killed or wounded, and the deck was pierced in many places. In addition, the fragments hit the nasal bridge, wounding three sailors and killing warrant officer Tavassherna. There were also ignitions - the fire engulfed four 120-mm "cartridges" lying at the gun, the command compartment filled with coal and a boot on the whaleboot caught fire. Gunpowder in the cartridges began to explode, and one of the cartridges was wounded by midshipman Ratkov.

Here I would like to note a small discrepancy: V.V. Khromov, in his monograph on Pearl-class cruisers, indicates that it was not four 120-mm cartridges that caught fire, but only three, but the commander of Pearls, P.P. Levitsky indicates that there were four of them. Be that as it may, the "Pearl" left after the destroyers. P.P. Levitsky assumed that Z.P. Rozhdestvensky and the admiral himself did not switch to his cruiser only because of the proximity of the enemy battleships, but when he went beyond their fire and, around 16.00, he approached the destroyers to KNI 1, they still did not express such a desire.

But what was the Emerald doing at this time? To be continued…

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

278 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    29 June 2019 03: 51
    One gets the impression that the Zhemchug commander wandered aimlessly all day. And he fought his "war". At the same time, he himself managed to inflict damage on the cruiser.
    In general, minus one cruiser from the beginning of the battle.
    1. +7
      29 June 2019 08: 31
      It depends on what is considered “aimless wandering”?
      In a linear battle, the role of ships of the second rank is doubtful, as well as transports. On the other hand, their presence prevented the Japanese from a daily mine attack.
      Ideally, transport and auxiliary ships needed to be kept on the horizon by cover of cruisers of the first rank, but with the superiority of the Japanese, this is also a utopia.
      The conclusion is all confusing! I have only one claim to second-rate cruisers, they could lead and organize rescue operations, but what happened was ...
    2. 0
      29 June 2019 12: 13
      Quote: mmaxx
      One gets the impression that the Zhemchug commander wandered aimlessly all day.

      so the day is not over yet, it can only be said it has just begun :)))
  2. +5
    29 June 2019 04: 59
    Zinovy ​​Petrovich decided not to take any order, and to make a rebuilding in order of battle only at the last moment.

    Dear Andrew,
    Thanks for the continuation of the cycle +!
    This is not the topic, but next time I will certainly post a fragment from the report of Captain Jackson, dedicated to the Tsushima battle. Quite an interesting information leads the Englishman about the actions of the valiant "Pearls", but the "Emerald", alas, did not attract the attention of the enemy.

    Yes, in the article before last you quite rightly assumed that
    the bearing from Suvorov to the Japanese squadron was nevertheless closer to 45 degrees than to 8.
    There are a lot of broken copies of this bearing, so I decided to post here the information found in the combat report of the battleship Fuji battleship here the other day.
    The report says that the bearing on the enemy
    thirty degrees
    .
    1. +1
      29 June 2019 13: 21
      Greetings, dear Comrade!
      Quote: Comrade
      Quite an interesting information leads the Englishman about the actions of the valiant "Pearls", but the "Emerald", alas, did not attract the attention of the enemy.

      It would be very interesting. Thank you in advance!
      Quote: Comrade
      The report says that the bearing on the enemy
      thirty degrees

      Super, read with great pleasure!
      1. +1
        29 June 2019 13: 48
        Dear Andrew,
        Yes, I myself did not think that the “Pearl” could worthily show itself until I read about it in the report of the English attache who was watching the course of the battle from the cruiser Adzuma.
        About bearing on the squadron Rozhestvensky, then there is nothing special and nothing to read. The report is constructed as a concise description of what is happening with an indication of time. Only one stingy line, they say, the enemy (they always write about ours are not “Russians”, but “enemies”) thirty degrees in the western direction.
    2. 0
      30 June 2019 23: 23
      Quote: Comrade
      The report says that the bearing on the enemy

      Our Canadian friend once again reminded us all of the ancient Soviet anecdote. Of course, according to Petka and Vasil Ivanovich ..
      "
      - Petka! Devices!?
      - 80 devices !!!
      - Uh ... what is 80 ??
      - And what devices Vasil Ivanych?
      "

      Here is our Canadian friend .. 30 Bearing! And from whom, where and when? No .. don't say laughing
  3. -2
    29 June 2019 07: 51
    Lord! What is there to disassemble! The demoralized, overloaded squadron (a cut of the general state of the Republic of Ingushetia) went to Port Arthur and came to perish (no options), and not everyone is ready to die ... It was necessary to get draped, because it is beautiful to sink your ships in a hopeless battle, but the country was left without fleet. "Pearl" got away - well done!
    1. +8
      29 June 2019 08: 42
      Quote: mark1
      but came to die (without options)

      Why are most commentators so confident that they are right that they reject any common sense. Because they already know everything after the fact, but to put themselves in the place of what thread of admiral or captain of the ship at the moment when he needs to make a decision is not enough. Rozhdestvensky did he know before the battle that he had come to die? Or did the commanders of the Oslyabi from Borodino know that their ships would be inevitably destroyed? Answer at least these questions to understand the author's logic.
      You were not on the bridge of "Suvorov" when Japanese shells fell on it ...
      But the phrase
      It was necessary to drape

      interestingly illustrates your notions of loyalty to the motherland. Most likely to betray her or to drape in the most difficult moment peculiar to you. I would not go out with you in exploration ... Would they have betrayed or would have draped wink smile
      1. +3
        29 June 2019 11: 28
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Did Rozhestvensky know before the battle that he had come to die? Or did the commanders of the Oslyabi from Borodino know that their ships would be inevitably destroyed? Answer at least these questions,

        They knew they were not smarter than you and me, and perhaps many, much smarter.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        You were not on the bridge of "Suvorov" when Japanese shells fell on it ...

        Was not. But shells fell because the squadron purposefully went to death with fatalism doomed
        Quote: Rurikovich
        your notions of loyalty to the motherland.

        My notions of loyalty to the Motherland are simple and understandable - not to cause damage to the country through ill-considered actions, and if you are engaged in a fight, senseless and merciless - fight not completely disgrace the flag and the Motherland.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        I would not go out with you in exploration ... Would they have betrayed or would have draped

        And I wouldn’t go with you either, I’ve already seen them, with fiery speeches and fast legs.
        1. +3
          29 June 2019 12: 19
          But shells fell because the squadron purposefully went to death with fatalism doomed

          Hmm ....
          Mikasa in battle on July 28 "deliberately went to his death with the fatalism of the doomed." Yes, and under Tsushima "deliberately reduced the distance and thus went to his death with the fatalism of the doomed"

          If Rozhestvensky had passed, then they would have written not about the "fatalism of the doomed", but about "decisiveness", "firmness", "courage" - and other things like that.
          1. 0
            29 June 2019 12: 27
            Quote: AK64
            If Rozhdestvensky would have passed

            Only if I missed Togo. Want to replay?
            1. +2
              29 June 2019 12: 34
              Only if I missed Togo. Want to replay?

              Togo could have gone to Sungara (he didn’t split a couple already)
              Rozhestvensky could pass the strait at night (as he planned)
              Projectiles could have blown up regularly - in this case, the outcome of the battle would have been different. (breakthrough with losses)
              In the end, it could have been a tale, finally: the Russians in that war were godlessly unlucky.
              1. -1
                29 June 2019 12: 45
                Yes, you are just like a gambling player (do not play around?). And any bad luck has its explanation.
                By the way, which prevented Russia from not fighting with the Japanese (and the British) in the naval arms race and deploying thousands of 300-500 troops even before RIAW, this would be at least as expensive as building a giant fleet and naval base Port Arthur
                1. +2
                  29 June 2019 12: 48
                  Quote: mark1
                  it would be at least as expensive as building a giant fleet and naval base Port Arthur

                  Do you have any idea how much the laying of the second Transsib would cost us? I'll tell you easier - it's impossible
                  1. +1
                    29 June 2019 12: 53
                    And why do we need a second Transsib? We would have had one + Dobroflot steamers. With 1895 or even 1898 g time was a lot! This already during the NRW low throughput of Transsib affected.
                    1. 0
                      29 June 2019 13: 18
                      And why do we need a second Transsib?

                      To supply "300-500 thousand troops"

                      We would have had one

                      And there was not one

                      + Dobroflot steamers.

                      In the event of war, yup ...

                      With 1895 or even 1898 g time was a lot!

                      Now look carefully at the pace of construction of railways "since 1895, or even 1898" - the pace there is already ... much higher than in the USSR. Tells how they can be "strengthened and improved".

                      This already during the NRW low throughput of Transsib affected.

                      Well, yes, yes, because in peacetime, you can feed the soldiers with the Holy Spirit: five fish and two loaves of bread.
                      1. 0
                        29 June 2019 13: 45
                        Quote: AK64
                        To supply "300-500 thousand troops"

                        China is near - to buy cheaper (And how do you think your fleet and naval base contained)
                        Quote: AK64
                        And there was not one

                        With 1903 all over, before that the sections with 1904 are fully ready, and yes, Dobroflot is our friend.
                        Quote: AK64
                        In the event of war, yup ...

                        In the event of war, we are a friend of the local population, even if they don’t know it, purchases, purchases and contributions. With ammunition worse, a reserve is created for this. Well, in general, everything is just as simpler and cheaper with a fleet.
                        Your thing is that I confused the date of entry of Transsib (for some reason I decided that 1902g), but this is not important for early deployment.
                      2. +1
                        29 June 2019 15: 08
                        Quote: mark1
                        Well, in general, everything is just as simpler and cheaper with a fleet.

                        Exactly the opposite.
                      3. +1
                        29 June 2019 15: 11
                        China is near - to buy cheaper (And how do you think your fleet and naval base contained)

                        Oh, yes --- the Chinese are JOY and with songs they began to sell food for the HEMIMLION of Russian soldiers ...

                        No, well, what ...? They are suckers ...

                        Not to mention the fact that the transfer to PEACE of ONE THIRD part of the All Russian Imperial Army in some ass --- this .... as a minimum VERY strange action

                        With 1903 all over, before that the sections with 1904 are fully ready, and yes, Dobroflot is our friend.

                        (1) Are you not surprised that in wartime they could not build up the grouping in Manchuria to the level of "300-500 thousand" that you proposed so ingenious?
                        Dobroflot did not cope ... but in general he could not cope with anything: Dobroflot did not have a quarter of such opportunities.

                        In the event of war, we are a friend of the local population,

                        Oh yes ... But for some reason they did not know this, and for some reason they did not rush to help, but they also arranged for sabotage on the CER.

                        even if they do not know this, purchases, purchases and indemnity. With ammunition worse, a reserve is created for this. Well, in general, everything is just as simpler and cheaper with a fleet.

                        Even "easier and cheaper" to fantasize, lying on the couch.

                        Your thing is that I confused the date of entry of Transsib (for some reason I decided that 1902g), but this is not important for early deployment.


                        Oh yes - "confused there", "confused here" --- and then surprised eyes: what is this? yes it was necessary to throw hats!

                        "My point" is that you undertake to judge people very decisively, without knowing anything about the essence of the matter. You can't do this, you should be more careful

                        (By the way, the phrase about caps is completely incorrectly attributed to Kuropatkin --- Kuropatkin never said such a thing!)
                      4. 0
                        29 June 2019 16: 33
                        Quote: AK64
                        Oh, yes --- the Chinese are JOY and with songs they began to sell food for the HEMIMLION of Russian soldiers ...

                        No, well, what ...? They are suckers ...

                        They are not suckers. sell is always profitable.
                        Quote: AK64
                        Not to mention the fact that the transfer to PEACE of ONE THIRD part of the All Russian Imperial Army in some ass --- this .... as a minimum VERY strange action

                        Well, yes, and the whole modern fleet composition of the fleet to drive in the ass - this is a normal action.
                        Quote: AK64
                        Aren't you surprised that in wartime they could not build up the grouping in Manchuria to such an ingenious level of "300-500 thousand" you proposed?
                        Dobroflot did not cope ... but in general he could not cope with anything: Dobroflot did not have a quarter of such opportunities.

                        No, it is not surprising, for the simple reason - low railway traffic capacity. And Dobroflot during the war and not at all in the business. You, dear, waved the sword and lost the thread. It was about the fact that for the period from 1895 (1898) r (do not you say anything about dates?) Through 1903 it would be possible, slowly, measuredly and accurately to transfer parts of the SV, in the quantity indicated by me, in the Far East as Dobroflot, and later train transport. Yes, I made a mistake for a year, but in essence this does not change in view of the large length of time.
                        Let me remind you (of course you know, but I dare to remind you once again) that the RIF’s task in the Far East for the time of military operations was to prevent the transfer of Japanese troops to Korea until the deployment of its troops in the number of these most unfortunate 500 thousand. What happened during the transfer of 1904 -1905gg you know, but this could have been avoided
                      5. 0
                        29 June 2019 16: 36
                        start we fussing over earlier. The value of the fleet would decrease and Port-Arthur would simply not be needed. Although with boats of course more interesting, I understand you.
                      6. +1
                        29 June 2019 19: 49
                        They are not suckers. sell is always profitable.


                        Really?
                        But for some reason it seems to me that a rather obvious idea would have crept into their Chinese heads "and what kind of province are these Russian barbarians going to take away from us?"

                        and that is typical, the exact same idea would come to mind not only to them, but to ALL .... the members of the UN and PACE - just no one (well, except for you, you would think) that the concentration of such a group there - just to keep the peace.

                        I didn’t read further, forgive me: you just once again confirm my previously voiced observation that you know very little about the problem .... you know very little.

                        You know, at one time I ran into (just like in the networks, as it is with you now) with a bunch of people who could not understand why it was impossible in the summer of 1941 to simply withdraw troops into the field and dig along the supposed front line. So already tried to explain, and some sort of --- useless, s.
                        So, it is just as useless for you to explain what is obvious to many here.
                      7. 0
                        29 June 2019 20: 18
                        Again the foam with bubbles. It looks like you do not need to explain.
                        P.S. The troops in 41 could be withdrawn - say, to the teachings (we are perfectly practicing this by now) But ... yes, of course, it is useless ...
                      8. 0
                        30 June 2019 10: 24
                        Again the foam with bubbles. It looks like you do not need to explain.
                        P.S. The troops in 41 could be withdrawn - say, to the teachings (we are perfectly practicing this by now) But ... yes, of course, it is useless ...


                        Well, what am I saying?
                        Well, what can a reasonable person talk with you?
                        Is that about beer ...
                      9. -1
                        30 June 2019 22: 09
                        Quote: AK64
                        Well, what can a reasonable person talk with you?
                        Is that about beer ...

                        You really do not understand that your comments can hardly be called adequate? Your sayings are rude and offensive, but you persistently consider only yourself to be right.
                      10. +1
                        4 July 2019 08: 07
                        You are strange. Why do you think that I (and anyone else) should respect the creature who wrote this:
                        Again the foam with bubbles. It looks like you do not need to explain.


                        And by the way, why don’t you write to him
                        You really do not understand that your comments can hardly be called adequate? Your sayings are rude and offensive, but you persistently consider only yourself to be right.
                      11. +2
                        30 June 2019 01: 24
                        Quote: mark1
                        I confused the date of entry of Transsib (for some reason I decided that it was 1902g), but this is not important for early deployment.

                        Essentially. The golden crutch was beaten in the autumn (October-November) of 1903. But the Krugoboykalskaya highway was completed only during the war by the heroic efforts of the Chinese workers, and before that only the ferry operated. Than such (300 - 500 thousand) grouping to transfer and supply ... However, during the war they moved and supplied, but the pace was due to the throughput capacity of the railway.
                        It would be reasonable for Rozhestvensky’s squadron not to make a breakthrough, but to block the trade routes of Japan from remaining in Cam Ranh, hanging over the southern flank. And thus forcing Japan to a more profitable world for RI.
                        But this is a matter of political leadership, which demanded a breakthrough to Vladivostok to protect it ...
                        RI did not have one year to fully prepare for war. And this was known to both the Japanese, and the British, and so on, the enemies of Russia.
                      12. 0
                        30 June 2019 06: 37
                        Quote: bayard
                        Essentially.

                        No, it doesn't matter. If you had carefully read the entire "correspondence between Trotsky and Kautsky," that is, mine with the AK-64, you would have seen that this is not about the transfer of troops along the Trans-Siberian railway. but about the ADVANCED transfer of troops in PRINCIPLE, including by rail. road, in MIRNY long period from 1895 to 1904, as an inexpensive alternative to the excessive construction of the fleet and naval base Port Arthur. Read it carefully, I have provided no justification, why are you pulling out some parts of the context and patting them.
                      13. +1
                        30 June 2019 10: 29
                        No, it doesn't matter. If you had carefully read the entire "correspondence between Trotsky and Kautsky," that is, mine with the AK-64, you would have seen that this is not about the transfer of troops along the Trans-Siberian railway. but about the ADVANCED transfer of troops in PRINCIPLE, including by rail. road, in MIRNY long period from 1895 to 1904, as an inexpensive alternative to the excessive construction of the fleet and naval base Port Arthur. Read it carefully, I have provided no justification, why are you pulling out some parts of the context and patting them.


                        The case, I would say, clinical.
                        Quite rightly, AK64 compared this debater with citizens insisting that "in the summer of 1941, it was necessary to simply withdraw the troops to the field in advance and dig in"

                        (However, the "advance transfer of 300-500 thousand" is perhaps more abruptly "proposal")
                      14. 0
                        30 June 2019 12: 08
                        Quote: AK64
                        Quite rightly AK64 compared this debater with citizens

                        If you’ve entered into the fight with different accounts, at least keep track of which one you are at now, it turns out to be quite sloppy (I would say nasty).
                      15. 0
                        30 June 2019 12: 37
                        exactly - how he put me, huh ?!

                        I won't even ask who is the 2nd acc - it's clear with the "opponent"
                      16. +2
                        30 June 2019 12: 46
                        Here I am about the same. Russia has never considered a possible war with Japan as a war ONLY with Japan. Alexander-3 was also preparing his army and navy for the war with England. And in alliance with Germany. That temporary (!) Alliance with France was a tactical method for gaining the competencies of building a modern fleet — there was nowhere to acquire more such competencies, and Germany itself then took the first steps and experiences in the construction of warships and was not an assistant in this matter.
                        The Russian Army could easily have driven the British out of India, their main source of enrichment, and undermined their trade and finances. But England, in response, could use the forces of her fleet, together with Japan and even the United States, to seize our Far East. And there was absolutely nothing to resist this. It was on this balance of forces and threats that the Great Game was going on. To strengthen the Far East and link it with the center and west of the Empire, it was decided to build the Trans-Siberian Railway. There was no question of any expansion in the Far East before its construction ... In any case, while Alexander-3 was in power - a wise and far-sighted sovereign. Under him, the main military force in Europe was precisely the Russian Army, and the second in strength and importance was the army of the united Germany, fastened with the Army of the Republic of Ingushetia by the bonds of the "Holy Union". This was a guarantee of stability in Europe.
                        And the most unfortunate thing that the government of Ingushetia could do in that situation is to engage in expansion "on distant shores." Alexander-3 spoke directly about this and did everything to prevent this.
                        But after his murder, everything changed. The conductor of British interests and a relative of the Rothschilds, Count Witte, did everything to draw the Republic of Ingushetia into the "Far Eastern Adventure" (rent of Port Arthur and the Kwantung Peninsula, construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway, plans for the colonization of Manchuria and a protectorate over Korea ... And all this in a moment, when the Trans-Siberian Railway was just beginning its construction ... It's just a miracle that it was built before the end of 1903, otherwise the Republic of Ingushetia could have lost not only the Port Arthur naval base and the Kwantung fortified region, but also Primorye and the entire Sakhalin ... Yes, in principle, ALL your Far East.

                        And in the issue of building a fleet for the needs of the Far East, too, not everything is clear. If we proceed from the banal rule of intelligence-analytics that "If there are more than two accidents, then these are no longer accidents", then sabotage and malicious "slovenliness" becomes obvious, which led to the main result - by the end of 1903 the Pacific Fleet was not formed, selected the projects of the main ships (mainly battleships) were not optimal, the personnel did not engage in intensive training, the ammunition service was delivered ... "amazing", the naval base was not properly fortified and equipped, despite the clearly impending war, funds for the construction of ships were allocated with delays, proposals for ordering ships abroad were sabotaged, for the timely saturation of the Pacific Fleet with ships of the main classes ...
                        This is a CHANGE.
                        And when CHANGES of this scale, then talk about some of the details and options for the outcome ... the work is meaningless and ungrateful.
                      17. +1
                        30 June 2019 12: 19
                        Quote: bayard
                        Essentially.

                        Absolutely agree!
                      18. +1
                        1 July 2019 12: 02
                        Quote: bayard
                        RI did not have one year to fully prepare for war. And this was known to both the Japanese, and the British, and so on, the enemies of Russia.

                        I agree. Against 10 EBR, the Mikado fleet would hardly have decided to fight.
                      19. 0
                        1 July 2019 23: 59
                        Quote: Trapper7
                        I agree. Against 10 EBR, the Mikado fleet would hardly have decided to fight.

                        And who is to blame that this year was not enough? Back at the end of 1902, when the Italians, the future Nissin and Kasuga suggested it was already clear that we were not in time. Did anyone lift a finger? And the Garibaldians were presented to the Japanese. And they did not even try to speed up the construction of the Borodinians, only after the death of Makarov did they bustle .. And even they did not manage to overtake them. Too oslyabyu remember.
                      20. +1
                        4 July 2019 08: 13
                        And who is to blame that this year was not enough?

                        Christmas - who else? Rozhdestvensky and Nikolai --- these are two YOUR villains
                      21. +1
                        4 July 2019 08: 12
                        Against 10 EBR, the Mikado fleet would hardly have decided to fight.

                        They would not dare to fight even if there was a normally functioning railway.
                        The Japanese, in fact, had a very narrow time window of opportunity: an unfinished railway and the absence of a pair of EBRs in PA.
                    2. +6
                      29 June 2019 13: 18
                      For deployed troops need infrastructure, which was not in the Far East. Food that would have to be purchased abroad or transported across the country. Other supplies, from cartridges to shovels ...
                      In general, there is such a discipline - logistics, which looks askance at those who are fighting around the globe.
                      1. +1
                        29 June 2019 13: 39
                        For deployed troops need infrastructure, which was not in the Far East. Food that would have to be purchased abroad or transported across the country. Other supplies, from cartridges to shovels ...
                        In general, there is such a discipline - logistics, which looks askance at those who are fighting around the globe.


                        To what was said Uv. As a colleague, I would add, however, the obvious manifestations of "ill will": the construction of tunnels was delayed, the construction of fortifications of the PA fortress was stopped and frozen a couple of times, the construction of docks in PA was slowed down by all means.
                        At the same time, huge money was spent on the necessary (necessary in the absence of a repository on the Far East) ship trips to the Baltic, on the construction of the Far (to make it more convenient for the Japanese, apparently), where the docks were also built (for the Japanese).
                      2. +1
                        29 June 2019 13: 52
                        the construction of the fortifications of the PA fortress stopped and froze a couple of times, the construction of the docks in the PA was hampered by all means.
                        At the same time, huge money was spent on the necessary (necessary in the absence of a repository on the Far East) ship trips to the Baltic, on the construction of the Far (to make it more convenient for the Japanese, apparently), where the docks were also built (for the Japanese).


                        here I completely agree
                      3. +1
                        29 June 2019 13: 45
                        For deployed troops need infrastructure, which was not in the Far East. Food that would have to be purchased abroad or transported across the country.


                        or just station troops in Manchuria, for China plus 200 thousands of eaters are not very difficult

                        there is such a discipline - logistics


                        50 tons of cargo (food and local horses) is enough for the combat readiness of these "plus 000 thousand eaters"
                      4. +2
                        29 June 2019 14: 01
                        Shmelev, don't you think that through 100 we are all so smart
                      5. +1
                        29 June 2019 14: 20
                        I can't find a quote in any way, but Schlieffen said that in 100 years any officer-operator should be incomparably better than the best commander who lived on 100 years earlier)
                        But seriously, the necessary calculation of logistics for strengthening the Far Eastern grouping could be performed and, relatively speaking, Barclay 100 years before the RLW. There is no objective data on the complexity of such a calculation, given the amount of information available and the level of knowledge.
                      6. 0
                        30 June 2019 19: 26
                        Thank you for confirming my opinion.
                      7. 0
                        29 June 2019 16: 06
                        Shmelev, don't you think that through 100 we are all so smart

                        We put Shmelyov in exactly the same way in 100 years such smart: 200 thousand Russian soldiers in peacetime in Manchuria is a military alarm + mobilization in China (They will immediately understand who these troops are about), and a sharp exacerbation of relations with all of Europe ("WHY are these troops in China for you? were going to capture ??? ")
                        Not to mention the fact that 200 + 150 available = 350 --- this is the QUARTER of all Russian troops at that time.

                        Funny jokes ....
                      8. +1
                        29 June 2019 15: 07
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        or just station troops in Manchuria, for China plus 200 thousands of eaters are not very difficult

                        But the rest of the players can be extremely nervous about such a deployment of Russian troops and will have to fight not only with Japan.
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        (local food and horses

                        If everything is so simple ... Read Druzhinin how much it cost to maintain "local" horses
                      9. +1
                        29 June 2019 15: 26
                        But the rest of the players can be extremely nervous about such a deployment of Russian troops and will have to fight not only with Japan.


                        and with whom else? for Britain, the war with Russia meant the voluntary transfer of its German leadership in favor of the latter’s world hegemony. There were no other strong players with strong positions.

                        Read Druzhinin how much it cost to maintain "local" horses


                        if you do not steal, then feed in China is more than in Russia)
                      10. +1
                        29 June 2019 15: 39
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        and with whom else?

                        Credits for such a focus, as an attempt to eat China alone (and nothing else it does not look in the eyes of sworn friends) allies can.
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        feed in China more than in Russia

                        In other words, you do not know.
                      11. 0
                        29 June 2019 15: 58
                        In other words, you do not know.


                        Already rubbed this question on TopVare with items of expenditure and with the numbers in rubles. Already wrote: my wife's friend has her own stable, if I don’t know about the maintenance of the horse, I can ask the pros. Can you tell us how the horse maintenance in Manchuria differs from the horse maintenance, relatively speaking, in Voronezh or Yaroslavl?

                        Credits block for such a focus


                        tad can
                        -declare a moratorium on returns available, this time
                        - hint that the financial situation will not allow large-scale military operations in Europe (including, in the case of the German march to Paris), these are two

                        I will tactfully remind you that in the 18th century, for example, Britain paid Prussia money as a salary to protect Hanover, and Nikolashka was such an eccentric that the French gave him loans, although under the circumstances he could have demanded a "lend-lease" or something like that) - that's me of course now I'm exaggerating a little and a troll, but only a little
                      12. 0
                        29 June 2019 17: 44
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        Can you tell us how the horse maintenance in Manchuria differs from the horse maintenance, relatively speaking, in Voronezh or Yaroslavl?

                        It means so. For the maintenance of horses in those days, money was allocated. They were ordered by the regiment commander and treasurer. That is why in every regiment in Manchuria there was an equestrian hunting team, despite the fact that there was no sense from them. (mountainous terrain) I don’t remember exactly the amount, but it seems that one horse’s snout - 28 rubles only for fodder, despite the fact that it really cost from 8 to 15. Therefore, the commanders of the cavalry regiments were not very sickly raised in that war, and any attempt to somehow limit this celebration of life caused a wild howl. But many also did not think to buy anything, but they managed to get by with requisitions, which in turn led to exchanges of fire with, even in general loyal to the Russians, Chinese.
                        But ... we need warrior horses, which are stupid in Manchuria. (Breed is not the same). And in general, to buy at least some horses was not so easy. (see Druzhinin)
                        In general, not plowed field for abuse. And it will only lead to Chinese unrest, in comparison with which boxers will appear white and fluffy.
                        Again, the rest of the predators - the British, Americans and others - were very wary of our movements in Manchuria, and especially the refusal to withdraw troops from the CER. And what would have happened if there had been introduced two thousand two hundred more, then I do not undertake to predict their reaction.
                        And yet, the Americans are not deeply aware of the possible rise of the German fleet (which, by the way, is not at all obvious at that time), and they are one of the main world lenders.
                      13. +1
                        29 June 2019 19: 56
                        Again, the rest of the predators - the British, Americans and others - were very wary of our movements in Manchuria, and especially the refusal to withdraw troops from the CER.

                        That's right: the Americans, by the way, even the Japanese were (to some extent) supported in that war because they were sure that Russia would start to eat China right now. And in one person.
                        All actions of Russia in China were perceived only in this perspective. And here, not only enemies but also allies (France) would become worried
                      14. +2
                        29 June 2019 22: 01
                        Quote: AK64
                        Were sure that Russia will start to eat China right now. And in one person

                        I'm just about that.
                      15. +1
                        29 June 2019 20: 55
                        the maintenance of a horse depends on the breed, for example, when on one side of the Mongolian front dug grass from under the snow, gorged and satisfied is preparing for further work, then on the other side of the front the persheron will discard the hoof if it is not hidden at night

                        battle horses are needed for cuirassiers, and we will fight mainly Mongols, they need more, but the content of their "hooves and harness." sixty thousand Mongolians - enough for the eyes, and accumulating such a number in five years - from nothing to do

                        Russia took loans in France
                      16. +1
                        29 June 2019 21: 59
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        horse maintenance depends on breed

                        Yes and no. Of course there is a difference in the workhorse, and in the elite racehorse, but this is not about the Russian army regiments.
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        horse warriors are needed for cuirassiers

                        It is very popular to urgently re-read "50 years in the ranks" and "Quiet Don" both there and there. In general, there were exactly four cuirassier regiments at that time in the RIA (and those in the Life Guards), and there was a hell of a lot of combat horses.
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        Russia took loans in France

                        LTD!!! how much you still have to learn ...
                      17. +1
                        29 June 2019 22: 24
                        Urgently reread "50 years in the ranks"


                        I really like to read Count Ignatiev, right down to the methods of solving exam problems at the Academy

                        You did not understand me, dear colleague, I do not understand horses so much that I am not ready to pick up the shelves)
                        the bulk of the horses then was needed in order to:
                        1. Pull charging boxes
                        2. Pull guns with box front
                        3. Pull infantry supplies
                        4. To bring in cavalrymen (this is only in 4 place by quantity!)
                        5. Pull field kitchens
                        6. Service headquarters
                        harness 8 mongoloks instead of 6 in a three-inch bag, put no more than 10 shots in the front end, give the drivers in the ears to walk on the bit, etc. in general, everything except "to carry cavalrymen" is replaced by Mongols, I would choose Buryats, but it was difficult to take them in the required quantity

                        "to carry cavalrymen" - kaltbulters and other iterations of destrie would have outlived their days in the 18th century, had military thinking been less inert ... oh, what am I talking about, the Trans-Baikal Cossacks drove, in general, on the same Mongols as they could

                        LTD!!! how much you still have to learn ...


                        well, give me the structure of the debt) let's see
                      18. +1
                        29 June 2019 22: 40
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        well, give me the structure of the debt) let's see

                        Lehko :)))
                        The then receivers are deeply uninterested in whether the horse can carry the charging box, but I really want to know the height at the withers, the weight, the condition of the heads and hooves (and a lot of things that you and I do not even suspect)
                        Understand me correctly, you correctly listed the tasks of horses, but they have little to do with repair
                        As for loans, Witte tried to borrow money during the RIAV in the USA, because he did not find understanding in Bel France, but ....
                      19. +2
                        29 June 2019 22: 59
                        The then receivers deeply uninteresting


                        here it is even a little more difficult, since then they considered, for example, that a three-inch box with a front end and a driver should be dragged on top of the six, the stump is clear if it is six Percherons, but for the Russian army it wasn’t good at all because of the lack of these same Persherons and for their livelihoods. Mill, much cheaper and easier eight Mongolian and one more charging box

                        to repair


                        this inertness of thinking, starting with Ivan the Terrible, the Russian cavalry severely endured because of small and cheap horses, because they wanted expensive and large, not realizing that their time had passed

                        it's cool in the guard to leave them according to the Filis system, lepot on the parade, only the army had to be built from completely different realities

                        Shl. the donkey who dragged his armor and havchik for every legionary player - this is a true triumph, more important than Caesar
                      20. +1
                        29 June 2019 13: 52
                        And for the fleet, everything is wrong? + more coal, repair, docking and everything is not with us.
                      21. 0
                        30 June 2019 22: 14
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        For deployed troops need infrastructure, which was not in the Far East. Food that would have to be purchased abroad or transported across the country.

                        In this case, you absolutely precisely substantiated in your article the need to build a fleet base in Port Arthur! You probably need to be consistent. The strategically correct decision was very poorly provided by the then government of Ingushetia.
                    3. 0
                      29 June 2019 13: 21
                      Quote: mark1
                      And why do we need a second Transsib? We would have had one + Dobroflot steamers.

                      Wouldn't be enough from the word "in any way".
                2. -1
                  29 June 2019 12: 59
                  Yes, you are just like a gambling player (do not play around?). And any bad luck has its explanation.
                  By the way, which prevented Russia from not fighting with the Japanese (and the British) in the naval arms race and deploying thousands of 300-500 troops even before RIAW, this would be at least as expensive as building a giant fleet and naval base Port Arthur

                  It is after this that you understand that there is absolutely nothing to talk with you about.
                  After that, after what you said, you understand that you don’t know ANYTHING about that war - even at the rate of the Soviet textbook you don’t know. But the opinion you have this absolute ignorance does not interfere at all ...

                  You know what surprises me a little bit in people like you, like Andrei Shmely, well, there are a lot of you ... ??? Even not your ignorance, no - but an ass of stubbornness and a complete inability to ponder the facts. For you (many others), obviously everything is clear: you (many hours) Mari-bath still told everything in the first grade.

                  Here with these truths from the first class you (mn h) to gray hair and live.
                  1. 0
                    29 June 2019 13: 10
                    Ha ha ha! Well, laugh! Well, the foam with bubbles caught up! Well, then I will scum this foam - that’s how it is, because it’s not worth anything. But I have a question (I have lived up to a gray beard with a bald head, but I cannot understand) - what is a multitude?
                    1. 0
                      29 June 2019 13: 41
                      Another funny?
                      Kindergarten. honestly-the word: that they do not say - they laugh from everything ...
                  2. 0
                    29 June 2019 14: 05
                    “You don’t even know the course of a Soviet textbook,” but why did the Soviet textbook displease you? You also studied Soviet textbooks.
                    1. -3
                      29 June 2019 16: 11
                      “You don’t even know the course of a Soviet textbook,” but why did the Soviet textbook displease you?

                      Lies. What else?
                      Here's a geography textbook ... was great. And the story ....

                      You are also engaged in Soviet textbooks.

                      Naturally. But since then ... I have read a lot of "extracurricular literature". And therefore I look at events ... a little differently.
                      1. 0
                        29 June 2019 20: 26
                        And besides geography and history there were other textbooks.
                      2. -3
                        30 June 2019 10: 05
                        And besides geography and history there were other textbooks.

                        Good???? There were no good ones, except for geography: apparently they did not pay attention to geography ("but who needs it!") And did not manage to spoil it.

                        Those who are much older than me say that in THEIR TIME we say physics and mother-and-mathematics were much better. But in my time (70-e) it was already ... sucks.
                        The problem is that the author of the textbook received HUGE fees (circulation ..... something after tens of millions !!!) --- well, you know: as a result, it was not those who knew and could write, but those who knew NECESSARY PEOPLE AND CANNOT GO
                3. +1
                  30 June 2019 11: 35
                  Quote: mark1
                  And any bad luck has its explanation.

                  The concept of bad luck is very closely related to the concept of chance. Examples can result mass. The only question is that so-called accidents very much influence the course of history. Yes It is very problematic to explain the prohibitive accuracy of hitting the right places of the Bismarck by the Prince of Wales artillerymen, because at battle distances of several kilometers, at least to get into the ship. And how to explain the "accidental" hit in the right place at the right time of the torpedo on the rudders of the same "Bismarck" put on board? Also crazy accuracy of British pilots ???
                  Are the authors of the shot that aptly hit the foremast on the lower bridge of the Tsesarevich when the command staff of 1 TOE was on it? Oh my God, how unlucky the crews of the Invincible, Indefatigable and Queen Mary were - after all, they did not have heroes in the crew of the Lion who heroically prevented the explosion of the tower from their ship.
                  Bad luck for some may be luck for others, the only question is which side are you on.
                  Explain Hokoku-maru's bad luck, Sydney's bad luck, Nagumo's bad luck at Midway. When bad luck is combined from several factors, then it is no longer bad luck, but a manifestation of something more significant than just an accident. wink ,
                  1. +1
                    30 June 2019 14: 24
                    When bad luck is composed of several factors, it is no longer bad luck, but a manifestation of something more substantial than just an accident.


                    Yes sir!
                4. 0
                  1 July 2019 01: 09
                  I have been expressing about the same opinion since half a year ago. But limited to 200-250tys. people I remember that in my alternative opinion, 100-150 thousand should be located in the northern regions of Korea and on the peninsula (after all, it was rented), 50 thousand in the Vladivostok area, 50 thousand on Sakhalin. At the initial stage of the war, they would be more than enough to prevent the Japanese landing on the mainland. I remember that in real life east of Lake Baikal, Russia placed 83 thousand soldiers scattered over a vast territory. The senior sailor cited the same logistical reasons for denying this possibility. My opinion — even the 100 thou. Thousand gathered in groups in the districts, near Vladivostok and on the peninsula, would dramatically change the capabilities of the parties. Japan almost feasible to land on the mainland, without the risk of destruction, troop contingent, and as subsequent events showed, they did not have enough ships for the simultaneous landing of large forces. And Russia would increase the Far Eastern grouping from scratch.
                  Who knows.
        2. +2
          29 June 2019 20: 22
          This is called: "exchange of pleasantries"
      2. +9
        29 June 2019 11: 36
        Began moralizing. In fact, Togo on Mikas did not sit in the armored wheelhouse, but stood on the open bridge. And the shells with the beginning of the battle began to pour on him. What did not interfere and did not scare Togo.
        In general, war is alas, such a thing that they can kill. But the commander’s highest duty is to achieve victory, and not to blame for “difficult conditions”.
        If the author of the commentary has combat experience (as I hope from his sublime pathos), then he should understand this.
        Before the start of the battle, Admiral Togo achieved its own fleet skill, and skillfully managed it in battle. But Rozhdestvensky, as the head of the training artillery detachment at the time, what did he do to raise the level of Russian naval artillery? None of that. For example, the Russian admirals did not even think of making gunners of guns of the main caliber of armadillos super-landlords, but the Japanese have contrived. Not guessed to check the firing tables of shooting and aiming techniques.

        Well, about the “original plan of the Rozhestvensky” - all this is a fashionable fad. Crap, and now we look for excuses. He had no such plan, these are all modern fantasies. Rozhestvensky was "cool" in peacetime, and in battle he was confused. He did not testify to the investigating commission about his “original plan”. In the East, they say - "do not look for traces of a tiger where only a donkey passed"
        1. +2
          29 June 2019 11: 50
          "Rozhdestvensky was" cool "in peacetime, but in battle he was confused.
          About your "original plan" "////
          ----
          Rozhestvensky’s plan was:
          "somehow lucky, and, with God
          help, we will break through. "
          No luck. sad
          1. -3
            29 June 2019 12: 29
            Rozhestvensky’s plan was:
            "somehow lucky, and, with God
            help, we will break through. "
            Bad luck

            And look, you are an amateur from behind the fence to give a voice? Nice to spit on a monument? On the bones to dance again, you seem to like it?

            So Rozhestvensky was the initiator of the reinforcement bar on the Far East - but WHEN exactly?
            SPRING! In the spring, when even the 2 ADB + 1 under-the ADB would turn the tide.
            And in the summer, he could no longer refuse his WINTER words - because they constantly poked them in his face --- holding the dispatch at the same time. And in October it was pointless to go - and it was obvious: but Rozhestvensky DROPED into the sea.

            So what do you personally blame him for?

            Further, already in Madagascar, having learned about the fall of PA, Rozhdestvensky stepped on the throat of his pride and sent telegrams to the highest name in the sense that "it's too late - over cancel!" But he received a direct order to go.

            WHAT did he have to do - and what do you personally blame him for?

            And he also had a plan for a breakthrough. Yes, yes - it was. But - it was not lucky (and it could have been lucky - he could have gone to Sungaras in general). And the battle plan was just as much as it could be in its terms. But who could have known (except, of course, the Japanese - just they knew) that his shells would not explode?

            So what do you personally blame him for?
            What is your personal claim?
            Shame on you?
            1. +4
              29 June 2019 13: 44
              "So what do you personally accuse him of?" ////
              ----
              I personally do not blame him.
              Your emotional post is a shot at emptiness.
              Rozhestvensky could have no other plan but to try
              to break through for good luck through the forces of a stronger opponent
              in adverse geographical circumstances.
              The Japanese did not make mistakes and did not give him such a chance.
        2. +3
          29 June 2019 12: 11
          Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
          He did not testify to the investigating commission about his “original plan”.

          In fact, he gave it to himself, explaining the reasons why he lined up the squadron in 2 columns. Alas, the trouble for many people is that, having accepted a certain point of view, they are completely unable to change it - their brain simply does not allow deviations from the "truth", blocking everything that is contrary to personal mythology.
          Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
          But Rozhdestvensky, as the head of the training artillery detachment at the time, what did he do to raise the level of Russian naval artillery? None of that.

          A simple question is what do you know about Z.P. Rozhestvensky as head of the training squad?
          1. +3
            29 June 2019 12: 42
            In fact, he gave himself quite well, explaining the reasons for which he built a squadron in the 2 columns.


            I apologize, I did not find a clear explanation, but I am not a great Tsushima specialist, please share the description of the CRA plan from the materials of the commission inquired
            1. 0
              29 June 2019 12: 46
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              I apologize, did not find a clear explanation

              Indications of the Investigation Commission Z.P. Rozhdestvensky - everything is there. And I, by the way, quoted in one of the previous articles including this fragment
              1. +4
                29 June 2019 13: 17
                And, well, I just thought it was a posteriori invented nonsense, I apologize, I thought the CRA still said something more sensible
                1. +1
                  29 June 2019 13: 45
                  Fully join.
                2. 0
                  29 June 2019 13: 59
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  Ah, well, I just thought it was a posteriori invented nonsense.

                  Well, his key argument was the fact that from two columns to reorganize into a front or wake is easier than from a wake or front building :)))) This is a geometric fact, how it could be taken as nonsense - I do not know :))))
                  1. +2
                    29 June 2019 14: 16
                    Very simply, to rebuild, there had to be either a large supply of speed, or a reserve of time, including due to the advance of one column by another at the moment of the beginning of the maneuver. CRA had neither one nor the other. And did not take care of those.
                    1. -4
                      29 June 2019 16: 17
                      Let me write you honestly: "I did not understand what you wrote there - but I am totally against" --- this will be an honest reflection of your opinion.

                      In principle, everything is clear: Rozhestvensky was most afraid of the "crossing T" (and rightly so) - and therefore came up with this homework.
                      1. 0
                        29 June 2019 16: 21
                        draining counted
                      2. 0
                        29 June 2019 20: 00
                        draining counted

                        Well, thank God.
                        And then I started to worry about you - if you are not sick. But no, I see everything is fine, everything is still there.
                    2. 0
                      29 June 2019 16: 45
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      Very simply, to rebuild, there had to be either a large supply of speed, or a reserve of time, including due to the advance of one column by another at the moment of the beginning of the maneuver. CRA had neither one nor the other.

                      Actually, he had both :))) But he made a breakthrough in the calculations literally on the cable of the other.
                      Andrew, your passionate desire not to notice the obvious does not negate the simple fact that if Rozhestvensky had given 12 - 12,5 to rebuild nodes, which was quite accessible to the 1 group's EBR - he would have time to and Oslaby would not have to slow down. And if a rear admiral, or at least a sane commander, ruled on Oslyab, even then Rozhestvensky’s mistake would not have led to fatal results
                      1. +1
                        29 June 2019 16: 50
                        if Rozhdestvensky had given 12 - 12,5 to the rebuilding of nodes, which was quite accessible to the EBM of the 1 squad, he would have


                        well, it can be calculated differently (depending on the initial position, where there are disputes), but you are right that there will be enough 13,5 - 14,0 nodes
                        You are wrong that I do not notice this, since we started it almost two months ago and ... there is also no cable error 1-2, but more likely it will be

                        And if on Oslyab a rear admiral, or at least a sane commander, ruled


                        he would have rolled to the left and everyone following him would have thought that this was the "Filkin" plan and would have also rolled to the left)
                      2. -1
                        29 June 2019 18: 07
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        well, it can be calculated differently (depending on the initial position, where there are disputes), but you are right that there will be enough 13,5 - 14,0 nodes

                        For half an hour of movement enough 12 nodes :)
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        You are wrong that I do not notice this, since we started it almost two months ago and ... there is also no cable error 1-2, but more likely it will be

                        Most of the officers said that at the end of the rebuilding, when Suvorov lay down on NO23, the Eagle was on the traverse of Oslyab. So it was not enough 1-2 cable
                      3. +2
                        29 June 2019 20: 45
                        so it was not enough exactly 1-2 cable




                        no way, not enough, taking into account the stop of the left column)
                      4. 0
                        29 June 2019 21: 39
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        no way, not enough, taking into account the stop of the left column)

                        No need for schemes, Andrei, there are a million of them and they contradict each other :)))) And you just need to read the testimony of the officers of the Investigation Commission - most of them point to Oslaby on the Eagle's traverse - naturally before the start of braking.
                      5. +1
                        29 June 2019 22: 09
                        No need for schemes, Andrew, their million and they contradict each other :))))


                        I do not argue. but "before the start" of braking and "1-2 cables" is only a boundary value from a whole range of versions

                        hi
                      6. +1
                        29 June 2019 20: 35
                        Andrew, the fact of the matter is that the CRA lacked some 15-2 minutes.
                        My opinion is that in place of the CRA could be ANY
                      7. +3
                        30 June 2019 22: 34
                        Quote: vladcub
                        My opinion is that in place of the CRA could be ANY

                        Of course not! Anyone, even a very old man, and a slowed down admiral would at least react mirror to the enemy. I would start a turn to the right by building my ships parallel to the enemy column. This is the alphabet of linear combat. But he did not read the textbook of textbooks, and he is not even familiar with the elementary truths. He generally spat on the enemy and popped straight, putting his flagships under the enemy's concentrated fire.
          2. 0
            29 June 2019 12: 52
            the trouble of many people is that, having adopted a certain point of view, they are completely incapable of changing it - their brain simply does not allow deviations from the "truth", blocking everything that is contrary to personal mythology.

            Just in this case will have to change too much.
            Oddly enough, the ability for independent thinking is quite rare
            1. +2
              29 June 2019 22: 02
              In psychology, this is called rigidity of thinking.
              Some people mistakenly call this principle.
          3. +4
            29 June 2019 13: 17
            Well, you know perfectly well that all the “explanations” by Rozhdestvensky of his “plan” do not really explain anything.
            Everything has long been dealt with at Tsushima, with abundant citing of documents and evidence of supporters of the CRA at least vulnerable.

            I am glad that you did not try to refute the shortcomings I have cited in the preparation of Russian naval artillery. I did not study, as indeed you did, in the archives the activities of the CRA in the training detachment.
            But a number of facts is very indicative. The Barra-Stroude range finders began to be tested there from 1899 g, and before 1904 they didn’t learn how to use them. The method of shooting is not developed. But for showing off in front of two emperors and a kiss from the royal pen, Zalman was enlisted in the retinue.

            It is enough for me to know for my own judgment that the Russian ships fired worse than the Japanese. This is a statistical fact. I will not bore you with the proof of this fact, you yourself know everything perfectly well. And this is exactly the most important thing. The criterion of truth is only practice.
            1. +3
              29 June 2019 13: 37
              Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
              Well, you know perfectly well that all the “explanations” by Rozhdestvensky of his “plan” do not really explain anything.
              Everything has long been dealt with at Tsushima, with abundant citing of documents and evidence of supporters of the CRA at least vulnerable.

              I can not agree with any other. From what I read on Tsushima this opinion does not add up
              Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
              I am glad that you did not try to refute the shortcomings I have cited in the preparation of Russian naval artillery. I did not study, as indeed you did, in the archives the activities of the CRA in the training detachment.

              So I still venture to repeat the question - what do you know about the activities of Rozhestvensky at the beginning. training squad?
              Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
              But a number of facts is very indicative. The Barra-Stroude range finders began to be tested there from 1899 g, and before 1904 they didn’t learn how to use them. The method of shooting is not developed.

              Sorry, but I have to state - about the activity of Rozhestvensky, as well as about the artillery preparation of the RIF. You know practically nothing.
              We were able to use Barra and Stroud’s distance finders; we had all the necessary theoretical knowledge for this, but just one theory is not enough, constant practice is needed. But then it was not on 1 TOE, but on 2 TOE - it was very
              As for the "sighting techniques", by which you obviously mean the organization of artillery fire, it just existed and was diligently practiced in exercises by the same Rozhdestvensky.
              Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
              It is enough for me to know for my own judgment that the Russian ships fired worse than the Japanese. This is a statistical fact.

              It depends on where. In the outset of the Tsushima battle and approximately its first hour, the accuracy of the Russian artillerymen was extremely high, and it fell only when the central aiming systems were knocked out on the battleships of the Borodino type.
              In general ... sorry, but the "statistical fact" is completely unconvincing, because you interpret it very freely. That ours shot worse in Tsushima is a fact, but why this happened you do not want to understand. Although on the same Tsushima one can find descriptions of a Japanese officer marking very accurate fire from the "Eagle", However, when the fire was concentrated on it, after a while the shooting of the Russian EBR ceased to be accurate - in time it very much coincides with the removal of the FCS devices, as our officers reported ... And this is just one piece of the puzzle, and there are many of them.
              You make a conclusion without analysis - once they shot worse, it means they are worse prepared.
              1. +4
                29 June 2019 13: 59
                All clear. On the battleships of that time there was no centralized guidance system. One of the very first - fire director Sir Percy Scott on the battleship Neptune.
                In view of the extremely specific understanding of all the known and obvious facts, further discussion seems to me to be senseless.
                1. +3
                  29 June 2019 14: 18
                  Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                  All clear. On the battleships of that time there was no centralized guidance system. One of the very first - fire director Sir Percy Scott on the battleship Neptune.

                  Strongly mistaken :)))) And - literally in every word. To begin, open the O.Parks and read
                  In 1905, Mr. Scott revived the old device for central targeting guns. Thanks to the great progress that has taken place in electrical synchronous-tracking systems, he improved this device and submitted it to the Admiralty, which secretly patented it, transmitted it to itself and laid it down to 1911, when Jellicoe insisted that Neptune "Equipped with this device.

                  In other words, the central guidance existed long before Percy Scott. On our ships, it worked like this (a good description of the 1899 PWADA mod is given on Tsushima, and from there I copy
                  The rangefinder measured the distance and, using the rangefinder key, the data was automatically entered into the receiving devices of the conning tower, the central post, 8 main turret guns and batteries of 75mm guns. To control the correctness of data transmission, there was a feedback system with a control rangefinder dial, the readings of which were compared with those entered into the receiving devices. A set of instruments and a magnetic compass in the conning tower showed the senior artillery officer his own course and speed, direction and strength of the wind. He determined the course and speed of the target approximately "by eye". Having data on his own speed and course, wind direction and strength, deviation, target type, target angle and distance to it, having estimated the approximate speed and course of the target, the senior artillery officer, using firing tables, manually (on paper) made the necessary calculations and calculated the necessary corrections of the lead-in for HV and GN. I also chose the type of AU and the type of shells necessary to hit this target. After that, the senior artillery officer transmitted data for guidance to the AU, from which he intended to hit the target. For this purpose, in the conning tower and the central post there was a set of master indicators, which transmitted data through 47 cable veins to the receiving devices in the AU and 75mm batteries. The entire system was operated at a voltage of Uр = 23V through a 105 / 23V transformer (direct current?). In the case of centralized fire control, they transmitted data on the angles of vertical and horizontal guidance, the type of shells used. After receiving the necessary data, the gunners-operators of the selected AU installed the guns at the given angles (correcting the initial installation according to the VTSN) and loaded them with the selected type of ammunition. After performing this operation, the senior artillery officer who was in the conning tower at the moment when the inclinometer showed "0", set the handle of the firing indicator in the sector corresponding to the selected fire mode "Shot", "Attack" or "Short alarm", in accordance with which AU opened fire.
                  1. +2
                    29 June 2019 14: 20
                    Percy Scott is spoken of as the father of a modern centralized pickup, primarily because he used a calculating device for the angles of vertical and horizontal pickup, that is, what was previously done manually, was now considered automatically.
                  2. +4
                    29 June 2019 14: 47
                    In vain I rewrite the obvious things. Try to write all of the above in Tsushima)))
                    You just do terminological juggling. This is basically a non-objective occupation. You can invent any definitions.
                    If you take your absurd point of view that the "central guidance" is when some information about the guidance to the guns is transmitted from one place, and then the gunners manually install them, then a paradox generally arises. And what's the method of transmission? You can electric pointers, and you can voice. But "centrally." )))))
                    Then it existed, as it were, under Borodino, when the battery commander could command to direct all the guns of a battery company to one target — the extreme hut.
                    Centralized aiming is a single fire control. Start at least with the study of materiel with the Russian system of Heusler 1910 (although in fact it is not yet centralized management). Then go to the Eric SURS, and so on.
                    Did the 1905 of the Russians have a centralized aiming sight, the calculation of VIR and VIP, automatic transmission and input of data on the tip-off angles to the guns with the production of salvo firing fire control. Not. This is all that is centralized guidance according to experts.
                    1. +1
                      29 June 2019 15: 43
                      Let me intervene:

                      “Central targeting” is when from one place transmit certain data about aiming to guns, and then the gunners manually set them
                      - "Borodino" had the ability to constantly transmit data in the current time mode (the pointer is faster and more accurate than the voice), the artillery officer is presumed faster and more accurately than the usual gunner, here AiCh, I think, simplifies, but does not make mistakes

                      Of course, a full fire control system requires a mechanical counting device, here you are completely right.

                      I have a more interesting question: to what extent has the loss of the ability to permanently transmit data in the current-time mode from the conning tower become critical for the Russian DAD?
                    2. 0
                      29 June 2019 16: 50
                      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                      In vain I rewrite the obvious things. Try to write all of the above in Tsushima)))

                      There it has already been written - well, I knowingly wrote that I copy from there :))). Read the appropriate thread.
                      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                      If you take your absurd point of view that the "central guidance" is when some information about the guidance to the guns is transmitted from one place, and then the gunners manually install them, then a paradox generally arises. And what's the method of transmission? You can electric pointers, and you can voice. But "centrally." )))))

                      Can. By the way, the Japanese did.
                      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                      Centralized aiming is a single fire control. Begin at least with the study of the materiel with the Russian system of Heusler 1910

                      Unlike you, I have on my screw a technical description of this system. And I will say this to you - go do you study the materiel yourself. Then, for example, you learn that the manual installation of the sight is the NORMA for the OMS of the First World War, the method of combining the shooters was used everywhere, when the gunner set the scope in accordance with what he saw on the dial. And about the fact that the gunners, even in Jutland, were personally compensated for by the influence of the pitching, only those who did not read even the basics (the same Haze) do not know.
                      1. +1
                        29 June 2019 19: 02
                        I am very guilty before you. I always promise to argue with all-knowing people, but sometimes it is unforgivable to give up slack, and this only leads to a loss of time. You have struck me with your knowledge (especially about Georg Haase). Sorry dutifully.
                        Good luck to you in writing theses and distributing your discoveries with the local public.

                        For others.
                        The highly respected author does not understand the difference between the TsN and centralized sighting. He does not understand that the “combination of arrows” and the transfer of any data is not a criterion of QN. It is important - what is transmitted and what is combined

                        With centralized shooting, the fireman really observes the signs of falling, or the distance from the range finder to the guns is transmitted, but the horizontal and vertical guidance is carried out on each gun independently.
                        There only the approximate course angle of the target and the distance are transmitted centrally.
                        When observing a cover or hit, the fire manager may order a transition to defeat.
                        In addition to this, there could also be plutongue shooting or tower shooting.

                        In the case of CN, all parameters of the shot are developed centrally (full angles of horizontal and vertical pickup and shot time).
                        TsN is impossible at least without an automaton, VIR and own speeds and goals, as well as the converter of the distance to the elevation angle.
                        Data on the rear sight and sight were transferred to the guns in some of the first TsN systems in a simplified manner, in the form of arrows on the receiving instruments. Vertical and horizontal gunners had to combine them with the arrows of the sight. But the corners themselves were calculated centrally.

                        TsN systems were developed only for the First World War.
                        The first TsN in the Russian fleet is the Erickson system ordered in 1915.
                        Its defective prototype is the Heusler PUS system arr 1910.
                        By the way, the description of the 1910 Heisler system is on the Internet in a couple of minutes.

                        I can only advise participants to read about the development of CN in Friedman, Brooks, Rimsky-Korsakov, Platonov, Polutov (about the Japanese) as well as the memories of the Petropavlovsk Petrarch of Larchkov.
                        At Petropavlovsk, there were: "Heusler UAS devices, Erickson system central guidance and Pollan's self-propelled machine gun."
                        Erickson's system and called the "central firing" in the Russian fleet.

                        Whereupon I no longer interfere with the highly learned conversation.
                      2. +1
                        29 June 2019 21: 34
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        Whereupon I no longer interfere with the highly learned conversation.

                        Very good thanks:)))
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        I can only advise participants to read about the development of CN in Friedman, Brooks, Rimsky-Korsakov, Platonov, Polutov (about the Japanese) as well as the memories of the Petropavlovsk Petrarch of Larchkov.

                        Only one question - if you really read them, then why are there errors in your post 33? :)
                        A simple example:
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        The first TsN in the Russian fleet is the Erickson system ordered in 1915.

                        The Erickson system was ordered long before the start of the WWI, but its development was delayed, which was the reason for the purchase of Pollan instruments in England. Which, in fact, were installed on dreadnoughts like Sevastopol. You can read about this, for example, in the same Platonov in the book Encyclopedia of Soviet surface ships on page 472. But Erickson's system was never installed - only some of its components, which is reflected in the official documents describing the OMS of the battleships.
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        The highly respected author does not understand the difference between the TsN and centralized sighting.

                        Can you name the source of this touching term "centralized sighting"? :)))
                        Okay, I will not quibble. Just to remind you of what started our argument. You wrote
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        But a number of facts is very indicative. The Barra-Stroude range finders began to be tested there from 1899 g, and before 1904 they didn’t learn how to use them. The method of shooting is not developed.

                        We open Platonov's "Domestic artillery fire control devices". And what do we read there?

                        That is, they were able, it turns out, to use rangefinders? And was there still a centralized control of shooting on our ADBs?
                        It was always fun to watch the logical throwings of my opponents. You said that we did not know how to shoot. When I explained that they actually knew how to shoot and explained how you said that this is nonsense, and that the centralized tip-off in the world appeared at the time before WWI. And you didn’t even have a question - why then rebuke the RIF in RIAW in its absence? :)))
                        ZY And how they shot in the RIF - even from such ... sources as Novikov Priboy and Kostenko - and that is described. And more or less correct
                  3. 0
                    29 June 2019 20: 44
                    From the point of view of today, the "Stone Age", but for the beginning of the 20th century it was progress
              2. +3
                29 June 2019 14: 07
                I can not refrain from the replica. To know about the method of zeroing by the signs of falling and to be able to do it in battle are completely different things. The Japanese knew better. They did not even interfere with their bursts during the shelling by a large number of Oslyab ships.
                Yes, the Russians certainly had hits. Which have not knocked out a single ship of the Japanese. Even at the beginning. The worst training of both Russian admirals and gunners you cannot deny. Well, let alone “shooting at a range finder” of Russians is generally a story that is embarrassing to recall. By the way, the Japanese did not win because of the range finders.
                1. +1
                  29 June 2019 14: 33
                  Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                  The Japanese knew better. They did not even interfere with their bursts during the shelling by a large number of Oslyab ships.

                  Apparently, therefore, according to Suvorov, the Japanese were able to target only 10 minutes after the start of the battle, while Mikas received at least 10 Russian shells for the first 7 mines of fire
                  Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                  Yes, the Russians certainly had hits. Which have not knocked out a single ship of the Japanese. Even at the beginning.

                  Taking into account the fact that only one managed to knock out a weapon from 4 of Russian shells that had fallen into Mikasa's casemates, and that was because there was a direct hit to the weapon itself - why be surprised?
                  1. +1
                    29 June 2019 15: 19
                    But someone Semenov, who was just a former Suvorov, wrote that the Japanese had returned fire later than the Russians in 13: Russian 53, and by 13: 57 there had already been several hits in Suvorov. Where is the 10 minute?
                    1. +2
                      29 June 2019 16: 57
                      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                      But someone Semenov, who was just a former Suvorov, wrote that the Japanese had returned fire later than the Russians in 13: Russian 53, and by 13: 57 there had already been several hits in Suvorov. Where is the 10 minute?

                      But one Rozhestvensky and a number of officers disagree with Semyonov’s opinion. By the way, in what place of his book did he express it? :) Something is not remembered at once.
              3. +2
                29 June 2019 14: 17
                Andrew, the question on filling!
                And the fact that the number of range finders, on one unit of ships of the first rank, we had much less than the Japanese, whose fault?
                The short-sighted decision to increase the moisture content of the acid in the shells of naval artillery?
                Why were our OMS devices displayed in the first minutes of the battle by almost a third of our ADBs?
                I respect your position of whitening .... but I do not agree!
                Yours!
                1. 0
                  29 June 2019 14: 23
                  Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                  And the fact that the number of range finders, on one unit of ships of the first rank, we had much less than the Japanese, whose fault?

                  Those who authorized the allocation of funds for their purchase
                  Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                  The short-sighted decision to increase the moisture content of the acid in the shells of naval artillery?

                  It was not, it is a fantasy from Novikov-Surf. Particularly amusing because the Borodino-type EBR, mainly explosive shells were used, which were charged not with pyroxylin, but with smokeless powder :))))
                  Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                  Why were our OMS devices displayed in the first minutes of the battle by almost a third of our ADBs?

                  Because of the very strong impact of Japanese high-explosive shells - as a rule they were broken by splinters
          4. +2
            29 June 2019 21: 59
            With all due respect to your work, the first four lines you wrote about yourself.
            Rozhestvensky proved himself as not a bad naval commander, but not as a combat commander.
            In preparation for the battle, he did not do many basic things.
            Therefore, as I have already noted, the number of comments on your articles rolls over.
            1. -2
              30 June 2019 10: 51
              In preparation for the battle, he did not do many basic things.

              What exactly?
        3. +1
          29 June 2019 13: 23
          Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
          In fact, Togo on Mikas did not sit in the armored wheelhouse, but stood on the open bridge.

          And here is what a colleague called "luck". Both Togo and Vitgeft are standing on the bridge in the ZhM, but one is in tatters, and the other is at least henna. ZPR in the wheelhouse - seriously wounded. Togo on the bridge (wrapped in the bay of the Manila cable), many of his staff are wounded, the whole bay is in fragments, but Heihachiro-sama at least henna.
          Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
          But Rozhdestvensky, as the head of the training artillery detachment at the time, what did he do to raise the level of Russian naval artillery? None of that.

          If you do not know something, this does not mean that it does not exist.
          1. 0
            29 June 2019 13: 34
            How you deftly jumped off and replaced the subject. The cowardly Togo came out of the wheelhouse to the bridge and turned into the bay of the cable - did they turn it around? But then the desperately brave Zyama did not go to a completely safe open bridge, decided to stay in the wheelhouse - the most dangerous place on the ship.
            By the way on the ship Mikas were? But I've visited a couple of times.
            1. +2
              29 June 2019 14: 00
              Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
              How you deftly jumped off and replaced the object. The go-right Togo came out of the wheelhouse onto the bridge and turned into the cable bay - did they turn it around? But then the desperately brave Zyama did not go to a completely safe open bridge, decided to stay in the wheelhouse - the most dangerous place on the ship.


              Excuse me, are you generally normal? Where did I write this?
              I do not know how much you need to be alternatively gifted in order to interpret my words in this way ...
              1. +1
                29 June 2019 14: 16
                I am addressing your question to you. You snatched part of my cue. And now pretend to be offended innocence and rude.
                I remind you. The point was that it was difficult for the poor Zame to command under a hail of shells. To this I replied that these shells (and at the beginning of the battle at Mikasu there were quite a few Russian hits) somehow did not prevent command from the open bridge. That's all.
                1. +4
                  29 June 2019 14: 23
                  And I wrote:
                  And here is what a colleague called "luck"

                  And he explained why ... but they did not interfere, because not a single projectile tore it apart, and not a single fragment penetrated the skull. But with Vitgeft and Rozhestvensky this just happened.
                  And how in this one can see rudeness ... I honestly do not understand.
          2. 0
            29 June 2019 13: 37
            I see the result. Smart enough. And you, even after more than a hundred years, lack the courage to admit that it was natural. Such a defeat is the result of the worthlessness of the leaders and Uriah-patriotism.
            1. +5
              29 June 2019 13: 48
              Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
              I see the result. Smart enough. And you, even after more than a hundred years, lack the courage to admit that it was natural.

              Of course it was. The only question is what kind of pattern. For me, for example, the pattern of defeat at sea in the NSR is based on such facts as criminal savings on the needs of the fleet (armed reserve), Morved’s inability to find 70 thousand rubles (despite the fact that an EDB cost 12-14 million) for testing lightweight projectiles , the inability to produce pyroxylin in sufficient quantity, which is why 305-mm high-explosive shells of 2THE battleships were filled with smokeless powder, etc.
              And for you ... Well, you know it better than me :)
              1. +1
                29 June 2019 14: 18
                But the principled Zyam as an adjutant of the emperor, why did he not open his eyes to such sabotage? So would the truth-uterus, and issued as a professional, versed in the facts and their causes.
                1. -1
                  29 June 2019 14: 36
                  Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                  But the principled Zyam as an adjutant of the emperor, why did he not open his eyes to such sabotage?

                  What to disclose, if there were no tests? :)))) And then - we omit, opened. What's next? All ships are already equipped with these shells, there is nowhere to get new ones.
                  1. +2
                    29 June 2019 15: 23
                    No, really. What is an if? Opened or not? If the first is a professional and even a hero. Even if the emperor or the minister of war would refuse to change anything.
                    1. 0
                      29 June 2019 17: 10
                      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                      No, really. What is an if? Opened or not?

                      Revealed what? That there were no tests of shells is a well-known fact, with which they repeatedly turned to the head of the Naval Department and for which Avelan gave a visa to "refuse". What do you want in this case from the ZPR?
                      The fleet was sure that the shells were good. It was all over the place. And to crawl across the fatherland to hell, and a subordination was not welcome to go to the tsar to bypass the whole administration - see the story of the young grand prince. This could be done only if it is EXACTLY known to be a catastrophe. And how could this be known without testing?
                      Now the "attitude" is not at hand, I will accomplish your goal later, what part Rozhdestvensky took in the slug epic
              2. +1
                29 June 2019 22: 10
                Japanese shells, or rather English shells reloaded by the mythical "shimoza", were not used in the battle in the Yellow Sea. "Tsarevich" was put out of action by high-explosive shells stuffed with black powder ..
                1. -2
                  30 June 2019 11: 00
                  Japanese shells, or rather English shells reloaded by the mythical "shimoza", were not used in the battle in the Yellow Sea. "Tsarevich" was put out of action by high-explosive shells stuffed with black powder ..

                  It is not true
          3. 0
            30 June 2019 10: 58
            And Togo and Vitgeft stand on the bridge in the LM


            Detail: Witgeft did not stand, Witgeft sat on the bridge, in the chair.

            I already mentioned that Vitgeft was sick. It is usually said that he had dysentery (in fact, what exactly he had was not clear, but what symptoms are understandable, and that is why Vitgeft couldn’t go into the conning tower)

            It is this rather difficult state of his that led him to the second part of the battle that was not enough. volley: Witgeft was corny exhausted - and needed rest: he had apathy, and he hoped that he could run away and fight off on parallel courses.
        4. 0
          1 July 2019 14: 42
          Before the start of the battle, Admiral Togo achieved its own fleet skill, and skillfully managed it in battle.

          This is a fact, and he does honor to the Japanese fleet.
          For example, the Russian admirals did not even think of making gunners of guns of the main caliber of armadillos super-landlords, but the Japanese have contrived.

          It’s not true that such proposals were, as there were proposals for checking the work of artillery and shells, but one preoccupied with "big spending" refused to finance the whole thing.
      3. +1
        29 June 2019 12: 06
        Good morning, dear colleagues!

        "The commander of the battleship Alexander III, Captain 1st Rank Bukhvostov, answered the enthusiastic audience:
        - You look and think how everything is well arranged. And I will tell you that all is not well here. You wish us victory. Needless to say, we wish it. But there will be no victory! .. I am afraid that we will lose half of the squadron on the way, and if this does not happen, the Japanese will smash us: they have a better fleet, and they are real sailors. For one thing I vouch: we will all die, but we will not give up ...
        Bukhvostov finished. In the mess room it became as quiet as in the morgue.
        The well-dressed audience was stunned. Not only was the speech a mournful one, but what was most depressing to those present was that one of the best naval commanders, a candidate for admiral, pronounced such a memorial to the Russian fleet "- this time.

        Who personally went into reconnaissance (I did not go), therefore I will write: at least, morally I was ready not to return from the mission, to fail! These are two.

        Personally, I am not ashamed to say that I would have draped in such a situation. I am brave, IMHO, but not clinical. A constructive discussion of my cowardice is expected only from those who failed according to 2. He is the other impotent cons of the clav-clak couch. These are three.

        Have a nice day, everyone hi
        1. 0
          29 June 2019 13: 27
          This is a personal opinion of Bukhvostov, and in that situation. (Maybe a person felt sad after a glass of Shustovsky), and most of the officers looked at the breakthrough rather optimistically. Say, let's go through, albeit with the loss of some ships.
          1. 0
            29 June 2019 13: 37
            Many times I tried to put myself in the place of 2 TOE officers - without post-knowledge only. Analyzed what they might know about Shantung and Ulsan. In Vladivostok, the calculations did not lead me, well, except for individual vessels. Having lost part of the courts, I interned each time (well, when I simply did not begin to drape at the moment of understanding the inevitability of the meeting of the main forces, then almost everything was preserved). I did not have enough for a breakthrough: luck in the form of frequent rupture of the barrels of the Japanese and a little more of the DLR, so that the situation was closer to that of Shantung. Since then, IMHO, that the optimism of the CRA and a number of 2 TOE officers has been clearly excessive.
            1. +1
              29 June 2019 13: 57
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              Analyzed what they might know about Shantung and Ulsan.

              But this is just the problem. I myself, like many others, quite recently thought that the Japanese in the LMM were crushed into rubbish and only the not timely death of Vitgeft led to defeat. It is likely that the Russian officers thought the same.
              For example, the same Lutonin, was sure that the VET fired better and the shells were good enough ...
              1. 0
                29 June 2019 14: 13
                But this is just the problem.


                I agree. That's why I analyzed it many times.
                You can twist it this way: starting with the fact that the Varyag disabled the Asam and sank another cruiser, and so on - that not a single case of serious damage to the capital Japanese has been reliably recorded, except for a mine explosion.
                The bottom line was about the following: we don’t have any reliable data on damages to the Japanese, we only know that there were occasional significant explosions and individual fires that did not, however, obviously, significantly reduce combat capability for at least half an hour.
                On the other hand, it was reliably known that in addition to the old "Rurik" (and that can be attributed to the accident of the enemy Lakichot), all Russian ships showed high resistance to Japanese fire, they did not lose speed and control (the exception of "Tsesarevich" can be attributed to accident of an enemy Lakichot), fire, at least with the main caliber, was fired confidently and seemed to be quite effective.
                The breakthrough of 2 TOE from the picture of the analyzed battles did not appear in any way, however, moderate losses and internment of damaged ships as a result of the battle could well have been stretched in the calculations, especially if there was an equality of forces. Alas, there was no equality, since the same BBOs were significantly inferior to the BrKr of the Japanese, and therefore always wrote that in place of the ZPR: "either give me another EBR or I don't fit into the topic at all."
                1. +2
                  29 June 2019 14: 18
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  Breakthrough 2 TOE from the picture of the analyzed fights did not appear at all

                  Come on!
                  1. +1
                    29 June 2019 14: 35
                    I have no way. Let me explain why: 6 ADB vs 4 ADB and 2 BrKr (two more were almost not accepted) = no breakthrough.
                    In a very simplified way, I will try to express the idea from the point of view of that time (then all sorts of "combat coefficients" were counted, etc.):
                    let Japanese BRKR = 1,0, Fuji = 1,25, Mikasa, etc. = 1,6 (conditional coefficient), then with Japanese Shantung = 8,05, and then 10,05
                    Let Vitgefta = 2 x 1,5 + 4 x 1,25 = 8,0 = no breakthrough.

                    Let y ZPR 4 x 1,5 + 1,25 + 1,0 + 0,75 + 5 x 0,5 = 11,5
                    A Togo + Kamimura = 14,05
                    Attention question: where will be a breakthrough?

                    The coefficients are "conditionally delusional", but I think they reflect the ideas of that time completely.
                    1. +1
                      29 June 2019 22: 10
                      Colleague, I thought a lot about your coefficients ... you are missing the hypothetical damage to the Japanese ships, which seemed real to the Russian officers. That is, they were confident that a little more, and the Japanese would retreat (or drown)
                      1. +1
                        29 June 2019 22: 49
                        I agree, but I’m a fan of building all sorts of proportions, and they, as they are not operational, show that 2 TOE had less chance of a breakthrough than 1 TOE
                      2. +1
                        29 June 2019 23: 07
                        I'm afraid chrono-aborigines disagree with you
                      3. +1
                        29 June 2019 23: 12
                        ready to consider all their arguments
                      4. -1
                        30 June 2019 11: 07
                        Colleague, I thought a lot about your coefficients ... you are missing the hypothetical damage to the Japanese ships, which seemed real to the Russian officers. That is, they were confident that a little more, and the Japanese would retreat (or drown)


                        Why "hypothetical"? Mikasa already had nothing to shoot with: there were no guns left. And the Russians did not lose a single cannon. That is, by the time the Tsarevich circulated, the Japanese had 12 12 "guns out of 16 at the beginning of the battle, while the Russians had 15 12" + 8 10 XNUMX "guns, and the same number remained.
                        That is, from the point of view of the Russians, the balance has shifted in their favor.

                        That's why I say that turn Witgeft on the 8 points to the right (consecutively) --- and the outcome of the battle could have been different.
                    2. 0
                      30 June 2019 22: 56
                      Quote: Andrei Shmelev
                      The coefficients are "conditionally delusional", but I think they reflect the ideas of that time completely.

                      Probably you should have read the articles of the Treasure :)
                      1. +1
                        1 July 2019 10: 25
                        but do not blindly take him as a basis - otherwise the 6 inches are the main force of the armadillo)

                        we must take into account the fact that Klado, and he was right here, counted all the gunboats, etc. "maru", having received the superiority of the Japanese in 1,8, and I took only the main forces,
                        if you count chin-yen and syna, something like this will turn out
                2. +3
                  29 June 2019 22: 20
                  The BBO is armed with 10 "guns. The mass of the projectile is 225 kg.
                  Unlike the first and second squadrons, on the ships of Nebogatov shells are not defective.
                  Nor should we write off the "Nikolai" with 12 "and 9" guns.
                  On Kamimura ships the main caliber is 8 ", shells are" colonial ", weighing 95 kg.
                  Two cruisers had harvey very poor quality.
                  Tangible advantage in medium artillery.
                  But who prevented to make two of the three units.
                  Add "Navarin" and "Nakhimov" to Nebogatov's squad.
                  1. 0
                    30 June 2019 11: 11
                    But who prevented to make two of the three units.
                    Add "Navarin" and "Nakhimov" to Nebogatov's squad.

                    Well, I would not have participated in the battle yet and ethic craft, and only
                  2. +1
                    30 June 2019 22: 59
                    Quote: ignoto
                    Unlike the first and second squadrons, on the ships of Nebogatov shells are not defective.

                    Only 6 "shells of the 2nd squadron can be classified as defective, and even then with a stretch, as far as I remember there were holes with 20-30% of unexploded shells .. All large calibers from 8" to 12 "burst regularly.
                3. 0
                  29 June 2019 22: 22
                  Of course. "Asama" received no damage. Therefore, it disappeared from the combat schedule for three months. So, clean the feathers.
                  1. 0
                    30 June 2019 11: 35
                    Of course. "Asama" received no damage. Therefore, it disappeared from the combat schedule for three months. So, clean the feathers.


                    Where does the information about Asam's 3-month "disappearance" come from ???
                    ("Murzilki" is not accepted)
              2. 0
                1 July 2019 15: 12
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                I myself, like many others, quite recently thought that the Japanese in the LMM were crushed into trash

                In general, all considered Mikasa dead
                1. +1
                  1 July 2019 17: 59
                  Is it?
                  you got it wrong with "Yasima".
                  1. 0
                    2 July 2019 08: 17
                    Quote: Senior Sailor
                    Is it?
                    you got it wrong with "Yasima".

                    I read about Mikas at Novikov-Priboy. This moment was postponed in memory, here is a quote (specifically looked for)
                    "From behind the clouds the sun peeped out for several minutes, illuminating the sea. The enemy ships were approaching. Our officers were trying to identify their types. Someone, pointing to the leader, exclaimed in surprise:
                    - See: battleship "Mikasa"!
                    - Can not be. Mikasa has long been considered dead.
                    “Then he is resurrected if he is here.”
                    The leader was indeed "Mikasa" flying the flag of Admiral Togo. It was followed by the battleships Sikishima, Fuji, Asahi and the armored cruisers Kassuga and Nissin. "

                    https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=20979&p=90
                    I understand that N-P is not the most authoritative author), but since he was a certain kind of participant in the events, I will not completely "nullify" the events he described.
    2. +3
      29 June 2019 10: 03
      Skedaddle? And for what? In order to still die stupidly, like "Pearl" in Penang? Hmmm, now the concept of "debt" and "honor" has been devoured by many mortgages. Thank God, not everyone.
      1. +2
        29 June 2019 11: 38
        Quote: Sea Cat
        In order to still die stupidly, like "Pearl" in Penang?

        Do you think it is much more creative to lower the flag and hand over the ship?
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Hmmm, now the concept of "debt" and "honor" has been devoured by many mortgages. Thank God, not everyone.

        I understand you do not have a mortgage. Thank God.
        "Duty" and "Honor" - how was the squadron guided by these concepts when lowering the flags?
        1. +1
          29 June 2019 11: 59
          Unleash a flag or drape from the battlefield, horseradish radish is not sweeter. But in one thing you are absolutely right: the moral spirit in the squadron was to hell, rather, it simply did not exist.

          And, yes, we do not have mortgages - a pension. smile
          1. +1
            29 June 2019 12: 04
            Well, "to skimp" - I introduced the term to enhance the effect, one can say in another way, for example, "dodge." "Drapali" and "evaded" in all fleets - there is nothing shameful in this - this is tactics.
            Mortgage - evil. smile
            1. +2
              29 June 2019 12: 09
              Yes, but here Iosif Vissarionovich put him up to the wall for such tactics. But Nikolai lacked "bloodthirstiness". wink
              1. +2
                29 June 2019 12: 13
                Quote: Sea Cat
                Yes, but we have Joseph Vissarionovich for similar tactics to the wall set

                Iosif Vissarionovich put the wall against the wall not for tactics but for the result. Tsushima and RIAV is exactly the case when it would be necessary. Well, Nikolay ... it is a sin to laugh at the poor.
              2. -5
                29 June 2019 12: 44
                for a similar tactic to the wall set ..

                "put" - in battle. (Order 227) to prevent panic and set the right example. A post-factum ... And what is the point of post-factum "to put up the wall"?

                But Nikolai lacked "bloodthirstiness"

                And what is the point of killing someone "after a fight"? It is enough to dismiss from all posts and positions nafig "without rights": from the point of view of the case, this is the same deceased, only while alive

                Moreover, it was also practiced to "dismiss with a promotion": when a position is kind of honorable, but only "without influence" (Alekseev as an example)

                Nikolay was just a civilized European, and he didn’t see any reason to pour blood for the sake of blood.
                1. +4
                  29 June 2019 12: 46
                  Nikolay was just a civilized European, and he didn’t see any reason to pour blood for the sake of blood.


                  Laugh, thank you. laughing
                  1. -4
                    29 June 2019 13: 22
                    What are you laughing ...

                    Can you show a finger? Come on, too, laugh loudly?
                    1. +3
                      29 June 2019 13: 25
                      I do not think that there is anything special in your finger. But if you have nothing else to do, then have fun as you can. Only wash your hands first. fellow
                  2. +6
                    29 June 2019 13: 28
                    Yeah, and why is it in the people for Nicholas II stuck flooded - "bloody"?
                    1. -3
                      29 June 2019 13: 44
                      Yeah, and why is it in the people for Nicholas II stuck flooded - "bloody"?

                      "Among the people" ???? "Fixed" ????

                      Are you serious?

                      This ridiculous terminology was invented with the temporary. Well, then, of course, "uglubili"
                      And what is interesting is that I don’t believe that Kote Pan Kokhanka (Vladislav) has a high opinion of the temporal ones - but this is where the temporary mud is thrown at the Empire - this is what Kote Pan Kokhanka (Vladislav) takes with some pleasure.
                    2. 0
                      29 June 2019 13: 51
                      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                      Yeah, and why is it in the people for Nicholas II stuck flooded - "bloody"?

                      Because of the regrettable event, when panic and crush began at his coronation because of badly organized folk festivals, and many people died. In general, there were badly responsible persons, starting from the police chief and below
                      1. +4
                        29 June 2019 14: 06
                        Andrew, at one time I had to study documents and archives on the events on the Khodynka field and 9 January. So according to the reports of the lower ranks and the special apparatus, Nikolai received his nickname just after the events of January 9!
                        Events on Khodynka had a public outcry, the name “bloody” flashed in the foreign press. The rest of the people took it as a tragedy, but without consequences.
                        The shooting of January 9 - directly attributed to the order of Nicholas! How true this is the question! In fact, the events of January 9 are also a jamb of the capital’s police department, like on Khodynka - a jamb of Moscow!
                        The interim government banal unwound Nicholas's mistakes to hysteria! But the wave of popular discontent, in particular, the Ural Mining and Industry Plant, was formed earlier by the events of 1905-1907! From 1907, illegal leaflets and caricatures of the king begin to appear in the Urals, where his nickname “bloody” or “Nikolai bloody” was prescribed! So the events have an earlier structure of public opinion formation than Kerensky and his gop company ...
                        Yours!
                      2. +1
                        29 June 2019 22: 14
                        Colleague, it’s not that I justify the use of 9 power in January, but ... the connection of Gapon of the left SRs was not hidden even in the USSR, and it’s hard to call Pihas Rutenberg sincerely Orthodox.
                        That is, all this, the PMSM was a pre-planned provocation that succeeded.
                      3. -1
                        30 June 2019 11: 41
                        Colleague, it’s not that I justify the use of 9 power in January, but ... the connection of Gapon of the left SRs was not hidden even in the USSR, and it’s hard to call Pihas Rutenberg sincerely Orthodox.
                        That is, all this, the PMSM was a pre-planned provocation that succeeded.


                        It is to you, a colleague, that I would recommend looking at Gapon's photographs - especially those AFTER the event (you will understand): what kind of "Orthodoxy" is there? Hush! Dandy!!! And not just a dandy, but a dandy with money.
                        After the events, Gapon clearly flourished (as the photographs record). "Where does the money come from, Zin?" WHO paid him?
                        And it is clear who --- and these were not at all the essiers (who themselves were on "subsidies") ...

                        And then it became clear that Hapon is a waste material (despite the fact that he clearly lied that he still has HUGE possibilities in Russia --- because of that paid). Well, him and ... that ...
                        And I would not lie - you look and live more. But of course not dandy. But alive
                      4. +1
                        30 June 2019 15: 07
                        Actually, with Gapon and all this maneuvering a lot of turbidity. One thing is clear, that there were people who used this case to the full.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. +2
                        30 June 2019 17: 47
                        AK, about Orthodoxy, it is difficult to judge from the photo (civilian clothing), but 100% is not going through it.
                        PS.- not I postaayil
                      7. +1
                        30 June 2019 20: 26
                        Svyatoslav,

                        This is a PHOTO! Made in London.
                        That is, this is a production - this is a staged photo: "Servants, give me a pose of thoughtfulness about the fate of the people." Outside this is a type. respectively, poseur.
                        But note: posture pose - but he took off his cassock. And even a beard corrected and thoroughly haircut. And an Orthodox priest does not take a race --- certainly does not take a photo. Yes, and with a haircut, especially so short .....
                        That is, the message of this photo is: "I am no longer an Orthodox priest!" (Filmed because for the Russians --- the British do not care who "Gapon" is)
                        Why? He was stripped, or what? No. That is, he brought himself out of the priests. For the Orthodox priest, the step is unthinkable.

                        Yes, and it is clear that he does not beg: curators contain. But, of course, not just like that, but because they consider that there is a significant number of people behind him.
                        And they are not! That strangled for deception.
                      8. 0
                        29 June 2019 14: 45
                        Due to a regrettable event

                        In reality, this "bloody" appears only in the 17th, under the interim government
                      9. +1
                        29 June 2019 15: 47
                        In the documents of the police department and gendarmerie corps after 1907 year!
                      10. -1
                        29 June 2019 20: 08
                        This term is frankly newspaper.
                        Dissidents in kitchens, with figs in their pockets. Of those that then died of hunger (even in the 90s, even in the 18-19th) Well, British propaganda and agitation (in the sense of "illegal literature")
                        But this is not the people.
    3. +1
      1 July 2019 11: 49
      Especially in my opinion, the author more than convincingly provided evidence that Rozhestvensky could not have such fatal ideas - all previous naval battles of the RNW showed the excellent durability of Russian ships, there were already examples of getting into our battleships for several dozen projectiles without causing critical damage. How could Rozhestvensky know that after months of 9 everything will change so?
  4. +4
    29 June 2019 11: 00
    Andrew did not try to write a thesis on the history of the fleet?
    1. +1
      29 June 2019 11: 26
      Andrew did not try to write a thesis on the history of the fleet?

      Publish in the form of a book - all right. But the thesis .... The thesis does not imply a retelling of the published, but it also requires independent finds.
      1. +3
        29 June 2019 12: 15
        Quote: AK64
        Thesis does not imply a retelling of the published

        I agree. By the way, do not tell, retelling of what is this series of articles? :)))
        1. 0
          29 June 2019 12: 36
          I agree. By the way, do not tell, retelling of what is this series of articles? :)))

          In any case, the dissertation will not pull: the dissertation implies novelty and findings. ("by the way do not tell me" Where are they)
          1. +3
            29 June 2019 12: 44
            Quote: AK64
            On the thesis will not pull in any case

            Does not pull. However, the person proposed to write a thesis, and not to offer this cycle of articles as such.
            Quote: AK64
            "by the way, won't you tell me" where are they

            There certainly aren’t such a dissertation, but I’m wondering in which sources, for example, can I read the 2 and 3 TOE similar to my analysis of the pre-combat maneuvering?
            1. +1
              29 June 2019 12: 49
              There certainly aren’t such a dissertation, but I’m wondering in which sources, for example, can I read the 2 and 3 TOE similar to my analysis of the pre-combat maneuvering?

              You just offer your interpretation of the known facts. At the Tsushima Ru Forum you such (albeit distinct from yours, but quite similar) can find a dozen two.

              The idea that Rozhestvensky built up in two columns in order to deceive Togo for the first time I saw somewhere in the 90's.
              1. +1
                29 June 2019 13: 00
                Quote: AK64
                You just offer your interpretation of the known facts.

                It depends on what is meant by known facts. For example, my description of the actions of "Pearl" and "Izumrud" differs from that of any printed source known to me, that is, both the officialdom in the form of the "Russian-Japanese war" and the works of Alliluyev, Bogdanov, Melnikov, Molodtsov, Khromov. And why? Because as a basis, I still take not only other people's publications, but also documents - such as reports of ship commanders, testimony of the Investigative Commission, etc. Hence the question - how legitimate in this case is your description
                Quote: AK64
                retelling published

                ?
                And yes, you are writing about the idea of ​​building in two columns ... And I asked about the description.
                1. +1
                  29 June 2019 13: 26
                  As one of the most principled critics of the AiCh, I’ll say it bluntly: in aggregate, his posts on TopWare are definitely much better than the overwhelming majority of "humanitarian" candidates

                  Shl. I did not write that everything in them is super - a lot of controversial and wrong, in my opinion. And quirks like "ZPR - genius", IMHO, just quirks. But:
                  Zy.Zy. knowledge of many sofa clavoustuks pulls on C grade for school essay, at best
                  1. -1
                    29 June 2019 13: 43
                    I understand that you personally are a doctor of science (historical or military)? Nice to hear from a professional
                    1. +1
                      29 June 2019 13: 49
                      I will answer this way: for several years in a row, my duties included once a quarter to publish a couple of volumes with a scientific novelty, even if in 50 copies. - they pay for it a little, quit, writing a dissertation, although protecting it with two fingers - even almost free

                      Shl. I'm not a historian
                  2. -1
                    29 June 2019 13: 46
                    as one of the most principled critics

                    You are confused - you are "one of the most bazaar abusers"

                    To "criticize" something, and even "fundamentally" - knowledge is needed
                    1. +3
                      29 June 2019 13: 56
                      about the top three for the school essay - I meant you

                      Have a nice day
                      1. -3
                        29 June 2019 14: 55
                        You called yourself a PRINCIPAL (critic): purely out of curiosity, which "principle" does not allow you to look at Rozhdestvensky objectively?
                        What kind of "principle" makes you so gladly pour dirt on the graves of Russian sailors?

                        You tell, do not hesitate.

                        Let's say with your colleague - well, the fact that with mugs - everything seems to be clear to me: principled liar and troll. And who are you? I have not figured it out yet ...
                      2. +1
                        29 June 2019 15: 22
                        do not hesitate telling:

                        1.Matrosikov pity that they could have done it

                        2.Accuracy of shooting of the Russians - all "Campbell's numbers" in the analysis can be significantly reduced, which I showed on the example of the Azuma BrKr, the commander of which reported damage from seven shells with caliber over 75-mm (including one close gap), and Campbell counted 7 hits in 12 inches

                        3. Projectile question - "rubbed 100500 times" using Japanese schemes of damage to each Japanese ship - even "Mikasa" with normal operation of all 100% of Russian shells would not even fail, let alone sink. Even according to Campbell, not to mention the stripped-down ones.
                        Japanese shells, which were regularly torn apart in the barrel of their guns, to put it mildly, were not at all good either.
                        Yes, the lack of explosions of Russian shells guaranteed a 12: 0 defeat. Otherwise ... Well, they would have brought Fuji with them and, probably, that's all. It would be 12: 1.

                        4. Preparation of the squadron. It is widely believed that it was the ZPR that guaranteed the success of the breakthrough of the 2nd TOE to the tsar, that the main culprit for the absence of "Glory" and "Alexander II" under Tsushima was also the ZPR. ZPR did not issue an ultimatum about the impossibility of operations without the Black Sea EBRs: if they didn’t give it, it could keep 2 TOEs in the Baltic and not fit into the topic. The campaign was poorly organized, combat training was insufficient and ineffective.

                        5. Maneuvering in battle. The CRA substituted both flagships of the columns for the destruction, without having received tangible benefits for it. On this all his participation in the battle ended.
                      3. 0
                        29 June 2019 15: 47
                        None of this is drawn to "principles" ... Maybe you just don't understand the meaning of the term "principles"?
                        Here, I remember, on the exam in scientific communism, he told me "but tell me, but the class struggle as a principle" ---- like, he asked a question ...... And I bellowed in response - because I did not understand at all what he asks me. Yes.
                        Did not understand, then to the end what class struggle. no what principle

                        And so:
                        1. Sorry for the bee. - does not pull on the principle.
                        2. To believe in the Japanese is not to respect yourself. The Japanese always lie. They even brought philosophy under this case: like "well-told is not a lie, but a variant of events." So I would trust Campbell. However, the 20% amendment is not at all a cause for dispute. Yes, yes - it is not: there is simply nothing to argue about.
                        3. This is IMHO. Only extremely stupid people "argue in principle" about IMHO. IMHO cannot be in dispute in principle. The maximum is litigation (but you don’t pull this)
                        And .... Japanese shells did not burst in the barrels at all: these were Armstrong's "colonial guns" were of such a design that their barrels were torn off. (It again IMHO)
                        4. Neither the first nor the second of the known documents follows. On the contrary: Rozhdestvensky went to PA (and could only "guarantee" that). After the fall of PA, on the contrary, he sent out very pessimistic forecasts.
                        Next: Rozhestvensky proposed a campaign project and was his enthusiast - but when? In February!! In March!! Go Rozhestvensky in May, at least with three EBP --- and in July the situation in the Yellow Sea would change fundamentally.
                        But Rozhdestvensky marinated first until August (sorry, but August is ALREADY late!), And then until October.
                        And in October ... shoved into the sea.
                        So how can you blame a person for his enthusiasm in February - if he was not allowed to leave just then ??
                        5. This is your IMHO, and no more. IMHO, I repeat, is not a subject of controversy: you can have it, we allow it. But running with IMHO and screaming (as you do) is an example of bad taste.
                      4. 0
                        29 June 2019 16: 20
                        None of this is drawn to "principles".


                        if you do not follow TopVar badly, you simply did not notice that the majority of my criticism of A & H is related to technical issues such as calculated projectile armor penetration, principles for comparing relative armor resistance, ballistics, etc., which does not directly relate to RLS

                        1. Really pity

                        2.present other damage schemes that are fundamentally different from Japanese and British Attachment data

                        3.I will ask to clarify:
                        - What are the fundamental differences between Armstrong's "colonial" guns and those of the HMS of that time? where is the proof of this information?
                        - What are the fundamental differences in damage to the gun because of the marriage of the barrel and due to the rupture of the projectile in the barrel?

                        4.I will ask to clarify:
                        -What exactly the battleships were ready to march to the Far East in the 1904 feral of the year? Where is the proof of this information?
                        - How exactly do you imagine the terms of their transition to the Far East and the breakthrough to Port Arthur?

                        5.this is not IMHO. it is a fact. Both flagships were lost at the very beginning of the battle.
                      5. -2
                        29 June 2019 20: 05
                        if you do not follow TopVar badly, you simply did not notice that the majority of my criticism of A & H is related to technical issues such as the calculated armor penetration of projectiles, the principles of comparing the relative durability of armor, ballistics, etc., which does not directly relate to RLS


                        None of the above is close to the word "principle" or "principled". I told you: you are weak with terminology --- you use words without understanding their meaning.

                        But I still do not understand what exactly, what considerations (forget about the "principles" - as it turned out you do not have them) makes you personally support the muddying of Russian sailors? WHAT were they personally guilty of before you?
                      6. +1
                        29 June 2019 20: 21
                        makes you personally support watering mud Russian sailors


                        what did I put mud in? - ordinary men.
                        the king is an eccentric, tactfully speaking, diplomats are terpily, tactfully speaking, admirals are mediocre, also tactfully speaking, and they are all amazing nonentities (regarding the requirements for the posts they occupy)
                        men are guilty only in the fact that they did not cut them before, although it would be very necessary

                        Shl. and if at sea with the British to fight?

                        You are weak with terminology


                        Well, ok) let's about the materiel now:
                        I have asked you a few far from the most difficult questions - can you answer?
                      7. -6
                        30 June 2019 10: 09
                        Talking to you is not respecting yourself.
                      8. 0
                        30 June 2019 11: 19
                        Because I am so rude that I ask proofs?

                        For any nonsense like "colonial guns"?

                        Have a good day, learn materiel hi
                      9. -3
                        30 June 2019 12: 42
                        Because I am so rude that I ask proofs?


                        By the way, yes, and this too: "proofs" in the era of the open Internet require only uniform fuckers. The rest are looking for themselves - for this there is Google.

                        But this is not even the point: "talking to you = not respecting yourself" simply because your interlocutor is extremely ... incompetent, but at the same time extremely stubborn and very loud.
                        How long have you stopped yelling about "crunching a roll"? (It's worse only to pick your nose in public)
                        Well, it makes sense to listen to your cries?
                      10. +1
                        29 June 2019 22: 23
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        - What are the fundamental differences between Armstrong's "colonial" guns and those of the HMS of that time?

                        Well, it even I can :)))
                        the main number of exploded guns was 8. "They were not used at all in the Royal Navy ... Will this pass for a" fundamental difference "? :)))
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        How exactly do you imagine the timing of their transition to the Far East and a breakthrough in Port Arthur?

                        From St. Petersburg to Madagascar - 2,5 month. Another 2,5 of the month from Nossi-be to Tsushima, with the expectation of Nebogatov in Indochina. That is, either with the LM, or with Ulsan, ours have at least three Bronics (Alexander, Borodino, Oslyabya, and possibly a sweet couple - Sisoy, Navarin) more and japa's epically crammed!
                      11. +1
                        29 June 2019 23: 11
                        the main number of exploded guns was 8 "


                        this is with Shantung something

                        Borodino


                        factory tests from 26 June to 10 August 1904

                        Oslyabya


                        repairs from April to July 1904

                        Alexander


                        here is a detective. passed all tests in October 1903 of the year. and here is the first swimming made in August 1904

                        Sisoy and Navarin - a lot of questions on the mechanics of both

                        My personal opinion:
                        -coordinate the breakthrough of the EB unit with the actions of 1 TOE and / or FOC would not work, they would break through soaking separately and they would not achieve anything
                        -that before the start of the war, "Alexander III" and "Oslyabya" were not transferred to the PA - outright treason, and "Sisoy" should have been left in the PA - then everything could have been different
                      12. 0
                        29 June 2019 23: 19
                        repairs from April to July 1904

                        And this is said to me by a person who offered to wait for "Glory"
                        in fact, all three Bronika with the presence of will could go out in April.
                      13. 0
                        29 June 2019 23: 27
                        Yes sir! I proposed sending Slava in February 1905.

                        with will


                        "Oslyabya" could not return at all, but break through to Vladivostok around Japan
                        Here is the theme "Oslyabya" and "Alexander III" + cruisers in Vladivostok in the summer of 1904 - a good and completely realistic option
                        so that "Borodino" had time for the battles of 1 TOE - it was necessary to scratch turnips in 1902
                      14. +1
                        30 June 2019 10: 19
                        From St. Petersburg to Madagascar - 2,5 month. Another 2,5 of the month from Nossi-be to Tsushima, with the expectation of Nebogatov in Indochina.


                        Moreover, this is ---- evaluation from above.
                        Let me remind you that through the Suez Rozhestvensky they did not allow the British --- the pretext was the Gulsky incident. And the incident could not happen, and the British could and miss.
                        (Could, of course, and no --- reason would be found)
                        That is, either with the LM, or with Ulsan, ours have at least three Bronics (Alexander, Borodino, Oslyabya, and possibly a sweet couple - Sisoy, Navarin) more and japa's epically crammed!

                        Actually, even without a fight: domination in the Yellow Sea, the supply of the land army is impossible, and the Japanese would have to either buy additional ships around the world (WHERE do you have good ships? Old Turks or Spaniards?), Or ask the Russians for peace
                2. +1
                  29 June 2019 13: 27
                  You completely in vain took too much to heart what I said: I said exactly what I said --- but I said about my "dissertation", and nothing more.
                  But after all, I said not only about it, but also about "publishing as a book" --- and you shouldn't have noticed this moment. In my opinion, a "different from the traditional" assessment of events is not only useful, but has long been necessary. So, in principle, I support your activity (any - this cycle, or something else) - even though I do not agree with many ... details, so to speak.
                  1. 0
                    29 June 2019 22: 29
                    The assessment of events set forth by the Dear Author is completely traditional and comes down to a "shell" version.
            2. +1
              29 June 2019 15: 15
              Disser is a purely technical thing. In the presence of materials and the right approach to make a PhD in the humanities - just spit. Just need the desire and perseverance in the fulfillment of certain conditions. Usually strong and competent people just often complex. A slacker does. So Andrey should not be shy. Baseline data is. There would be a desire. The difficulty here is different for a person independent. We must find a manager. Authoritative and entertaining. Everything.
              Because I helped my wife in this case, I know what I'm saying.
              Sometimes some technical diplomas are pulled by half the thesis. And in the humanities not only some, but many dissertations are disgusting to read. Nobody needs a crap.
              And here the topic is interesting.
              1. +1
                29 June 2019 22: 36
                On the issue of difficulties in the humanities you swung a few.
                There is statistics, time-tested.
                Statistics is the same for all countries and peoples.
                Of course, those where doctoral or doctoral dissertations are generally defended.
                The first to defend mathematics.
                Then chemists.
                Physicists.
                Humanitarians are protected later.
                The latest philosophers are protected.
                Do not be surprised that it is particularly disgusting to read the dissertations on philosophy.
                1. 0
                  30 June 2019 15: 21
                  Nah .... I did not read the philosophy. Russian language was enough.
        2. +1
          29 June 2019 22: 27
          This series of articles, with all the abundance of material and the diligence of the Dear author, is a retelling of the good old version of the "wooden sword".
    2. +1
      29 June 2019 12: 12
      With all due respect to the author, all they have written is only a retelling with the addition of their comments, which are not always even logically justified. These are rather interesting discussions and enlightenment for forum participants, which of course is necessary and important.
      However, science and thesis (well, we are talking about this) are independent research, new sources put into circulation and concepts created on their basis, which means archives, archives and once again archives.
      1. +2
        29 June 2019 12: 45
        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
        With all due respect to the author, all they have written is only a retelling

        So I ask, retelling of what? :)))) What authors have I retold? :)
        1. +1
          29 June 2019 12: 59
          Hi Andrew! hi SchA they will climb to shovel the archives, and after a few years they will "pick" the thread. How ... laughing
          1. +3
            29 June 2019 13: 43
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Hi Andrew!

            Greetings, Constantine! hi
            Quote: Sea Cat
            SchA they will climb shovel archives

            What for? Let them take common sources and see what they write there and what I write :))))
            It's just that people did not sit with drawings of structures, did not draw what and how, and it is clear that in the description of the battle, whether Pearl turned to the left, or to the right - monoenergetically, they perceive the general, without getting into the nuances. It's okay, I used to be like that myself. And as a result, the understanding is lost, how I sit, cross-checking the sources with the available documents, I find discrepancies, I try to analyze how it could actually be, since, alas, the documents are also full of errors ... And I read about my articles: " retelling of other people's publications ". lol
            1. -2
              29 June 2019 14: 48
              Just people did not sit with drawings of constructions, did not draw that yes how,

              Stop it --- if we didn’t cross it out, then where would we get the schemes from then?
          2. +2
            29 June 2019 13: 46
            Let's dot the “y”!
            Thesis on the subject of actions of second-rate cruisers Emerald and Pearls - from Andrey's hands is possible! The novelty in the Ph.D. work implies the introduction of “ideas and theses” into the scientific circulation, which fit into the abstract and serve as a topic for discussion with the opponent!
            By the way, is the work on the Borodino and Kulikovo battles still defending? In 2018, there was a defense of a doctoral dissertation on the last battle of canned Varyag!
            So if Andrew get involved in “scientific work”, then he will master it unequivocally !!! Someone who, and he has the scrupulousness and pedantry in full. There is only one trouble, any dissertation costs money and time.
            By example, I would say that I thought it easier to build a house than to get a crust of KUN.
            By the way, Andrew is able to work with primary sources. For example, reports of junior flagships and ship captains, and this will already be your notorious novelty !!! Sincerely, Vlad!
            1. +1
              29 June 2019 14: 56
              By example, I would say that I thought it easier to build a house than to get a crust of KUN.


              drinks good
            2. +1
              29 June 2019 19: 50
              About the Kulikovo battle of real sources, one or two or not. But people manage dissertations to defend. What are they interested in writing there?
            3. +1
              29 June 2019 21: 21
              The namesake, with an estimate of A & H of 100%: for that matter, he may well master. He is meticulous, and it gives a lot ..
              PS
              Comrades, I don't know about you, but for me Andrei is already a candidate of historical sciences at least. 2/3 of the "eyes have not seen" the sources with which Andrey works
        2. 0
          29 June 2019 13: 41
          There are many authors, but at the core - discussions on Tsushima, I think. All this was repeatedly discussed there (including with my extremely modest participation) at least 6-8 of recent years. Well, of course, you have your own original interpretation, I will not argue with that, although the first discussion about the meaning of 2 columns at Ziama I met EMNIP in 2009.
          By the way, did you work at RGAVMF?
          1. +2
            29 June 2019 13: 55
            Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
            There are many authors, but at the core - discussions on Tsushima, I think.

            neither is wrong.
            Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
            By the way, did you work at RGAVMF?

            No, but there is a nuance here - firstly, there are a lot of documents on Tsushima, and secondly - a large number of them electronically uploads to the Russian State Library network. The same reports from commanders I take from there
            1. -1
              29 June 2019 14: 26
              I knew it. Site Tsushima is our everything! I have no more questions.

              I will tell you as a professional to professional - you cannot use individual documents in scientific work. There is such a thing - criticism of the source. You need an understanding of a wide range of issues and context, re-checking and comparing even seemingly “established” facts. And this is impossible without archives.
              I track - that is laid out on the web on my subject and printed. I can only smile at myself, that I would write on the basis of only this.
              1. +1
                29 June 2019 16: 26
                Dear fellow countryman, in the context of Andrew, we say that he has the qualities for writing scientific work !!!
                If the author and will be honored to plunge into this routine, I think to achieve your goal!
              2. +3
                30 June 2019 03: 13
                Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                I will tell you as a professional to professional - you cannot use individual documents in scientific work. I can only smile at myself, that I would write on the basis of only this.

                So sit down and write as it should.
                It’s not necessary to criticize someone else’s work, it’s better to show us your level and we’ll appreciate it.
                1. -1
                  30 June 2019 08: 47
                  His wife, specify how to cook soup. My level is my dissertations and books that have been published for a long time and evaluated by whom it is necessary. I will not show you anything - do not master.

                  If the admirers of the local “first guy in the village” admire what he writes - a source of knowledge about the organization of shooting the Russian fleet can be Novikov-Priboy’s novel and the memoirs of the shipbuilding engineer Kostenko, then it’s clear that it’s useless to enlighten militant amateurs.

                  It is written here, because he understands that on the website of Tsushima, where there are many more professional authors on the theme of the fleet, his exercises will cause considerable fun))))
                  1. +1
                    30 June 2019 12: 29
                    Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                    If the admirers of the local “first guy in the village” admire what he writes - they say the source of knowledge about the organization of the shooting of the Russian fleet can be Novikov-Priboy’s novel and the memoirs of the shipbuilding engineer Kostenko

                    Phi, what a banal juggling :)))) I wrote that EVEN Novikov-Priboy and Kostenko managed more or less correctly to describe the procedure of shooting Russian ADB.
                    Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                    It is written here, because he understands that on the website of Tsushima, where there are many more professional authors on the theme of the fleet, his exercises will cause considerable fun))))

                    Nah The question is that for publications on Tsushima I will not earn a penny.
                    Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                    My level is my dissertations and books that have been published for a long time and evaluated by whom it is necessary.

                    And why then you, such a knowledgeable person, manage to make three mistakes in one sentence dedicated to the LMS? :))) In general, I will tell you this - to puff out your cheeks, and tell terrible tales about how "my daddy you .. .. "... in the sense," but on Tsushima you will be torn "anyone can. Arguably leading a discussion is not everyone. And you obviously do not know how. Having got into a mess with the LMS, now they have slipped into whining and rudeness.
                    1. 0
                      30 June 2019 13: 32
                      Renounce the answer, but still respond. You started using the offensive words “nagging” and “rudeness”, not me. So you hurt, you read my arguments and try to react.
                      Well, if you please.

                      1. You do not understand what a source on the subject. The source in this case are the manuals and other documents, and not the stories collected by the batalier Novikov (never an artilleryman).
                      This exposes the amateur in you. You are a long way from science, in spite of the local praises from even greater amateurs.

                      2. About Tsushima - you are lying. The main reason - your banal cowardice, because you there gouging instantly. If this is not the case - then copy your nonsense about QN there (it will take half a minute) and you will see. And your excuses are ridiculous, only very distant people can believe them.

                      3. You did not find any mistakes in me. You did not answer one of my questions, because you did not understand them.
                      The history of TsN is described by the authors: whom I cited. You, for example, either did not read the classic work of Norman Friedman Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era, or simply scare you to give his opinion, which I rely on and which contradicts your notions.
                      Friedman is a world-class specialist. It is not for you to refute it, the rebuttal has not yet grown.

                      4. The enumeration of the equipment of the Geisler system on Russian armadillos impresses only amateurs who do not understand how the central nervous system functions.

                      5. I didn’t and willn’t get into any “mess”. By the way, I’m 58 years old, I have a great life, academic degrees and books. I have seen a sufficient number of self-confident and illiterate young boors like you in my lifetime. So, on my part, you are not worthy of equal communication, but as an interlocutor, you are not interesting. Learn, protect something, and then come if I live)))
                      It’s enough for a clever person to read my arguments, and I don’t need to be “popular” among your “fans” here, who look at you as a “guru”.
                      Dixi
                      1. -1
                        30 June 2019 16: 22
                        Well, for all the participants - to put an end to my dispute about CN with Andrei from Chelyabinsk and show that he arrogantly started to argue about issues that he did not understand and then, after my final departure, did not try to make a good face with a bad game.

                        Below I give a scan from the book of V.Yu. Rybaltovsky "Marine artillery."

                        Rybaltovsky in the fleet with 1907, teacher of the Artillery officer class, flagart, chief artilleryman of the Black Sea Fleet, rear admiral. I am sure that he knew better about artillery than we did.

                        Pay attention to his definition of "centralized interference" (CN).
                        I specially rewrite them with insignificant notes with the highlight of the main one in order to exclude the muhlezh:
                        “... with a central aiming, only one or two gunners aim at the target ... from the aiming point ... The gunners of the towers and guns no longer aim at the sights, but, following the orders received by the devices, they automatically aim the guns at the target at which the sights of the main gunners are aimed located in the center post on the mast or in the wheelhouse ... "

                        Well, what kind of one or two gunners pointed the guns of Russian battleships in Tsushima?

                        I believe that the definition given by Rybaltovsky completely refutes Andrei’s self-made fantasies from Chelyabinsk about the existence of the central nervous system during the Russo-Japanese war.
                      2. 0
                        30 June 2019 16: 23
                        Here is the scan itself, I hope everything is visible here

                      3. 0
                        30 June 2019 16: 40
                        And further. They don’t pay me money, but the truth is more important. This rule is for real scientists.
                        I hope now the forum participants will be more critical of Andrei from Chelyabinsk’s wild fantasies, and will serve as a lesson for him (well, if he is able to learn from mistakes).
                        Tell me how you can delete my registration, I did not find something.
                      4. 0
                        30 June 2019 17: 08
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        Tell me how you can delete my registration, I did not find something.

                        Best of all - head against the wall with a run.
                      5. 0
                        30 June 2019 17: 31
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        I don’t get paid here, but the truth is more important. This rule is for real scientists.

                        To which you yourself completely in vain number.
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        Tell me how can I delete my registration

                        Take a laptop and throw it against the wall, how else? laughing
                      6. +1
                        30 June 2019 17: 23
                        [quote = Yaitsky Cossack] I believe that the definition given by Rybaltovsky completely refutes the self-made fantasies of Andrei from Chelyabinsk about the existence of the CN during the Russo-Japanese war. [/ quote]
                        What I like about you is the skill to skillfully lay on the shoulder blades of oneself. Congratulations - you just signed not only in complete incompetence, but also in the utter inability to work with sources.
                        First you told us
                        [quote = Yaitsky Cossack] The Barra-Stroude range finders began to be tested there from 1899 g, and they didn’t learn how to use them before 1904. The method of shooting is not developed. [/ quote]
                        Okay, I explained to you that you were wrong. But you didn't want to admit your mistake, and you decided to change the subject of the dispute - from the question of centralized fire control you "jumped" to the central aiming system. You said that she was not on the EBR RYAV, because for the first time she appeared among the British closer to WWI. So what
                        [quote = Yaitskiy Cossack] The first TsN in the Russian fleet is the Erickson system ordered in 1915.
                        Its defective prototype is the Heusler PUS system arr 1910 g. [/ Quote]
                        In fact, this passage of yours alone puts an end to our discussion - how can the Russian admirals be reproached that they did not do anything that the British managed only on the eve of the WWI? But I laughed heartily and pointed out to you your factual mistake - not only did you merge the dispute, so you still could not even name the first CCP in the Russian fleet! And he prompted you to re-read Platonov, whom you allegedly read, and which indicates that it was Pollan's device and not Erickson.
                        But your soul requires satisfaction ... and what are you doing? You bring excerpt from Rybaltovskogo ...
                        That is the same Rybaltovsky, which
                        [quote = Yaitsky Cossack] Rybaltovsky in the fleet since 1907, teacher of the Artillery officer class, flagart, chief artilleryman of the Black Sea Fleet, rear admiral. I'm sure he knew better about artillery than we did.
                        And what does he write?

                        That is, it was the gunners who set the sight on the gun, indicated by the main gunners! Of course, the word "automatically" is used there, but from the context it obviously follows that it’s not about an unknown machine gun (this appeared only to WWII and is impossible without the SSP), but that instead of aiming himself, the gunner exposes the transmitted angles GN and VN to him! And how does this intersect with your replica
                        [quote = Yaitsky Cossack] If you accept your absurd point of view that "central aiming" is when some information about aiming at guns is transmitted from one place, and then the gunners manually set them, then a paradox arises in general [/ quote]
                        And you, of course, were ashamed to provide a description of the central guidance devices. Well, I'll do it for you.
                      7. +1
                        30 June 2019 17: 30
                        Here is a description

                        That is, the same method of combining the arrows of which I spoke above
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        You started using the offensive words “nagging” and “rudeness”, not me. So you hurt, you read my arguments and try to react.

                        Of course I read - I should explain to unprepared readers any pseudoscientific nonsense that individuals carry to the discussion of my articles
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        About Tsushima - you are lying. The main reason - your banal cowardice, because you there gouging instantly. If not

                        Why do I need it? Why should I waste time on Tsushima, on discussions with its regulars (by the way, they will not be in the OMS area)? For what? For the hell of it that the Yaik Cossack who imagines himself, who in every new comment contradicts himself? Prove something to him? WHAT FOR?:)))
                        After you have changed the subject of discussion, you, as an interlocutor, are completely uninteresting to me, and I reply to you only so that you do not mislead other readers.
                      8. 0
                        30 June 2019 18: 44
                        And you find yourself later than I expected. Have to deal with you.
                        Well, thank God, they downloaded Rybaltovsky. Now you are reading only one piece from Rybaltovsky, but you forget about the second.
                        So, we are re-reading Rybaltovsky about central nervous system.

                        1. A point of guidance, where all the guns on the target HAVE one or two gunners.
                        Where on the battleship was the POST HANDLING, where were these gunners mentioned by Rybaltovsky, apparently having a sighting device and a data processing device (giving devices) for firing? Show on the diagram.
                        Attempts to give him a rangefinder or a fire control officer in the cabin will fail. He watched the falls and the distance, but he didn’t aim his sight anywhere. Or did he have a sight? Do not show?

                        2. Sight settings are transmitted. Here you are again excited about the arrows. Only they are different. Machine telegraphs are also arrows. And the combination of arrows there too.
                        We read at Rybaltovsky about CV - gunners AUTOMATICALLY aim the guns at the target, COMBINING the arrows of the AIM and the arrow of the receiving device.
                        Throw out words from Rybaltovsky is not necessary.
                        Where were these arrows in the BADGE of an armadillo? Show in the drawing. The dial next to it is not connected in any way with the sight. Do they aim?
                        Did the gunners in the tower point the gun at all, or did they not look at the target, just COMBINING something?

                        Once again, I repeat, it is not necessary to repeat that the gunners in the tower saw arrows on the dials of the distance and heading angle standing in the tower. These are different arrows))))
                        These hands had nothing to do with the gun, the dials were marked in cable and degrees, and were not directly entered into the gun sight.

                        Finally, in the scan I cited, Rybaltovsky in the previous section, speaking of the shooting of ships that DO NOT have fire control devices, also mentions the transfer to the guns of orders and installation of sights through special DIGITS. Only this he does not relate to the Central nervous system)))



                        Well, do you really think that after such insults you will now be able to so easily get off the topic of CN? )))
                        Can you essentially answer the questions?
                      9. 0
                        30 June 2019 19: 41
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        Can you essentially answer the questions?

                        A weak About you to upload photos of their covers
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        books that have long been published and appreciated by anyone.

                        ?
                        Youyoung man just lying, and proof of this is the lack of cover images for your books here.
                        Or wait, maybe you published them at your own expense, in a single copy, and put on the shelf, your ambitious amusement?
                      10. 0
                        30 June 2019 20: 05
                        Waiting for your meaningful response. And then we move on to the Platonov you mentioned, as well as Sokolovsky and Kozlov.
                      11. 0
                        30 June 2019 21: 19
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        I didn’t and willn’t get into any “mess”.

                        You with your tales about
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        degrees and books

                        already in the glade.
                        By the way, it is amusing that you, as a scientific luminary, use arguments as non archival documents,
                        allowance for training with inmates and the rank and file of the reserve (commandants) trained in the organizations of Osoaviahima under the guidance of specialist instructors.
                      12. 0
                        30 June 2019 21: 37
                        Well, I hope that I will wait for an answer. And then I will post new materials.
                      13. +1
                        30 June 2019 21: 47
                        By the way, here is Platonov about CN
                      14. +1
                        30 June 2019 21: 49
                        Again Platonov about the central nervous system and completely refutes Andrei from Chelyabinsk

                      15. 0
                        30 June 2019 21: 55
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        Well, I hope that I will wait for an answer.

                        Similarly.
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        And then I will post new materials.

                        Again screenshots from Strangers books?
                        You asked
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        how can I unregister

                        Change your mind?
                      16. 0
                        1 July 2019 10: 52
                        In the case of centralized fire control, they were used to transfer data on the angles of vertical and horizontal guidance, the type of projectiles used.


                        it is a centralized fire control system however

                        Having estimated the approximate speed and course of the target, the senior artillery officer, using the firing tables, manually (on paper) made the necessary calculations and calculated the necessary corrections of the predictions for HV and GN.


                        this is the lack of normal adjustment and calculation mechanism

                        both are partially right: the LMS was, but very inferior (in its infancy)
                      17. +1
                        1 July 2019 14: 16
                        This is the difference - "control" or "guidance".

                        Nobody talks about management. By the RPE, fire control could be centralized, plutong or fully decentralized.
                        Fire control was carried out by indicating the target, transmitting the rangefinder distance, as well as adjusting the fire according to the signs of falling. This was ensured by the Geisler system of the RYAV era. If you want to call it a primitive LMS - please. At the same time, even in this case, the gunners had to independently direct their telescopic sights to the target ("under the waterline", to the stem, with a lead or other established method), constantly manually correcting the arising changes. Each installation or tower fires independently, since the salvo firing of the main battery of the entire ship will give too much dispersion due to non-simultaneity.

                        Central guidance is a fundamentally different level of automation and centralization, when all the parameters of the shot are calculated and transmitted to the guns directly with the help of the director (visor) and computing devices in the central post.
                        The servants of the guns only provide the input itself (fully automatic or with manual combination of the notorious arrows) of the already generated data. The gunners do not take any part in the calculation or change of aiming parameters. At the same time, firing is carried out, as a rule, in volleys (half-salvos) centrally, by a howler, and then also automatically.
                      18. 0
                        1 July 2019 15: 28
                        This is the difference - "control" or "guidance".


                        so i know drinks
                      19. +2
                        5 July 2019 18: 22
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        And you find yourself more inflated than I expected.

                        To go crazy :))) That's what a restless one is :)))))) So many times it has already been put into a puddle, but stubbornly climbs to fight on.
                        I admit, I thought that this argument was already exhausted and did not look into the topic. And here - there it is :))))
                        Okay, a simple question - is there anyone else who is interested in this "discussion"? Should I continue?
                      20. -1
                        10 July 2019 19: 55
                        You have not answered any of my last questions. They just ran away. Because you have nothing to answer. But in the article about battleship anti-aircraft defense now with the appearance of a connoisseur, you explain to others what I was explaining to you here. About the difference between central fire and centralized shooting.

                        Therefore, your grunts after a cowardly discharge disgrace you even more. Well, or can you show me the location of the CN sight on Suvorov? Can't, no?

                        An intelligent person in your place would thank me for the science and the lesson taught. But you have already entered the role of "know-it-all" laughing
                    2. +1
                      30 June 2019 16: 45
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And then why are you, so knowledgeable, managing to make three mistakes in one sentence devoted to the LMS?

                      Because we are again dealing with Kolya our Passersby.
                      1. +2
                        30 June 2019 17: 35
                        Quote: Comrade
                        Because again we are dealing with Kolya to our Passersby.

                        In my opinion there is no, this one is smarter, but the CSW is of the same size, although I thought that Kolya is the recognized world champion
                  2. +1
                    30 June 2019 16: 37
                    Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                    My level is my dissertations and books, published long ago and evaluated by who I need.

                    Listen, I don’t recognize you in makeup, who are you?
                    Melnikov? Peasants? Vinogradov?
                2. 0
                  30 June 2019 13: 34
                  Comrade, you put a minus to me, but I give you a plus. Guessed - why)))) so streamline
                  1. 0
                    30 June 2019 20: 52
                    Comrade is right: you are lying.
                    And Andrei is right: you tried to replace the theses and lie.
                    And they all see it perfectly. Do you really think that those around you are so blind and stupid that they don’t see your meanness?

                    Go already to yourself ...
                    1. +3
                      30 June 2019 23: 14
                      In order to recall the thesis of Andrei from Chelyabinsk, which the on-going support team of my opponent is trying hard to spam, I post a copy of his statement.

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      In other words, the central guidance existed long before Percy Scott. On our ships, it worked like this (a good description of the 1899 PWADA mod is given on Tsushima, and from there I copy


                      I hope that they can read clearly that the above quotes from the works of specialists (Andrey Platonov quoted from Chelyabinsk) refute the presence of central nervous system during the Russo-Japanese war.
                      Well, or if she was, then following the descriptions Andrey from Chelyabinsk will show me her key elements on our battleships, if he can, of course.
                      1. 0
                        30 June 2019 23: 16
                        You still, this, minus signs try to defend the authority of your idol laughing After all, he also quoted Platonov, but I can’t, or what? laughing
                      2. +1
                        4 July 2019 08: 10
                        In order to recall the thesis of Andrei from Chelyabinsk, which the on-going support team of my opponent is trying hard to spam, I post a copy of his statement.

                        He could be relieved. And it would be enough just to correct "You wanted to say" central management "- not a tip" ".
                        Affairs on ONE line. You made a whole story out of this slip.

                        PS: You were about to unsubscribe, weren't you? And what prevented?
                      3. 0
                        4 July 2019 18: 51
                        He did not "whistle", but continued to pile up one excuse for another, until this naval commander did not manage at all. I tried to help him, explained this difference, but here he had long since entered the role of a know-it-all and did not stop being rude. So all your complaints are against your “guru”. It was arrogant and short-sighted on his part to go over the ethical line immediately. He should have been more polite. Moreover, not knowing the interlocutor. ))))

                        PS What, scared? “Mr. Goering, are you afraid of my questions?” (C)
            2. +3
              29 June 2019 19: 54
              The most interesting thing would be the most complete restoration of the maneuvering of squadrons in battle. With modern methods of visualizing and using computers and software, it would be cool.
    3. 0
      30 June 2019 23: 05
      Quote: CommanderDIVA
      Andrew did not try to write a thesis on the history of the fleet?

      I am sure that no. With so many blunders and distortions that Andrei sometimes allows himself in these articles ... Even the super-loyal commission will not dare to miss it. Well, or very, very expensive .. laughing
  5. +1
    29 June 2019 14: 00
    It seems to me that if you go in the direction of the bearing before the battle, then depending on the direction of the enemy’s appearance, it will be easier to rebuild into the front or wake. Thus, it will be possible to use more ships in battle. IMHO
    1. +1
      29 June 2019 14: 51
      It seems to me that if you go in the direction of the bearing before the battle, then depending on the direction of the enemy’s appearance, it will be easier to rebuild into the front or wake. Thus, it will be possible to use more ships in battle. IMHO


      Not easier. Not at a speed difference of one and a half times.

      With a speed difference of one and a half times --- it is VERY unmistakable to maneuver just to avoid a catastrophe (while the enemy can allow himself mistakes)
      1. 0
        29 June 2019 17: 09
        By disaster, do you mean a collision?
        1. 0
          29 June 2019 19: 42
          By disaster, do you mean a collision?

          The defeat is in mind.

          If the move is one and a half times more --- then the errors are not critical: you can always break the contact and start over. If the move is so slow, you need to maneuver very prudently just to avoid defeat.
  6. +5
    29 June 2019 14: 03
    If you believe the counter, then this is the jubilee three hundredth publication of our esteemed colleague!
    Congratulations!
    1. +4
      29 June 2019 14: 35
      I join! "Total, 300 grams, that's something!" (FROM.) drinks
    2. +1
      29 June 2019 14: 49
      Join congratulations and best wishes
    3. +3
      29 June 2019 17: 13
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Congratulations!

      Thank you! hi drinks
  7. +1
    29 June 2019 15: 14
    About luck / bad luck. Remember the episode with the hit and explosion (!!!) of the Russian shell in the Fuji tower? And how it ended :(
    1. +1
      29 June 2019 16: 30
      About luck / bad luck. Burst and Burst Episode

      Russians in that war were catastrophically unlucky: "the intercessor turned away"
      1. 0
        29 June 2019 21: 26
        Peter 1 wrote about Fortune: "a very windy girl"
      2. +2
        29 June 2019 22: 51
        There was not enough time to disperse the "steam roller".
        And desires.
        Under an agreement with France, the main adversary is Germany.
        The main, most combat-ready units on the western border.
        In the Far East - a scam with the trading port Dalniy.
        And a military squadron to defend it.
        Why was this port needed?
        Who were you going to trade with through this port?
        China as a colony?
        And what could this colony give?
        What "colonial" product could be taken out of it?
        I have already noted in the comments on another topic that after the collapse of the British Empire, the British ordered its audit. Ordered for themselves to understand what went wrong. The auditors concluded that the empire was a completely unprofitable enterprise. The metropolis invested much more in the colonies than it received.
        1. 0
          30 June 2019 09: 37
          There was not enough time to disperse the "steam roller". And desires.

          Railway there were no Baikal tunnels. As soon as we finished the tunnels, we began to "speed up the roller".

          Witte built the CER (from which all of its existence was only a problem) under the pretext that it was "500 miles shorter" (a ridiculous pretext) --- but He did not build strategically important tunnels.

          In the Far East - a scam with the trading port Dalniy.
          ......
          Why was this port needed?

          The question ... The initiator was the same Witte ....
          He wanted to honestly colonize Sev. China? But then, FIRST, it would be necessary to build the FORTRESS, and only THEN the port!

          I have already noted in the comments on another topic that after the collapse of the British Empire, the British ordered its audit. Ordered for themselves to understand what went wrong. The auditors concluded that the empire was a completely unprofitable enterprise. The metropolis invested much more in the colonies than it received.

          That's how rabbits are bred ....

          Capitalism, my dear colleague, is structured cunningly: the "state" as a whole seems to be losing, moreover, tens of millions ---- but a few families get ... hundreds of thousands.
          That is, the use of state funds to enrich a limited circle
          persons owning this state.
      3. +2
        29 June 2019 23: 49
        "Russians were catastrophically unlucky in that war:" the intercessor turned away "///
        -----
        What about Pearl Harbor?
        Persistence wins even if "the intercessor turned away."
        At the Battle of Midway, the Americans attacked Japanese aircraft five times
        aircraft carriers. And five times their attacks the Japanese fought back with great losses
        among the Americans (in one of the attacks of 25 aircraft one came back).
        And not once did the Americans manage to damage the aircraft carrier.
        But the Americans continued to attack. And in the sixth attack, the dive
        three out of four aircraft carriers were drowned at once. The battle was won.
        And with it the entire campaign in the Pacific. Japan went on the defensive.
        1. 0
          30 June 2019 09: 46
          And not once did the Americans manage to damage the aircraft carrier.
          But the Americans continued to attack. And in the sixth attack, the dive
          three out of four aircraft carriers were drowned at once. The battle was won.


          Those who know what happened there --- will not be able to agree that the amers were VERY MUCH LUCKY at that moment. It was even lucky that McCluskey found these aircraft carriers (he looked for them for almost an hour, they were not there where he brought his planes), it was lucky that the Japanese, contrary to logic, had no cover in the air, and even that ALL of them aircraft carriers at the same time engaged in reloading and refueling aircraft (complete idiocy) - that is, especially vulnerable.

          It was lucky that the Japanese attacked the same aircraft carrier over and over again. Yorktown

          It was lucky that the Japanese did not scout exactly the sector where the Americans were.

          Here, the level of luck was simply scaled: this is some kind of magic.

          The Russians, in that war, were not lucky critically.

          But the war would have won even in these conditions - inevitably - if the British had not staged riots in the country: no one could resist this at that time.
          1. +2
            30 June 2019 11: 04
            Quote: AK64
            Here, the level of luck was simply scaled: this is some kind of magic.

            And to add to this, just a crazy hit of one salvo in the Chokai navigator's cabin during the massacre at Savo Island on the night of August 9, 42, when maps of the surrounding area were destroyed by one shell, which saved American transports with a landing party from the planned destruction. ..This, by the way, was confirmed by the Japanese after the war. So it is clear which side the gods were on in that war bully
  8. +2
    30 June 2019 02: 48
    Quote: mark1
    What is there to disassemble! ......overloaded squadron (slice of the general state of RI)

    Overloaded were not just Russian, but Japanese ships.
    Let's consider this thesis using the example of the Japanese cruiser "Kasagi", which was out of order as a result of a single hit by a Russian 6 '' shell that passed through a three-meter water column.
    According to the diagram from the "Top Secret History of the Russo-Japanese War at Sea", at the time of receiving the shell, the draft of the ship was 6,75 meters.

    The draft of the cruiser in normal load was 5,41 meters (according to other sources, 5,44 meters).
    Therefore, the difference will be from 1,34 to 1,31 meters.
    Since the displacement per 1 centimeter of the cruiser "Kasagi" was about 11,81 tons, it can be concluded that the ship's overload ranged from 1 547,11 t. to 1 582,54 t. (including about 120 t. ammunition).

    For comparison.
    According to Kostenko, the battleship "Eagle" allegedly had an overload on the morning of May 14 1 785 so
    1. 0
      30 June 2019 23: 19
      Quote: Comrade
      Overloaded were not just Russian, but Japanese ships.

      The wave height on the day of the battle at Tsushima ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 meters. Your graphs do not confirm or refute anything.
      1. -7
        30 June 2019 23: 42
        Quote: Saxahorse
        The wave height on the day of the battle at Tsushima ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 meters. Your graphs do not confirm or disprove anything

        Stop already sporting with an amateur.

        This miracle scoops up knowledge from the Internet .. and pours all this trouble here. His problems, not yours not mine, no?
        1. +3
          1 July 2019 02: 57
          Quote: Cat Man Null
          This miracle draws knowledge from the Internet .. and pours all this trouble here

          If you are a man, can you confirm your words? At least in this particular case, or are you not responsible for your words?
      2. +2
        1 July 2019 02: 55
        Quote: Saxahorse
        The wave height on the day of the battle at Tsushima ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 meters.

        The train of your thoughts is clear, but that's bad luck. The scheme was drawn by specialists in Kure, where "Kasagi" came for repairs, but there were no waves there.
        1. 0
          2 July 2019 00: 13
          Quote: Comrade
          The train of your thoughts is clear, but that's bad luck. The scheme was drawn by specialists in Kure, where "Kasagi" came for repairs, but there were no waves there.

          Of course it wasn’t. Only here about the draft at 6.75 BEFORE the shell hits, we know only from your words. You look at the circuit that you brought. The waterline on it is depicted well above the armored deck. It is not normal. And if they talk about a normal draft of 5.4 meters, then this was not the case when testing the ship. It is possible that he was so immersed in choking water from a hole (which was below the edge of the armored deck)
  9. 0
    8 July 2019 00: 52
    Quote: Trapper7
    I understand that N-P is not the most authoritative author), but since he was a certain kind of participant in the events, I will not completely "nullify" the events he described.

    Of course, Novikov-Surf can not be ignored!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"