Tsushima tragedy

23 286 185
Tsushima tragedy
I. V. Slavinsky. The Last Hour of the Battleship "Prince Suvorov" in the Battle of Tsushima


Home


On the morning of May 25, 1905, Rozhdestvensky’s squadron headed for the Tsushima Strait (120 years since the Battle of Tsushima). The ships sailed in two columns with the transports in the middle. On the night of May 27, the Russian squadron passed the Japanese guard chain. The ships sailed without lights and were not noticed by the Japanese. But the two hospital ships following the squadron were illuminated.



At 2:25 a.m. they were spotted by a Japanese cruiser, which itself remained undetected. At dawn, first one and then several enemy cruisers approached the Russian squadron, following at a distance and sometimes disappearing in the morning fog. Around 10 a.m. Rozhestvensky's squadron reformed into a single wake column. Behind them moved transports and auxiliary vessels under the cover of three cruisers.

In 11 hour. 10 min. Japanese cruisers appeared from behind the fog, some Russian ships opened fire on them. Rozhestvensky ordered to stop firing. At noon, the squadron headed north-east 23 ° - to Vladivostok. Then the Russian admiral tried to rebuild the right column of the squadron in front of the system, but, again seeing the enemy, refused this idea. As a result, the armadillos were in two columns.


A. Kalantayev. The squadron battleship "Emperor Alexander III" fires at Japanese ships in the Tsushima Strait

Togo, having received a message in the morning about the appearance of a Russian fleet, immediately moved from Mozampo to the eastern side of the Korean Strait (Okinoshima Island). From intelligence reports, the Japanese admiral knew the location of the Russian squadron very well. When around midday the distance between the fleets was reduced to 30 miles, Togo moved towards the Russians with the main armored forces (12 squadron battleships and armored cruisers) plus 4 light cruisers and 12 destroyers. The main forces of the Japanese fleet were to attack the head of the Russian column, and Togo sent the cruiser forces around the Russian rear to capture the transports.

At 13:30 the right column of Russian battleships increased speed to 11 knots and began to turn left in order to come to the head of the left column and form a common column. Cruisers and transports were ordered to move to the right. At this moment Togo's ships appeared from the northeast. The Japanese ships, with a speed of 15 knots, were heading towards the Russian squadron and, finding themselves ahead and slightly to the left of our ships, began to turn in the opposite direction one after the other at one point - the so-called "Togo loop". With this maneuver Togo took a position ahead of the Russian squadron.

The moment of turning was very risky for the Japanese. Rozhestvensky got a good chance to turn the situation in his favor. Having accelerated the 1st detachment to the maximum, having approached to the usual distance of 15 cables for Russian gunners and having concentrated fire on the turning point of Togo's squadron, the Russian squadron battleships could have shot the enemy. According to a number of military researchers, such a maneuver could have caused serious damage to the armored core of the Japanese fleet and allowed the 2nd Pacific Squadron, if not to win this battle, then at least to fulfill the task of breaking through the main forces to Vladivostok.

Also, the newest Russian battleships of the Borodino type could have tried to "squeeze" the Japanese ships towards the column of older Russian battleships, slow but with powerful guns. Rozhestvensky either did not notice this or did not dare to take such a step, not believing in the capabilities of his squadron. And he had very little time to make such a decision.


The inset shows a photograph of Admiral Togo Heihachiro above a photograph of his flagship Mikasa leading the battle line of the Imperial Japanese Navy into battle with the Russian squadron.


The Japanese fleet moves towards the enemy

Daytime battle


At the moment of the Japanese squadron's turn at 13:49, the Russian ships opened fire from a distance of about 8 km (45 cables). Only the lead battleships could effectively hit the enemy; for the others, the distance was too great, and the ships ahead interfered.

The Japanese responded immediately, concentrating their fire on the two flagships, the Knyaz Suvorov and the Oslyaba. The Russian commander turned the squadron to the right to take up a position parallel to the course of the Japanese fleet, but the enemy, taking advantage of its greater speed, continued to encircle the head of the Russian squadron, blocking the route to Vladivostok.

About 10 minutes later, the Japanese gunners got their aim, and their powerful high-explosive shells began to cause great destruction on the Russian ships, causing large fires. The fire and heavy smoke also made it difficult for the Russians to shoot and disrupted the control of the ships. The Oslyabya was badly damaged and at about 14:30 p.m., buried up to the hawse holes, it rolled out of formation to the right; about 10 minutes later, the battleship capsized and sank. The commander, Captain 1st Rank Vladimir Baer, ​​was wounded at the beginning of the battle and refused to abandon ship; more than 500 people died with him. The destroyers and the tugboat raised 376 people from the water.

Around the same time, the Suvorov was seriously damaged. Shell fragments hit the conning tower, killing and wounding almost everyone there. Rozhestvensky was wounded. Having lost control, the battleship rolled to the right, and then dangled between the squadrons, trying to regain control. During the ensuing battle, the battleship was repeatedly fired upon and attacked with torpedoes. At the beginning of the 18th hour, the destroyer Buyny took part of the staff from the ship, led by the seriously wounded Rozhestvensky. Soon, Japanese cruisers and destroyers finished off the crippled flagship. The entire crew perished. When the battleship Suvorov perished, Admiral Nebogatov, who was holding the flag on the squadron battleship Emperor Nikolai I, assumed command.


I. A. Vladimirov. The heroic death of the battleship "Prince Suvorov" in the Battle of Tsushima

The squadron was headed by the next battleship, the Emperor Alexander III. But it soon received heavy damage and moved to the center of the squadron, giving up its place as the lead to Borodino. The battleship Alexander was finished off at 18:50 by concentrated fire from the armored cruisers Nissin and Kassuga. None of the crew (857 people) survived.

The Russian squadron continued moving in relative order, trying to break out of the Japanese pincers. But the Japanese ships, without serious damage, continued to block the way. Around 15:XNUMX, the Japanese cruisers came to the rear of the Russian squadron, captured two hospital ships, and engaged the cruisers, knocking the cruisers and transports into one pile.

After 15:23 the sea was suddenly covered by fog. Under its protection the Russian ships turned south-east and parted ways with the enemy. The battle was interrupted, and the Russian squadron again set course north-east XNUMX°, towards Vladivostok. However, the enemy cruisers discovered the Russian squadron, and the battle continued.

An hour later, when fog returned, the Russian squadron turned south and drove off the Japanese cruisers. At 17:XNUMX, obeying the instructions of Rear Admiral Nebogatov, Borodino again led the column to the northeast, toward Vladivostok. Then Togo's main forces approached again, and after a short exchange of fire, fog separated the main forces.

Around 18:19, Togo caught up with the main Russian forces again, concentrating his fire on Borodino and Orel. Borodino was heavily damaged and was on fire. At the beginning of XNUMX:XNUMX, Borodino received its last critical damage and was completely ablaze. The battleship capsized and sank with the entire crew. Only one sailor (Semyon Yushchin) was saved. Alexander III had perished a little earlier.

With the sunset, the Japanese commander took the ships out of battle. By the morning of May 28 all the detachments were to gather north of the Dagelet Island (in the northern part of the Korea Strait). The miners received the task of continuing the battle, encircling the Russian squadron and completing the rout by night attacks.

Thus, 27 in May 1905, the Russian squadron suffered a heavy defeat. 2-I Pacific squadron lost 4 best squadron battleship of 5-ti. The newest battleship Eagle, which remained afloat, was badly damaged. Other ships of the squadron were also heavily damaged. Many Japanese ships received several holes, but retained their combat capability.

The passivity of the Russian command, which did not even try to defeat the enemy, went into battle without any hope of success, surrendering to the will of fate, led to tragedy. The squadron only tried to break through towards Vladivostok, and did not wage a decisive and furious battle. If the captains had fought decisively, maneuvered, tried to get closer to the enemy for effective shooting, the Japanese would have suffered much more serious losses.

The apathy of the leadership paralyzed almost all the commanders; the squadron, like a herd of bulls, stupidly and stubbornly broke through towards Vladivostok, not trying to crush the formation of Japanese ships.


Source: Soviet historical encyclopedia. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ed. by E. M. Zhukov. 1973-1982.

Completion of the rout


During the night, numerous Japanese destroyers surrounded the Russian fleet from the north, east and south. Nebogatov on his flagship overtook the squadron, took the lead and moved to Vladivostok. The cruisers and destroyers, as well as the surviving transports, found themselves without leadership and headed in different directions.

The four battleships remaining with Nebogatov (Nikolai, Orel, Admiral Senyavin, General-Admiral Apraksin) were surrounded by superior enemy forces in the morning and capitulated. The crews were ready to accept the last battle and die with honor, but they carried out the admiral's order.

Only the encircled cruiser Izumrud, the only cruiser remaining in the squadron after the battle and protecting the remnants of the 2nd Pacific Squadron from destroyer attacks at night, did not obey the order to surrender to the Japanese. Izumrud broke through the encirclement at full speed and went to Vladivostok. The ship's commander, Captain 2nd Rank Vasily Ferzen, who showed himself excellently during this tragic battle and the breakthrough of the encirclement, made a number of serious mistakes during the journey to Vladivostok. Apparently, the psychological stress of the battle had an effect. When entering Vladimir Bay, the ship ran aground and was blown up by the crew, fearing the appearance of the enemy. Although during high tide it was possible to lift the ship off the sandbank.

The battleship Navarin did not receive any serious damage in the daytime battle, and the losses were small. But at night, it gave itself away with the light of searchlights, and the attack of Japanese destroyers led to the ship's destruction. Of the 681 crew members, only three managed to escape.

The battleship Sisoj Velikiy received heavy damage during the daytime battle. At night it was attacked by destroyers and received fatal damage. In the morning the battleship reached Tsushima Island, where it collided with Japanese cruisers and a destroyer. The ship's commander M. V. Ozerov, seeing the hopelessness of the situation, agreed to capitulate. The Japanese evacuated the crew, and the ship sank.

The armored cruiser Admiral Nakhimov was seriously damaged during the day, torpedoed at night, and sunk in the morning to avoid surrender to the enemy. The armored cruiser Admiral Ushakov was seriously damaged in the daytime battle. The ship's speed dropped, and it fell behind the main forces. On May 28, the ship refused to capitulate and accepted an unequal battle with the Japanese armored cruisers Iwate and Yakumo. Having received severe damage, the ship was scuttled by its crew.

The heavily damaged cruiser Vladimir Monomakh was sunk by its crew in a hopeless situation. Of all the 1st rank ships, the cruiser Dmitry Donskoy was the closest to Vladivostok. The cruiser was overtaken by the Japanese. Donskoy accepted the battle with superior Japanese forces. The cruiser perished without lowering its flag. The crew was saved and transported to Ulleungdo Island.

Only a second-class cruiser Almaz, the destroyers Bravy and Grozny, could leave for Vladivostok. In addition, the transport "Anadyr" went to Madagascar, and then to the Baltic. Three cruisers (“Pearls”, “Oleg” and “Aurora”) went to Manila in the Philippines and were interned there. The destroyer "Bedovy", carrying the wounded Rozhestvensky, was overtaken by Japanese destroyers and surrendered.


Dmitry Donskoy

Losses


Russian losses: more than 5 thousand people killed, about 800 wounded, more than 7 thousand captured, more than 2 thousand interned in neutral ports.

Of the 38 ships and vessels participating on the Russian side, 21 sank as a result of enemy combat action, were scuttled or blown up by their crews (7 battleships, 3 armored cruisers, 2 armored deck cruisers, 1 auxiliary cruiser, 5 destroyers, 3 transports), 7 surrendered or were captured (4 battleships, 1 destroyer, 2 hospital ships), of which the hospital ship Kostroma was subsequently released. Six ships (6 armored deck cruisers, 3 destroyer, 1 transports) were interned in neutral ports until the end of the war.

Japanese losses - more than 600 people killed and wounded. Three destroyers were lost. Many ships were damaged, but all remained in service.

Value


From the very beginning, the campaign of the 2nd Pacific Squadron was adventurous. The ships had to be sent to the Pacific Ocean before the war. The meaning of the campaign was finally lost after the fall of Port Arthur and the death of the 1st Pacific Squadron. The squadron had to be returned from Madagascar. However, due to political ambitions, the desire to somehow raise the prestige of Russia, the fleet was actually sent to perish. In the hope of a miracle (maybe).

The voyage from Libau to Tsushima itself became an unparalleled feat of Russian sailors in overcoming enormous difficulties. But the battle at Tsushima showed the advanced stage of the Romanov Empire's disintegration. The problems of shipbuilding and armament of the Russian fleet in comparison with the leading powers (the Japanese fleet was created by the efforts of the leading world powers, especially England).

Russian naval power in the Far East was crushed. Tsushima became the decisive prerequisite for concluding peace with Japan, although in military-strategic terms the outcome of the war was decided on land.

Petersburg was shocked by the tragedy, they were sure to the end that the Russian fleet would crush the "Asians". The revolution was growing in the country. And the society started talking about the constitution.

Tsushima became a kind of terrible landmark event for the Russian Empire, showing the need for fundamental changes in the country, the disastrous nature of the war for Russia in its current state. Unfortunately, it was not understood, and the Russian Empire perished, like the 2nd Pacific Squadron, bloodily and horribly.


V. S. Ermyshev. Battleship "Admiral Ushakov"

Reasons for the pogrom


One of the main reasons for the death of the squadron was the lack of initiative and indecisiveness of the Russian command (the scourge of the Russian army and navy during the Russo-Japanese War). Rozhestvensky did not dare to raise the issue of sending the squadron back after the fall of Port Arthur. The admiral led the squadron without hope of success and remained passive, giving the initiative to the enemy. There was no specific battle plan. Long-range reconnaissance was not organized, and the opportunity to defeat the Japanese cruisers, which were separated from the main forces for a significant time, was not used.

At the beginning of the battle, they did not use the chance to deliver a strong blow to the enemy's main forces. The squadron did not complete its battle formation and fought under unfavorable conditions; only the lead ships could fire normally. The unsuccessful formation of the squadron allowed the Japanese to concentrate their fire on the best battleships of the Russian squadron and quickly disable them, after which the outcome of the battle was decided.

During the battle, when the lead battleships were out of action, the squadron actually fought without command. Nebogatov took command only in the evening and surrendered the ships to the Japanese in the morning.

Among the technical reasons, one can single out the "fatigue" of the ships after a long voyage, when they were separated from a normal repair base for a long time. The ships were overloaded with coal and other cargo, which reduced their seaworthiness.

Russian ships were inferior to Japanese ships in the total number of guns, armor area, speed, rate of fire, weight, and explosive power of the squadron's shot.

All participants in the battle were struck by the difference in damage to Russian and Japanese ships: the consequences of the explosions of Russian shells were small, about a third of the shells did not explode and left only holes equal to their diameter. When Japanese shells exploded, a cloud of small fragments formed. When Russian shells exploded, several large fragments formed, but their force was very weak.

The cruiser and destroyer forces lagged significantly. The squadron's naval composition was varied in armament, protection and maneuverability, which affected its combat capability. The new battleships, as the battle showed, had weak armor and low stability.

The Russian squadron, unlike the Japanese fleet, was not a single combat organism. The personnel, both commanding and enlisted, were diverse. There were only enough career commanders to fill the main responsible positions. The shortage of command personnel was compensated for by early graduation of the Naval Corps, the call-up of "old men" from the reserve (who had no experience of sailing on armored ships) and transfer from the merchant marine (ensigns).

As a result, a strong gap formed between the youth, who did not have the necessary experience and sufficient knowledge, the “old men” who needed to update their knowledge, and the “civilians” who did not have normal military training.

There was also a shortage of conscript sailors, so the crews consisted of reservists and recruits by about a third. There were many "penal" sailors, whom the commanders "sent" on long voyages, which did not improve discipline on the ships. The situation with the non-commissioned officers was no better.

The personnel were mostly assigned to the new ships only in the summer of 1904 and were unable to study the ships well. Because of the urgent need to finish, repair and prepare the ships, the squadron did not sail together in the summer of 1904 and did not train. Only in August was a 10-day voyage completed. During the voyage, due to a number of reasons, the crews were unable to learn how to maneuver the ships and shoot well.

Thus, the 2-I Pacific Squadron was poorly prepared, in fact, did not receive combat training. It is clear that Russian sailors and commanders entered the battle courageously, bravely fought, but their heroism could not rectify the situation.

The situation was well described by Alexey Novikov, a sailor on the Orel (a future Soviet marine writer). He was arrested in 1903 for revolutionary propaganda and transferred to the 2nd Pacific Squadron as an “unreliable” person. Novikov wrote:

Many sailors were called up from the reserve. These elderly men, clearly unaccustomed to naval service, lived with memories of their homeland, grieved at being separated from their home, their children, their wives. The war had fallen upon them unexpectedly, like a terrible disaster, and they, preparing for an unprecedented campaign, did their work with the gloomy look of those hanged. The crew included many recruits. Downtrodden and miserable, they looked at everything with frozen horror in their eyes. They were frightened by the sea, which they had found themselves on for the first time, and even more so by the unknown future. Even among the career sailors who had graduated from various special schools, there was no usual cheerfulness. Only the penal ones, in contrast to the rest, held on more or less cheerfully. The shore command, in order to get rid of them as a harmful element, came up with the easiest way to do this: write them off to ships heading off to war. Thus, to the horror of the senior officer, we had up to seven percent of them.

Another good image explaining the death of the squadron was conveyed by Novikov (under the pseudonym "sailor A. Zaterty"). This is what he saw:

“We were extremely surprised that this ship was not damaged at all by our artillery. It looked as if it had just been taken out of repairs. Even the paint on the guns was not burnt. Our sailors, having inspected the Asahi, were ready to swear that on May 14 we fought not with the Japanese, but ... God knows, with the English. Inside the battleship we were amazed at the cleanliness, tidiness, practicality and expediency of the arrangement. On our new battleships of the Borodino type, half of the ship was allocated for some thirty officers; it was cluttered with cabins, and during the battle they only increased the fires; and in the other half of the ship we had squeezed not only up to 900 sailors, but also artillery and elevators. And on our enemy's ship everything was used mainly for the guns. Then we were suddenly struck by the absence of that discord between the officers and sailors that you encounter at every step with us; there, on the contrary, there was a sense of unity, a kindred spirit and common interests between them. It was only here that we really learned for the first time who we were dealing with in battle and what the Japanese were like."

Japanese Admiral Togo himself did not consider this victory a great miracle. Japanese gunners acted no better than in the battle in the Yellow Sea. But the Japanese fleet was a single fighting mechanism, and the Russian was not.


Battle of Tsushima, painting by Tojo Shotaro
185 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    2 June 2025 05: 19
    Thanks for continuing, Alexander!
    Tsushima is in fact a symbol of the collapse of autocracy. And it was the detonator that set off all the gigatons of problems accumulated by the Russian Empire.
    No, the systemic crisis had been observed for a whole century by that time, but it was the monstrous, one-time defeat of an impressive military force at sea that became the most striking illustration of the backwardness and absurdity of the absolutist structure of the state.
    Usually we extol the heroism and suffering of the people in opposition to the stupidity and tyranny of the authorities, but the very opposition of the upper classes (here, in contrast, we can really talk about the "elite") to the entire people indicates the inevitability of defeat. As they say, a house divided within cannot stand.
    And another lesson from Tsushima: we are all strong in hindsight and are always ready to act as judges, having full information and no involvement in events. Meanwhile, we forget that both Vice-Admiral Rozhdestvensky and Battalion Master Novikov were just cogs in the machine that, having been launched two centuries ago by Peter the Great, was rushing towards disaster without changing its patterns.
    We must leave aside all these knots, calibers and tons describing the opposing fleets. Especially since the masters of the VO do this with constant diligence.
    The root of the problem is that the young predator - Japan, having the unity of the People and the Government, found the strength to prepare for war, to put forward talented military leaders, and demonstrating high professionalism combined with mass heroism (and it was!) to defeat an enemy that was many times superior to them statistically.
    And to our fallen - honor and glory!
    1. +1
      11 June 2025 07: 53
      How we love to generalize, essentially quoting Vladimir Ilyich. But it is doubtful that chatterbox parliamentarians would have led Russia to victory.
      The issue is not in the form of government, but in specific mistakes, the gap between the goals set and their implementation. The main culprit is personally Nikolai II, who was supposed to coordinate the actions of all structures. Really manage the Empire, and not imagine himself "the master of the Russian land."
  2. +7
    2 June 2025 05: 35
    Everything was decided in the classic way in a 40-minute daytime artillery battle of the main forces. Plus finishing night attacks by destroyers. No tactical innovations or miracle weapons. The more experienced and prepared fleet, operating from nearby bases, defeated the less experienced and less prepared fleet.
    Once again, Enquist's actions are unclear.
  3. + 12
    2 June 2025 05: 42
    The passivity of the Russian command, which did not even try to defeat the enemy, went into battle without any hope of success, surrendering to the will of fate, led to tragedy.


    Historical parallels with reality are obvious.

    Modern Russian policy is aimed at conducting negotiations - this is the Nord-Ost 23 course.

    The enemy is shooting at the Russian squadron, taking advantage of the command's passivity - one to one.
    1. +5
      2 June 2025 06: 05
      I also sit and think: 120 years have passed, but nothing has changed. Passivity and incompetence of the command, arrogance and hope for a Russian maybe. History is cyclical and repeats itself.
      1. +8
        2 June 2025 11: 11
        So nothing has changed, the way the monarchy was (in terms of a lifelong ruler with maximum power) has remained the same, if the ruler was lively, energetic, there was growth, and even then the growth was limited in time, until this ruler became old, and then all sorts of stagnation, intrigues, the rise to power of dubious characters.
        1. +1
          29 August 2025 21: 20
          Russia is a "peasant" empire (land empire, of course).
          Just like China, at one time the empires of the Middle East (Ottoman, Persian).
          Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to wish the fleet any success.
          For such states, the fleet is essentially an expensive toy (a suitcase without a handle), devouring a lot of resources, creating sinecures for part of the shitty elite and having a minimum return.
  4. +9
    2 June 2025 06: 31
    Old ships with powerful guns. Which ones? "Nakhimov" and "Navarin" or what? ""Sisoy Velikiy", whose bulkheads started to fall apart after two hits?
    This nonsense about "indecision" again
  5. +2
    2 June 2025 06: 35
    Thus, the 2-I Pacific Squadron was poorly prepared, in fact, did not receive combat training. It is clear that Russian sailors and commanders entered the battle courageously, bravely fought, but their heroism could not rectify the situation.

    There was no point, after the fall of Port Arthur and the destruction of the First Pacific Squadron, in breaking through to Vladivostok, much less hoping to gain supremacy at sea. With four new battleships of the Borodino type and a fifth, the Oslyabya, Rozhestvensky could have created a striking force, rather than turning the squadron into a camp and whipping boys, when, like in a shooting gallery, the Japanese shot at our ships, which with the stubbornness of the doomed, were heading in a column to the slaughter. The Tsar's incompetence largely gave birth to both Kuropatkin and Rozhestvensky, who were in the wrong place.
    As bitter and humiliating as 1905 is, it is comforting that the USSR appeared afterwards and the victory in 1945, when Japan was taken into account. In the diagram of Togo's "shooting range", in the shooting of Russian ships, "a stick over the T" (while maneuvering, you can leave the focus of fire, but Rozhdestvensky did not try to win or, at least, give a worthy fight).
    1. +3
      2 June 2025 08: 06
      Quote: Per se.
      Thus, the 2-I Pacific Squadron was poorly prepared, in fact, did not receive combat training. It is clear that Russian sailors and commanders entered the battle courageously, bravely fought, but their heroism could not rectify the situation.

      There was no point, after the fall of Port Arthur and the destruction of the First Pacific Squadron, in breaking through to Vladivostok, much less hoping to gain supremacy at sea. With four new battleships of the Borodino type and a fifth, the Oslyabya, Rozhestvensky could have created a striking force, rather than turning the squadron into a camp and whipping boys, when, like in a shooting gallery, the Japanese shot at our ships, which with the stubbornness of the doomed, were heading in a column to the slaughter. The Tsar's incompetence largely gave birth to both Kuropatkin and Rozhestvensky, who were in the wrong place.
      As bitter and humiliating as 1905 is, it is comforting that the USSR appeared afterwards and the victory in 1945, when Japan was taken into account. In the diagram of Togo's "shooting range", in the shooting of Russian ships, "a stick over the T" (while maneuvering, you can leave the focus of fire, but Rozhdestvensky did not try to win or, at least, give a worthy fight).

      Rozhestvensky knew perfectly well what a T. crossing was. That's why he dodged to the right. But with his speed it wasn't very good.
      1. +3
        2 June 2025 09: 00
        After receiving news of the fall of Port Arthur, Rozhdestvensky was forced to demand the return of the squadron to Kronstadt, already in Madagascar, the region being in Indochina.
        In general, judging by the way Rozhestvensky organized the work of his headquarters (he turned it from a planning, management and control body into a personal chancery), I suspect that he thought not as a naval commander, but as a military bureaucrat and saw his task as taking over the squadron from the St. Petersburg command and handing it over to the Far Eastern command intact. Hence the absolutely wretched battle planning and even more wretched execution.
        1. +1
          2 June 2025 10: 46
          Quote: severok1979
          Rozhestvensky, after receiving news of the fall of Port Arthur, was obliged to demand the return of the squadron to Kronstadt already in Madagascar

          What he did.
          Quote: severok1979
          In general, judging by how Rozhdestvensky organized the work of his headquarters (he transformed it from a planning, management and control body into a personal office)

          There is no need to impose your understanding of the headquarters, characteristic of the beginning of the 21st century, on the organization of the beginning of the 20th century. Then everything was a little different than now.
          Quote: severok1979
          Hence the absolutely wretched battle planning and even more wretched execution.

          There was nothing wretched in either. With the source materials that Rozhestvensky had on hand, it was impossible to achieve any other result.
      2. 0
        2 June 2025 09: 07
        Quote from Kartograph
        But with his speed it wasn't very good.
        The Japanese had an external circulation for coverage, Rozhestvensky had an internal one. If the main combat fist from the new ships had been determined immediately, the situation would have been different. What I knew does not justify what happened. The flagship was shot in focus, as were the subsequent ships that replaced it.
        What's the point of saying that Rozhdestvensky wasn't to blame, he wanted the best, but it turned out as always, maybe he was even deceived in his expectations?
        1. +4
          2 June 2025 10: 43
          Quote: Per se.
          Quote from Kartograph
          But with his speed it wasn't very good.
          The Japanese had an external circulation for coverage, Rozhdestvensky had an internal one.

          It doesn't work that easy. For example, in Formula One, pilots manage to overtake on the outside arc. Runners too. It depends on endurance, reaction. In addition, all the experience of sea battles said that it is almost impossible to sink a battleship.
          A squad of the five best ships wouldn't have done anything extraordinary either.
          1. 0
            3 June 2025 09: 11
            Quote from Kartograph
            Moreover, all the experience of naval battles indicated that that it is almost impossible to sink a battleship.
            A detachment of the five best ships too I wouldn't do anything extraordinaryо

            Mikhail, don't you think there is a contradiction in these two sentences? Why couldn't five new battleships do anything, with active maneuvering, if necessary, turning to the left, that is, enveloping not the head, but the tail of Togo's column, where there were not battleships, but armored cruisers? One thing is certain, it turns out that your arguments are reality, mine are fantasies, and my arguments are doomed from the start. But then, what is there to talk about here at all, maybe with "fantasies" history will still teach something in the conclusions?
        2. +3
          2 June 2025 10: 47
          Quote: Per se.
          If the main fighting force had been determined from the new ships right away, the situation would have been different.

          The same. And now you would write "but if the blockhead Rozhestvensky had not divided the squadron into 2 detachments, but, having sacrificed the speed, which was still insufficient, had accepted the battle in a single column"...
          1. 0
            3 June 2025 09: 16
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And now you would be writing, “But if that idiot Rozhdestvensky hadn’t divided the squadron into 2 detachments
            What about alternative history, Andrey, are you really not doing this anymore?
            1. +1
              3 June 2025 10: 49
              Quote: Per se.
              Well, Andrey, alternative history.

              I'm not against it, it's just that the allocation of a detachment of 5 ships didn't solve anything at all.
    2. -2
      31 July 2025 17: 30
      Quote: Per se.
      The Tsar's mediocrity was largely due to both Kuropatkin and Rozhdestvensky, who were in the wrong place.

      And can you find out what exactly the tsar's incompetence consisted of? And why did everyone decide that he was obliged to understand everything? How did Nicholas II give birth to the same Rozhestvensky, if he began his service long before Nicholas II's accession? Aren't you tired of repeating these Ulyanov's agitations about tsarism and autocracy?
      And what did Catherine II understand about all military issues of the fleet and military affairs? Although the stars of Ushakov and Rumyantsev rose under her. Every state has periods of prosperity and degradation of the political system, during which either talented and daring historical figures come to serve, or subpassionaries according to Gumilev's theory. The point is not to whitewash the tsar - as a ruler, he was responsible for the development of the country. But he himself was part of the political system that gave birth to mediocre and narrow-minded individuals. And it turned out to be unrealistic to rebuild it overnight. In general, the same thing is happening now, only multiplied by two.
      1. +4
        1 August 2025 06: 38
        Quote: Prometey
        Every state has periods of prosperity and degradation of its political system.
        The degradation of the Russian tsarist system occurred under Nicholas II. The First World War was to decide who would be the leader in capitalism, which was turning into a planetary system. Germany was going to push Britain out, two blocs of allies were created. Russia did not think about any leadership, and found itself in the Entente thanks to the loans it had taken from France and Britain, so to speak, as a debtor to the "partners". At the same time, neither Britain nor Germany needed a strong Russia, only the leader, the owner, had to be strong. Everything that happened was natural, the Anglo-Saxons won, only one strong empire remained in Europe - the British, all the others - the Ottoman, German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian, sank into oblivion. There is no need to delude yourself with illusions, Britain did not goof off Russia in life in order to give up Constantinople and the strategic straits during a war to the victorious end. Literally, before the First World War, England armed Japan, and was essentially its ally against the strengthening of Russia. If there were no Bolsheviks, the February Revolution would have brought to power the pro-Western Chubais, Yeltsins and Gaidars, and the end would have come for the country, this is not 1991, with the legacy of a nuclear and space superpower, but a semi-literate, agrarian country dependent on Western technology, in debt and the military devastation of 1917. What is the greatness of Nicholas II, it is up to you.
        1. -2
          1 August 2025 09: 58
          Quote: Per se.
          The degradation of the Russian tsarist system occurred under Nicholas II.

          What is tsarism?
          And did the political system flourish under Nicholas I and Alexander III?
          Quote: Per se.
          The First World War was to decide who would be the leader in capitalism,

          During the Russo-Japanese War, no one was particularly preparing for a world war.
          Quote: Per se.
          all the rest - the Ottoman, German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian - sank into oblivion.

          Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian - yes. Russian transformed into the USSR.
          German - where did it disappear to? Germany retained its entire industrial potential and officer corps. The Third Reich is the successor to the German Empire. Only the political system changed, not the geopolitical structure.
          Quote: Per se.
          Literally, before the First World War, England armed Japan

          You wanted to say before the Russo-Japanese War? And how did it arm it? Well, it built ships at its own shipyards to Japan's order. What's the crime? And in 1905, England was one of those who forced Japan to sit down at the negotiating table, threatening to stop lending. England may not have needed a strong Russia, but neither did it need a weak one with Germany gaining strength.
          Quote: Per se.
          If there had been no Bolsheviks, the February Revolution would have brought to power the pro-Western Chubais, Yeltsins and Gaidars

          Unsubstantiated everyday reasoning. In fact, before the Kornilov rebellion, the Bolsheviks were nobody and had no name. As a result of the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Socialist Revolutionaries won the majority - well, you can't call them rabid supporters of capitalism.
          Quote: Per se.
          but a semi-literate, agrarian country dependent on Western technology

          So it was constantly dependent. The main ideological enemies-capitalists - the Americans - helped to carry out industrialization in the USSR. For money, of course, but that's a fact.
          Quote: Per se.
          What is the greatness of Nicholas II, is your business.

          And did anyone talk about greatness? The question was what exactly was his fault in the Tsushima defeat? Did he command the fleet?
          1. +3
            1 August 2025 10: 41
            I'll tell you this, we had different emperors, as well as queens, many of them Germans and half-Germans. Of the latter, I think the most outstanding personality is Alexander III, if he had lived longer, if we had kept the silver ruble, the country would not have fallen under Britain and the Rothschilds, perhaps there would not have been the shame of Tsushima.
            About "Unsubstantiated everyday reasoning", for me personally 1991 is a good illustration, as well as the fact that it was precisely thanks to the creation of the Soviet Union, the Soviet power, that a superpower was built. No tsar would have created something like this, considering what already existed. It was possible to claim leadership in the world under Alexander I, but this Knight of Europe nobly gave everything away and lost it, the British skimmed off all the cream from the victory over Napoleon. By 1914, Russia had no chance of claiming the world throne of capitalism, and no matter who claimed it, no one would have allowed Russia to remain great.
            You say that our enemies helped us to industrialize? That's a big giveaway, weren't they the ones who "helped" with the famine, since we had to sell them grain? Germany, and who and why brought Hitler to power, making anti-communists out of the Nazis, and the Third Reich anti-USSR, which was a thorn in the side of world capitalism? The Americans helped, so they helped the Germans too. Harry Truman expressed it very clearly, in order for the Russians and Germans to kill each other as much as possible.
            It's interesting how you twist the arrows - "The question was what exactly was his fault in the Tsushima defeat? Did he command the fleet?" The question was in his incompetence, during which Khatynka, Bloody Sunday, Tsushima, the revolution of 1905, and finally, the February Revolution of 1917 happened. He abdicated the throne at the most crucial moment, as did his brother Mikhail, in whose favor he abdicated. Such a monarch, and, yes, he bears responsibility for those whom he appoints, including Rozhdestvensky and Kuropatkin.
            In defense of Rozhdestvensky, one can only say that he was waiting for a decision from Nicholas II after the news of the fall of Port Arthur, but the “anointed of God” did not bother to adjust the initial plan of the squadron’s campaign.
  6. -4
    2 June 2025 07: 04
    Russian losses: more than 5 thousand people killed, about 800 wounded, more than 7 thousand captured
    Tsushima became a kind of terrible landmark event for the Russian Empire, showing the need for radical changes in the country, the destructiveness of war
    losses in the Kiev cauldron 1941: over 700 thousand people, of which 627 people were irretrievably lost, the Vyazma cauldron 800 - 1941 thousand, of which 700 thousand were prisoners, and also the Uany cauldron 500, Bialystok 1941, etc. Material and territorial losses are enormous.

    But no one says that the boilers became a kind of terrible landmark event for the USSR, showing the need for radical changes in the country, the destructiveness of war, although the losses were 2 orders of magnitude greater. True, few people knew the scale of what had happened...
    1. +4
      2 June 2025 08: 16
      Wow, you've been touched. You compare the scales in a strange way. Russia lost almost its entire fleet, which cost a lot of money, instantly losing its status as a maritime power. The material losses of Tsushima are much higher than the losses in the Kiev cauldron, taking into account the state of the economies and the ability to reproduce equipment.
      1. -8
        2 June 2025 08: 26
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Wow, you've been touched. You compare scales in a strange way.

        Wow, you've been touched. You're comparing the scales of 7 thousand and ... 700 thousand in a strange way.
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Russia lost almost its entire fleet,

        nonsense
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        The material losses of Tsushima are much higher than the losses in the Kiev cauldron,

        prove it.
        1. +9
          2 June 2025 08: 57
          Quote: Olgovich
          Wow, you've been touched. You're comparing the scales of 7 thousand and ... 700 thousand in a strange way.

          You are comparing incomparable things, sea battle and land war. Different tactics, weapons used, financial costs of creating a fleet and army, number of personnel. The loss of 1 TOE and 2 TOE is in relation to the army the loss of 90% of the armed forces, Having industry and population, the army can be restored in a short time, restoring the fleet will require much more time and costs.
          1. +7
            2 June 2025 09: 31
            And this Mr. Khrustobakovnik doesn't care whether it was a naval battle in 1905 or land operations in 1941. For him, those who were at the helm of the Russian Empire were saints, but those who governed the USSR were all criminals...
            1. +2
              19 October 2025 11: 11
              And this Mr. Crust Baker doesn't care
              That's right! "Monarchism of the brain" is what it is. Completely knocks out all logic and cause-and-effect relationships. Well, at least it's funny. I was scrolling through and kept waiting - well, Olgovich has to pop up... it's impossible that he won't pop up... in the dialogues.)))
        2. +4
          2 June 2025 11: 14
          Quote: Olgovich
          Wow, you've been touched. You're comparing the scales of 7 thousand and ... 700 thousand in a strange way.

          You are just like a Soviet propagandist - they also loved to compare the losses at Midway and Stalingrad, proving that the war was insignificant compared to Europe, and no turning point in the war could be achieved with such losses. smile
          At the same time, tactfully omitting the fact that in a war at sea, losses are made up for over the years, and a defeat in a major battle determines the entire further course of the war for years. The Japanese could even theoretically re-equip the 1st and 2nd DAVs of the Kido Butai, knocked out at Midway, only in 1945.
          Quote: Olgovich
          nonsense

          And what is left for Russia? The Tsarevich interned in the Far East, the Slava in the Baltic Fleet, the Twelve Apostles, Three Saints, Rostislav and Potemkin in the Black Sea Fleet. Oh yes, and four ancient barbette Ekaterinas, armored frigates and armored turret boats.
          1. -6
            2 June 2025 17: 29
            Quote: Alexey RA
            At the same time, tactfully omitting the fact that in a war at sea, losses are made up for over the years, and defeat in a major battle determines the entire further course of the war for years

            what, in, midway, in the RYAV? belay The war was decided and resolved on LAND.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The Tsarevich interned in the Far East, the Slava of the Baltic Fleet, the Twelve Apostles, Three Saints, Rostislav and Potemkin of the Black Sea Fleet. Oh yes, and four more ancient barbette Ekaterinas, armored frigates and armored turret boats

            Well, there you see.
            Also submarines and destroyers with cruisers.
            1. +2
              3 June 2025 10: 46
              Quote: Olgovich
              Well, there you see.

              Yeah... there are as many as 6 EBRs left for 2 fleets, and 4 of them are for the World Cup. And 14 were lost without return. Fourteen EBRs.
              Of the Baltic Fleet's linear forces, only one remained: the Slava, which had arrived late to Tsushima.
              From the cruiser forces of the RIF - VOK, Enkvist's detachment, the "Diana" that escaped in time and the Black Sea unfinished building.
              Quote: Olgovich
              The war was decided and resolved on LAND.

              In the Russian Navy, the fate of the war was decided at sea. In essence, this was the second Crimean campaign, where Russia once again had to push soldiers and supplies to a distant theater of operations.
            2. 0
              19 October 2025 17: 50
              My dear fellow, which submarines were in service with the Russian Imperial Navy in 1905? Please provide the full list.
      2. +7
        2 June 2025 09: 12
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Material losses at Tsushima are much higher than those in the Kiev cauldron

        The most important thing is that after the Kyiv cauldron there was a victory over Germany and Japan in 1945, and not the defeat of Russia in 1905 and the abdication of the Tsar in 1917, with a dire situation on the fronts of the First World War.
        1. +1
          2 June 2025 14: 35
          Quote: Per se.
          with the dire situation on the fronts of the First World War.

          This is of course not on topic. But still, it was terrible only in 1915. Then it became relatively normal.
          1. +1
            2 June 2025 15: 03
            The trouble came not in the spring of 1915, but in the fall of 1916. The reserves really ran out and a production crisis occurred. We had to try to mobilize the ancestors of the migrants (hello, Basmachi!) and pluck the kulaks (hello, food tax collection). And the "Kovel Deadlock" named after A.A. Brusilov, Romania and Riga showed that we were no match for the German army. Here even the Tsar realized that we had to seek a separate peace, which is where the British caught him. Well, you know about the murder of Rasputin and the February Revolution.
            1. +3
              3 June 2025 10: 48
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              The trouble came not in the spring of 1915, but in the autumn of 1916. The reserves actually ran out and a production crisis occurred.

              More like a transport crisis. There were enough weapons and supplies for the Civil War, and the last shots of the Tsarist era were fired in the 40s.
              1. -1
                3 June 2025 11: 24
                Yes, the phone corrected "food" to "production". Speculators bought up grain and held it for the price increase. Well, kulak Siberia simply demanded free sale.
                And the transport crisis was largely man-made. To put it simply - sabotage!
                1. +1
                  3 June 2025 12: 00
                  Quote: Victor Leningradets
                  And the transport crisis was largely man-made. To put it simply - sabotage!

                  In addition to sabotage, there was massive misuse of wagons. Simply put, the army used wagons as temporary warehouses at unloading sites. As a result, the turnover of freight wagons stretched out for months.
                  On paper there was rolling stock, but at the stations there was nothing to load it into.
          2. 0
            16 July 2025 21: 10
            Well, yes, things have returned to normal - the regular army has been reduced to zero and replaced by mobilized troops.
            But it has long been known that it is not realistic to fight for a long time with mobilized soldiers - motivation falls with each month (if there was any motivation at all)
            1. 0
              17 July 2025 08: 28
              Quote: Billi Bons1972
              Well, yes, things have returned to normal - the regular army has been reduced to zero and replaced by mobilized troops.
              But it has long been known that it is not realistic to fight for a long time with mobilized soldiers - motivation falls with each month (if there was any motivation at all)

              This is the fate of all armies in any major conflict. And the one who succeeds best in turning "mobilizers" into normal soldiers.
        2. -5
          2 June 2025 17: 32
          Quote: Per se.
          the dire situation on the fronts of the First World War

          yes, just for... 2 thousand km west of the Volga Yes
      3. +5
        2 June 2025 10: 53
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Material losses at Tsushima are much higher than those in the Kiev cauldron

        The materiel of a million-strong army is very expensive. In general, the loss of 20 tanks in 000 cost +- 1941 modern battleships
        1. +2
          2 June 2025 12: 29
          Greetings, Andrew!
          You're exaggerating about 20 kilotanks. The Red Army had no more than 22.06.1941 vehicles of all types in service on 7000. At the same time, there were less than a thousand poorly mastered T-34s and mastered, but extremely unreliable KVs IN SERVICE.
          Then, during the summer battles, about 8000 more were put into service from the available reserves and transferred to the troops, plus two thousand new, but still unreliable machines. In addition, mass production of Zhu-Zhu (T-60) tanks was launched at GAZ. So the loss of equipment during the 1941 campaign is a secondary issue. But the losses of personnel, traditionally exaggerated by our liberal propaganda, as well as the monarchists who joined them, were truly sensitive.
          As for the fleet, the senseless destruction of the First and Second Pacific Squadrons of the Baltic Fleet, on the one hand, relegated Russia to the last roles in the division and repartition of the World, and on the other hand, contributed to the modernization of the fleet, the development of new means of combat at sea and corresponding tactical methods, as well as the improvement of personnel training. It is a pity that due to the incompetent policy and the corresponding distribution of forces, Russia was never able to reap the fruits of these labors.
          1. +6
            2 June 2025 14: 01
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            You're exaggerating about 20 kilotanks.

            According to Krivosheev, at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War there were 20,6, transferred to the troops in 1941 - 5,6, and on 01.01.1942 there were 7,7 thousand left. Total - 20,5 thousand losses.
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            On June 22.06.1941, 7000, the Red Army had no more than XNUMX vehicles of all types in service.

            Excuse me, but who should we thank for the fact that out of 22,6 thousand there were only 7 in service? I'm not saying that we lost all 20,5 thousand in battles. Many tanks of those that were listed were not combat-ready. But they remained in the territory captured by the enemy, and who benefits from all this?
            The fact is that the gigantic infusions into the USSR tank fleet were lost for both combat and non-combat reasons. And this was very expensive.
            1. +1
              2 June 2025 14: 46
              Good afternoon.
              Dear Andrey, tanks are certainly not my favorite topic, but you write;
              According to Krivosheev, at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War there were 20,6, transferred to the troops in 1941 - 5,6, and on 01.01.1942 there were 7,7 thousand left. Total - 20,5 thousand losses.

              If you look at the data of the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, as of June 01, 1941, there were 23106 tanks in the entire Red Army, with 5694 tanks in the Far Eastern Military District alone. 4415 tanks required repair, so the figure of 20500 tanks lost is, I think, slightly overstated.
              1. +2
                2 June 2025 15: 13
                Dear Igor, the calculation here is very simple.
                Quote: 27091965i
                If you look at the data of the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, then on June 01, 1941, the entire Red Army had 23106 tanks,

                This is without tankettes, tractors and sapper tanks based on the T-26.
                Quote: 27091965i
                At the same time, there were 5694 tanks in the Far Eastern Military District alone. 4415 tanks required repairs, so the figure of 20500 tanks lost is, I think, slightly overstated.

                Why? After all, it's not where the tanks were, but their movement that matters. This is the formula
                Availability of tanks at the beginning of WWII + tank deliveries for 1941 - number of tanks on 01.01.1942 = total loss of tanks due to combat and non-combat reasons. And there were about 20 of them lost... and one King George 000 cost about 5 Matildas, well, very roughly, and the proportion...
                1. 0
                  2 June 2025 15: 37
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Why? After all, it's not where the tanks were, but their movement that matters. This is the formula
                  Availability of tanks at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War + tank deliveries for 1941 - number of tanks on 01.01.1942 = total loss of tanks due to combat and non-combat reasons. And there were about 20 of them lost.

                  First of all, we need to see what tanks arrived to the troops and from where. I think they made over 800 KVs, I don't remember exactly, T-34s need to be looked at from memory, I can't write it down. Of course, we can consider T-40 and T-60 tanks as full-fledged tanks, but to be honest, it's very difficult. Tanks were sent from the internal, southern and Far Eastern military districts, but clearly not in the quantity to reach the figure of 20500 lost tanks.
                  1. +2
                    2 June 2025 16: 04
                    Quote: 27091965i
                    Tanks were sent from the internal, southern and Far Eastern military districts, but clearly not in sufficient quantities to reach the figure of 20500 lost tanks.

                    Dear Igor, why do you think so? I repeat once again, the formula is simple - what was, plus what came in minus what was left gives the output. And no matter how you twist the numbers, it turns out to be about 20 in the first year of the war.
                    This, of course, does not mean that they were all lost in battles, a lot of them just remained as scrap metal (mostly blown up) in the captured territories. But the overall loss is approximately the same.
                    1. 0
                      2 June 2025 16: 26
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      why do you think so? I repeat once again, the formula is simple - what was, plus what came in minus what was left gives the output. And no matter how you twist the numbers, it comes out to about 20 in the first year of the war.

                      Dear Andrey, the thing is that this formula is very approximate. I proceed from the fact that the data on the loss of tanks in the Far Eastern Military District in the period from June 1941 to December 1941 is known. The dispatch of units and equipment was carried out from June to November 1941. The loss of BT-2; BT-5; BT-7 tanks amounted to 550 vehicles, T-26 of various modifications 1490 vehicles; T-37; T-38 522 vehicles. But the fact is that some of the tanks were dismantled for spare parts and subsequently written off in 1941, which also means a decrease in the number of vehicles. At the same time, part of the SD was sent without tanks, these vehicles were transferred to the 58th, 59th, 60th, 112th TD, while some documents are missing. Although there are documents on tank losses in battles for some parts of these districts, they are incomplete and do not provide a complete picture.
                      1. +3
                        2 June 2025 17: 35
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        But the fact is that some of the tanks were dismantled for spare parts and subsequently written off in 1941, which also meant a reduction in the number of vehicles.

                        I don't object. But what difference does it make? I don't count combat losses, or, say, combat and non-combat losses in the western part of the USSR or something else. I count the total attrition - regardless of the reasons that caused it. Because regardless of where we put these tanks, we first created them, and then they ceased to exist and thus lost their practical usefulness for us as tanks, as combat vehicles.
                        I am not citing these losses as an illustration of our clumsiness or the gloomy Teutonic genius. In no case! This is only an illustration of the fact that a land army is an extremely expensive thing, and that a navy is often more advantageous in terms of the "price/result" ratio for achieving many goals.
                      2. +1
                        2 June 2025 18: 21
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is just an illustration of the fact that a land army is an extremely expensive thing, and that a navy is often more advantageous in terms of the “price/result” ratio for achieving many goals.

                        The price of a T-26 tank, if I am not mistaken, is 56000 rubles, the price of a Project 7 destroyer is 12 million. For this money, it would have been possible to build 214 T-26 tanks. At that time, the USSR could not solve problems at sea and in the ocean, there was no fleet. Therefore, 214 tanks, even if they are T-26, are still more profitable than one destroyer, and the ratio of combat missions that these tanks can solve is many times greater than the combat missions that one destroyer can solve.
                      3. +4
                        2 June 2025 19: 53
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        The price of a T-26 tank, if I'm not mistaken, is 56000 rubles.

                        Something like that. And the BT-7 is already around 170 rubles.
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        and the ratio of combat missions that these tanks can solve is many times greater than the combat missions that one destroyer can solve.

                        But the T-26s didn’t solve any special military problems for us, they simply died in battle or went out of order.
                        But that's not the point. The point is that, as I said, a land army is a very, very expensive pleasure, and all other things being equal, it is more expensive than a navy. And significantly more expensive. And to say "let's solve the problems that the navy should solve with an army, and it will be much cheaper" without any calculation, simply based on the common "if you want to ruin a country, give it a cruiser" is counterproductive.
                      4. 0
                        2 June 2025 20: 09
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And to say "let's solve the problems that the navy should solve with the army, and it will be much cheaper" without any calculation, simply based on the common "if you want to ruin the country, give it a cruiser" - is counterproductive.

                        This is not possible, each branch of the military solves its tasks in cooperation with other troops. The balance must be observed and correspond to the tasks that the state sets for itself.
                        But the T-26s didn’t solve any special military problems for us, they simply died in battle or went out of order.

                        Here I probably disagree with you. In capable hands this tank fought normally, but only in the initial period of the war. hi
                      5. +1
                        2 June 2025 20: 21
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        It's impossible

                        It is quite possible, a simple example is the Russian Far East. The Far East could have been defended primarily by the army, saving on the navy, or primarily by the navy, saving on deploying a large army. The army could have defeated the Japanese on the continent. The navy could have made it impossible to supply a large army on the continent. And in general, according to my estimates, the navy was cheaper, given that the navy could also project forces onto England.
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        In skilled hands, this tank fought normally, but only in the initial period of the war.

                        Tactically - definitely.
                      6. 0
                        2 June 2025 20: 32
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It is quite possible, a simple example is the Russian Far East. The Far East could have been defended primarily by the army, saving on the navy, or primarily by the navy, saving on the deployment of a large army.

                        It is not possible, there will always be flaws, Cargo delivery by sea is cheaper, more voluminous and faster, so a fleet is needed. Fortresses and territories need to be defended, so an army is needed. One cannot exist without the other, in terms of coastal defense.
                        And overall, according to my estimates, the fleet was cheaper, given that the fleet could also project forces onto England.

                        Russia would not have had enough strength to project itself onto the sea.
                      7. +3
                        2 June 2025 21: 19
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        One cannot exist without the other,

                        And he doesn't need to. Why go to extremes?
                        For example, we see Japan in the Far East, which is hostile to us. This threat can be countered in two ways.
                        Bet on the army. Then we need a second branch of the Trans-Siberian Railway and at least a 400-strong, but better yet - a first-class army of half a million, not counting the garrisons of Vladivostok and other cities that we will have there. Large stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, good roads, preferably a railway for quick maneuver of forces. The essence of all this is that wherever the enemy lands, the garrison must hold out until the main forces arrive, capable of kicking the Japanese in the ass.
                        The fleet should play a purely secondary role - covering ports with light forces, cruiser forces for operations on communications.
                        Or we rely on the fleet. Then we need a powerful and well-trained squadron, not inferior, but ideally - at least 20 percent superior to the Japanese fleet, the necessary infrastructure for it, but the army can be significantly smaller, since its tasks are to contain the enemy until the fleet defeats the Japanese at sea and cuts off communications with their metropolis.
                        The question is not whether to solve all the tasks of the war with the army or the navy alone. The question is only which war plan to give priority to
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        Russia would not have had enough strength to project itself onto the sea.

                        Even the 1TOE was a very serious threat to the British in Asia.
                      8. 0
                        3 June 2025 10: 27
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Or we rely on the fleet. Then we need a powerful and well-trained squadron, not inferior, but ideally - at least 20 percent superior to the Japanese fleet, the necessary infrastructure for it, but the army can be significantly smaller, since its tasks are to contain the enemy until the fleet defeats the Japanese at sea and cuts off communications with their metropolis.

                        Good morning.
                        Dear Andrey, basically you described in general terms what Russia had planned. True, Japanese destroyers put a cross on these plans at the beginning of the war.
                        Even the 1TOE was a very serious threat to the British in Asia.

                        Canopus-class battleships, home base Gibraltar, one of the main tasks is rapid deployment to the Far East. This eliminates the threat from the 20st TOE within 1 days.
                      9. +2
                        3 June 2025 10: 47
                        Good morning, dear Igor!
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        True, Japanese destroyers put an end to these plans at the beginning of the war.

                        Strictly speaking, Witte put an end to these plans when, at a meeting with the Tsar, he postponed the formation of the Pacific Ocean Squadron until 1905. The 1st Pacific Ocean Squadron was still significantly inferior in strength to the Japanese even without a destroyer attack.
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        Canopus-class battleships, home base in Gibraltar, one of the main tasks is rapid transfer to the Far East.

                        It of course
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        This eliminates the threat posed by 20TOE within 1 days.

                        Not quite. Canopuses were good for countering Peresvets, but it would have been very dangerous for them to fight 12-inch battleships. At the same time, with normal development, we would have had a very powerful naval base in Vladivostok. The British have the closest similar... Where? I can't even figure it out. Not Singapore? Did they have something closer?
                        And battleships are only half the battle, we also need to send cruisers there in large numbers against our "Rurikovichs". It is clear that if the Mistress of the Seas wants to, she will create the necessary advantage, but at the cost of a noticeable weakening of the metropolis
                      10. 0
                        3 June 2025 11: 43
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Not quite. Canopuses were good for countering Peresvets, but it would have been very dangerous for them to fight 12-inch battleships.

                        Unfortunately for us, the Japanese managed to refute this, I understand that the armored cruisers were lucky in Tsushima, but the result of the battle was not in our favor. In addition, the "Canopus" have 12-inch guns and high speed, in fact, they could stably maintain 16 knots. It would be difficult for the 1TOE to fight them.
                        At the same time - with normal development we would have a very powerful naval base in Vladivostok. The British have the closest similar... Where? I can't even figure it out. Not Singapore? Did they have something closer?

                        The 1902 treaty allowed the British to base their ships in Japanese ports. In the event of an attack on the British, the Japanese would enter the war on the side of England. In this case, the 1TOE would be in an even worse position.
                        We also need to send cruisers there in large numbers against our "Rurikovichs".

                        The English Far Eastern squadron (cruisers) was quite enough to deal with the "Rurikovichs", do not forget why the "Diadem" cruisers were built.
                      11. +2
                        3 June 2025 12: 05
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        Unfortunately for us, the Japanese managed to refute this.

                        Yes, no matter how.
                        1. They always had their BRKRs on standby, while the main fire was drawn by the EBRs.
                        2. The British will have conventional gunpowder shells. Shimoza gave the Japanese a huge advantage in shooting accuracy.
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        It would be difficult for 1TOE to fight with them.

                        In general, yes, but this is hindsight. And the projection of power is a potential threat. And here, I think, the British admirals would have demanded battleships with both full protection and "long" 12-inch guns.
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        The 1902 treaty allowed the British to base their ships in Japanese ports.

                        Then it is of course.
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        The English Far Eastern squadron (cruisers) was quite sufficient to deal with the "Rurikovichs"

                        To catch raiders you need a lot of cruisers. And here it is also unclear whether Peresvets will go on a raid and what to do - send Canopuses to chase raiders, or keep them in a fist for a squadron battle.
                      12. +1
                        3 June 2025 13: 02
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        2. The British will have conventional gunpowder shells. Shimoza gave the Japanese a huge advantage in shooting accuracy.

                        Shimoza provided an advantage only in certain cases: long distances, fog and other conditions of limited visibility.
                        In close combat conditions, the shimosa, on the contrary, made visibility difficult. The target was hidden behind smoke and splashes from explosions.
                        On the Russian side, the problem of monitoring the falling shells was organizational, not technical.
                      13. +3
                        3 June 2025 13: 16
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Shimoza provided an advantage only in certain cases: long distances, fog and other conditions of limited visibility.

                        Shimoza gave an advantage in all cases, as it allowed one to confidently observe hits on the enemy ship.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        In close combat conditions, the shimosa, on the contrary, made visibility difficult. The target was hidden behind smoke and splashes from explosions.

                        This only happened when several ships fired at one target. But in this case, fire adjustment only became more difficult, but when firing our shells, it became impossible.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        On the Russian side, the problem of monitoring the falling shells was organizational, not technical.

                        Well, if it were possible to somehow convey to our gunners the instructions from the WWI era, compiled based on the experience of the Black Sea Fleet, which expended 12-inch shells by the hundreds - then probably. However, even with these instructions, firing shells with shimoza still gave an advantage
                      14. +2
                        3 June 2025 14: 03
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        allowed to confidently observe hits on the enemy ship

                        Japanese officers categorically disagree with you.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        fire adjustments only became more difficult

                        No, the target was completely hidden in smoke and spray. It was not visible even through the optical sight.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        became impossible

                        Why? The goal is visible.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        if it were possible to somehow convey to our artillerymen the instructions from the WWI era

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        if it were possible to somehow convey to our artillerymen the instructions from the WWI era

                        Below is a fragment of the report "Peresvet" about shooting at the Laiba https://rytik32.livejournal.com/1514.html
                        Where is it written in black and white that the overshoots and undershoots of neighboring ships are clearly visible even to the naked eye. That is, the first thing to do was to raise an observer to Mars.
                      15. +2
                        3 June 2025 14: 50
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Japanese officers categorically disagree with you.

                        Agreed:) Yes, of course, there were some exceptional cases in which they were unable to observe. Rarely, rarely:)
                        Quote: rytik32
                        No, the target was completely hidden in smoke and spray. It was not visible even through the optical sight.

                        In this situation, nothing prevented us from transferring fire to another, visible target and quickly zeroing in. But retargeting our shells, even according to the methods of 1927, did not allow zeroing in with the same speed and accuracy.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Why? The goal is visible.

                        The hits are not visible and the fall of your own shells is impossible to make out. And the target was not always visible
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Where is it written in black and white that the overflights and underflights of neighboring ships are clearly visible even to the naked eye.

                        Alexey, you are taking things out of context again.
                        This is what is written
                        "Observing the fall of your shells is only possible during sighting, when all ships fire less frequently."

                        That is, as soon as someone switches to rapid fire, problems begin. Next
                        "But at large distances like 35 kbt it is extremely difficult"

                        That is, even when sighting in, it is difficult to observe at 3,5 miles.
                        "If the projectile lands not very far from the target, then observing its fall through prismatic binoculars it is still difficult to determine whether it fell short or overshot."

                        Objective problems of sighting in Even during exercises, even through binoculars, even when no one is firing to kill. And only after that
                        Quote: rytik32
                        The overflights and underflights of neighboring ships are clearly visible even to the naked eye.

                        Now think about it - if we can't tell whether our OWN shells are overshooting or undershooting, how can we tell other ships?:))))
                        The phrase should be read in such a way that the falls from neighboring ships are clearly visible, but it is difficult to understand whether they are overshoots or undershoots.
                      16. +1
                        3 June 2025 15: 53
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The hits are not visible and the fall of your own shells cannot be seen

                        If you don't watch the flight of the shells, then of course they are not visible and cannot be made out... But if you watch, then everything will be visible.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        problems begin

                        The problems come from the inability to distinguish the fall of one's own shells from those of others, and not from the size of the splash and the presence of black smoke.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Now think about it - if we can't tell whether our OWN shells are overshooting or undershooting, how can we tell other ships?:))))

                        So this is a known problem. In winter, on a flat field next to a lonely tree, pole, etc., stick two identical ski poles: one a meter to the left and closer, the second a meter to the right and further. Move 200 meters away and you will not understand which one is closer. But if you move 50 meters to the side, everything will become clear. Therefore, you should observe and be as far away from the line of fire as possible.
                      17. +2
                        3 June 2025 16: 06
                        Quote: rytik32
                        If you don't watch the flight of the shells, then of course they are not visible and cannot be made out... But if you watch, then everything will be visible.

                        Nothing will be visible - the method of tracking projectiles did not prove itself as a whole and was not used in the future.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        The problems come from the inability to distinguish the fall of one's own shells from those of others, and not from the size of the splash and the presence of black smoke.

                        A chronometer will help solve the problem of distinguishing friends from foes. But only if hits are visible. That is, if I shoot a shimosa according to a chronometer, but do not see hits - even if I cannot understand whether I am undershooting or overshooting, I know for sure that I am not hitting. But with our shells I know nothing.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        But if you move 50 meters to the side, everything becomes clear.

                        :))))) But this will not help to determine the overshoot or undershoot relative to the junk. Roughly - you are behind the firing ship, you will have 2 splashes, one to the left, the second to the right. So guess, here the shell that is to the right overshot, or the gunner lied on the horizontal guidance and both undershot. Or overshots...
                      18. +1
                        3 June 2025 16: 31
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Overall it didn't live up to its promise

                        In the RYaV it was justified. And in those years it was used not only by the Japanese.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        and was not used further

                        Only because the distances and steepness of the projectile's trajectory have increased.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        if hits are visible

                        Of course, in good weather, the falls of unloaded shells are visible even to the naked eye, this is directly written in the report.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I know for sure that I won't hit the target

                        And what to do with this useless information: increase or decrease the distance?

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        overshoot or undershoot relative to the junk

                        Therefore, the observer must be on Mars. The Japanese did not come to this conclusion right away either.
                      19. +2
                        3 June 2025 17: 55
                        Quote: rytik32
                        In the RYaV it was justified. And in those years it was used not only by the Japanese.

                        Alexey, you want to make a feature out of anything that the Japanese had and that we didn't have. It's your right. In fact, in Tsushima, we often couldn't distinguish the fall of our own shells by 30 cables. Against this background, the proposal to track shells looks at least strange.
                        That's the first thing. The second thing is that generally observing a projectile only makes sense when you see the result of its fall. The Japanese sometimes saw it, ours could practically never see it.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Only because the distances and steepness of the projectile's trajectory have increased.

                        No, because it is simply not needed with the established system of sighting/destruction. Moreover, if it were useful, it would have been kept in case of shooting at short range (battles at 30 kbt and less happened in WWI, at least between light forces)
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Of course, in good weather, the falls of unloaded shells are visible even to the naked eye, this is directly written in the report.

                        I don't quite understand what you're talking about now.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        And what to do with this useless information: increase or decrease the distance?

                        Of course, it should be reduced - in this case, if there was an overshoot, there may be a cover and hits, and if not, the falls will "move closer" to the shooter and become distinguishable, standing out from the general pile.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Therefore, the observer must be on Mars.

                        No observer, whether on Mars or on a spacecraft, will be able to observe the migration falls normally.
                      20. 0
                        3 June 2025 21: 51
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In fact, in the same Tsushima, we often could not distinguish the fall of our own shells by 30 cables

                        So they couldn't tell their own from the others. If there was no fog or fire from other ships, the falls were visible.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        could hardly ever see

                        Ours also saw quite well. Below I will attach the report of the artillery officer "Oleg" just on Tsushima
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I don't quite understand what you're talking about now.

                        What I mean is that numerous testimonies refute your thesis about the "invisibility" of Russian shells falling.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Of course, to reduce

                        For example, the distance is 5000 m, how much should it be reduced?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        and will become distinguishable

                        Where is the guarantee that these are falls of our shells and not of another ship?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        will not normally observe migratory falls

                        Only if these are close flights and exactly behind the enemy ship.
                      21. +2
                        3 June 2025 22: 48
                        Quote: rytik32
                        So they couldn't distinguish between their own and others.

                        They couldn’t find any at all, they just remembered “Nakhimov”.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Ours also saw quite well. Below I will attach the report of the artillery officer "Oleg" just on Tsushima

                        :))))) We saw it, yeah :)))) That's how Essen saw 100500 hits from his battleship into "Mikasa".
                        Quote: rytik32
                        What I mean is that numerous testimonies refute your thesis about the "invisibility" of Russian shells falling.

                        The falls were visible if the shells fell in front of the target. My thesis is that the hits were not visible. And it is irrefutable. Our guys constantly saw hits that were not there, that's true. But those that were there were very often not seen.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        For example, the distance is 5000 m, how much should it be reduced?

                        In the future, sighting was carried out in increments of a couple of cables.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Where is the guarantee that these are falls of our shells and not of another ship?

                        Chronometer:)))))
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Only if these are close flights and exactly behind the enemy ship.

                        If these are flights not against the background of an enemy ship, you will not understand at all whether it is an undershoot or an overshoot. That is why in the future, corrections for falls outside the silhouette of a ship were strictly prohibited. At all distances.
                        The flights are very poorly visible behind the target, whether from the mast or the masthead. That is why the sighting was based on the unobservability of the flights.
                      22. 0
                        3 June 2025 23: 15
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The falls were visible if the shells fell in front of the target. My thesis is that the hits were not visible.

                        I agree with that.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In the future, sighting was carried out in increments of a couple of cables.

                        This method of sighting would take a lot of time.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Chronometer:)))))

                        When shooting at multiple ships, it doesn't help.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That is why the sighting was based on the unobservable nature of the flights.

                        That is, if we make a salvo "in steps", then we can also sight in our shells, calculating how many shortfalls there were for the number of shells fired?
                      23. The comment was deleted.
                      24. +2
                        4 June 2025 11: 37
                        Quote: rytik32
                        This method of sighting would take a lot of time.

                        In general, we came to it as a result. And if we are discussing the actions of an artilleryman firing a shell with a shimoza, then he, albeit slowly, can zero in. Ours - no
                        Quote: rytik32
                        When shooting at multiple ships, it doesn't help.

                        If we take a clear undershoot, which will distinguish the fall from the general mass of other ships + a chronometer, then there are chances and not bad ones
                        Quote: rytik32
                        That is, if you make a salvo "ladder", then you can also aim with our shells.

                        Of course, you can. Salvo fire of at least 4 barrels in a salvo, the fall of 2 shells in front of the target is considered coverage. But all this came into the world much later than the RYaV
                      25. +1
                        4 June 2025 13: 10
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Ours - no

                        And how did the hits on "Yakumo" and "Mikasa" from long distances in the JM happen?
                        Was it really the hand of God that guided the shells?


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        If we take a clear undershoot, what will make the fall stand out from the general mass?

                        And what next? We won't even be able to estimate the magnitude of this shortfall.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Salvo fire of at least 4 barrels in a salvo, the fall of 2 shells in front of the target is considered coverage. Only all this came into the world much later RYaV

                        This is already in the Japanese instructions of 1903. Just a ladder salvo of 4 6-inch guns.
                      26. +2
                        4 June 2025 14: 26
                        Quote: rytik32
                        And how did the hits on "Yakumo" and "Mikasa" from long distances in the JM happen?

                        As for Mikasa - the number of hits clearly shows that our gunners failed to zero in or control the target. Actually, the recollections of people who fired at it confirm this. They tried to zero in somehow, to control somehow (even to the point of using interesting methods to zero in on another ship and transfer fire with an adjustment to "Mikasa") and sometimes hit.
                        Yakumo was hit from a relatively short distance and, in general, rather by chance, having managed to correctly determine the distance to the target.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        And what next? We won't even be able to estimate the magnitude of this shortfall.

                        And then we increase the distance by a couple of cables and repeat until we see a hit (visually + chronometer)
                        Quote: rytik32
                        This is already in the Japanese instructions of 1903. Just a ladder salvo of 4 6-inch guns.

                        But in reality, the Japanese did not shoot like that either in 1903 or 1904...
                        I remember your argument about this on "tsushima":))) Of course, I haven't read this instruction myself, but I seriously doubt that it is similar to the instructions that arose before WWI. And yes, no one fired the "ladder" in one salvo. If you are talking about the step-by-step zeroing, then the point is that several salvos are fired at different distances (each salvo at its own) without waiting for the previous salvo to fall. But taking different distances in one salvo is pointless
                      27. +1
                        4 June 2025 15: 20
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        As for Mikasa, the number of hits clearly indicates that our artillerymen failed to zero in or control the target's destruction.

                        Yeah, three hits in the period 15-00...15-09 from a distance of 8,5...9 km and Togo turns off the idea of ​​chasing after the enemy
                        Three large shells in 9 minutes from such a long distance - that's remarkable accuracy!!! And clear proof that it was possible to zero in with Russian shells.



                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yakumo was hit from a relatively short distance
                        14 km is not a long distance???

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        until we see a hit

                        Well, we'll see it and won't understand that these are our shells. Here we need either a salvo or to monitor the flight.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But in reality, the Japanese did not shoot like that either in 1903 or 1904...

                        How do you know this? Have you translated Japanese documents?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        "ladder" no one fired in one salvo

                        When conducting sighting in by this method using the left bow battery at intervals of 200 m, 6-inch gun No. 4 should be set at 7 m, 000-inch gun No. 6 at 2 m, 6-inch gun No. 800 at 6 m and 6-inch gun No. 7200 (in this case it should be transferred to the control of the commander of the 6th group) at a distance of 8 m.
                        Prepare for sighting shot - fire (use electric transmitter and voice command to transmit the order)
                        The guns should fire a sighting shot almost simultaneously, quickly reload and wait for further instructions; the base range should be adjusted according to what is written on the left
                        When three out of four shots have missed, the base distance must be reduced by half the interval.
                        When three out of four shots fall short, it is necessary to increase the base distance by one and a half intervals.
                        When half of the shots have overshot and half have undershot, the base distance must be increased by half the interval.
                      28. +2
                        4 June 2025 18: 01
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Yeah, three hits in the period 15-00...15-09 from a distance of 8,5...9 km and Togo turns off the idea of ​​chasing after the enemy
                        Three large projectiles in 9 minutes from such a long distance - that's remarkable accuracy!!!

                        Even from one ship it’s not very remarkable, and from the whole squadron...
                        But even this is an accident. Simply put, someone managed to correctly sense the distance and change of VIR and VIP.
                        The ability to aim and fire to kill would be evidenced by the fact that such situations were repeated constantly. But they were not repeated.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        And clear proof that it was possible to sight in with Russian shells.

                        No. Firstly, this is not evidence for the reasons stated above. Secondly, the issue is not that it was absolutely impossible to zero in with Russian shells. It was possible and sometimes they did. The issue is that Japanese shells provided an order of magnitude greater convenience in zeroing in and monitoring target engagement.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        14 km is not a long distance???

                        Since when are 40 cables = 14 km?

                        Quote: rytik32
                        When conducting sighting in by this method using the left bow battery at intervals of 200 m, 6-inch gun No. 4 should be set at 7 m, 000-inch gun No. 6 at 2 m, 6-inch gun No. 800 at 6 m and 6-inch gun No. 7200 (in this case it should be transferred to the control of the commander of the 6th group) at a distance of 8 m.

                        Which, from the point of view of subsequent fire control instructions, is complete heresy and is completely at odds with the generally accepted post-RYaV shooting methods that I am talking about.
                      29. +1
                        4 June 2025 21: 25
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Simply put, someone managed to correctly sense the distance and change of VIR and VIP

                        I agree. It's even possible that these were all hits from the same tower.
                        But they definitely say that they managed to get the aim right.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And they didn't repeat themselves.

                        The situation was very specific. Due to the long distance and the awkward angle at that time, the fire was most likely carried out by a small number of guns that did not interfere with each other, and then the entire squadron fired at the Mikasa and the falls could not be made out.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Since when are 40 cables = 14 km

                        In the Yakumo BD the distance at that moment was 14 km, not 40 cables.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        the most complete heresy

                        In any case, the "ladder" is a more progressive method of sighting in than the "fork" with single shots.
                      30. +2
                        5 June 2025 08: 50
                        Quote: rytik32
                        But they definitely say that they managed to get the aim right.

                        I have to repeat once again - it was possible to sight in with Russian shells. This was done not only in combat, but also during exercises. However, Japanese shells provided an undeniable advantage during sighting in. At the same time, there were situations when it was impossible to sight in with Russian shells with the existing fire control experience, but it was possible to sight in with Japanese shells.
                        For example, the hits you mentioned (Polomoshnov claims that they were in 20 minutes, not 9, but ok) were achieved in conditions when only the main battery of the Russian ships fired, and the shooting was quite inaccurate, which is why the Mikasa was not covered by the fountains of falls. Why wouldn't someone try to sight in under such conditions? But this does not refute my assertion.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        In the Yakumo BD the distance at that moment was 14 km, not 40 cables.

                        Well, K. Abo claimed that the hit was from 13 yards. And ours, in the person of Essen, claimed that from "Poltava" to "Yakumo" there were about 000 cables. Considering that it is possible to zero in at 40 cables, taking into account the firing rate of the turret mounts of those years, only under conditions of minimal change of VIR and VIP, while Yakumo, moving from the left side of the squadron to the right, quickly changed both, a hit from 76 km looks like complete fantasy. Well, the Japanese often screwed up in determining distances (that is, if they measured 14 km to Poltava)
                        Quote: rytik32
                        In any case, the "ladder" is a more progressive method of sighting in than the "fork" with single shots.

                        Less progressive and completely pointless.
                        When a gun fires, say, at a certain range, it accumulates a lot of errors. The CEP alone gives a very significant spread along the ellipse, and then there is also the pitching and the gunner's errors. That is why, when firing a salvo from 4 guns at the same range, you can still hope to sense the distance. If two shells fell behind the ship, and two in front of the ship, well, probably the coverage was achieved (and - taking into account that the falls behind the ship are not visible and here you can make a mistake. For example - seeing two pillars in front of the ship, perhaps two shells fell behind it, and this is coverage, or maybe they hit it, then opening rapid fire at the target you will get mostly undershoots). But even in a 4-barrel salvo, the terver can easily undershoot or overshoot at the correct distance, it was just the law of random numbers that all 4 shells, say, fell in the half of the ellipse closest to the shooter.
                        And when you shoot with such a Japanese "ladder", you will never understand what is happening with the covers. You can easily have a projectile that flew at 6800 lie further than a projectile at 7400
                      31. +1
                        5 June 2025 10: 22
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Japanese shells gave an undeniable advantage during sighting

                        Disputable advantage. If the advantage of such shells was indisputable, then in WWI everyone would have zeroed in only with such shells. But our "Sevastopols" were quite capable of zeroing in with armor-piercing shells...

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Polomoshnov claims

                        Evgeniy didn't even have a "Meiji" when he wrote his work...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        K. Abo claimed

                        BD "Yakumo" is a more accurate source. After 5 minutes "Yakumo" set the 8-inch guns to the maximum angle and received 3 shortfalls. This characterizes the range very well.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        moving quickly from the left side of the squadron to the right

                        That was later...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You can easily have a projectile that flew at 6800 go further than a projectile at 7400.

                        This will give an error of 100 meters, which can be easily corrected with the next volley.
                      32. +2
                        5 June 2025 11: 01
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Disputable advantage. If the advantage of such shells was undeniable, then in WWI everyone would have only used such shells for target practice.

                        Alexey, money for fish again. First, the sighting in according to the instructions had to be done with high-explosive shells, another issue is that this was not always possible. Second. The Japanese shells discredited themselves and therefore were not used in the future. But this discrediting is connected with their unreliability, explosions in the barrels, etc. But the quality of sighting they provided was incomparable.
                        Thirdly, yes, after the Russian Nuclear Forces, shooting methods appeared that allowed targeting with AP shells. There were none in the Russian Nuclear Forces.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        DB "Yakumo" is a more accurate source.

                        Who can also be wrong.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        After 5 minutes, Yamkumo set the 8-inch guns to maximum angle and missed by 3 times.

                        What do you mean, excuse me? What is the range of the Yakumo GC?
                        Quote: rytik32
                        This will give an error of 100 meters,

                        I'm afraid you didn't understand what I wrote to you. This will not give an error of 100 m, it will not give an understanding of the distance to the enemy ship at all
                      33. 0
                        5 June 2025 16: 23
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        According to the instructions, the sighting was to be carried out with high-explosive shells

                        The armor-piercing ones had an advantage - a longer splash duration precisely because of the fuse delay.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What is the range of the Yakumo GC?

                        See for yourself.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I'm afraid you didn't understand what I wrote to you. This will not give an error of 100 m, it will not give an understanding of the distance to the enemy ship at all

                        Let me explain the Japanese method.
                        For example, the base distance is 7000, the real one is 7100.
                        The shell fired at 6800 flew 7500, the rest - as planned. In total, the shells fell at 7000, 7200, 7400, 7500.
                        That is, there were 3 overshoots and 1 undershoot, the next salvo should be made at -100 (I am not taking into account the VIR for simplicity), i.e. 6900.
                        If all the shells had landed as expected, they would have overshot 2 times and undershot 2 times, and the next salvo would have to be fired at +100, i.e. 7100.
                        Yes, I was wrong, the difference was not 100, but 200 meters)
                      34. +1
                        6 June 2025 10: 59
                        Quote: rytik32
                        The armor-piercing ones had an advantage - a longer splash duration precisely because of the fuse delay.

                        The burst time of BB and HE shells is approximately the same.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Let me explain the Japanese method.

                        Alexey, study at your leisure how naval guns fire.
                        Quote: rytik32
                        The shell fired at 6800 flew 7500, the rest - as planned. In total, the shells fell at 7000, 7200, 7400, 7500.

                        It doesn't work like that. At all. Ever.
                        Let's take the 6-dm/45 tests of 1907 (the best results). The value of the probable deviation in range is 14,5 nautical fathoms or 26,51 m. for 30 kbt. Accordingly, the length of the dispersion ellipse for 30 kbt is 265,2 m. (five probable deviations from the aiming point in both directions). Therefore, if you fire from guns at intervals of 200 m, taking into account that the projectile should not deviate from the aiming point by more than 132,5 m in either direction, then theoretically the Japanese ladder should work.
                        In practice, this only worked on solid ground, in firing range conditions. At sea, an error of only 0,5 degrees of vertical aiming from 6-dm/45 at a distance of 30 kbt gave 324 m of undershoot or overshoot. And what is half a degree on a gun with mechanical aiming?
                        That is, it was possible to talk about ladder firing only after the navy had fire systems that forced a salvo at the same moment (electric circuit). Then - yes, by setting the guns to the same elevation angle, the effect of pitching was leveled during a salvo (if pitching gave an extra half-degree, it gave it to all guns at once). The situation improved even more with the advent of inclinometers (salvo on an even keel). But manually firing a ladder is completely pointless.
                        In your example, the gun with a sight of 6800 made a mistake of half a degree + probable deviation gave +100 m and the projectile landed 424 m behind the aiming point, i.e. 7224 m, and the fourth gun with a sight of 7200 can fire without getting 0,2 degrees of sight and the projectile gave a shortfall of 2 probable deviations, i.e. landed 187 m in front of the aiming point or 7003 m. That is, a projectile fired at maximum range can easily land in front of a projectile fired at minimum range.
                      35. +1
                        6 June 2025 11: 25
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That is, a projectile fired at maximum range can easily land in front of a projectile fired at minimum range.

                        And add to this the mess that 2 "medium" shells can create. And keep in mind that the 30 kbt I ​​recommend = 5490 m and at 7 m the dispersion will be even more interesting
                      36. 0
                        6 June 2025 22: 29
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It doesn't work like that. At all. Ever.

                        Do not be so categorical!
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        a projectile fired at maximum range can easily land in front of a projectile fired at minimum range

                        Okay, have it your way.
                        True distance 7100, base 7000. Shells fell 7013, 7000, 7400, 7224. 2 overshoots and 2 undershoots, then +100 and we hit the true distance exactly.
                        Now, what would have happened with a salvo at 7000? The shells would have fallen 7000, 7000, 7424 and 6813. 3 undershoots and 1 overshoot. Most likely, they would have increased the range as previously written by a couple of cables? The result would have been clearly worse than the ladder!
                      37. +1
                        7 June 2025 08: 38
                        Quote: rytik32
                        The result will be clearly worse than the ladder!

                        Alexey, this is all a question of banal mathematics. Roughly speaking, there is a dispersion ellipse. We add there the average statistical error of the gunner (shot at the wrong time) and get an enlarged ellipse, let's call it the fall ellipse. In this case, in general, the shells tend to fall closer to the center than to the edges.
                        If you fire a salvo at one point from 4 identical guns, then all 4 ellipses overlap each other so that you achieve maximum hit density, and therefore - the chances of correctly determining the distance. When you fire with your ladder, you artificially stretch the ellipse by 800 m in length. This would make sense only in one case - if the "step" were less than half the length of the fall ellipse, so that the shells would at least fall in the correct order. But this is not the case - the length of the fall ellipse is much more than 400 m. Therefore, the Japanese "ladder" is worse than a salvo at one point. And there are some doubts that it will be better than a shot from 1 gun.
                      38. +1
                        7 June 2025 10: 46
                        I specifically read the reports on the shooting at the World Championships in 1907-09, which were conducted with the aim of developing the optimal method of sighting and hitting. Fire was conducted with loaded 6-inch and 12-inch shells. I will say right away that the falls were noticeable up to the maximum range.
                        At a distance of about 40 cables, the ellipse of dispersion of a salvo (6 or 8 6-inch guns) averaged about 2 cables. When firing in a ladder, the ellipse was artificially increased by another 3 cables due to different sight settings. In total, we get an ellipse of 5,2 cables. Just right to immediately capture the target in a wide fork. Then, with the next salvo or the next one, we get coverage.
                        When sighting in volleys at the World Championship, the wide fork reached 8 cables and even purely mathematically, if we exclude errors such as a false fork, 3-4 volleys were required to get coverage.
                      39. +1
                        7 June 2025 13: 51
                        Quote: rytik32
                        I specifically read the reports on the shooting at the World Championships in 1907-09,

                        Which, in the end, did not become the optimal method of sighting in and firing to kill. And this is not to mention the fact that such results in sighting in can only be achieved through long training.
                      40. +1
                        7 June 2025 15: 18
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: rytik32
                        I specifically read the reports on the shooting at the World Championships in 1907-09,

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Which, in the end, did not become the optimal method of sighting and fire to kill

                        I’ll give you a little food for thought, as Stirlitz used to say, if you haven’t come across it;

                        From the English report on artillery fire after the Battle of Jutland;

                        " It is known that at the beginning of the recent hostilities the fourth salvo from the enemy's ship was fired after 1 1/2 minutes, while the fourth salvo from our ship was fired after 4 minutes. This shows that the enemy has a system of judging the distance by a succession of rapid salvos. There are undoubtedly great advantages in this method over waiting for the shell to fall before firing the next salvo. Although they thus have no great difference in accuracy compared with ours, they certainly have a better chance of hitting first. We therefore recommend this form of attack by the "ladder" system of salvos, the general idea of ​​which is given below, and is now being further studied. We are firmly of the opinion that although the "ladder" system at first sight appears to be excessive in the expenditure of ammunition, it is not so; on the contrary, the present system has proved itself very good."
                      41. +1
                        7 June 2025 15: 56
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        This shows that the enemy has a system for determining distance using a rapid succession of volleys.

                        We called it a "ledge" or a "double ledge" - but it's not a ladder. It's two (or three) salvos at different ranges, that is, for example, a battleship with 12 guns fires a salvo of 4 barrels at 70 kbt right there, without waiting for it to fall, 4 barrels at 74 kbt and then 4 barrels at 78 kbt.
                        In 1927, the main method of sighting was considered to be a double step with a step of 2 kbt. But... All this is WWI
                      42. +2
                        7 June 2025 16: 37
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        We called it a "ledge" or a "double ledge" - but it's not a staircase.

                        "ladder' system" I think there is no point in arguing with the English, they gave this definition. Moreover, according to the English, this system was very well suited for shooting at ships moving in a zigzag.
                      43. +1
                        7 June 2025 18: 27
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        I think there is no point in arguing with the English

                        What do the English have to do with it? We seem to be talking about the Germans. They fired in a ledge. The English mostly fired with a regular fork.
                      44. 0
                        7 June 2025 21: 05
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What do the English have to do with this?

                        Analysis of artillery fire from German ships in the Battle of Jutland.
                        We seem to be talking about the Germans. They fired in a ledge.

                        When firing at a moving target, the second and third salvos are fired taking into account the distance the ship will travel.
                        We have adopted the term "ledge", the English have adopted the term "stairs". Both of these terms do not contradict each other. Therefore, one can write shooting with a ledge or shooting with a ladder. It is enough to look at the resulting geometric figure, taking into account the deviation from the main straight line.
                        The English mostly shot with a regular fork.

                        After the Battle of Jutland, the English navy began to develop and implement the "ladder' system".
                      45. +1
                        7 June 2025 23: 33
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        When firing at a moving target, the second and third salvos are fired taking into account the distance the ship will travel.

                        First, a regular salvo is fired and we wait for it to fall - to introduce a correction for the magnitude of the bearing change and determine the sign of the fall, if we were able to immediately correctly determine the VIP and the salvo fell on the background of the target. Then several salvos are fired - of course, each of them with a correction for the VIP, otherwise it will not fall on the background of the target and the sign of the fall will not be determined.
                        But Alexey and I were discussing something else. The Japanese called a "ladder" one salvo (not several) in which each gun was set at a different range. This also happened, but it was not developed - for the reasons that I actually described above.
                      46. +2
                        8 June 2025 08: 45
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But Alexey and I were discussing something else. The Japanese called a "ladder" one salvo (not several) in which each gun was set at a different range.

                        I understand what you are discussing with Alexey. I just don't understand why you think that such a system existed only among the Japanese. This is one of the methods of determining the range among the French. The French did not consider this method to be anything complicated; it was called "tir d'efficacité". The shooting could be done either in a salvo or sequentially.
                      47. +1
                        8 June 2025 15: 04
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        I just don’t understand why you think that such a system existed only among the Japanese.

                        And who said that we think that this system existed only among the Japanese?:))))))) This is the first thing, and the second thing is that we are discussing the period 1903-1905. And the third thing is that the "ladder of singles" did not justify itself.
                      48. 0
                        14 June 2025 11: 42
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What is the range of the Yakumo GC?

                        Found it, 65 cab or 12038 meters
                      49. +1
                        5 June 2025 17: 37
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And yes, no one fired the "ladder" in one salvo.

                        The Germans shot... But that was much later.
                      50. +1
                        6 June 2025 11: 24
                        Maxim, good afternoon! I think it was after the appearance of electric circuits, the closure of which allowed to give a volley simultaneously, and maybe also after "gyroscopic" inclinometers
                      51. +1
                        6 June 2025 17: 37
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I think it was after it appeared

                        That's why I write about "later"...

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        and maybe even after "gyroscopic" inclinometers

                        A simple mercury switch, which was used back in WWI, was enough.
                      52. +1
                        6 June 2025 17: 38
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        That's why I write about "later"...

                        Of course. But "later" is a flexible concept, so I'm trying to be more specific.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        A simple mercury switch, which was used back in WWI, was enough.

                        So it seems that the Germans also got an inclinometer in WWI, though after Jutland. Or am I wrong?
                      53. +2
                        6 June 2025 18: 44
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Or I'm wrong?

                        You need to look at the topic: I didn’t dig into the German SUAO during WWI in detail... If I remember correctly, during Jutland, mercury contactors were installed in the SUAO.
                        The gyro horizon (gyroscopic inclinometer) was actually introduced into the SUAO in 17.
                      54. +1
                        6 June 2025 18: 46
                        Maxim, I am not insisting at all. I am interested in this, yes, but you, of course, are not obliged at all... Especially since you already said about the inclinometer - 1917, this coincides with what I heard
                      55. +2
                        6 June 2025 19: 07
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I am interested, yes, but you are, of course, under no obligation...

                        Maybe someday I'll get around to it... :)
                        In any case, according to the "Jutland" reports and the reports of German artillerymen from the "big pots", while the centralized SUAO was working, the pitching did not affect the rate of fire. There are no comments on this topic.
                      56. +1
                        6 June 2025 20: 04
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        While the centralized SUAO was operating, pitching did not affect the rate of fire.

                        In theory, it shouldn't have affected the tempo with centralized guidance...
                      57. +1
                        6 June 2025 20: 41
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In theory, it shouldn't have affected the tempo with centralized guidance...

                        During normal automatic operation - yes: the combat circuit should close when the bank passes through zero, but the human factor in combat is a very unpredictable thing, under-pressing or over-pressing...
                      58. 0
                        3 June 2025 15: 33
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        but somehow not.
                        1. They always had their BRKRs on standby, while the main fire was drawn by the EBRs.

                        But in the last battles the Japanese had only four battleships.
                        And here, I think, the British admirals would have demanded battleships with both full protection and “long” 12-inch guns.

                        It is not after knowledge, it all depends on the year of consideration;

                        "The progress made may be judged by the fact that in 1889-1893 a plate 10 inches thick was required to resist the attack of a 100-pound Holzer shell fired from a 6-inch gun at a velocity of
                        about 2000 feet per second. Now a 6-inch plate can provide equal or even superior protection......
                        ..........ships must have vertical armour of sufficient thickness to protect buoyancy, stability and armament against armour-piercing shells from the largest rapid-fire guns, as well as against hits from shells with large explosive charges from larger-calibre guns under combat conditions.
                        . " W. White.
                      59. +2
                        3 June 2025 16: 09
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        But in the last battles the Japanese had only four battleships

                        In ZhM the fire was concentrated on one thing - Mikasa. In Tsushima, when they started targeting the BRCM mainly on the lead ships, the centralized guidance had already been knocked down
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        it all depends on the year of consideration

                        Well, we are talking about 1TOE, that is, roughly, 1903-04.
                      60. 0
                        3 June 2025 16: 21
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well, we are talking about 1TOE, that is, roughly, 1903-04.

                        But these ships were laid down in 1894-1899, this applies to "Canopus" and "Formidable", as well as "Petropavlovsk", "Peresvetov" and so on. This is the time of "dominance" of the medium caliber.
                      61. +1
                        6 June 2025 20: 07
                        Quote: 27091965i

                        But these ships were laid down in 1894-1899.

                        So the questions would not have arisen at the time of laying the foundation, but at the time of forming the squadron in the Far East:)
                      62. +1
                        6 June 2025 20: 47
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So the questions would not have arisen at the time of laying the foundation, but at the time of forming the squadron in the Far East:)

                        Good evening.
                        Dear Andrey, the ships were built for combat with maximum use of medium-caliber artillery. Increasing the combat distance changed the tactics of combat. I wrote that the French officially adopted the tactics of starting a battle from a long distance using shells loaded with high-impact explosives. After that, approaching the enemy and using armor-piercing shells. They began to work out and prepare for such battles in 1896. With the development of rangefinders, this tactic was improved. The French did not leave aside the old battleships armed with 340 mm guns. Having developed for these guns "obus en fonte à grande capacité" loaded with 38,5 kg of melinite, 15 shells per gun.
                        What can be written about RIF, in my opinion, they "slept through" everything that could have been and were essentially not ready for long-range combat. Well, a lot has been written about the lack of a strong explosive for shells, so there is no point in listing it all again.
                      63. +2
                        3 June 2025 11: 58
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Where? I can't even figure it out. Not Singapore? Did they have something closer?

                        Hong Kong was the main base, and the closest one was in Weihawei.
                      64. +2
                        3 June 2025 12: 06
                        Quote: rytik32
                        Hong Kong was the main base, and the closest one was in Weihawei.

                        Thank you! I forgot.
                      65. 0
                        3 June 2025 12: 07
                        Hong Kong was the main base, and the closest one was in Weihawei.

                        Good afternoon.
                        Dear Alexey, in terms of technical equipment, Japanese ports were preferable.
                      66. +2
                        3 June 2025 11: 06
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Large stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, good roads, preferably a railway for quick maneuvering of forces. The essence of all this is that wherever the enemy lands, the garrison must hold out until the main forces arrive, capable of kicking the Japanese in the ass.

                        Simply put, in addition to the army, it will be necessary to invest in the development of a coastal railway network, which will have to have a throughput greater than or equal to the throughput of the transport fleet + port of unloading of the enemy.
                        Otherwise, the rate of accumulation of enemy forces will exceed the rate of approach of our forces, the enemy, taking advantage of the superiority in forces, will crush our approaching forces and go on the offensive (along our own railway network).
                        A familiar situation - "coastal airfields versus aircraft".
                        No matter what they say, it will all come down to women aircraft carriers! laughing
                      67. +2
                        3 June 2025 11: 41
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        No matter what they say, it will still bring aircraft carriers down on women!

                        "Note, I did not suggest it!" (from) laughing
                      68. +2
                        3 June 2025 11: 00
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And the fact is that, as I said, a land army is a very, very expensive pleasure, and, all other things being equal, it is more expensive than a navy. In fact, significantly more expensive.

                        He-he-he... I remember the sharp comparisons from the WWI era.
                        1914 year: The British army is worth one salvo of the fleet.
                        1916 year: the entire British fleet is a week's expenditure for the British army in an offensive.
                      69. 0
                        16 July 2025 21: 14
                        But building tanks is much easier, faster and more technologically advanced than building a ship.
                        And this is if we take a destroyer.
                        And if we take a battleship, then just the technological cycle of producing guns will stretch out for years.
                  2. +1
                    3 June 2025 10: 57
                    Quote: 27091965i
                    First of all, we need to see what tanks arrived to the troops and where from. I think they made over 800 KVs, I don't remember exactly, we need to look at the T-34 from memory, I can't write it down.

                    Regarding the T-34, there are sad statistics on losses of the active army in the summer of 1941:
                    Availability at 4 border directions on 22.06.41: 935 units.
                    Shipped from factories from 22.06.41 to 01.08.41: 526 pcs.
                    Available on 01.08.41: 158 pcs.
                    Losses: 1303 pcs.
                    The table was compiled based on data from the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, f. 38 (GABTU) op. 11353 (headquarters of the command of the commander of armored and mechanized troops), d. 909 (Information, statements, certificates, reports of the GABTU of the Red Army, fronts and districts on the staffing, condition, needs and losses of materiel and weapons), pp. 99-107.

                    The number of losses is the difference between the availability of combat vehicles at the start of hostilities and the availability at the end of July of this year, minus those evacuated to repair bases.

                    In total, 1941 T-1843s were lost in 34.
                    Source: Ulanov, Shein. The first T-34. Combat use.
                    1. 0
                      3 June 2025 11: 49
                      Good afternoon.
                      Dear Alexey, I was mainly interested in the Far Eastern Military Districts, for this reason it is difficult for me to write anything about the losses of T-34. It is necessary to look at documents or their copies to give a full answer. But the topic is interesting, although many researchers believe that it is impossible to give an exact answer about the losses of tanks at the beginning of the war. Due to the lack of some documents.
                      1. +1
                        3 June 2025 12: 10
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        It is necessary to look at documents or their copies to give a full answer. But the topic is interesting, although many researchers believe that it is impossible to give an exact answer about tank losses at the beginning of the war. Due to the lack of some documents.

                        Shein and Ulanov were digging in the archives for their second book on the topic of the T-34 in 1939-1941 - production, training of personnel, combat operations and combat use.

                        Regarding the documents - yes, Shein wrote long ago that for divisions and even armies of the summer of 41, there is often a folder in the archive, and in it after 22.06 - a couple of sheets. But here they took the summary report: was at the beginning of the war, delivered, available. The GABTU knew the first two figures for sure. And the third... by August 1941, the BTV did not have many units left, so it was already possible to collect statistics "on hand" for the T-34.
                      2. 0
                        3 June 2025 12: 39
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Regarding documents - yes, Shein wrote a long time ago that for divisions and even armies of the summer of 41, there is often a folder in the archive, and in it after 22.06 - a couple of sheets.

                        It can be added that the 69th separate MD was, by order of Vatutin, fully staffed and sent to the front, but in July it became the 107th TD of the Western Front, and in September it was reformed into the 107th MSD. Apparently, this also affected the availability of documents.
        2. -1
          2 June 2025 13: 35
          Were 20 tanks lost in the Kiev cauldron?
          1. +3
            2 June 2025 14: 03
            Quote: Rakovor
            Were 20 tanks lost in the Kiev cauldron?

            Of course not, but I didn't write that. I wrote about the total losses of 1941 - if we take into account other military equipment and transfer them to ships, then we lost a gigantic fleet. Don't think that a land war is cheaper than a naval one, it is more expensive. By the way, much, many times more expensive.
            1. +2
              2 June 2025 15: 16
              Well, dear Andrey, I have to disagree with you here. A fleet is a very expensive pleasure. It's not for nothing that there is even a saying - if you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser.)
              1. +4
                2 June 2025 15: 57
                Quote: Rakovor
                Well, dear Andrey, I have to disagree with you here. The fleet is a very expensive pleasure.

                You see, I prefer figures to general statements. And when you start looking at the figures, you understand that the navy is certainly an expensive thing, but the land army is many times more expensive. For example, in the period 1910-1913, when the country was building a bunch of dreadnoughts and battlecruisers, not counting all sorts of light "trifles", the costs of the navy amounted to 654,6 million rubles, but the costs of the army were 2 million rubles. That is, at the peak of the construction of the battle fleet, the costs of the navy amounted to 441,6% of the costs of the army and 26,8% of the total military costs. If I remember correctly, in the USSR, when we had the second fleet in the world, the costs of it never exceeded 21,1% of the total military budget, but were usually less.
                1. +1
                  2 June 2025 17: 56
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  the navy is, of course, an expensive thing, but the land army is much more expensive

                  This is all true. So the point is that it was necessary to strengthen the land army. I also read somewhere that during the planning of naval construction in the 1910s, Nikolai or someone else figured out that instead of one dreadnought, an incredible number of 76 mm guns could be built for the army. And the budget was not unlimited.
                  1. +2
                    2 June 2025 19: 55
                    Quote from Kartograph
                    So the point is that it was necessary to strengthen the land army.

                    In the case of the Russian Navy - no need. Defending the Far East with a fleet would be cheaper
                2. +1
                  2 June 2025 18: 03
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  then you understand that the navy is, of course, an expensive thing, but the land army is many times more expensive.

                  Hmm, well, at least for the reason that feeding and outfitting at least one division is more expensive than even the crew of a battleship.
                  1. +2
                    3 June 2025 11: 09
                    Quote: Prometey
                    Hmm, well, at least for the reason that feeding and outfitting at least one division is more expensive than even the crew of a battleship.

                    Now imagine how many such divisions would be needed to stop the enemy landing in that theater of military operations in time. And how much would have to be invested in the road network to make it happen. on time - so that by the time the division arrived it would not encounter an army that had already landed on the shore.
      4. -3
        2 June 2025 17: 53
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Russia lost almost its entire fleet, which cost a huge amount of money, instantly losing its status as a maritime power.

        How can you lose something that never existed? No one else considered Russia a maritime power except Russia itself.
      5. 0
        31 July 2025 17: 32
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        The material losses of Tsushima are much higher than the losses in the Kiev cauldron, taking into account the state of the economies and the ability to reproduce equipment.

        Are you serious? Comparing the sinking of a few old irons and the liquidation of hundreds of thousands of soldiers with a huge amount of material equipment... Well, you are a weirdo.
    2. +5
      2 June 2025 08: 55
      Everyone talks about something, but the lousy one talks about the bathhouse.)) Uncle, are you really that stupid or are you pretending? Comparing the incomparable. In 41, we were up against the best army on the planet (in tactical terms, for sure), which had previously put all of Europe in the "running Egyptian" pose. And in 04, we were up against a country that had just emerged from the Middle Ages. And don't tell stories about the Japanese superpower, there was no superpower there, but the stupidity and incompetence of the tsarist elite and their hangers-on. Any European power would have flattened that Japan into a pancake.
      1. +2
        2 June 2025 10: 54
        Quote: Rakovor
        And don't tell stories about the Japanese superpower, there was no superpower there.

        The US fought much worse in the Spanish-American War. The Germans were definitely weaker than the Japanese at that time, and I don't think there would have been much left of the French either.
        1. -1
          2 June 2025 13: 19
          I mean not only the navy, but the army too. If we had an army that would correspond to the status of a great power, we would have thrown the Japanese into the sea and that would be it. And there are questions about the navy too, do you think the Americans didn't draw any conclusions from the war with the Spanish?
          1. +3
            2 June 2025 14: 06
            Quote: Rakovor
            If we had an army worthy of the status of a great power, we would have thrown the Japanese into the sea and that would have been it.

            Excuse me, but where would an "army worthy of a great power" come from in the Far East? Just compare the railway communications of some army in WWI with the capabilities of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
            And yes, it would be much cheaper to defend the Far East with a fleet.
            1. 0
              2 June 2025 15: 18
              I will repeat my previous answer. At Mukden we even had a slight numerical advantage. And how did it all end?
              1. +3
                2 June 2025 16: 05
                Quote: Rakovor
                And how did it all end?

                I will quote the answer of the respected Ivan
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                Dear colleague, the fact is that the most combat-ready units of the RIA remained on our western borders during this war. And it was mainly reservists from the Eastern provinces who were driven to Manchuria, many of whom had never held a rifle in their hands before the call-up.
                So it turned out that on our side the fighting was done by reservists, and on the Japanese side, although not the best, there was a fully trained, European-style professional army.
                When we had professional soldiers, like in Port Arthur, the Japanese had a hard time.
            2. 0
              2 June 2025 18: 02
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              with the capabilities of the Trans-Siberian Railway

              It was simply necessary to build two routes from the very beginning. Plus to keep units in constant readiness in the Far East. Or did military analytics appear later? What about the Sarikamish operation in WWI?
              1. +1
                2 June 2025 19: 57
                Quote from Kartograph
                It was just that initially two routes had to be built.

                Even one route was considered the "eighth wonder of the world" and a huge achievement of the Russian Empire. And yes, the Trans-Siberian Railway cost more than 350 million rubles. The battleship cost 10-14 million rubles.
              2. +2
                3 June 2025 11: 14
                Quote from Kartograph
                Plus, keep units in constant readiness in the Far East.

                Are we still talking about the Russian Empire? The same one that didn't have the money even for a normal defense of the only ice-free naval base in the entire theater of operations?
                In the opinion of the local commission, first of all, it was necessary to use some of the old coastal batteries, improve them and properly arm them, and then gradually replace these batteries with new ones. As for the land front, it was recognized that it was necessary to move the line of forts of the projected fortress to the Volch'i Hills, 8 kilometers from the outskirts of the old city. However, this project was not approved, and a special commission was sent to Port Arthur in October 1898, which drew up another draft. The latter differed from the first in that its line of forts did not reach the Wolf Mountains, but went about 4 1/2 kilometers from the outskirts of the city, along the Dagushan - Dragons ridge - Panlunshan - Angular Mountains - High Mountain and White Wolf height. This line of land defense met the requirements of covering the core of the fortress from bombardment, but had a length of about 70 km and required a 70th garrison and 528 land weapons, not counting coastal and reserve weapons.
                The interdepartmental conference, which considered this project, striving for possible savings in expenses on Kwantung, both in men and money, spoke out against the project, and the latter was not approved. At the same time, the wish was expressed that the garrison of Kwantung in general should not exceed the number of bayonets and sabres then available there, namely 11 people, so that "the organization of the peninsula's protection would not be excessively expensive and dangerous in political terms."

                As a result, Port Arthur did not satisfy, first of all, the theoretical conditions of the then normal fortress, since some of the fortifications of the outer contour were less than the minimum limit of 4 km from the city; since fort No. 3 was 2,5 km away from it, and forts No. 4 and 5 were even 1,5 km from the outskirts of the new city. Even if we consider only the eastern basin, where the Russian squadron was hiding, as a protected area, even then it turns out that the line of land forts was separated from the border in places (for example, forts No. 1-2) by only 3 km. It is clear that such a proximity of the fortifications to the city caused the latter and the port to be bombarded from the very first shots, and ships, warehouses, hospitals suffered, and not only shells, but also rifle bullets flew through the streets of the city.
                © Yakovlev
                1. 0
                  3 June 2025 17: 37
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Quote from Kartograph
                  Plus, keep units in constant readiness in the Far East.

                  Are we still talking about the Russian Empire? The same one that didn't have the money even for a normal defense of the only ice-free naval base in the entire theater of operations?
                  In the opinion of the local commission, first of all, it was necessary to use some of the old coastal batteries, improve them and properly arm them, and then gradually replace these batteries with new ones. As for the land front, it was recognized that it was necessary to move the line of forts of the projected fortress to the Volch'i Hills, 8 kilometers from the outskirts of the old city. However, this project was not approved, and a special commission was sent to Port Arthur in October 1898, which drew up another draft. The latter differed from the first in that its line of forts did not reach the Wolf Mountains, but went about 4 1/2 kilometers from the outskirts of the city, along the Dagushan - Dragons ridge - Panlunshan - Angular Mountains - High Mountain and White Wolf height. This line of land defense met the requirements of covering the core of the fortress from bombardment, but had a length of about 70 km and required a 70th garrison and 528 land weapons, not counting coastal and reserve weapons.
                  The interdepartmental conference, which considered this project, striving for possible savings in expenses on Kwantung, both in men and money, spoke out against the project, and the latter was not approved. At the same time, the wish was expressed that the garrison of Kwantung in general should not exceed the number of bayonets and sabres then available there, namely 11 people, so that "the organization of the peninsula's protection would not be excessively expensive and dangerous in political terms."

                  As a result, Port Arthur did not satisfy, first of all, the theoretical conditions of the then normal fortress, since some of the fortifications of the outer contour were less than the minimum limit of 4 km from the city; since fort No. 3 was 2,5 km away from it, and forts No. 4 and 5 were even 1,5 km from the outskirts of the new city. Even if we consider only the eastern basin, where the Russian squadron was hiding, as a protected area, even then it turns out that the line of land forts was separated from the border in places (for example, forts No. 1-2) by only 3 km. It is clear that such a proximity of the fortifications to the city caused the latter and the port to be bombarded from the very first shots, and ships, warehouses, hospitals suffered, and not only shells, but also rifle bullets flew through the streets of the city.
                  © Yakovlev

                  They simply didn't have time, as well as to build a fleet. As well as to finish the Stalin line along the new border, as well as the defensive ones in the Kursk and Bryansk regions... as well as the Eastern. If you say that there was no money in the Russian Empire, then in today's Russia there is enough money.
                  1. +1
                    4 June 2025 11: 05
                    Quote from Kartograph
                    They just didn't have time to build a fleet.

                    Didn't have time to what? Finish building a full-scale model of the defensive perimeter of the main naval base, which didn't protect from anything, but pulled real money from the budget? smile
                    The Empire has no money to defend Port Arthur. And, by the way, there is no money for the Warsaw Fortified Region either. At the beginning of the 500th century, the military department was torn between two theaters of military operations. On one, it was necessary to build and equip one coastal fortress from scratch and modernize the second. And on the other, it was necessary to build, also practically from scratch, a huge fortified region, an irregular triangle with a perimeter of more than XNUMX km, relying on three old fortresses on one of its sides.
      2. +2
        2 June 2025 11: 46
        Quote: Rakovor
        Any European power would have flattened that Japan into a pancake.

        Wow, you've gone too far))))
        Which "European power" at that time had the ability to transfer at least a couple of hundred thousand soldiers to China? England? Which had barely dealt with the Dutch farmers in Africa the day before?
        Or maybe France, which somehow established itself in Indochina? Maybe Germany, whose armor-piercing shells did not contain any explosives at all?
        Look at the composition of the forces during the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion - and they were driven there by all of Europe
        1. -2
          2 June 2025 13: 27
          Dear Sir, I mean "a spherical horse in a vacuum")). For example, the Japanese army in a hypothetical battle with the Austro-Hungarian army would have gotten a slap in the face while running, not to mention the German, French, and even British. And by the way, about the transfer of "hundreds of thousands", in the Battle of Mukden we even had a small numerical advantage, so what.....?
          1. +2
            2 June 2025 13: 39
            Quote: Rakovor
            Respected
            I immediately remember the wild youth of the 90s))) "Do you have a light?"
            I mean "a spherical horse in a vacuum"))
            You can't argue with that argument)
            For example, the Japanese army in a hypothetical battle with the Austro-Hungarian army would get a slap in the face while running,
            fortunately, the real history of WWI showed that the Austro-Hungarian army got a "slap on the wrist" from the Russians good
            And by the way, about the transfer of "hundreds of thousands", in the Battle of Mukden we even had a slight numerical advantage, so what...?

            And I do not defend our army men. In general, I believe that we lost this war on land first and foremost. If Port Arthur had not been blocked from land (with its subsequent fall), the combined forces of the Russian fleet would have had every chance of turning the war around at sea.
          2. +1
            2 June 2025 15: 44
            Quote: Rakovor
            For example, the Japanese army in a hypothetical battle with the Austro-Hungarian army would get a slap in the face while running

            And the Austrians would get it from us)))
            Quote: Rakovor
            And by the way, about the transfer of "hundreds of thousands", in the Battle of Mukden we even had a slight numerical advantage, so what...?

            Dear colleague, the fact is that the most combat-ready units of the RIA remained on our western borders during this war. And it was mainly reservists from the Eastern provinces who were driven to Manchuria, many of whom had never held a rifle in their hands before the call-up.
            So it turned out that on our side the fighting was done by reservists, and on the Japanese side, although not the best, there was a fully trained, European-style professional army.
            When we had professional soldiers, like in Port Arthur, the Japanese had a hard time.
            Something like that.
        2. +2
          3 June 2025 11: 23
          Quote: Trapper7
          Which "European power" at that time had the ability to transfer at least a couple of hundred thousand soldiers to China? England? Which had barely dealt with the Dutch farmers in Africa the day before?

          Britain, most likely, would have coped. Having the experience of the Anglo-Boer War - first of all in terms of getting rid of illusions regarding its own ground forces. And also having the experience of transferring an army to a remote theater of military operations and a fleet capable of covering this transfer. If my memory serves me right, about 100 thousand people were transferred from Britain alone.
          What about I barely managed it - so before Roberts' arrival, the Limeys still hoped to cope with local forces.
      3. -5
        2 June 2025 17: 20
        Quote: Rakovor
        Uncle, are you really that stupid or are you pretending?

        You are not pretending: the "best" army has turned... 6 (!) years old, remember. The army of a country defeated, in bans and sanctions
        Quote: Rakovor
        put the whole of Europe in the "running Egyptian" pose.
        was cowardice, the stupidity and incompetence of the European elite and their hangers-on.
        Quote: Rakovor
        Any European power would have flattened that Japan into a pancake.

        lol
      4. 0
        2 June 2025 17: 56
        Quote: Rakovor
        Any European power would have flattened that Japan into a pancake.

        Possibly. For some reason, the Japanese fought rather stiffly in the war with Qing China and there was not a single resounding victory over the battered Chinese fleet. Although perhaps only England would have beaten them to the punch.
    3. +3
      2 June 2025 11: 14
      How is one connected to the other? Well, the USSR won the war in the end, reaching Berlin and by the way, also took a convincing revenge on the Japanese, winning back everything that Nicholas II had lost, and the Russian Empire got its first civil war.
      1. -2
        3 June 2025 09: 42
        Quote: Oldrover
        How is one related to the other?

        once again - But no one says that the cauldrons became some kind of terrible landmark event for the USSR, showing the need for radical changes in the country, the destructiveness of war
        Quote: Oldrover
        and the USSR won the war, eventually reaching Berlin and by the way, also took a convincing revenge on the Japanese, winning back everything that Nicholas II had lost

        In the end, the USSR lost almost everything that Catherine, Peter, etc. had annexed.
  7. +3
    2 June 2025 08: 14
    It showed that Russia is not capable of being an ocean power and it simply does not need to have naval bases outside the territory of land-based Russia. The fleet, in its current form, is a senseless waste of money, instead it would be better to develop the railroad to the Far East and arm the land army, we built a bunch of unnecessary hardware, and ordered imported, expensive hardware. As it turned out, cruisers and submarines were made more than dozens of battleships. But the hint never reached the Tsar.
    1. +2
      2 June 2025 11: 51
      It simply showed that it was necessary to concentrate military forces at the right time in the right place. The Russian fleet was larger than the Japanese, but in a specific theater it was inferior in strength and this difference could not be compensated.
      @instead of this, it would have been better to develop the railway to the Far East@ and that's how it was developed. And at a rapid pace.
      There was very little imported and expensive hardware. And certainly not more expensive than domestic.
      And which submarines managed to distinguish themselves in that war is, of course, a complete mystery to me.
    2. +3
      2 June 2025 12: 35
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Moreover, they ordered imported, expensive stuff.

      in fact, imported ones were often cheaper
      "Bogatyr" with armament cost us 5.5 million rubles. "Oleg" and the Black Sea ships are about a million more expensive.
      "Novik" 3 million 291 thousand rubles. "Pebbles" more than 3.5 million each.
      "Tsarevich" 14 million "Borodino" - 14.5 (to be fair, the battleships of the Baltic Shipyard were cheaper and almost equal in price to "Tsar")
      submarines have done more than

      did nothing at all
  8. +6
    2 June 2025 08: 45
    The ships were overloaded with coal and other cargo, which reduced their seaworthiness.

    First of all, this radically reduced their combat qualities.
  9. +2
    2 June 2025 09: 57
    I wonder how many decades you can go on repeating these dreary stories about poor training, technology and the superiority of the Japanese, and not see the obvious.
    The Tsar sent the squadron to the Far East not so that it would win, but so that it would not get Kronstadt and Helsingfors of 1917 in 1905. This is especially clear in the case of sending the 3rd squadron, after the events of January 9. A large-scale mutiny/rebellion in the fleet (political assessments, all these left-right games are not important and not interesting) in 1905 is a reality, observed in the events of the revolution of 1905-1907. And, obviously, the Tsar knew about what was preparing in the fleet, and took measures. In general, the entire course and outcome of the Russo-Japanese War is understandable and explainable only in the context of the revolution. The Tsar's task in the war with Japan was to prevent the war from turning into a second Crimean and, at the same time, a revolution that was being prepared in advance, which was supposed to lead to the fall of the autocracy.
    I understand that many will object now, but just listen and take note. The next time you hear something about the events of the Russo-Japanese War and their traditional explanations, consider them from the point of view that you have just read, and compare and evaluate for yourself which explanation is closer to reality.
    1. +1
      2 June 2025 17: 12
      Revolution is not said to happen when the conditions for it arise first of all.
    2. 0
      2 June 2025 17: 59
      Quote: Force Multiplier
      The Tsar sent the squadron to the Far East not so that it would win, but so that it would not receive Kronstadt and Helsingfors of 1917 in 1905. This is especially clear in the case of sending the 3rd squadron, after the events of January 9. A large-scale mutiny/rebellion in the fleet (political assessments, all these left-right games are not important and not interesting) in 1905 is a reality, observed in the events of the revolution of 1905-1907.

      Your thesis is completely destroyed by the fact that when squadrons were sent to the Far East there was no revolutionary ferment yet. In principle, it did not even exist at the time of Tsushima.
  10. +3
    2 June 2025 10: 29
    A turning point in history. If it weren't for Tsushima, we'd be living in a different world. Yes
    1. +3
      2 June 2025 11: 55
      Quote: Arzt
      A turning point in history. If it weren't for Tsushima, we'd be living in a different world. Yes

      If there hadn't been a lost war, rather. If the ground army had fought normally, there would have been no Tsushima.
      1. 0
        2 June 2025 13: 32
        Even if there was. Well, we would have lost at sea, well, we would have lost Sakhalin, Kamchatka, maybe something else on the coast, then we would have exchanged all of that for Korea. In the end, a draw, but not a shameful defeat, we would have simply confirmed our status as a purely land power.
        1. 0
          2 June 2025 14: 47
          A purely land power is a myth. Napoleon proved it. The Maritime Empire, using other land powers - Russia, Austria and Prussia, put the land upstarts in their place. And forty years later, using land-based France and amphibious Turkey, it treated Russia to the same.
          This is what it means not to have a decent fleet and bases in the world ocean. But there was a chance, Miklouho-Maclay proposed the matter to Alexander III, but it did not come true. The land base got in the way here too.
          1. 0
            2 June 2025 15: 21
            Well, I'm not saying that the navy is not needed. I'm saying that we never knew how to fight at sea, and we still don't know how to do it, unlike on land.
            1. +2
              2 June 2025 15: 48
              Quote: Rakovor
              about the fact that we never knew how to fight at sea, and we still don’t know how to do so, unlike on land.

              In the case of the Russian Navy, this is not very noticeable. The fleet did have some successes. Like the VOK raids and the successful mine laying of the Amur.
              On land, they completely leaked everything...
            2. 0
              2 June 2025 17: 43
              Quote: Rakovor
              Well, I'm not saying that the navy is not needed. I'm saying that we never knew how to fight at sea, and we still don't know how to do it, unlike on land.

              I will repeat myself. Our fleet fought in the minority throughout the war. We did not have a single major battle of equal forces. And where they were (mainly destroyers or cruisers), the Russian fleet fought with dignity.
              The only major battle about There was a battle of equal forces in the Yellow Sea, but there was no talk of equality there either, and, let's say, the Japanese fleet's advantage was the smallest in that war at sea. And as a result, at some point our squadron had a real (albeit small) chance of breaking through.
              It is the army that is to blame for the blockade of Port Arthur and the destruction of the fleet. This is an axiom and it cannot be changed.
          2. +1
            3 June 2025 00: 27
            Land France and land upstarts (this is about France).

            That is, you are not aware that France had the second largest fleet in the world, with first-class ships and well-trained sailors.
            And the Napoleonic wars became a continuation of the revolutionary wars, when after the revolution in France, a coalition of a number of European powers came out against it.
            1. +1
              3 June 2025 04: 59
              Precisely land upstarts.
              Napoleon did not understand the importance of the fleet - as a consequence of Abu Qir and Trafalgar and the impossibility of transferring large forces by sea. Only privateering, which did not greatly interfere with Great Britain.
              And the holders of three oceans and world trade managed to find everyone's weak points, put together a coalition, and, using the strategy of war on two fronts, defeat the "invincible" army. The Emperor's finale is remarkable: in the hands of the English in the middle of the ocean.
              1. 0
                3 June 2025 09: 18
                How can you be land upstarts with 2 fleets?
                1. 0
                  3 June 2025 11: 33
                  There was a huge gap between the first and second fleets (in terms of numbers, I note). Plus, all the aristocratic commanders were kicked out. And the landlubbers didn't understand the meaning of a fleet at all. They had a fleet, but they couldn't use it, which Nelson, not having formal superiority, successfully proved.
                  The fleet of that time was a long arm. If Napoleon had landed in Revel or Helsinki instead of marching from Brest to Moscow, had occupied Petersburg and had naval supplies, things could have been very bad. But landlubbers don't know how to think like that.
                  The English landed in Spain and kept supplies by sea. And Napoleon could do nothing about them.
    2. +3
      2 June 2025 18: 03
      Quote: Arzt
      Turning point of history. Without Tsushima, we would live in a different world. yes

      What is more interesting is what kind of wilderness the shipbuilding program would have entered in this case during the dreadnought race...
    3. +1
      3 June 2025 11: 28
      Quote: Arzt
      A turning point in history. If it weren't for Tsushima, we'd be living in a different world. Yes

      Yeah... and we would have approached WWI with even greater confidence that we would beat everyone with our hats.
      Plus, the RYaV did not solve the country's internal problems in any way - first and foremost, the peasant question. Low crop yields and the almost natural economy of most peasant farms cannot be corrected by war.
  11. +4
    2 June 2025 11: 01
    The moment of turning was very risky for the Japanese. Rozhestvensky got a good chance to turn the situation in his favor. Having accelerated the speed of the 1st detachment to the maximum, having approached to the usual distance of 15 cables for Russian gunners and having concentrated fire on the turning point of Togo's squadron, the Russian squadron battleships could have shot the enemy.

    That turning point again...
    It is often stated that at this point Togo was almost in a hopeless situation, since his ships, turning "sequentially", passed the same turning point, but which was easy to zero in on. This is a gross error, since there was no central aiming system at that time, even within a single ship. According to rangefinders, they obtained an approximate distance, and then almost every gun or turret was zeroed in individually, monitoring the fall of their shells relative to the ship being fired upon. Shooting at an "imaginary" turning point in the open sea was probably even more difficult than at a real target.
    © Kofman
  12. +3
    2 June 2025 14: 47
    The inset shows a photograph of Admiral Togo Heihachiro above a photograph of his flagship Mikasa leading the battle line of the Imperial Japanese Navy into battle with the Russian squadron.

    The photo shows the single-masted cruiser "Kasuga" or "Nissin".
  13. +1
    2 June 2025 15: 13
    Quote: Trapper7
    fortunately, the real history of WWI showed that the Austro-Hungarian army got a "slap on the wrist" from the Russians

    Well, this is taking into account the experience of the Russian Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Region, but how it would have been in 1904 is anyone’s guess.
    1. +2
      2 June 2025 17: 47
      You can't argue with that. The only thing, of course, but the respected Senior Sailor has already said that - our regular units remained on the western borders.
  14. 0
    3 June 2025 10: 49
    Tsushima tragedy.

    This is not a "tragedy", this is a lesson... It's a pity that it was never learned... if you look at what is happening today... sad
  15. 0
    3 June 2025 12: 59
    Quote: Alexey RA
    This is exactly what Britain would most likely cope with.

    By completely blockading the Japanese islands from the sea. Yes, I admit, the chances are good.
  16. 0
    3 June 2025 23: 30
    Ah! If only VTB had existed back then!!! hi
  17. -2
    4 June 2025 14: 38
    If we take the recent defeat of the Russian strategic aviation for Tsushima, then Putin will end in 2037, and by that time there will be no Russians left in the country
  18. 0
    27 June 2025 10: 02
    The paradox is that in the Battle of Tsushima the Japanese fired something like 460-470 12-inch shells, against 665 of the same shells expended in the Battle of the Yellow Sea. But they achieved amazing results - they sank three squadron battleships with artillery fire on the first day, and beat the fourth to the point of complete loss of combat capability.
    True, today there are flocks of alternative bun-crunchers, who with a straight face are chattering that Rozhdestvensky's squadron was just a little short of beating Togo's squadron to smithereens, that the Japanese are almost dead and one last effort and - hurray! - "let the thunder of victory ring out".
  19. 0
    27 June 2025 10: 11
    Quote: Per se.
    Thus, the 2-I Pacific Squadron was poorly prepared, in fact, did not receive combat training. It is clear that Russian sailors and commanders entered the battle courageously, bravely fought, but their heroism could not rectify the situation.

    There was no point, after the fall of Port Arthur and the destruction of the First Pacific Squadron, in breaking through to Vladivostok, much less hoping to gain supremacy at sea. With four new battleships of the Borodino type and a fifth, the Oslyabya, Rozhestvensky could have created a striking force, rather than turning the squadron into a camp and whipping boys, when, like in a shooting gallery, the Japanese shot at our ships, which with the stubbornness of the doomed, were heading in a column to the slaughter. The Tsar's incompetence largely gave birth to both Kuropatkin and Rozhestvensky, who were in the wrong place.
    As bitter and humiliating as 1905 is, it is comforting that the USSR appeared afterwards and the victory in 1945, when Japan was taken into account. In the diagram of Togo's "shooting range", in the shooting of Russian ships, "a stick over the T" (while maneuvering, you can leave the focus of fire, but Rozhdestvensky did not try to win or, at least, give a worthy fight).

    In the Yellow Sea, Togo became convinced that the notorious dash over the T could be parried by a simple deviation of the column of Russian ships to the end of the Japanese wake column. Therefore, he used the method of pushing the head of the column of ships along an arc, concentrating the main fire on the lead battleships of the two columns of the Russian squadron.
    At the same time, having carried out the sighting, the Mikasa transmitted the corrector data to the other ships of the first armored detachment, which allowed the Japanese to immediately proceed to shooting to kill.
  20. 0
    27 June 2025 10: 14
    And I agree that the death of Rozhdestvensky's squadron is an undoubted and unmistakable criminal stain on the "charming nonentity" (c) Nicholas II, who after the death of the Port Arthur squadron was OBLIGED to return Rozhdestvensky's squadron to the Baltic. But Nikolashka preferred to send the squadron to the slaughter.
  21. 0
    27 June 2025 10: 34
    Quote: Per se.
    Quote from Kartograph
    But with his speed it wasn't very good.
    The Japanese had an external circulation for coverage, Rozhestvensky had an internal one. If the main combat fist from the new ships had been determined immediately, the situation would have been different. What I knew does not justify what happened. The flagship was shot in focus, as were the subsequent ships that replaced it.
    What's the point of saying that Rozhdestvensky wasn't to blame, he wanted the best, but it turned out as always, maybe he was even deceived in his expectations?

    There could not have been any other situation simply because the Japanese fleet was orders of magnitude superior to Rozhdestvensky's ships in training and combat experience. And no strike force would have compensated for the fact that, according to calculations (analysis of hits on the Orel and information from survivors of the Oslyabya), out of 460 or 470 12-inch shells fired by four Japanese battleships, about 40-41 shells reached their target, i.e. about 9%, for comparison, less than 30 hits by 12-inch shells were counted on all Japanese ships. Then, questioning the command staff of the Orel and Nikolai I on the consumption of 12-inch shells on these ships, they deduced the approximate consumption of the entire squadron for this caliber, which came out to between 800 and 1000 shells. The method is, of course, primitive, but, based on the expenditure of 12-inch guns on the Orel, it was assumed that the two battleships that perished in the evening fired the same amount, the Suvorov and Oslyaba were given 40 minutes each, the Navarin and Sisoes the Great were given the same expenditure as the Orel, and so approximately 800 to 1000 12-inch "suitcases" were accumulated.
    And it turns out that the "striking fist" of five battleships would have come under the same fire as happened in reality. And the outcome of the battle would have been exactly the same.
    1. 0
      6 July 2025 17: 49
      Quote: Tank DestroyerSU-100
      The method is, of course, primitive, but, based on the expenditure of 12-inch guns on the Orel, it was assumed that the two battleships that perished in the evening fired the same amount, the Suvorov and Oslyaba were given 40 minutes each, the Navarin and Sisoes the Great were given the same expenditure as the Orel, and so approximately 800 to 1000 12-inch "suitcases" were accumulated.

      According to Japanese data, 188 main battery shells were removed from the Ivas. Accordingly, in total, he spent 52 - 12" shells in that battle.
  22. 0
    30 October 2025 15: 44
    In fact, we must give credit to the Japanese; from a closed and technologically backward country, in 45 years they created an army and navy that was not inferior to other more developed countries of that period.