Military Review

On the possible tactics of the Russians in Tsushima (detailed commentary)

60
What can I say, read this feuilleton (On the possible tactics of Russians in Tsushima).

Not even feuilleton, but rather an epic. The legend is. A collection of gossip on a given topic. He himself was frightened, and he was disgraced for the readers of this opus. After all, there is why. The author is not a childish person. What is there just not!

On the possible tactics of the Russians in Tsushima (detailed commentary)


1. Terrible 305-mm high-explosive "suitcases" nicknamed "furosiki." Natural vandervaflya. At the very end of the opus it is, in plain text, and written. I read a little heart attack. Myocardium. That’s what I think they thought up, parasites. What a scary dirty lime decided. And read it, calmed down. It is quite normal mines. Nothing scary and unusual. Is that not Russian-made, British, so the corps were of high quality. The Japanese indulged in such homemade substitutes for the whole war. And nothing. Without visible success. They actually caused them more harm than the enemy.

The author, of course, doesn’t know that the "scary furoseks" could seriously pinch a semi-armored ship. It was even possible to drown the citadel battleship overloaded with full displacement. But it is impossible to cause serious damage to the armadillo of a complete reservation. Even overloaded. Therefore, on "furosiki", if you really want, you can write off "Oslabyu". True, for this you first have to prove that he was overloaded. And to do it will be oh how difficult. There is simply no data to talk about this. Oslyabya was loaded beyond the normal displacement. But within the full. Consequently, there was no overload. There was no overload, so there was an armor-piercing projectile. The logical chain is very simple, even primitive.

But "Suvorov", "Borodino" and "Alexander" on furoshiki will not work in any way. Under no circumstances. Only armor piercing. And the point. This is also true of the famous network gossip that the Japanese almost did not shoot armor-piercing. Nonsense, of course. On a serious level, there is nothing to discuss.

2. Next come the terrible Orchelian "death rays". Although not. It is not from here. They frightened us in other places. The same "historically accurate."

3. Further, the author pleased us with messages about an experienced naval commander of Togo. No, it's in the Russian style - to call experienced someone is not too lazy. And also brilliant. You begin to clarify what is genius, where did you gain experience and in general, what fleets commanded opponents either silent or swearing. Weighty "arguments", you will not say anything.

The author does not remember in which battles participated "experienced naval commander of Togo"? I remember only the battle in the Yellow Sea. Which Togo stupidly missed. But he was lucky: after the rather accidental death of Admiral Vitgeft, “gentlemen officers” (or rather, senior officers) in a panic fled in different directions, like cockroaches from dichlorvos. Demonstrated, so to speak, high morale. On this squadron actually ceased its inglorious existence. But the merit of Togo personally as a naval commander here is minimal. The title “experienced naval commander” should have been awarded to anonymous Japanese artilleryman. So it would be fairer.

And I have not yet dealt with the second “Japanese genius,” Kamimura, who distinguished himself in the Korean Strait. He demonstrated his lack of talent in all its glory.

4. Further, the author cites a very funny "table of armor penetration." I do not know where he took it. But I very much suspect that I made it at home, on my knee. With the help of the most common accounting calculator. The table is clearly compiled by a man who in artillery does not understand anything. The first thing that frankly pleased us was the armor penetration at a distance of 00 KB. This is a fairy tale, not a column.

Further. The parity of Russian and Japanese 305-mm guns is listed as ~ 19 kbt. In fact, this indicator is ~ 11 kbt. There is no 305 / 35 and 305 / 30 Russian guns in the table. Probably because their armor penetration is somehow not kosher. Immediately get out of registry and fraud. After all, at a distance of 40 KBT. The armor penetration of the Russian 305 / 35 cannons Navarina was slightly less (!!!) than the lightweight 254 / 45 Brbo guns. In fact, from the point of view of ballistics, “Navarin” was armed not with sea, but with large-caliber field guns of the Civil Code (4 units). At least at the time of Tsushima, this was exactly the case. And in the same conditions, the armor penetration of the 305 / 30 of the “Nicholas I” cannons was slightly more than the 203 / 45 of the Garibaldi cannons. From the point of view of ballistics, the guns of the Nikolai I GC were large-caliber field howitzers (2 pieces). Those. in fact, in fact, they were not even cannons. These are the “powerful tools of the Russian EDB” drew. In general, they do not like to be singled out during the calculations, they all think in a crowd. 305 mm, which means 305 mm. Yeah. Fedot, but not the same. But here we will not stop, it's flowers.

Then we immediately run into the fact that the 254 / 45 data of the Russian Brbo cannons are not given. Apparently, them. Because only they were weaker than the Kassugi 254 / 45 cannon. And they were 11, and more powerful, on Oslyab, the entire 4. There was only one Japanese, but its data (I didn’t check its accuracy) is in the table. The compiler of the table of such details (about Russian guns) clearly did not know.

But that's not all. The compiler of the table is clearly not aware that 203 / 40 guns (24 pieces) were on the eslvik, the Frenchman and the German. And only on the Garibaldians were 203 / 45 guns of the new generation (6 pcs.). Both of these types were noticeably more powerful than the Russian 203 / 45 guns (oh, but they were not at all at Tsushima). But they are in the table. And the eight-inch type (203 / 40) most common in the NEF is not in the table.

No, and 229 / 35 Russian guns (4 pcs.). But in fact, there is nothing special to mention there, at a distance of 40 KBT. these guns were even weaker than the Russian guns 203 / 45. Which in themselves were weak enough.

For the future, the author Kolobov, when he draws the following “full” table, I want to note that there was another type of Japanese eight-inch frame on the Japanese BPC, and also 203 / 40. But weakened, not like at DBK.

Laughter is a comparison of Japanese and Russian six-inch. In the Kolobov table, the Russian six-inch ones are better than the Japanese all the way. In fact, it is not. And so it could not be. DE a little more from Russian guns. But the shell is noticeably heavier in Japanese. Without any ballistics and ballistic coefficients, it is clear that as the distance increases, the light body will lose to the heavy one. This is elementary physics. In the Kolobov table this is not even close. In fact, parity was advancing on 40 kbts. Before this distance, Russian guns were more powerful, then Japanese ones.

In addition, the author of the table traditionally "forgot" another type of Japanese six-inch. This time garibaldians. Their 152 / 45 guns (28 units) were noticeably more powerful than all the other six-inch guns.

This is the strange table the author is trying to give us. The fact that the numbers are far from real, I will not even specifically write. This is so clear.

5. Then the author begins to gossip (that’s) about the tasks of calibers on the battleships. Having called some "theorists of those times" to be witnesses (and I can even call them nicknames in various forums), the author begins to follow the precepts of these "theorists". A little bit more, and the author will surprise us with a “discovery” at about this level - “the main weapons tank The Tiger was not at all an 88 mm gun mounted in a tower. The main were two machine guns, exchange rate and coaxial with a gun. " However, the 152-mm guns on the EDB performed the tasks of those same tank machine guns. And here is the problem of quick wits: what were the goals for these “machine guns”?

6. Further, the author demonstrates a lack of understanding in the field of types of armadillos in terms of their booking. He is not at all interested in their defense against GK guns. He is mainly interested in their protection from "machine guns". The conclusions of the authors are ridiculous already because he compares the ships for some kind of "protection against rapid-fire medium-caliber artillery." And, the funny thing is, he makes a very pretentious conclusion that "only 4 battleships of the Borodino type possessed protection — the other eight were vulnerable."

The fact that EVERYTHING, I repeat, EVERYTHING, the Japanese armadillos were not the armadillos of a continuous reservation on the overhead line, and NO ONE of them grunted from the artillery fire, does not bother the author at all. And of the four “Borodino-type battleships,” the same ones, with uninterrupted armoring on the high-voltage lines, seemed to be invulnerable, three grunted from artillery fire. No, I understand that the "Suvorov" was finished off by torpedoes. But he grunted even before this, and it was from the artillery fire.

About the "antidote." Is it not embarrassing that it is only the French who indulged in such “antidotes” for export to the underdeveloped countries at that time? And the British did not indulge, the British built normal powerful ships. The French are “smart guys for export”, and the British (Germans, Italians) are fools?

Then comes the song: "Accountant, my dear accountant." It becomes clear that Kolobov is not an artilleryman. He is an accountant. That would write about the annual balance sheets and reports to the FIU and the FSS. Why write about artillery? Counting "machine guns" is an exciting experience, of course. But the real artillery of the EBR (GC) is here to do with it?

This is followed by a final revelation from the "theorists of those times." It sounds like this: "... the meaning of six-inch artillery consisted in the destruction of the unarmored parts of the battleship at short distances of combat." All this is the apotheosis. There is nothing to comment on. A person signs that he does not understand elementary things. No, after all, an accountant needs about money. It will somehow harmoniously turn out.

7. Further tactical considerations follow from our author. What are they talking about? The fact that the person is "not in the subject." And not only in the field of artillery. But also in the field of ballet (probably). And besides this, in the field of navigation. He does not understand that the tactic of a ship (group of ships) that does not have the advantage in speed is very simple. To spin like in a skillet and prevent the more high-speed opponent from doing his work. Everything. No more tasks and there can not be. Because there is no speed for that. Kolobov does not understand this. Rozhestvensky understood. Therefore, no "pre-orders" did not give, except for one. I thought, apparently, that along the way he would be guided and commanded. But for some reason he did not command. Perhaps, indeed, the injury did not allow. But then why did not he transfer command to anyone else?

A punching bag, hanging in the gym, tactics to anything. Let her boxer develops it. And he will determine the distance. The initiative is completely in his hands, no need to fantasize.

8. The author mocked me with the phrase "armored forehead" of the newest ships of the Borodino type. A rather exotic name for floating buckets with nuts. The author calls "to substitute them under fire 305-mm guns of the Japanese." We all know that at Tsushima it was so. And how much time these "armored foreheads" lasted on the surface is also known. But the author persistently urges them to substitute.

The author and other “Tsushima analysts” need to understand one very simple thing for themselves. The results of Tsushima and the battle in the Yellow Sea turned out to be completely different (in the sense of losing ships) for one extremely simple reason. The 4 (as many as four !!!) electronic boosters of various levels took part in the battle in the LMF from the RIF side. Some of them were too old, but they were ADB. And there were two buckets with nuts. When Tsushima on the part of the RIF was a mass of buckets with nuts with the same name. But there was not a single EDB. All ships were domestic production. And this is an extremely sad fact. Now I won’t even dwell on the exotic for Borodintsky reservation scheme ships of that era, which the French slipped and ate mugs (and maybe even corrupt officials who know them) from under the spitz. Many “analysts” of the inferiority of the scheme (and especially its Russian execution) of the “Borodino residents” are given out for their supposed advantage. Without going into discussions, I’ll just note that for all history “Technically and technologically advanced Russian military shipbuilding” of those years, the entire 2 (two) ship was built, which could be called the EBR. It is an old born (but not outdated from birth, like its systerships) XBUM-class “Poltava” electronic library. And thanks to the abundance of imported components. And the old from birth (but not outdated from birth, like its sisterships) XBUM-class Victory EHR. This one is on the domestic element base. Everything. More EBRD was not built, although attempts continued periodically. T.N. "Borodino" also applies.

I do not touch the level of crew training. This is a subjective category: how many people, so many opinions. I'm more on the part of objectivity. It’s not really possible to argue here - there’s nothing.

As for the "breakthrough in Vladivostok." I agree with the initial promise of the author: why was he needed, this breakthrough? What was there to do in Vladivostok? What the hell is there?

But if there was no way out, and I had to go, then I had to go in two groups at the same time. One, more valuable, "northern route", bypassing Tsushima. The second, "zamanushny", through Tsushima. The day and hour of approaching the straits should be coordinated and synchronized. Who watched the movie "No way back," he will understand what they mean. As soon as Togo was covering the “zamanushny” detachment, he immediately had to surrender. Maybe open the kingston. Floating litter did not represent any value. The main thing was to save people.

Togo could somehow figure out the essence of the matter and leave Tsushima north to intercept the main detachment. Then the excellent chances of a breakthrough appeared at the "enticing" detachment. After all, the Japanese 203-mm guns of Elsvik, German and French were powerless against large armored ships. True, it is not clear what was the strength of the 203-mm guns of the Garibaldi. But I do not think that they were seriously more effective. And the 254 mm Kasuga gun was just one.

On the RIF side was the fact that Togo had the entire 4 ship to intercept large armored vessels. And with these ships, he had to ripen in two places at the same time. This would have been impossible only if he had not decided to divide his linear forces. Two ships to Tsushima and 2 ships to the north. Then ... Ie the repetition of Tsushima. But this is only if decided. And if not, and it would most likely be, then one detachment would surrender. And the second would be guaranteed.

But for this it was necessary from the very beginning to realize that there is no chance. And it was fu as unpatriotic. Therefore, it was necessary to start from the beginning. With awareness of the meaning of the word "patriotism". And to separate it from the "leaven patriotism."
Author:
60 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. VladimirRG
    VladimirRG 14 July 2015 07: 15
    +3
    Dear author, what does it mean - "4 (as many as four !!!) EBRs of different levels took part in the battle in the GM from the RIF side." and who is EBR and who is not: - Tsarevich, Retvizan, Poltava, Sevastopol, Pobeda, Peresvet. The French slipped the Tsarevich with his booking, which you do not like. And why did you get the idea that our admirals were so stupid that they made the flagship on the slipped EBR, and our designers took it as the basis of the largest series of EBRs. Apparently this truth is only known to you.
    1. Russian Uzbek
      Russian Uzbek 14 July 2015 07: 43
      0
      the author is obsessed with Tsushima! this topic was struck not by one person to death, but the author took it very painfully to heart;)
      SANITIES !!!
      where is our admiral? in the 6th ward where Napoleon is!
      1. K-50
        K-50 14 July 2015 15: 13
        +8
        Quote: Russian Uzbek
        the author is obsessed with Tsushima! this topic was struck not by one person to death, but the author took it very painfully to heart;)
        SANITIES !!!

        In vain amuse yourself in vain!
        The theme of the Russo-Japanese war is very sensitive, since this is the only battle in which the Russian fleet has lost and lost with a devastating score. In the future, this served as additional "firewood" in the revolutions of Russia and its final decline.
        You can argue for a long time "what would have happened if this is how, and not that".
        But the significance of this war will not be less anyway, but what about this? Well, not comme il faut, or something. request Since many prominent figures of Russia, both naval and non-combatants, perished.
        And how many sailors and soldiers?
        And make fun of it? not decent, at least.
        1. Russian Uzbek
          Russian Uzbek 14 July 2015 19: 00
          +1
          but it seems to me ernichane - these are just such articles
          they cannot be called serious, for example, network dances on the bones, when each "strategist" tries to impose his personal vision
          I am not against the games of the mind, but for this it seems there are thematic sites, and why is it worth spreading here?
    2. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 14 July 2015 11: 00
      +4
      continuous attacks
      1. Kolobov invented
      2. Kolobov -
      3. Kolobov - accountant
      4. Kolobov - wrong (and only here at least some kind of argument)
      5. Kolobov is an ignoramus
      etc.

      criticism should be constructive and rejecting Kolobov’s thesis needs its own antithesis with argumentation - and in this article there is only a bucket of mud on Kolobov, a scoop of mud on RI, pride (I'm an artilleryman, waving!) and only the last 3 paragraphs on the topic ...
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 14 July 2015 20: 32
        0
        The author writes garbage
        “As for the“ breakthrough to Vladivostok. ”I agree with the initial message of the author: why was it needed, this breakthrough? What had to be done there, in Vladivostok?"
        The task was to break up the Japanese fleet. That is, to join the battle. And hanging around in Vladivostok, where there was a small repair base, is not an option, especially if some of the ships were given up for "devouring." Therefore, there was no point in dividing the squadron
  2. candidate
    candidate 14 July 2015 07: 52
    0
    ... A knight's move, calculation for a fork
    Strong will play like that
    Well, the weak - all to no purpose
    Everything merges in battle ...
  3. Syak
    Syak 14 July 2015 08: 21
    +4
    The author of the "commentary" has nothing to write on the merits of the issue, so he slipped into cheap mockery.
    Apparently, it was not possible to overpower his own research on this subject, but to pour mud on someone else's work is always welcome.
  4. unknown
    unknown 14 July 2015 09: 05
    +3
    Strange article
    1. The Japanese had four battleships in Tsushima. The most armored - "Mikasa": Krupovskaya armor, the belt along the waterline is FULL. For this I had to pay with a construction overload of 900 tons. Construction overload of the "Borodino" type - up to 700 tons. Those who wish themselves can calculate as a percentage who had more overload. The battleships "Asahi" and "Shikishima" had a FULL belt along the waterline, but the armor was Harvey.
    Fuji is built to an outdated design, with outdated main battery mounts, poorly protected medium-caliber artillery (partially 6 out of 10), and an INCOMPLETE belt. But, oddly enough, the author is right that in history there is not a single case when unprotected extremities were COMPLETELY destroyed by a medium caliber. And yet, "Fuji" was a real brake, really no more than 15 knots
    2. Armored cruisers, and Italians including ships of unknown tactical purpose
    The speed of the best did not exceed 17 knots, and the worst ("Azuma") could not go more than 15 knots for a long time.
    What a flying detachment, prototypes of battlecruisers. The British believed the advantage should be at least SIX knots.
    Armament did not allow one on one to confront the battleships. Even the fire performance of Russian armored cruisers of the first rank was higher. Why do we need such expensive ships that can be effectively used only as part of a detachment of three or more units.
    The Japanese quickly realized the shortcomings of the project, and on the home series they increased displacement, raised the caliber of the main caliber, and increased speed. They got the ideal armored cruisers of the RPE built after the war.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 14 July 2015 20: 23
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      Even the fire performance of Russian armored cruisers of the first rank was higher

      Come on, come on, bring in the volley weight if not difficult. And at the same time booking.
      Do not compare ships of different classes
      Quote: ignoto
      The Japanese quickly realized the shortcomings of the project. They got the ideal armored cruisers built after the war.

      The British understood the flaws even faster and got battle cruisers
  5. Walking
    Walking 14 July 2015 09: 10
    +5
    After reading the title, I thought that this article analyzes the previous one and supplements it, but here it’s just some sort of libel.
  6. Nehist
    Nehist 14 July 2015 09: 14
    +3
    The author is apparently not familiar with the conclusions of the British, American reports and the results of the Sino-Japanese war. Where exactly the medium-caliber guns caused decisive damage. Accordingly, in those days the concept of close range combat was developed. Hence, lightweight RIF shells and firing tables of no more than 40kb. The fact that Borodinians are not a successful project in the process of construction revealed I agree with this. Poltava, Victory, Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk, this is the entire series of EDBs first in the RIF, and for some reason the author only has two. In terms of shells, the British so-called armor-piercing shells were an order of magnitude inferior to Russian, the Japanese ammunition load on the 305 mm main gun barrel at Tsushima brought up to 110 30BB-90OF shells in the yellow sea, the proportion was 90 60BB-30OF shells per barrel. 1TOE damage reports are very detailed, penetration of RIF ships armor is single.
  7. unknown
    unknown 14 July 2015 09: 25
    +2
    The Russians had more armadillos in Tsushima than the Japanese
    1. Type "Borodino" - a belt on the waterline FULL, armor Krupovskaya. Artillery of the main command and control complex in the towers.
    2. Type "Oslyabya-belt INCOMPLETE, Garvey armor. GK-254mm. In terms of fire performance, it significantly surpassed any Japanese armored cruiser. Could withstand battleships, especially" Fuji ".
    3. Type "Sisoy Great" -incomplete belt, modern KG. Stronger than any Japanese bookmaker. Speed ​​at the level of "Azuma".
    4. Type "Navarin". - Incomplete belt, 12 "- outdated (35 calibers), but still effective against ammunition. Speed ​​up to 15-14 knots.
    5. Type "Emperor Nicholas the First" - belt FULL, 12 "- outdated (30 calibers), only 2, but if there is another 2-229mm and 4-6" in the onboard salvo, it can effectively withstand the ammunition
    6. BBO. Ships of small displacement, the belt is INCOMPLETE, the SC was absent, but the main one was 10 ". During the battle, Asama received serious damage from the fire of the BBO.
    In addition to the battleships, the squadron included the armored cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov", which in an onboard salvo had 6-8 "and 4-6" versus 4-8 "and 6-7-6" in Japanese BC
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 July 2015 11: 48
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      3. Type "Sisoy Great" -incomplete belt, modern KG. Stronger than any Japanese bookmaker. Speed ​​at the level of "Azuma".

      Did Azuma go 15 knots? EMNIP, "Sisoy" developed 15,7 knots during testing.
  8. unknown
    unknown 14 July 2015 09: 25
    +1
    The Russians had more armadillos in Tsushima than the Japanese
    1. Type "Borodino" - a belt on the waterline FULL, armor Krupovskaya. Artillery of the main command and control complex in the towers.
    2. Type "Oslyabya-belt INCOMPLETE, Garvey armor. GK-254mm. In terms of fire performance, it significantly surpassed any Japanese armored cruiser. Could withstand battleships, especially" Fuji ".
    3. Type "Sisoy Great" -incomplete belt, modern KG. Stronger than any Japanese bookmaker. Speed ​​at the level of "Azuma".
    4. Type "Navarin". - Incomplete belt, 12 "- outdated (35 calibers), but still effective against ammunition. Speed ​​up to 15-14 knots.
    5. Type "Emperor Nicholas the First" - belt FULL, 12 "- outdated (30 calibers), only 2, but if there is another 2-229mm and 4-6" in the onboard salvo, it can effectively withstand the ammunition
    6. BBO. Ships of small displacement, the belt is INCOMPLETE, the SC was absent, but the main one was 10 ". During the battle, Asama received serious damage from the fire of the BBO.
    In addition to the battleships, the squadron included the armored cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov", which in an onboard salvo had 6-8 "and 4-6" versus 4-8 "and 6-7-6" in Japanese BC
    1. Angro Magno
      Angro Magno 14 July 2015 10: 34
      +3
      The Russians had more armadillos in Tsushima than the Japanese
      Nevertheless, the weight of the airborne volley and the volley per minute of the yap were more than 33% and doubled, respectively.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. sevtrash
    sevtrash 14 July 2015 09: 27
    +2
    Everyone at different times was taught that truth / truth is, as it were, unattainable in its continuous knowledge - it seems like you are gradually approaching it, but you are not constantly getting it.
    From this point of view, one should not overestimate someone’s delights in matters of naval tactics - professionals do not go here - we are all lovers. It seems.
  10. Taoist
    Taoist 14 July 2015 10: 28
    +4
    A rare "stream of consciousness" - with a claim to possessing a certain "sacred truth" but at the same time it has not been "illuminated" anywhere ... But it is not good. There is an alternative version - put it this way, justify and defend ... but the version of the proof "you're all here in ... and I'm all in white" smells bad in itself ...
  11. Angro Magno
    Angro Magno 14 July 2015 10: 31
    +4
    The author does not know that Oslyaby’s extremities were not covered by an armored belt?
    Oslyabya got hit in the nose, after which he rolled over.
    Those. n.1 opus to eject immediately.
  12. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 14 July 2015 11: 26
    +2
    However, the 152-mm guns on the EDB performed the tasks of those same tank machine guns. And here is the problem of quick wits: what were the goals for these “machine guns”?

    Machine gun tasks On the EDB, it performed an anti-mine caliber of 75 mm. And the 152 mm is precisely the medium caliber. Which, by the time of the PEC, had already begun to grow 203-234-254 ... until the all-big-gun ship hatched.

    This is already after the REV, by the time of the WWII, the anti-mine caliber has grown to 120-152 mm - following the increase in displacement and the survivability of its targets.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 July 2015 11: 49
      0
      And, by the way, if we are to compare the EBR with a tank, then as an analogue it is necessary to take not a "tiger", but, probably, a T-35. smile
  13. made13
    made13 14 July 2015 11: 31
    +3
    History knows no subjunctive moods. The Japanese won - it's a fact. Due to what is another question. The intelligence work of various "partners" on the Yap war machine and the betrayal of the so-called. intelligentsia and nobility - this is in my opinion the main reason for the defeat.
  14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 July 2015 11: 32
    +7
    Some comments on this "comment"
    But “Suvorov”, “Borodino” and “Alexander” cannot be attributed to furosics. Under no circumstances. Only armor-piercing. And the point.

    Honestly, I myself thought for so long, and it seems that there were even some reasons for that. But here's the thing:
    Extract from 極 秘 明治 37. 8 年 海 戦 史 第 5 部 施 設 / 第 第 2 編 海 軍艦 政 本部 の 施 設 / 第 1 章 兵器 (the same top-secret meiji, JACAR code is C05110112000)
    posted by reputable Gunsmith on the Tsushima forums http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=9052 states:
    Monthly combat expenditure of shells and bullets by the Japanese fleet in 1904-1905
    Armstrong's 12-dm 40-caliber gun
    Armor-piercing shells: February 1904 - 51, March - 91, August - 257, May 1905 - 31; total 430 pcs.
    Forged high-explosive steel shells: February 1904 - 106, March - 68, August - 336, May 1905 - 424; total 934 pcs.

    The total number of 305 mm shells spent by the Japanese fleet in May 1905, when, in fact, the Tsushima battle took place, was registered in the amount of 455 pieces.
    The generally accepted number of shells used in Tsushima is 446, i.e. the difference is 9 shells that the Japanese fired somewhere else. That is why I wrote that in Tsushima itself armor-piercing shells were fired 31 or less, because part of the armor-piercing could be spent elsewhere.
    Accordingly, it was the "furoshiki" that was destroyed by the Russian squadron, although it cannot be ruled out that the "Borodino" nevertheless died from an armor-piercing shell.
    Further, the author pleased us with messages about an experienced naval commander of Togo. No, it's in the Russian style - to call experienced someone is not too lazy. And also brilliant. You begin to clarify what is genius, where you gained experience and in general, which fleets he commanded, opponents are either silent or swearing. Weighty "arguments", you will not say anything.

    Read this ... no, not strange. It is no longer strange, since the intellectual level of my opponents, alas, turned out to be significantly lower than the one I was counting on. Sharpness and rudeness - more than enough, but the argument is such that I want to cry. Laughing.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 July 2015 11: 34
      +1
      Firstly, no one asked me in any topic, about "where I gained experience and what commanded" Togo. And if someone asked, I would answer that Heihachiro Togo received a naval education at the Royal Naval Academy in Portsmouth and the Royal Naval College in Greenwich, in the Sino-Japanese war he was a captain of the 1st rank and a commander cruiser "Naniwa", which fired the first shot in that war. Togo on "Naniwa" distinguished himself in the battle at Yalu. In the future, Togo commanded an expeditionary squadron of Japanese ships aimed at suppressing the Boxer uprising, but most importantly, Heihachiro Togo has been in constant command of the United Fleet of Japan since 1903.
      The author does not remember in what battles the “experienced naval commander of Togo” participated? I only remember the battle in the Yellow Sea

      If you do not even consider participation in the Sino-Japanese war, you can recall the battle on January 27, 1904, when Togo's armored fleet fought against the battleships of the Arthur squadron under the fire of Russian coastal batteries for 40 minutes at a distance of 23-40 kbt. In addition, one should not forget that Togo commanded Arthur’s naval blockade - and this also gave him experience, although there were no big battles besides the battles of January 27 and July 28.
      Zinovy ​​Petrovich Rozhestvensky, unfortunately, by the time of the Tsushima battle, had combat experience exclusively as an officer of the armed steamship Vesta (moreover, Rozhestvensky himself criticized the battle with the Turkish battleship), and the largest unit that he had to command before the RYA was the Baltic training detachment. A year before the start of the RYAV, Rozhdestvensky became the head of the MGSh, but this, of course, could not give him the experience that Heyachiro Togo received, who at about the same time received command of the entire United Fleet of Japan.
      Further, the author gives a very funny “armor penetration table”. I don’t know where he got it.

      Generally speaking, this table is known by any person who has seriously studied RYA. This table is given by SI Titushkin in his work "Ship artillery in the Russian-Japanese war"
      It really will cause a number of complaints, but at the same time it gives quite reliable values ​​for the armor penetration of the latest Russian and Japanese 12-dm and 6-dm guns at that time.
      The fact that EVERYTHING, I repeat, EVERYTHING, the Japanese armadillos were not armored carriers of a continuous reservation for overhead lines

      It would be best for the author to repeat Belov's book "Battleships of Japan" Here is what it says, for example, about "Sikishima"
      The armored belt stretched along the entire length of the ship from stem to stem (like on "Fuso"), which proved that the opinion of British shipbuilders and Japanese customers with combat experience coincided with the firm conviction of French naval officers and shipbuilders about the need for a continuous armor belt along the sides.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 July 2015 11: 35
        +4
        And this is how the Asahi armor is depicted

        Under Tsushima, from the side of the RIF there was a mass of buckets with nuts of the same name. But there was not a single true EDB.

        The author, you better lay out your concept of dividing RYAW warships into classes on this site entirely, as you posted it at one time on "alternative history" - with all its "armored cruisers of coastal defense" "squadron armored raiders of the 3rd rank", etc. .d.
        Make readers laugh
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 July 2015 11: 51
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The author, you better lay out your concept of dividing RYAW warships into classes on this site entirely, as you posted it at one time on "alternative history" - with all its "armored cruisers of coastal defense" "squadron armored raiders of the 3rd rank", etc. .d.

          belay Merchants nervously smokes on the sidelines. smile
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 July 2015 12: 08
            +4
            As a matter of fact, I did not understand who I was dealing with until this "comrade" did not say that the battleships of the Borodino type were not battleships and did not produce Poltava in the 1st class EBR, and Pobeda - in the battleship 2- first class, here everything became clear.
            Above the opuses of this guy, the whole "alternativeshistori" laughed, at first they chased him on the tsushima, then waved his hand and stopped paying attention. In general, a man of unrecognized geniuses.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 July 2015 13: 58
              +3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Above the opuses of this guy, the whole "alternativeshistori" laughed, at first they chased him on the tsushima, then waved his hand and stopped paying attention.

              Yes ... not the same now Tsushima - picked up.
              Pomnitsa, who at one time was an author who long and stubbornly promoted the theory of the missed opportunities of the Vladivostok submarines for actions off the coast of Japan, was proposed to organize an exit to the Baltic on a small submarine. In the fall. In the water position. Tied to the bridge. laughing
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 14 July 2015 15: 39
                +2
                Well, why is it so "severe" ... it would be enough on some "small size" and even in summer ... but only in a "fresh" wind ... The feeling of "frog in a soccer ball" is guaranteed ... ;-)
          2. Angro Magno
            Angro Magno 14 July 2015 12: 10
            0
            Andrey, welcome.
            I vaguely recall these funny terms.
            Under what nickname does Fleent come from the Beard? I wanted to refresh his classification.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 July 2015 12: 22
              0
              Hello to you, dear Angro Magno!
              Quote: Angro Magno
              Under what nickname does Fleent come from the Beard?

              Now - under no circumstances, despite 100500 changes of nicknames, it is calculated there within 3 comments. And his most famous nicknames are "Hotel" and "Passer-by". You can find the classification in the "Hotel" blog "New EBRs in the RIF or cardboard fools", but there is still nothing - but later, when people began to laugh, in the comments to various articles and agreed to "armored coastal defense cruisers" .. ...
              1. Angro Magno
                Angro Magno 14 July 2015 12: 30
                -1
                Thanks, I also thought about Passerby. Recognizable style. But he was not sure.
                I left my wishes on AI in Tsushima Myths. If possible I will go to the site. If the work does not hurt.

                Sincerely, HB.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
  15. Kremlevets
    Kremlevets 14 July 2015 11: 50
    -5
    Immediately I say, I do not want to offend anyone. Or they can honestly admit that it’s not a matter of ships. And the fact is that Russians, as well as Tatars, Bashkirs, Caucasians ... well, everyone who lived in the Russian Empire then was like no sailors. All the great victories of the Russian fleet of the past are a beating of the same land mentality of the Turks. Or dubious walks on oars along the coast of the Gulf of Finland for 20 years, behind the Swedes in the Northern War. As soon as they encountered the British (island people) in the Crimean War, they immediately flooded their fleet, and ran to mother’s land, on the bastions of Sevastopol. Faced the Japanese, too people of the island. Also raked. It seems to me that in order to become a real sailor, you have to be born on the sea, live the sea, feed on him. An ordinary fisherman from a Japanese village, in any case, will be a better sailor than a good peasant from the Vyatka province.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 July 2015 12: 26
      +2
      Quote: Kremlin man
      this is a beating of the same land mentality of the Turks

      But in the Baltic, we did not fight with anyone? Well, in general, and nothing? And about the Turks - it's you in vain
      The size of the Turkish fleet in 1522 can be judged by the campaign on the island of Rhodes, when Suleiman led 700 military sailing and rowing ships with 115 thousand soldiers. The year 1524 marks the defeat of the Portuguese in the Red Sea.
      Since 1525, the Algerian fleet, led by the former pirate Khair ad Din Barbarossa, the Redbeard, who inherited a large pirate flotilla after the death of his brother, became the shock force of the Ottoman Empire. This is the time when the Turkish fleet consisted of rowing and sailing ships: Sultan’s kaiks, long and narrow rowing galleys and pylons — armed sailing-rowing ships with three masts and slanting sails. These were fast and maneuverable ships. There was a time when the Turkish fleet dominated the Mediterranean, Red, Aegean, Marmara and Black Seas, and the Sea of ​​Azov. He also tried to expel Europeans from the Indian Ocean. The Turkish fleet participated in the Russian-Turkish, Serbo-Montenegrin, Greek-Turkish wars.
      1. Kremlevets
        Kremlevets 14 July 2015 13: 41
        0
        I asked you not to be offended. And here 1522-1525. You understood what I wrote about. It was about the victories of the Russian fleet. I don’t have to explain to you when our fleet appeared. The Mongols, in fact, captured all of Asia and half of Europe 200 years before the events you described, but this does not make Mongolia the times of the outstanding victories of the Russian fleet as a great land power. And even 1000 years before the Mongols, the Phoenicians in all gigemonil on the seas. Yes and the fleet ancient Egypt was the most powerful on the planet in its time. That's not the point. But the fact is that, having collided with the Japanese fleet, the Russian fleet was utterly defeated. The defeat is so monstrous that more than 100 years have passed, and it causes such a lively polemic in the naval environment. And I will explain why. The Russian ground army also raked from the Japanese army, and it also showed itself not very. But! The Ground Army 40 years after 1905 washed away the shame of defeat in the Russo-Japanese War from its banners, avenged the death of their ancestors brilliantly defeating the Kwantung army of imperial Japan. On the wreckage of Port Atrura they took down the defeated Russia. And the fleet did not do this. And the bodies of Russian sailors of the heroes who died in that war, do not rest on the ocean floor, not avenged. And you know that, this is eating you. The victory at sea in the confrontation between Russia and Japan is still behind Japan.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 July 2015 14: 03
          +1
          Quote: Kremlin man
          I asked not to be offended

          so I'm not offended :)
          Quote: Kremlin man
          .You well understood what I wrote

          And I do not agree with what you wrote. Being dissent and being offended are fundamentally different things. laughing
          Quote: Kremlin man
          In general, 200 years before the events described by you, the Mongols captured all of Asia and half of Europe, but this does not make Mongolia the time of the outstanding victories of the Russian fleet as a great land power

          Doesn't. But the fact is that the Ottoman Empire has a very rich maritime and naval history, therefore, your thesis about the "land" of the Turks is completely incomprehensible.
          Quote: Kremlin man
          But the fleet did not do this. And the bodies of Russian sailors of the heroes who died in that war, are not avenged at the bottom of the ocean. And you know that, this is eating you

          Let's not talk about who gnaws anyone. Of course, as a man who loves the fleet, I would be pleased to study the victories of the Russian armored (later - linear, aircraft carrier) fleet in the large squadron battles of the RSE, WWII, and WWII. But this was not, and now what?
    2. Syak
      Syak 14 July 2015 13: 29
      +1
      Quote: Kremlin man
      An ordinary fisherman from a Japanese village, in any case, will be a better sailor than a good peasant from the Vyatka province.

      A military man in general (and a sailor in particular) is a product of a military machine. If the military machine works for the final result, how it should work, then the product will be appropriate.
      If you teach a "peasant from the Vyatka province" what he should do according to the staffing table, give him repeated training in his specialty, then ... The conclusion can be drawn accordingly.
      A fisherman from a Japanese village a priori cannot aim a gun or throw coal into a furnace better than our compatriot from a small village on the banks of a small rivulet.
      1. Kremlevets
        Kremlevets 14 July 2015 13: 53
        0
        You can teach a monkey to play a balalaika. You are right. You just didn’t understand the essence. And other things being equal, such as training in shooting and throwing coal, there is such a thing as a living environment. So the sea as a living environment is closer and understandable to a fisherman and not to the peasant. Yes, and not to the river fisherman.
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 14 July 2015 21: 01
          +1
          Quote: Kremlin man
          sea ​​as a habitat

          It is unlikely that this should be an ichthyander. I admit that a simple Japanese fisherman can navigate the stars, be able to row and dive, and also know the fishing places. But to teach him to shoot from a cannon or throw coal into the furnace, you need to make as much effort as in Russian version
          1. Kremlevets
            Kremlevets 14 July 2015 23: 06
            0
            Or maybe so, One sea loves and is not afraid of him, he is accustomed to its harsh conditions. And the other is constantly sick and drawn to the shore, to his native birches or cherries.
        2. Predator
          Predator 14 July 2015 21: 14
          -1
          Quote: Kremlin man
          You can teach a monkey to play a balalaika. You are right. You just didn’t understand the essence. And other things being equal, such as training in shooting and throwing coal, there is such a thing as a living environment. So the sea as a living environment is closer and understandable to a fisherman and not to the peasant. Yes, and not to the river fisherman.

          I’m curious, but what about the inhabitants of Russia living on the shores of the Baltic, Black, White and other seas, the main occupation of which is fishing and sea fishing inferior to the Japanese ?! And by the way and strength the Japanese are very far from the Russians. You are clearly not in that steppe.
          1. Kremlevets
            Kremlevets 14 July 2015 23: 14
            0
            Residents of Russia living on the shores of our seas and engaged in fishing are no worse than their counterparts from other countries. This is also the question. Maybe they didn’t understand me, talking about fishermen, I mean those who go to sea on schooners fishing. But not those whom he takes away annually in the Gulf of Finland in winter on a large ice floe. And those who with friends on Saturdays go to the river to thump and catch a ruff for fishing
    3. Nehist
      Nehist 14 July 2015 13: 44
      0
      This is the Turks overland mentality? Yes, my friend, apparently you were not interested in the Ottoman Empire! Magnificent sailors, in fierce wars with the Venetians won quite a few victories. Developed maritime trade, experience of Atlantic campaigns ... This is what I vainly recalled.
      1. Kremlevets
        Kremlevets 14 July 2015 14: 09
        -2
        Yes, the ancestors of modern Turks, Seljuk Turks. And they were nomads. And not the sea people. With the same success you have Tver a sea city, they have Athanasius Nikitin went to India for three seas. Yes, and modern Panama has the largest judging by the flags on the sea. You don’t have to take phrases out of context. You understood my idea. Although one victory over the English fleet would have closed all victories over the Turks. And the Russian fleet had such a chance in the Crimean War. But it did not work out. The fleet was flooded and went ashore. After that, the flooding of their ships became a habit. Samotopoty, in my opinion, began to call the masters of the navy.
      2. Kremlevets
        Kremlevets 14 July 2015 14: 31
        -1
        Quote: Nehist
        This is the Turks overland mentality? Yes, my friend, apparently you were not interested in the Ottoman Empire! Magnificent sailors, in fierce wars with the Venetians won quite a few victories. Developed maritime trade, experience of Atlantic campaigns ... This is what I vainly recalled.

        A dispute about nothing. Compared to anyone? With the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the British, the Dutch? Who dug up more than half of the world. The Russians discovered Antarctica, and what? Helped?
    4. Taoist
      Taoist 14 July 2015 15: 43
      -1
      Rubbish is just like the "land and sea" mentality ... The Navy is not a fishing village. There they are measured by a completely different criterion ... The Dutch are really "sea people" but they are glorified in trade and not in war ...
      1. Kremlevets
        Kremlevets 15 July 2015 00: 17
        0
        Well, you’re in vain. Three Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century were fought with varying success. And the third war ended with a convincing victory of the Dutch fleet over the combined Anglo-French fleet at Texel. So do not mislead us here
    5. K-50
      K-50 14 July 2015 15: 53
      +1
      Quote: Kremlin man
      All the great victories of the Russian fleet of the past, this is a beating of the same land on the mentality of the Turks.

      Only now, the rest of the Europeans did not know that the Turks were a land people and they were shoveling away from them until the very moment when they faced the Russian "land" laughing
      Turkey owned the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea and no one could dispute its power, only Russia was able to break, and only then the sunset of Turkish navigation began.
      Quote: Kremlin man

      It seems to me that in order to become a real sailor, you have to be born at sea, live in the sea, feed on him. An ordinary fisherman from a Japanese village will in any case be a better sailor than a good peasant from the Vyatka province.

      To become a real sailor, you do not need to live near the sea and eat from it, but have the appropriate ships to have the necessary and proper training, both for the lower ranks, and for officers and command personnel.
      TOE-2,3 were recruited mainly from reservists and recruits. This threw a stone to the level of training, since during the intensive six-month voyage through three oceans it was very difficult to train, and there was not enough time.
      the big break in "peacetime", when the country did not fight and lost combat skills, 25 years after the Turkish war also affected.
      It is not paradoxical, but for the state to be able to conduct military operations correctly, a break in wars should not be more than ten years, when junior officers manage to climb the ladder and not lose combat skills and visions.
      The Russian fleet won not only Japan, but also a policy of saving on everything: the quality of training, shells, ship construction, and supplies.
      Russia then needed a fleet to indicate its presence, and Japan built its fleet to defeat Russia, and the whole world (both Europe and America) helped it in this. even the French, allegedly allies of Russia, even noted themselves, putting both on the allied obligations themselves and openly anti-Russian actions, imposing a ban on basing Russian ships for more than 24 hours, that is, they began to behave like an ordinary neutral state, simultaneously supplying Japan.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 14 July 2015 21: 12
        0
        Quote: K-50
        and no one could challenge her power

        I would say that others didn’t really need it. The defendants in the anti-Turkish league did not have a fleet at all. And the other maritime powers were busy with other things
  16. Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 14 July 2015 12: 05
    0
    The home-made banter of the authors of Tsushima on each other was slightly tired.
    Soon, the site will begin the analysis of football matches and the actions of football coaches.
    I would not want to! )))
  17. Syak
    Syak 14 July 2015 14: 26
    -1
    Quote: Kremlin man
    You just don’t understand the essence. And other things being equal, such as training in shooting and throwing coal, there is such a thing as a living environment

    I understand your opinion. I will explain that I understood:
    In your opinion, the vast land territory of Russia, at a subconscious level, makes it possible to abandon the fleet as such (this feature is now very clearly demonstrated in the controversy around the Mistrals). Therefore, they sank their ships, simply because everyone inside himself believed that we did not need conqueror ships, the maximum that was needed was the coast guard ships. I'm right?
    But!
    I would not look for the reasons for defeats in an open battle in the mentality. A warship is an organism in which the commander plays the main role. The head of the fleet is on the flagship. If the body is weak, then it cannot cope with the enemy athlete with any prowess. But the weakness of the fleet can in no way be explained by the fact that the "peasants from the Vyatka province" are less adapted to the sea than the fishermen from the islands ...
    1. Kremlevets
      Kremlevets 14 July 2015 14: 52
      0
      It’s nice to discuss with you, this is the essence. And about the difference between the personal mentality and the universal, the so-called national one, you’re right. By the way, I don’t absolutize it. It’s just another aspect that affects success at sea. By the way, if you make a Japanese sailor 5 years to scrape the deck rub to the copper shine that you rub, clean the latrines, paint and repaint the ships. Occasionally go to sea. Let the gun swear once from the gun, so no proximity to the sea will allow him to win the battle. And Japanese captains to evaluate and to nominate to higher posts not for the ability to command in battle, I am for the clean subtleties of sailors, sparkling latrines and for the lack of disciplinary statements by these sailors. So, we are probably discussing aspects of the Pacific Fleet service at the Okinawa and Hokkaido bases
      1. Crabio
        Crabio 14 July 2015 20: 21
        +1
        Your point of view is not without logic, but you would still note that the other land power, Germany, has quite successfully fought at sea with the United States and England (and France and the USSR) having surpassed it in this respect. Here you can recall both the First and Second World Wars ... As for Russia (USSR), it was Russia (USSR) that was able to build a global ocean fleet comparable to the island empire - the USA.
      2. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 15 July 2015 11: 27
        -1
        Quote: Kremlin man
        And about the difference between the personal mentality from the universal, the so-called national

        Yes, I also met such a point of view that island peoples, by definition, seafarers and defeating them in a naval war, are very difficult. However, the question still remains - what kind of people should be considered marine. For example, in Italy, the idea of ​​recruiting fishermen to the fleet for a long time was accepted, the fleet was not weak, the ships, by the way, were very good, but only in general it did not bring laurels to the fleet.
        Also France - what power is it - maritime or land? It seems on the mainland and can be considered land, but until the end of 19. vied with Britain.
        It seems to me that the main thing here is precisely the desire of the rulers to have a strong fleet and the ability of their commanders to prepare it, and to provide builders. And the island powers simply have an incentive to win at sea from the beginning, because the security of their home depends on it ...
  18. Kremlevets
    Kremlevets 14 July 2015 21: 39
    +1
    Quote: K-50
    Only the rest of Europeans did not know that the Turks were the land people and raked laughing

    Is this some kind of Europeans let me know from the Turks in the 17th and 18th centuries on the seas? Was it not the British by chance, or maybe the Spaniards and the French? Maybe Napoleon was driven by the Turks. One here downloaded about 19th century Algerian pirates, the other about the Venetians, maybe remember the great Maltese and there were Sardinians, and the Kingdom of Both Sicilies, there were Genoese. Are you serious or because of natural obstinacy? Turks like Russians became seafarers only because of circumstances. They, like us, are no worse, but no better than each other. Like we, they had victories and defeats, but that didn’t make us great sea powers. For objective reasons, primarily because of their continental nature, too much effort had to be spent on maintaining land borders.
  19. Kremlevets
    Kremlevets 14 July 2015 22: 04
    -1
    Quote: K-50
    did not encounter Russian "land" laughing

    Do you seriously think that Russia was a great maritime power? When did this happen? When was Antarctica discovered? Or in 1854, when, without accepting the battle with the British, they sank all their ships with cannons, cores and sank ashore? The Russian fleet had glorious victories at sea in the 18th and 19th centuries. Eternal glory to the heroes of the sailors who achieved great victories for Russia. But they The shame of defeat at sea against Japan has not been washed away so far. Take it easy. Do not oversleep the Arctic. After 100 years they will also write that the Tsar is to blame and the corrupt intelligentsia.
  20. Kremlevets
    Kremlevets 14 July 2015 22: 43
    -1
    Quote: Crabio
    Germany, quite successfully fought at sea with the United States and Britain (and also France and the USSR) having surpassed it in this respect by several times. Here you can recall both the First and Second World Wars ..

    Thank you for remembering about the old woman Germany, where without her. I did not say anything specifically about them. Well, once I started, then I answer. There is no such term as "fought successfully enough" and cannot be. A war is either won or lost. And if the country has lost , then former colleagues doused the losing leader with gasoline in the nearest funnel. So Germany lost both the First and Second World Wars. And neither Dönitz's father nor his submarine helped. To the continental countries, as a rule, a fur-bearing northern animal sneaks up on land. about the USSR, well, they built a fleet, not even that way, built ships for the ocean-going fleet, spent a huge burst of money. Where is the USSR? Where is the ocean fleet? The fate of the fleet was again decided on land in the Kremlin by a traitor with a spot on his head.
  21. Ural resident
    Ural resident 14 July 2015 22: 55
    +2
    No matter who writes about this article, I think that such discussions on this site are more interesting and relevant than cheers-patriotic dances on political okoloholyatskie topics.
    1. Kremlevets
      Kremlevets 15 July 2015 00: 39
      0
      You are absolutely right
  22. Kremlevets
    Kremlevets 14 July 2015 23: 56
    0
    Quote: K-50
    and to have the appropriate ships to have the necessary and proper training, both for the lower ranks, and for officers and commanders.

    Well, right. And why were the ships inappropriate? And what about the training of personnel, the Tsar should be engaged in?
    Quote: K-50
    TOE-2,3 were recruited mainly from reservists and recruits

    But the naval authorities were generally aware that the recruitment was canceled after the Crimean War, and will you have to fight with the draft contingent? All the other reasons you mentioned do not even want to be listed. Breaks of 25 years, wars every 10 years, generally from obscurantism and misanthropy. For the rest of the world, there is Military science, Military Academies, campaigns, exercises, systematic combat training and infrastructure tailored for this business. Pointe shoes are known to interfere with bad dancers. How is the vile behavior of the whole world affected the ability of Commander Sidorov to get into the Japanese kartel as the first shell , or at least the second, and midshipman Petrov correctly calculate the distance to the target. Or maybe the vile position of an allied France forced the Russian naval officers to raise white flags on ships? We just have to admit that Russia had no fleet at the beginning of the REV. And not very smart people were preparing it for the war. Yes, and they were not very brave at war. However, the situation was similar in the Army.
  23. akribos
    akribos 15 July 2015 11: 07
    0
    Figures, hummingbirds, conclusions, it’s all been known for a long time, Russia was in a state of chaos at the beginning of the 20th century, corruption, embezzlement, dissatisfaction with the monarchy, thirst for change, military intelligentsia at the crossroads, foreign spies and agents of influence, the fleet in its infancy, more precisely, he it’s simply outdated, the British threat, the tsar’s flattering surroundings, hatred, the low rating of Nicholas, and with all this, his desire to revive the monarchy, raise authority (a small, victorious war), and go to the ice-free seas in Asia. It is not possible (there is no way)
    . Besides, I think, the war of attrition, since they got involved, Japan was also on the brink economically (everyone knows), so I think that they needed the decisive battle, and we just needed to start the old, good privateering (light cruisers). Japan is an island with very limited resources, they received everything they needed from overseas. The Baltic squadron was supposed to fulfill the role of the sword Domoklav, drawing attention to itself and being somewhere nearby, but constantly maneuvering, preventing itself from being detected, cruisers could carry out false actions, enough for passing ships to see them in the right places. For all this, the Tsar’s patience and iron will were necessary, but this was not the case, agents of influence and others did their job. Sincerely.
  24. Syak
    Syak 15 July 2015 15: 55
    0
    The military doctrine of the state should always lie at the head of the structure of the armed forces.
    For example, the main doctrine of England in the second half of the 19th and 1st half of the 20th century was the emphasis on the maximum strength of the Navy. As you know - at the head of this doctrine was put a postulate on the necessary superiority of the naval forces of any two other states with a fleet.
    Due to its vast land territory and undeveloped (compared with the advanced states of the time) industry, Russia could not have such a doctrine.
    THOSE. the entire fleet consisted of individual ships, which were ordered on an emergency basis for a specific, often far-fetched, "prompted" by geopolitical opponents, goal.
    The fleet seemed to be almost all the leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia - a kind of "toy", which could be bragged to other "kids" - states. Hence, the neglect of the actual combat training, external brilliance was put at the forefront.
    As the confrontation with Japan developed, practically no one had even a shadow of doubt that the "Little Japs" would be shocked simply by virtue of the fact that WE are a huge world. (this point of view is by the way, and now very often sounds in our networks and blogs).