Tsushima

From the first Ironclad warships to the battle of Tsushima.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Tsushima

Post by Dave Saxton »

Today not only marks the anniversary of the sinking of the Bismarck but it is also the anniversary of the Battle of Tsushima.

During 1900 Russia occupied Manchuria. This posed a dire threat to Japan because it meant that Russia could gain control of Korea and then eventually Japan. Japan tried to redress the situation through diplomacy throughout the early 1900s up to 1904. Japan proposed that Korea become a buffer zone and a protectorate of Japan. Russia countered that Korea become a demilitarized zone. That was a farce because it meant that Russia could and would occupy Korea at its leisure. It put Japan in a military indefensible position. Each time the Japanese tried to redress the situation through diplomacy Russia refused. The Meiji ordered the Japanese cabinet to try one more time. Russia didn't even reply. Japanese Intel then learned that the Russians planned to send their Baltic Fleet to the Far East to reinforce their squadrons at Port Arthur and Vladivostok. (Many histories read that the transfer of the Baltic Fleet was in response to the defeat of the Russian squadrons in the far east but that is incorrect. It was already in the works before hostilities). This could mean only one thing.

Japanese decided to strike pre-emptively. Without warning and before at declaration of war Japan attacked the Russian Far East fleet units at Port Arthur on Feb 8th 1904.

The Russian squadrons in the Far East were defeated by the autumn of 1904. On May 27th 1905 the Russian Baltic Fleet tried to force their way through the Strait of Tsushima on their way to Vladivostok. It was destroyed by the Japanese combined Fleet under the command of Admiral Togo.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Tsushima

Post by José M. Rico »

You are right, Dave.
We seldom remember Tsushima on 27 May. 116 years ago today!
Thank your for posting. :ok:
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tsushima

Post by Dave Saxton »

Here's a photo tour I found of Togo's flagship the Mikasa.

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/take-a-to ... ctures/45/

Across the stern is Mikasa spelled in hiragana. It reads from right to left, rather than the modern convention of left to right. Usually kana script was written vertically prior to WWII, too.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Tsushima

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr.Saxton,
thanks for remembering us all Tsushima battle anniversary.
Tsushima was the most significant battle fought by armored ships and decided whole war between Japan and Russia, setting Japan as new Pacific area sea-power (in comparison, larger Jutland wasn't much decisive for war development).
Tsushima had large influence on further ship development (just after Yellow Sea and Tsushima battles, old pre-dreadnoughts were superceeded by dreadnoughts) and still influenced the Japanese naval strategy (and constructions) up to WWII.
British officers on board Togo's ships (Japan officers were mostly educated in Great Britain at that time) were so impressed by the Japanese seamanship and gunnery skills during the actions that they feared that "student might have surpassed teacher".


Thanks for Mikasa's photos too. In 2018, I had opportunity to visit protected cruiser Aurora (she survived Tsushima clash) still afloat in St.Petersburg (https://petersburg24.ru/eng/place/krejser-avrora): the two ships are very similar in several arrangments. Here three photos I took: midship armament (it was changed after Tsushima), ship's name at stern (in Cyrillic, but still left to right) and funnels/superstructure:

Aurora.jpg
Aurora.jpg (63.33 KiB) Viewed 3121 times
Aurora2.jpg
Aurora2.jpg (33.25 KiB) Viewed 3121 times
Aurora3.jpg
Aurora3.jpg (52.9 KiB) Viewed 3116 times

hans
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tsushima

Post by Dave Saxton »

hans zurbriggen wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 7:33 am
Tsushima had large influence on further ship development (just after Yellow Sea and Tsushima battles, old pre-dreadnoughts were superceeded by dreadnoughts) and still influenced the Japanese naval strategy (and constructions) up to WWII.
British officers on board Togo's ships (Japan officers were mostly educated in Great Britain at that time) were so impressed by the Japanese seamanship and gunnery skills during the actions that they feared that "student might have surpassed teacher".
Indeed. Back in 2004, Vice Admiral Koda of the JMSDF published a retrospective in the USN War College review.
Admiral Togo learned from his early mistakes and corrected them. One area of weakness that
was uncovered was low levels of skill and inadequacy of tactics in the destroyer
force; another was ineffectiveness of fleet gunnery. One underlying reason could
be that Japanese sailors were being called upon to fight the world’s first modern
sea engagement, using state-of-the-art equipment and newly developed tactics
with which they were not totally familiar. Most of the senior officers and petty
officers were veterans of the Sino-Japanese War of ten years before; however,
even they had not fully caught up with the new and unknown challenges of
modern naval warfare. For their part, Admiral Togo and his staff officers were
learning “on the job” how to employ their assets properly.
Specifically, Togo tried to implement a new fire-control concept that switched from independent firing of each turret to controlled firing of all guns. Through(out) the Battle of the Yellow Sea, after “open fire” was ordered, each spotter fired his gun at his own discretion at the target designated by the gunnery officer.
The essence of the new concept was that, first, the target and firing range were
determined by a gunnery officer on the bridge; the spotters of all guns set their
sights on the same chosen target, at the designated range. When all the guns
were ready, they simultaneously fired at the same target on order from the gunnery
officer. He alone observed the impacts and the fall of shot, and made corrections
and adjustments. Each gunnery team was trained to repeat these
procedures until they became automatic and routine. This new firing procedure,
combined with upgrades in guns and range-finding equipment, which
had broken down several times at the Battle of the Yellow Sea, produced real
improvements in the gun-engagement capability of Admiral Togo’s fleet.15
Fully understanding that the competence of his gunnery officers, gunners,
and spotters was the key to success in the coming battle, Togo dedicated everything
to improving and strengthening their training. He never made any compromise
but strictly imposed practical discipline on these specialists.
Admiral Togo now decided to concentrate
all of his Combined Fleet in the theater and task each force in compliance with
the new operational doctrine and plan. In addition, he chose to fight at shorter
range, seven to eight thousand yards or less. He also decided to employ a “single
line” formation as the basic gunnery disposition.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Tsushima

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Dave Sexton stated in his excellent article "Japanese decided to strike pre-emptively. without warning and before at declaration of war Japan attacked the Russian Far East fleet units at Port Arthur on Feb 8th 1904"
It seems to me that this became a habit of theirs!
Thanks for the info Dave.
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Tsushima

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr.Mercer,
surely Japaneses planned to attack before war was declared. However, first shot was fired by Russians: destroyer Korejets exiting Chemulpo base fired against a Japanese flotilla few hours before before the attack to Port Arthur's battleships.

hans
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tsushima

Post by Dave Saxton »

It seems to me that this became a habit of theirs!
It's true that Japan planned surprise attacks in both the cases of the Russo-Japanese war and in Dec 1941. However, I don't think it was common practice.

In 1894 they sent troops to Korea in response to China sending in troops in violation of treaty. The IJN then sank a Chinese troop convoy when the Chinese further attempted to reinforce its forces already in Korea.

The Marco Polo Bridge incident on July 7th 1937, we now know was initiated by communist agent provocateurs' but blamed on Japanese aggression as planned. The Chinese then mascaraed 270 Japanese civilians at a compound near Peking on July 31 1937 before Konoe sent additional troops. The Chinese assassinated a Japanese naval officer at Shanghai airport on Aug 3rd (IIRC) 1937, and the Chinese attacked the Japanese Marine garrison at Shanghai on Aug 13th to open up full hostilities against the Japanese, first.

The occupation of Indo China in 1941 was no surprise and part of their prosecution of the war already going on in China.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Tsushima

Post by Byron Angel »

A couple of thoughts -

( 1 ) From what I recall reading many years ago, one of the contributing factors to the diplomatic impasse between Russia and Japan over the Manchurian question was the fact that the Russian imperial family and much of the Russian nobility had invested a good deal of money in buying up land in Manchuria, which was quite rich in natural and mineral resources. North Korea was also blessed with the same sort of resources.

( 2 ) Another obscure but interesting factoid I remember reading is that US occupation forces materially assisted the Japanese in the restoration of IJNS Mikasa.

( 3 ) Re Pearl Harbor, Ambassador Nomura's intention had been to time delivery of Japan's formal declaration of war immediately before the scheduled arrival of the first IJN aerial strike over Pearl Harbor, thereby satisfying the letter of the law, if not the spirit thereof. The official historical record states that a last minute communications miscue upset that timing and the declaration arrived late. True? False? Was the US State Department's communications log accurate as to time of receipt? No idea.

( 4 ) Dave, can you provide the web reference (or volume/number reference) for the NWC Review article you mentioned? I'd be interested to read it. The IJN may have been the first modern purveyors of "collective fire" or "salvo fire"; I know that the USN was still in the process of evaluating it as late as 1904.


Byron
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Tsushima

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Byron,
Good to see you back posting again.
Re (4), I don't know if this is true, but I'm sure I read somewhere (and I can't remember where!) that the Russian ships had the heavier calibre guns as opposed to more, but lighter calibre weapons on the Japanese ships, but the Japanese overwhelmed the Russians with what was described as a 'rain of fire'. Has anyone else heard this?
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Tsushima

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr. Mercer,
Russians had more large caliber guns (305/254 mm) than Japaneses at Tsushima (more battleships), but including ineffective guns from old ships and coastal battleships. Russians had less medium caliber guns (229/203 mm, having less armored cruisers than Japaneses) and slightly less 'small' caliber guns (152 mm).
Total number of shells fired by Russians was around 1000 large, 300 medium and 8000 small caliber. Japaneses fired 500 large, 1200 medium and 9500 small caliber shells. Total weight of shells fired by Russians was 50% more than Japaneses.

It was undoubtedly neither number nor weight of shells that decided outcome, it was precision. Japaneses achieved 14% hits with large caliber shells and 9.5 % with medium, Russians only 3.5% for large and medium caliber, and it was this gunnery aspect that affected the outcome (plus all other aspects: ship efficiency after long travel, coal excessive load, inferior protection, low training, poor readiness, slow maneuvering, etc.). It was a 'rain of hits' more than a 'rain of shells'.

At Shantung, situation was much more balanced (2.1% hit rate for Russians, 2.4% for Japaneses) during action, fought in average at larger distances, decided by a 'lucky' hit on Tsesarevitch bridge that scrambled Russian squadron. This may be explained in part by Admiral Koda article re. central salvo firing (thanks to Mr. Saxton for posting), in addition to poor gunnery training of Russians (who had had to train without actually firing guns due to lack of spare ammunition) at Tsushima vs. Port Arthur squadron (better trained) at Shantung.


hans
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Tsushima

Post by hans zurbriggen »

p.s. Shantung = Yellow Sea battle (with reference to previous posts)

hans
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tsushima

Post by Dave Saxton »

Byron, see if this works:

Recommended Citation
Koda, Yoji (2005) "The Russo-Japanese War—Primary Causes of Japanese Success," Naval War College Review: Vol. 58 : No. 2 , Article
3.
Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-r ... l58/iss2/3
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tsushima

Post by Dave Saxton »

The Russian shooting wasn't bad, but not as good as the Japanese. Mikasa was reportedly hit 30 times at Tsushima. However, the shells mostly broke up against Mikasa's KC armour. One of the lessons learned from the Yellow Sea battle was the inadequacy of the munitions. It was one reason why Togo adopted shorter battle ranges.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tsushima

Post by Dave Saxton »

In recent times USN personal from the USS Nimitz volunteered to repaint and do other restoration work on Mikasa while the air wing was based at Atsugi. It is kind of fitting that they were from USS Nimitz, because Admiral Nimitz himself was a leading force to preserving Mikasa during the decades following WW2.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Post Reply