Jump to content

Talk:Dogger Bank incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japanese Torpedo Boats In North Sea?

[edit]

How on earth could anyone think that torpedo boats from japan would be cruising through north sea?

How on Earth could anybody think that English ships would cruise through the China sea? Naval warfare was increasingly global at the time, even for nations without spread-out colonies. With tenders, it could have been done. Admittedly far-fetched for the global situation at the time, but the Russians were right to fear the Japanese navy, as was shown in their dismal failure during the Battle of Tsushima. MadMaxDog 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • American sailors were also under "great stress" from the "ghostly" torpedo boats during the Spanish-American War (1898). US Navy men opened fire on sea swells, trains ashore, and rocks, believing them to be enemy torpedo boats. For men at war, those stealthy vessels could be anywhere, anytime. Ref: "Building The Mosquito Fleet" by Richard Simpson (page 108). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.32.52 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is no explanation as to why anybody would deem torpedo boats 32,000 km away from home rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.112.46 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Japanese torpedo boats was built in Europe, like Hayabusa-class torpedo boat . There was a possibility of purchasing new vessels and immediate usage of them against Russian Navy. --176.222.206.247 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea did make it's way into fiction. An American novel entitled "The North Pacific: A Story of the Russo-Japanese War" by author Willis Boyd Allen (1905) a quickie novel designed to exploit the story of the war, has a Japanese torpedo boat disguise itself as a fishing vessel to attack the Russians as they traverse the English Channel.

The forum post where this is discussed is linked below:

(Secret Projects Forum) Fictional Warships - Novels; The North Pacific: A Story of the Russo-Japanese War, Willis Boyd Allen, 1905

The actual novel can be read at Project Gutenberg:

The North Pacific: A Story of the Russo-Japanese War by Willis Boyd Allen

Maybe this can be added to the article as it is a legitimate case of the incident being used in fiction. Graham1973 (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Ref 1 is broken. Could you look at the sentence below? I think there is a typo! "The Royal Navy went after the Russian fleet and bottled her up in Vigo, Spain" JRPG 14:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JRPG - reference is working fine for me. What seems to be the issue for you? Also, I must admit that the above sentence looks perfectly fine to me. Could you explain what you think is wrong? Cheers. Ingolfson 09:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Ingolfson. I've checked the link and it is ..working! All I can say is that yesterday, although the site was OK I got an invitation to report it as a problem page -which I didn't! Re the allegedly dodgy sentence, I have 2 issues. Firstly even though the link is working, as far as I can see, it doesn't reference the Vigo incident. I must say I'm very surprised I hadn't heard of it before so having searched for other references, I've learnt something. Secondly "bottled her up" seems to reference a ship not a fleet but which one? I've previously read quite a bit about the horrors of this Russian voyage including their massive logistics problem in coaling their ships. I'm therefore modifying the article slightly and adding another link which I hope people enjoy. Best wishes JRPG 12:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JRPG. I addded the discussed link after another person added a link to the same source at another location (I was able to replace with a reference which actually linked to a PDF copy of the book, instead of only a section of it). However, at that point, the article was already 90% as it is now - this specific reference was never intended by me to be more than referencing the claim in the small section (names of the incident) which it references at the moment. Of course it contains a lot more material than that, and could also be used to reference other sections of the article.
What I am getting at is that this article is currently referenced mainly by the book contained under "Further reading". This MAY include all the material in the article, including the Vigo incident part, or it may not. We cannot directly check. On the other hand, non-online references ARE acceptable - not everything is online. So we should be searching for added, "backup" references here.
I won't reintroduce the "bottling up" comment you removed until I get some time to look it up (if I find no references to prove it, I won't reintroduce it). May be a few days, as my internet is very flaky atm.
However, bottling up a whole fleet was far from atypical. When in harbour, even after the end of sail navies, a fleet was cramped up and on the defense, where another fleet outside of the harbour could manoeuver freely to get into good firing positions. Therefore, I have no problems with the comment as a possibility. Bottling up fleets by close blockade only fell out of favour some years later in WWI when the British realised that naval mines would make a close blockade of Germany very costly. Ingolfson 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingolfson 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingolfson.

I did look at a rather large pdf file but settled for reading the txt file! From what you've said however, I don't think we'll disagree on very much. The Hull reference http://www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm

Twenty-eight British battleships from the Home Fleet were ordered to raise steam and prepare for action while British cruiser squadrons shadowed the Russian fleet as it crossed the Bay of Biscay and sailed down the Portuguese coast. Nearing Vigo, Rozhestvensky was ordered to dock and leave behind the officers who had been responsible for attacking the British trawlers. Rozhestvensky used the diplomatic furore as an excuse to rid himself of a Captain Klado one of his most bitter critics.

seems to suggest that the Russians entered Vigo 'voluntarily' and the British battlefleet didn't even set off although it could have caught the very slow convoy eventually. If the Russian fleet was forced into Vigo to avoid superior nearby forces, I've no problems whatsoever with saying it was bottled up or part of it was bottled up!

Whether the Hull reference is as authoritive or as clear as we would like is another matter. There are some good sources on Tshushima which cover the voyage.

Hope your PC recovers soon! JRPG 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at your references, and your change looks okay. Have added a little more myself. Ingolfson 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There are a number of original articles from the NY Times available on their web archive. The Russians do seem to have entered Vigo in search of coal (CZAR'S BATTLESHIPS AT VIGO.; Two of Them Said to be Damaged -- Rojestvensky Tries to Coal There. October 27, 1904, Thursday), but the British were quite angry (LONDON PAPERS IMPATIENT.; Demand That the Baltic Squadron Be Stopped. October 26, 1904, Wednesday) and may well have lurked outside Vigo. (KING'S SHIPS GATHER ROUND CZAR'S FLEET, October 28, 1904, Friday). The British did send some ships to patrol offshore. (BRITAIN'S FLEETS HELD IN READINESS; Channel, Mediterranean and Home Squadrons. CZAR EXPRESSES REGRET Prepared to Satisfy Demands Resulting from North Sea Tragedy. NO WORD FROM ROJESTVENSKY Russian Admiralty Not Able to Reach Him -- British Ship Owners Take Out Insurance War Risks. October 26, 1904, Wednesday)Britain's Fleets Held in Readiness

DeciusAemilius (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeciusAemilius - would be great if you could work the info from those sources in. As I've just come back from holidays to a huge watchlist backlog, I won't find the time to add to an otherwise fine article atm. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsushima

[edit]

This article should mention that this is the same fleet that was comprehensively beaten in the Battle of Tsushima. There isn't even a reference to Tsushima at all in this article. Roger (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Contemporary names for the incident

[edit]

In The Times of the time there is reference to The North Sea Inquiry into the incident. Jackiespeel (talk)

18 feet high statue

[edit]

In reference to teh statue of the fisherman in Hull, the article mentions the '18 feet high statue'. I may be wrong, but from the picture the statue itself looks smaller, and may only be 18 feet high if counting the pedestal? Is that correct usage, or should it rather say '18 feet high monument'? Sejtam (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dogger Bank incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dogger Bank incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dogger_Bank_incident&oldid=1206998646"