User talk:Fabartus/Timeline of the Russo-Japanese War

Genesis- 16 July 2005

Two Way Posts Cut from User Talk:Pibwl

re: "However, I think (possibly I've read somewhere), that Russians started works only after lease 1898. And I haven't seen Russian sources on it...

I read this on Wiki, but believe I read elsewhere that they started making improvements much much earlier— sometime in the summer of '95, IIRC. I'll have to do some re-reading. I had thought you were perhaps consulting online sources in Russian. I tend to research mostly in books myself, which is good for detail, but slow in speed!

re: "However, getting back to a battle of Port Arthur - I might enhance the naval part of the article, with all naval activities until the fall of Port Arthur, but I'm not sure, if it might be still under a title "battle of Port Arthur" then."

My thoughts and intentions exactly, but your answer is 'certainly not'. I'd tentatively decided on a timetable for the war, part of which is now on paper in notes form. Plus, on your point, my working title was Naval Skirmishes of the Russo-Japanese War, leaving the battles parts as they have been know to historians. The whole war needs work, which was one of my aims, time permitting.

re: "And I think, that "Impact on History" section treats in fact on siege of Port Arthur and possibly should be moved there? Pibwl ←« 16:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

- Agree that impact on history is 'overdone'; most belongs in Russo-Japanese War. I guess that's what I get for editing much too late at night; most of that just sort of poured out! :) I've planned on upgrading the whole article, but free time has turned scarce (until summer ends), though will get to eventually, it if you don't first! Certainly the surface action after dawn needs covered, which if you look back a month or so in the history, is all that was covered, the torpedo attack being given barely a mention (more as an introduction). Fra nkB 21:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
re:... "I have not a book "Port Artur" right now, only Rusian sources about ships, not treaties".
- How detailed are those books? I want to do a table of stregth for each side, up through battle of Tsushima. i.e displacement, speed, heavy guns, med. guns, which were Armored Cruisers, Protected Cruisers, Older/Newer Ships, etc. Some of my sources use various alternate terms such as 'First Class Cruiser', 'Second Class Cruiser', etcetera which tends to confuse understanding. See User Talk:Fabartus#Articles I'm Researching . I've got at least one good Japanese contact, though he hasn't yet gotten back to me, but would be reliable for research if he gets interested in helping.

Fra nkB 21:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Concerns from User Talk:Fabartus

How detailed are those books? I want to do a table of stregth for each side, up through battle of Tsushima. i.e displacement, speed, heavy guns, med. guns, which were Armored Cruisers, Protected Cruisers, Older/Newer Ships, etc.

VERY detailed :-) See here: [1] If you don't read Cyrilic, I can help you with data, names etc.

Some of my sources use various alternate terms such as 'First Class Cruiser', 'Second Class Cruiser',

1st class were Russian stronger protected cruisers, 2nd class were light ones, like Novik and armed yachts like Almaz. Pibwl ←« 22:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Articles

From User Talk:Fabartus by User:Pibwl:
re: "I have another idea: I think we should place all later naval activities at Port Arthur, after the openning battle, as a chapter in siege of Port Arthur (I mean, sinking of Petropavlovsk and Japanese battleships on mines, etc). By the way, I've just noticed, that improving battle of Port Arthur, I focussed on night torpedo attack only (Russian losses mentioned are from this attack), but I should also expand the subject of another-day battle (which brought no losses, apart from some artillery damage)."Pibwl ←« 22:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Fabartus:
I like the idea save for a couple of contravening issues:

1) The Siege in Anglo-American Historys is considered a land battle— which is why I was thinking "Naval Skirmishes... etc."
2) The Siege proper did not start until July, or even August (definition and source dependent— some historians might advance the date as early as the conclusion of the Battle of the Yalu River and the cutting of the Southern Manchurian Railway, or the land action around today's Dalian (40 miles/66 km up the Liaodong.), which is outside the timeline of most of the Naval actions, (Harbor Block Attempts (3?), Sortie by Russians loosing BB+Admiral M____?, Cruiser Battle at Chemulpo, Cruiser Actions out of Vladivostok, etc.) save possibly the Battle of Liaotung ... (Sometime in there the Japanese lost a BB to mines).

(I haven't tracked that name down yet, though it MAY be an alternate of 'BotYS')

... and Battle of the Yellow Sea (BotYS), the latter occuring in the early days of the siege. (I've got to review my notes— I'm afraid I haven't been focused on this in about a month.)

How about this idea— ~~I'll make time early this coming week to stub in a timeline article of all the wars highlights, and rather than junking up our user pages, we use that~~'THIS' Talk page to discuss these details (I acted 'Boldly'). If we have details that differ, they should show up in the timeline, assuming we make it detailed enough. Once we're satisified it's complete enough, we trim out the excess detail and tie it into the main articles.

An Error to Track Down

I just noticed what seems to be a glaring error in 'BotYS':

By midday, the main body of Japanese battleships attempted to block the Russians' path off the Shandong Peninsula. By 13:00 the first shots were fired, and during the one-hour fight, the Russians succeeded in breaking out of the harbour. Togo began a long pursuit of the Russian fleet and gradually came up from the south-west, slowly overtaking the Russian battle line."

- If the Russians were off the Shandong, they were at least 60 nautical miles— nearly a degree of a great circle — well away from Port Arthur, thus "breaking out of the harbour" had happened at least three (four +!!!) hours earlier. UNLESS, the Russians had succeeded in breaking out then were intercepted off the British port Weihai short of the Germans port of Qingdao on the Shandong, then turned to flee back to Port Arthur. That hypothesis would explain the Japanese course of closing from the South, but not necessarily of from the South-west.

(I wonder if someone substituted 'Shantung' (Across the Bo Hai Strait) for 'Liaotung', i.e. todays 'Shandong' for 'Liaodong' somewhere somewhen. I'm very sure I saw Liaotung listed as a battle somewhere on Wikipedia (In a battlebox, IIRC) 5-6 weeks ago.)

In any event, if nothing else, more detail is needed and the text needs clarified, as it contradicts itself at the moment. I'm 98% sure the Russians never made much of major escape effort until the 'BotYS', but they did sortie as a fleet at least once prior to August. So, the Article name and Battle Name need to be checked. If they were trying to break out of Togo's mine fields and sunken ships at Port Arthur, this excerpt would read a whole lot better... but then the Shandong reference makes no sense to me, whereas the Liaotung reference would.

btw - I don't read Cyrillic anymore. I studied Russian for two years when I was 14-15, but that was nearly 36 years ago and I moved to another town with a school system that didn't offer it, so I'm afraid it's a lost language to me. That's why I'd be delighted if you want to make this a project for yourself too!

Cheers! Fra nkB 05:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to Delete

User Caerwine left me this note after September rolled around, preceded by a real world series of adult life situations that took me away from Wiki the very next day after I created the stub.

My response (And blessings to delete at any admins Whim - though the article is a good concept - Shrug) posted just now to User_talk:Caerwine#TimeLine:

As much as it pains me to admit it, there are a lot of things more important than Wiki... If it bothers you enough to leave such an unfriendly note while I clear up real world crises, then take the project over, or delete it at will. If you choose the later, never mind an rfd, just ask Mel Etitis or another admin that knows me to see this note as authorization, and pull the plug.

I'm afraid that while I'm wishful for unlimited free time, making a living has to be a priority. Add in that I'm probably going down to New Orleans and help fish 9,345 dead bodies out of that situation, and may stay to help rebuilding efforts (Habitats for Humanity, etc.) and I'll take my lumps on Wiki any day as I shall do as I have always done, and decide when and where I volunteer my time and efforts. The Russo-Japanese War articles are in reasonably good shape without the timeline. Someday I'll take my notes and see what shortcomings are left by others.

Things could be worse, it could be you going down to live in a tent for the coming months. Cheers! Fra nkB 01:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]