Russia in Trouble this Year?

[Zanza]

West Germany paid for the Allied troops stationed here. That was agreed as part of the termination of the occupation in 1954.

Yeah both South Korea and Germany give us money for our troops hanging around IIRC.

How much?

The original 1954 treaty gives a sum of 600 million Deutsche Mark per month (i.e. 4.7% of West Germany's monthly GDP in 1954) shared between the Americans, British and French. I have no idea how much it was later, but I assume that it was adjusted for inflation somehow.

[Viking]

I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later.

They were bloody and violent and generally bad.

Besides, Tsushima happened in 1905, and that was the most devastating naval defeat in history.

Unpossible, neither side had Dreadnoughts

No battle of dreadnoughts was ever so decisive.  Come to think of it, no sea battle in the modern era was so decisive.

Midway arguably.  There was not even an unrealistic hope of victory after that, even if Japan could pretend.  But only arguably.

Leyte Gulf?

[Drakken]

Leyte Gulf?

Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.

[Ideologue]

Oh, yeah.  I wouldn't put Leyte Gulf in the top ten.

Btw, does the First Battle of the Atlantic count?  My gut reaction is no (likewise the naval siege of Germany), but that may be the most decisive if it did.  Neil's gonna say no based on the submarining alone.

[Neil]

I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later.

They were bloody and violent and generally bad.

Besides, Tsushima happened in 1905, and that was the most devastating naval defeat in history.

Unpossible, neither side had Dreadnoughts

No battle of dreadnoughts was ever so decisive.  Come to think of it, no sea battle in the modern era was so decisive.

Midway arguably.  There was not even an unrealistic hope of victory after that, even if Japan could pretend.  But only arguably.

Midway didn't really end all hope for the Japanese though.  For one thing, they really didn't have much hope to begin with.  For another thing, there was still an extremely effective and dangerous IJN in existence after the battle.  Shokaku and Zuikaku were still around, the elite IJN corps of pilots still existed and the battleline was unaffected.  Instead of the USN hanging on against a numerically superior IJN, Midway merely evened the odds.  Compare that to the state of the Russian Navy after Tsushima.

The real decisive victory in the Pacific was the victory in the shipyards and aircraft factories, although I suppose one could argue that the US submarine campaign was almost as important.  What the Germans were trying to do to Britain, the US actually succeeded in doing to Japan.

[Viking]

Leyte Gulf?

Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.

At Midway the balance was tipped, after Leyte Japan didn't have a fleet anymore. Thats the difference and thats what makes Leyte like Tsushima, it destroyed the fleet.

[Neil]

Leyte Gulf?

Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.

At Midway the balance was tipped, after Leyte Japan didn't have a fleet anymore. Thats the difference and thats what makes Leyte like Tsushima, it destroyed the fleet.

The Japanese at Tsushima destroyed a superior fleet to win the war.  The Americans at Leyte mopped up the remnants of a fleet that they had already mostly destroyed and had certainly made irrelevant.

[Viking]

Leyte Gulf?

Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.

At Midway the balance was tipped, after Leyte Japan didn't have a fleet anymore. Thats the difference and thats what makes Leyte like Tsushima, it destroyed the fleet.

The Japanese at Tsushima destroyed a superior fleet to win the war.  The Americans at Leyte mopped up the remnants of a fleet that they had already mostly destroyed and had certainly made irrelevant.

That's only counting pre-dreadnaughts. 89 ships vs 28 ships doesn't count as an inferior fleet.

[Neil]

Leyte Gulf?

Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.

At Midway the balance was tipped, after Leyte Japan didn't have a fleet anymore. Thats the difference and thats what makes Leyte like Tsushima, it destroyed the fleet.

The Japanese at Tsushima destroyed a superior fleet to win the war.  The Americans at Leyte mopped up the remnants of a fleet that they had already mostly destroyed and had certainly made irrelevant.

That's only counting pre-dreadnaughts. 89 ships vs 28 ships doesn't count as an inferior fleet.

Battleships were the way that strength was counted.  Now, the Japanese armoured cruisers were undeniably effective, but you're also counting torpedo boats and destroyers whose usefulness in the decisive firefight was limited (although they were useful in finishing off damaged Russian ships later on).

[Viking]

Battleships were the way that strength was counted.  Now, the Japanese armoured cruisers were undeniably effective, but you're also counting torpedo boats and destroyers whose usefulness in the decisive firefight was limited (although they were useful in finishing off damaged Russian ships later on).

So your saying that the Russians had 4 more pre-dreadnoughts and 3 glorified monitors and japan had 20 more armoured cruisers. Not so much superior. Those torpedo boats and destroyers were precisely what turned it from a narrow win (As the undecisive turret warship battles usually were) into a smashing victory.

But I'm open to being convinced. Did the Russians have more tonnage? How did Russian Pre-Dreadnought armor compared to Nipponese armored cruiser armor? How do the two fleets compare in terms of main gun throw weight of the main battle line?

[Neil]

Battleships were the way that strength was counted.  Now, the Japanese armoured cruisers were undeniably effective, but you're also counting torpedo boats and destroyers whose usefulness in the decisive firefight was limited (although they were useful in finishing off damaged Russian ships later on).

So your saying that the Russians had 4 more pre-dreadnoughts and 3 glorified monitors and japan had 20 more armoured cruisers. Not so much superior. Those torpedo boats and destroyers were precisely what turned it from a narrow win (As the undecisive turret warship battles usually were) into a smashing victory.

But I'm open to being convinced. Did the Russians have more tonnage? How did Russian Pre-Dreadnought armor compared to Nipponese armored cruiser armor? How do the two fleets compare in terms of main gun throw weight of the main battle line?

I'm saying that at the time the Russian fleet was considered to be equivalent or better than the Japanese one.  The superior number of battleships was considered very important.

The Japanese only had 8 armoured cruisers at Tsushima, with the remainder being either protected cruisers or older, unarmoured cruisers.

The Russians would have had a higher throw weight, but that would have been unimportant given the crossing of the T and the fact that secondary, quick-firing guns firing high-explosive shells were probably more important than the main batteries.  The Japanese had learned the usefulness of smashing upworks and sweeping ships with fire during the Sino-Japanese War, where the Chinese had a pair of cruisers who armoured so as to be essentially unsinkable to Japanese naval gunfire.

Part of decisiveness is psychological effect, and the unexpected and annihilating Japanese victory certainly had an effect.

[Josquius]

Don't forget the Russians had just steamed halfway around the world whilst the Japanese were defending home waters. The better crew condition counted for quite a lot. The thinking of the time was still heavily into rate of fire rather than one or two knock out precision shots.

I really need to learn more about that war. Considering going for a look at Tsushima this spring, as pointless as that is.

[Queequeg]

Yep, plenty of NATO mattresses. Some even became legit wives!

It bears to remember, though, that during the time the bulk of the soldiers were stationed here (esp. in the 80s) the $ was very strong vs. the DM, so soldiers could live very comfortably.

Was there any ever popular hostility to these women?

[Viking]

I'm saying that at the time the Russian fleet was considered to be equivalent or better than the Japanese one.  The superior number of battleships was considered very important.

The Japanese only had 8 armoured cruisers at Tsushima, with the remainder being either protected cruisers or older, unarmoured cruisers.

The Russians would have had a higher throw weight, but that would have been unimportant given the crossing of the T and the fact that secondary, quick-firing guns firing high-explosive shells were probably more important than the main batteries.  The Japanese had learned the usefulness of smashing upworks and sweeping ships with fire during the Sino-Japanese War, where the Chinese had a pair of cruisers who armoured so as to be essentially unsinkable to Japanese naval gunfire.

Part of decisiveness is psychological effect, and the unexpected and annihilating Japanese victory certainly had an effect.

So you are not saying that the Japanese destroyed a superior fleet, but rather a fleet which was perceived to be superior by the racists of the day? (y'know the same schmucks who thought the Brewster Buffalo was good enough to take on Zeros because the Japanese pilots were all near sighted)

[LaCroix]

So you are not saying that the Japanese destroyed a superior fleet, but rather a fleet which was perceived to be superior by the racists of the day? (y'know the same schmucks who thought the Brewster Buffalo was good enough to take on Zeros because the Japanese pilots were all near sighted)

numerically, the russian fleet was superior. technically, and realistically, i don't know, it's hard to say. i don't think the japanese had an obviously better fleet, though

note: going off mostly what i remember here, and a glance at the tsushima oob and a clarification here or two on ship wikis. i don't have my sources available at the moment

while the borodinos were a bit of a joke, especially with their tumblehome, they did have krupp armor - a significant advantage given that japan had only one ship with krupp. the rest were harvey or worse. the japanese were also restricted with coal, iirc. britain had delivered a large shipment before the war, but the naval engagements prior to tsushima had spent that. any coal the japanese used were of their own inferior quality (i seem to recall it was rather awful). you also have japan placing armored cruisers on the battle line, mostly out of desperation because they simply lacked the necessary hardware (pre-dreads)

it doesn't matter how many ships you have if your torpedo boats/destroyers aren't able to launch their load and deliver serious damage. the russian fleet did have cruisers and destroyers on stand by for this, and it's not like the other guns on a pre-dread are useless - they're made for smaller craft such as cruisers and TBs. all the cruisers and destroyers/TBs in the world mean shit if you lack the firepower to remove the main force from the board: the pre-dread/battleship. so looking at pure numbers without breaking it down is sorta pointless

now, the russians did have their faults. their main commander, iirc, commanded a training vessel in 1900-1901 or so on the black sea. he performed so admirably.. in gunnery practice.. during nicky's visit that he rose the ranks until finally the good czar decided that he would command the fleet that would deal the death blow to japan. i've read/heard conflicting reports on his overall competency. either way, he was no makarov (), not by a long shot and a half

the crew were also all mostly inexperienced, and iirc recently drafted in at least some cases (russian naval service for the sailors was based on conscription, during peace and war). the veterans and trained sailors died or were captured in the pacific thanks to vitgeft's cowardice. so, that hardly helped their case

and the russians had some pretty bad ships. i think the ships of the imperial navy get shit on a bit too much, but they were pretty awkward and certainly weren't great (or even good in a few cases) by anyone's imagination. the entire third division can essentially be written out against the japanese main battle line: coastal defense battleships and a truly awful and ancient battleship. the second division contains a number of battleships which were not as bad as the godforsaken imperator nikolai, and an armored cruiser packed with firepower, but they couldn't handle it one-on-one. not even close

so, when you add up the various factors, imo it's a bit tough to declare a clear winner if we're assuming the crossing of the russian T never occurred. russian commanders in the war seemed plagued with either utter incompetence, mcclellan attitudes, or in very rare cases.. patches of brilliance before abrupt deaths (keller ). i'm not sure how well rozhestvensky would have done - historically he got knocked out in the beginning and spent the rest of the battle (i think) unconscious. disregarding the clear advantage russia had in simply the number of battleships is simply ridiculous, however. at the end of the day, they all had 12-inch guns (excepting the adorable peresvet-class).. albeit with inferior calibres in the second/third divisions

as for the other question re: most decisive modern naval battle, neil is of course correct. there is no contender. no glorified blockade or a sparring match between slant-eyed david and goliath can compare to tsushima and what it meant for the rest of the war (lol: what war?) or psychological effect it had on an entire nation with its one moment