Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905

[The Basket]

As navy guy I could say the first battle of ironclads was Monitor v Virginia and that's a big deal.

But the Battle of Tsushima was a much bigger deal.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But it's fair to say the Mosin is more modern and powerful than the Henry. Although the Henry is of course black powder but in close quarters looks very handy.

I wasn't saying the Spencer or Henry were as capable as a Mosin. I'm saying they were one hell of a leap forward considering what they came after.

 

[Shortround6]

While the Civil war was the first one to use repeating rifles the numbers used were not that significant. In only a few battles (and small ones) did the repeating rifles make a big difference.
Hundreds of thousands of men on both sides were still using the muzzle loading rifles.

The tactics should have being adjusted during the Civil war. The spacing between the men, the distances at which to open fire, the "safe distance" for artillery to spaced away from the infantry lines (6-10 men grouped around a gun let alone of row of guns made a much bigger target than a row of men standing 6 ft apart let alone riflemen crouching/ kneeling/ laying prone.

The 7.62mm Nagant (and the other 1888-1900 rifles) has got several different distances. Most individual men cannot hit at distances 3-4 times the distance that the Minie ball rifle can shoot at individuals. They can do better but not the huge change.

What was huge was that the 1888-1900 rifles could hit groups of men at 1000yds or more. 150-200 men (company ?) could fire at targets that muzzle loading artillery fired at in the 1860s. Likewise the 1500-200 man unit could either cause causalities to the gun crews or force them to pull back. One of the reasons that gun shields were developed. A false notion as it turned out. Even with gun shields artillery pieces should not be duking it out with riflemen.

Massed rifle fire from repeating rifles using smokeless powder was later replaced by machineguns and mortars.
But in 1904-05 it was a very lucky battalion indeed that had even two tripod mounted machine guns.

the long range rifles (even the Minie rifles) with cover/concealment forced a major change in that the defense dominated the offence.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

While the Civil war was the first one to use repeating rifles the numbers used were not that significant. In only a few battles (and small ones) did the repeating rifles make a big difference.
Hundreds of thousands of men on both sides were still using the muzzle loading rifles.

Of course. But we were talking about innovations introduced, not technologies matured.

Context matters.

 

[Shortround6]

Of course. But we were talking about innovations introduced, not technologies matured.

Context matters.

Context does matter.

For innovations for the American Civil war you had
Rifled artillery
Breech loading artillery.

none of which were used in large numbers but were pointing the way.
There was still debate about defeating armor plate.
The Piercing theory which favored the rifled-elongated projectile and the Racking theory which favored round solid shot (hammer the plate/s to pieces)
A few oversized revolver type weapons showed up.
I believe 4 different "machine guns" (hand operated) appeared during the Civil war, the Gatling being by far the best known.

A crap load of breech loading rifles showed up.

The metallic self contained cartridge case showed up.

However context also shows up in changes with changes in tactics.
Infantry tactics hadn't changed from the late 1600s, although the 1700s and for the first few decades of the 1800s.
Artillery tactics hadn't changed much either.

It was the change in weapons that outpaced the tactical thinking of the time that made so many of the wars from 1860 to 1918 so bloody as old generals tried to use old tactics against new weapons.

 

[The Basket]

War is about the killing. How effective at the killing.

Mosin was more effective at killing than any rifle before the smokeless powder age.

In terms of range, accuracy and sheer murder on the target. And it can do so quicker.

It goes back to the Dreyse v Lorenz or Garand v Type 99 in that firepower is key. A few more rounds per minute per gun may sound like pennies but when multiplied it gives one side the edge.

So in the civil war we have to look at an average soldier with his weapon. Not the outliers. So if the average rifle was the 1861 then he is shooting 2-3 rounds per minute and probably closer to 2 as the battle progress. In the British army, pre ww1 the British infantryman was to shoot 15 rounds per minute.

So 100 infantry armed with 1861 may or may not fire 300 rounds but the British army 100 infantry are going to shoot 1,500 rounds in a minute. It's not the same. Not the same sport. The Mosin is a craptastic rifle but I would still expect 10 rounds aimed shots at the very least. And at longer ranges too.

There are guys who can ring a bell at 500 meters with a Mosin like er...ringing a bell. And this is all weather day or night. Just ain't the same sport.

 

[The Basket]

Sorry 703 Arshins.

Measurement of Mosin was in Arshins.

 

[special ed]

Sorry 703 Arshins.

Measurement of Mosin was in Arshins.

Until the model 91/30. In 1930 they went in for arsenal overhaul and sights were recalibrated to meters. Not really much difference because Arshins fall between meters and yards. All were based on the measurement of a man's stride.

 

[The Basket]

I be saying Arshins as this is 1904 to 1905.

It was called the 3 line rifle or 7.62 rifle or 0.30 rifle.

Today we be using old school Russian measurement cos we got in our time machine and rocking out like it's 1905.

Vice Admiral Makarov! Watch out for that mine....never mind. That guy had a beard you can set your watch by. Facial hair of the gods.

I am ok using Russian measurement but the Russian calendar system is just a no. What happened last week happens in the future in Russia. So that's just confused.

 

[Shortround6]

War is about the killing. How effective at the killing.

Mosin was more effective at killing than any rifle before the smokeless powder age.

In terms of range, accuracy and sheer murder on the target. And it can do so quicker.

It goes back to the Dreyse v Lorenz or Garand v Type 99 in that firepower is key. A few more rounds per minute per gun may sound like pennies but when multiplied it gives one side the edge.

So in the civil war we have to look at an average soldier with his weapon. Not the outliers. So if the average rifle was the 1861 then he is shooting 2-3 rounds per minute and probably closer to 2 as the battle progress. In the British army, pre ww1 the British infantryman was to shoot 15 rounds per minute.

So 100 infantry armed with 1861 may or may not fire 300 rounds but the British army 100 infantry are going to shoot 1,500 rounds in a minute. It's not the same. Not the same sport. The Mosin is a craptastic rifle but I would still expect 10 rounds aimed shots at the very least. And at longer ranges too.

There are guys who can ring a bell at 500 meters with a Mosin like er...ringing a bell. And this is all weather day or night. Just ain't the same sport.

In some ways you are right, it is about the killing.

While the Civil war rifles (or Crimean war) weren't much faster in rate of fire to the older smooth bores they had around three to five times the effective range.
Which meant you could shoot at attackers for 3 to 5 times longer before they reached you with a bayonet. So if you could inflict 3-5 times the casualties before the bayonet charge reached the defenders (if they reached the defenders at all) you had a huge increase in combat capability.
This was what should have changed the tactics of the 1600s,1700s and early 1800s.
But it didn't.
It also really changed the value of infantry vs cavalry. In the ACW many cavalry units fought as "mounted rifles". that is they used the horses for increased mobility to let the unit gain a favorable firing position rather that try to fight from the saddle with sword, pistol and lance in close combat.


The increase in the rate of fire of the breech loading rifles just made things worse.
And the Breechloading rifles also increased their effective range even more than the muzzle loading rifles.
Turkish troops were causing casualties among the Russians at over 1000yds in 1877. Granted the Russians gave them a great target as they marched up the roads in column formation up to 10 rows wide and hundreds long and those large lead bullets hitting anywhere in that mass of men was dangerous.
The Turks only their Winchesters when the ranges got to around 200 yds or less.
Again, small colonial wars often reinforced the wrong lessons, (closely packed squares of European troops shooting up spear armed natives didn't advance infantry tactics)
and European generals derided the ACW as armed mobs and likewise ignored some of the lessons of even the Boer war.

 

[GrauGeist]

The British should have learned their lesson in the American Revolution, when the Continentals used Native American tactics and fought from cover.

I know that tactic was looked upon as "bad form", but it allowed the out-numbered (and often poorly trained) Colonials better odds of survival.

 

[The Basket]

When the 1903 Springfield rifle first appeared it had a very basic rod bayonet similar to the MAS 36 or FG 42. A bit like how to make a bayonet but you really don't want a bayonet type of bayonet.

There was a huge cry about it and this war was proof bayonet was still king and so the 1903 would get it's full on butchers knife as God intended.

Problem with black powder is you spend more time cleaning it than you do shooting it.

So not only does the Mosin.....not this bloody rifle again.....have faster rate of fire it can sustain that rate of fire. Even a more modern black powder rifle like the Martini, black powder fouling was still a PITA.

Also doing the old ramrod bit is super human intensive so not only are you scared and under battle stress but also doing cardio and having to use fine motor skills. That is going to exhaust you very quickly and the stress of battle is going to cause many an error. After 5 minutes of that you will need a rubdown and a Red Bull.

Even firing a bolt action.... especially a pig like the Mosin....can be tiring but it's easier than a musket.

If I had to do a suicide charge against a fixed fortification then muskets every time.

The French learnt really stupid ideas like the importance of red pantaloons or having a cuirass. Federov on the other hand believed firepower was the magic key and designed a rifle all about firepower.

Federov was right and red trousers was wrong.

 

[Shortround6]

The Mosin-Nagant was one of the last Bolt action repeating rifles to be adopted in the first wave of Bolt action small bore repeaters.
There was a 2nd wave of Bolt action small bore repeater rifles.


Not sure what Federov had to do with weapons or tactics in the Russo- Japanese war of 1904-05?

 

[The Basket]

It doesn't but Federov learnt that the effectiveness of the Russian forces was due to weight and rate of fire. The Maxims would often do the heavy lifting whereas poor tactics and poorly trained infantry didn't.

So he designed the Federov Avtomat.based on the Russian experience of this war.

 

[The Basket]

Problem with the Mosin is that I am not saying bad stuff about the Mosin.

But by 1905 it was past its bedtime and even a cursory glance would show it needs more sauce.

Odd thing is the the Japanese brought out the Type 38 and the Russians didn't do that much. And the Type 30 was arguably a better rifle than the Nugget.

The British brought out the SMLE and the Americans ditched the Krag after combat showed the main rifle was not up to it.

Russians be all like yeah it's fine.

So yeah it was a arguably a flawed rifle that stayed flawed. No reason the Russians couldn't do a Mauser-a-like and that would have been a better bet than ww1 where the Russians took any old scrap iron as long as it could shoot.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Mikasa exists today and one the finest examples of a British made battleship that exists today.

It's the only one from the age of steam, for shame. We can look to HMS Victory, Trincomalee, Warrior and Chile's Huáscar for examples of British pre-WW1 warships, plus the British-made guns on the otherwise-Greek cruiser Georgios Averof. But I'd like to see a British predreadnought today, and their compact size compared to dreadnoughts would make display easier - for example, a Swiftsure class predreadnought was nearly 200ft shorter than HMS Belfast, though 10ft wider. I'm glad Japan was allowed to keep Mikasa post-WW2.

I've always like the British predreadnoughts. Just look at them, and give thought to the poor stokers working like mad to maintain this speed. I have this book on my lap right now as I look at the detailed photos and plans, British battleships, 1889-1904 : Burt, R. A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Admiral Beez]

Good vid of the Battle of Tsushima.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR-uXd_BRe8


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k__jr5uqjnA

 

[Admiral Beez]

I wonder if the Germans would have done any better had they had taken Port Arthur under Japanese protest.

German discipline combined with better ships, like their Kaiser Friedrich III and Wittelsbach class battleships and Prinz Adalbert class armoured cruisers might have given the IJN a tougher nut to crack in 1904-1905. Though the German's smaller 9.4" battleship guns compare poorly to the top notch British-made 12" guns on the Japanese ships. The first two 11" armed Braunschweig class would be ready in time for Tsushima.

Unlike Russia, the Germans have bases in China and the Pacific for preparation and supply, including Tientsin, not far from Port Arthur.