Plausibility Check: Alternate Russo-Japanese War

The Russo-Japanese War has been fascinating me recently and, after doing some reading, I think I found an interesting PoD that can have massive ramifications later on. On March 22, the Japanese battleships Fuji and Yashima were bombarding Port Arthur but did little damage. The attack was called off when Fuji was hit by a twelve-inch shell and had to be sent to Sasebo for repairs. Suppose the Russians got a lucky shot and hit one of Fuji's magazines and she sinks. I think this would set back the Japanese plans, and butterfly away Vice Admiral Makarov's death by minefield. This would both strengthen the Russian position and weaken the Japanese, perhaps allowing for a Russian victory later on. I'm wondering if this is plausible, or if I have to change other factors make Russian victory in this war work.
 
IMHO, no PoD in the Russo-Japanese War will do. As much as I love Russia, they simply didn't have the logistics to fight the Japanese. For the most part, the Russians, especially the army, actually did quite well on the defensive. People don't realise how large the Japanese Army was. It was pretty modern too, although not to the extent it would later be. The main thing that stops a Russian victory is that the Trans-Siberian railway isn't finished. Its only a short trip on a boat from Japan to Vladivostok, compared to being moved from the Urals to Primorsk. Having the Trans-Siberian railway being built earlier would help, but that could factor into Japanese strategic calculations, forcing them to attack earlier, or perhaps not at all.
 
IMHO, no PoD in the Russo-Japanese War will do. As much as I love Russia, they simply didn't have the logistics to fight the Japanese. For the most part, the Russians, especially the army, actually did quite well on the defensive. People don't realise how large the Japanese Army was. It was pretty modern too, although not to the extent it would later be. The main thing that stops a Russian victory is that the Trans-Siberian railway isn't finished. Its only a short trip on a boat from Japan to Vladivostok, compared to being moved from the Urals to Primorsk. Having the Trans-Siberian railway being built earlier would help, but that could factor into Japanese strategic calculations, forcing them to attack earlier, or perhaps not at all.

Hm, I've heard that the Japanese were almost bankrupt by the end of the war IOTL, so a longer war would benefit the Russians. And victory doesn't have to be total and crushing defeat of the Japanese.
 
The main thing that stops a Russian victory is that the Trans-Siberian railway isn't finished. Its only a short trip on a boat from Japan to Vladivostok, compared to being moved from the Urals to Primorsk. Having the Trans-Siberian railway being built earlier would help, but that could factor into Japanese strategic calculations, forcing them to attack earlier, or perhaps not at all.

Actually it was. Iirc, even the bypass around the bottom of lake baikal was finished by then. Of course, it was crummy track, and a lot of the extensions werent built, and it was single track pretty much the whole way. But it was in place.
 
IMHO, no PoD in the Russo-Japanese War will do. As much as I love Russia, they simply didn't have the logistics to fight the Japanese. For the most part, the Russians, especially the army, actually did quite well on the defensive. People don't realise how large the Japanese Army was. It was pretty modern too, although not to the extent it would later be. The main thing that stops a Russian victory is that the Trans-Siberian railway isn't finished. Its only a short trip on a boat from Japan to Vladivostok, compared to being moved from the Urals to Primorsk. Having the Trans-Siberian railway being built earlier would help, but that could factor into Japanese strategic calculations, forcing them to attack earlier, or perhaps not at all.

Yes - but that short trip demand control of the sea. If the japanese lose a battleship early and thereby the Russian Far East Fleet don't lose a battleship, and the japanese navy thereby become less aggressive, the situation become very different.

Even IOTL the japanese army operated on a shoestring, taking enormous losses (the fight for Port Arthur was WW1 ten years early). By adding supply problems for the japanese and higher morale for the russians the outcome could be very differentl
 
The Japanese Navy at least lost two battleships in the siege of Port Arthur IIRC. On the high seas I don't see the loss of an additional one hampering their operations since they used their armoured cruisers very aggressively and as part of their battleline.
 
Hm, how does Makarov's survival play into the naval war. IIRC, he was trying to move the Russian fleet to Vladivostok, where he could interdict the Japanese more effectively. And if the Japanese can't effectively get troops to Korea, then they can't win the land war.
 
As much as I love Russia, they simply didn't have the logistics to fight the Japanese.

Amongst the European Powers, only Britain's logistics in the Far East were better than Russia's.

The main thing that stops a Russian victory is that the Trans-Siberian railway isn't finished.

Russia did not need the Transsib to be completed as long as it controlled the Chinese Eastern Railway if it wanted to defend its interests in Manchuria.
 
Wasn't the Japanese navy far larger and better trained ("crossing the t") than the Russians? I mean Japanese guns had a larger range too, didn't they?
 

Flubber

Banned
Wasn't the Japanese navy far larger and better trained ("crossing the t") than the Russians? I mean Japanese guns had a larger range too, didn't they?


The Russian navy was larger overall, the IJN just had more ships in the theatre seeing as northeast Asia is where Japan is located.

Japanese training was more uniform. There were good Russian crews and good Russian commanders, the IJN just had more and their worst was better than the Russia's worst.

The IJN did have longer ranged guns but that isn't the advantage you'd think it would be. Fire control was very primitive at this time so you could rarely hit at anywhere near maximum range. All things being equal, longer ranged guns threw a shell not only further but faster than shorter ranged ones and faster means more damage.

Because of fire control issues, two competing design philosophies were current at the time: "A Few Big Guns Firing A Few Big Shells" and "Many Small Guns Firing A Storm Of Shells". Basically, the UK believed in the former while France believed in the latter and, because Russia imported French warship design ideas, Russian warships were built with the "storm of shells" idea.

The results of Tsushima ended the "storm of shells" idea.

The IJN had another important advantage; it's fleet was relatively homogenous. The battleships in the battleline could all reach the same speed, had roughly the same endurance, carried roughly the same weapons, etc. The Russian fleet was more of a hodge-podge with it's ships built to different designs. This meant is was easier for the Japanese to operate as a unit and harder for the Russians to do the same.
 
Was there any nation apart from Montenegro that could potentially back Russia up? That might help things.

When the Russian Baltic fleet was steaming to Asia, it took on coal at French ports along the way. France is probably your best bet for support. The problem with that is the Anglo-Japanese alliance. If France or another power entered the war, it'd be a trigger for the British to do so as well.
 
Even if the Transsib was basically ready it was only a 1 track line for huge stretches. This severly limits the amount of traffic.

Concerning Tsushima - I recall that "wear and tear" severely limits ship performance. Having sailed from the Baltic to the other end of the globe left the russian ships in bad shape. This Tsushima is only the logical outcome (and I believe that same scenario was in the mind of Japan when attacking Hawaii = drawing the - remaining - fleet toward the Phillies and then finishing off the exhausted ships - too bad the US opted for a slower approach)
 
I do not view a Russian victory as implausible. Despite their victories on land and sea the Japanese economy was stretched to the breaking point. Had the Russian Pacific fleet sailed for one more battle and had at least some of the capital ships made it to Vladivostok Tsushima may not have occurred or been very different.
 

sharlin

Banned
By the time the Russians reached Tsushima they had not had a proper chance to repair their machinery or clean their hulls for months, morale was rock bottom (there had been several mutinies and murders) and they had no chance to practice gunnery, save one time where the only thing hit was the ship towing the target.

The crews were all very green and despite the length of the voyage were still not fully familiar with their ships. The four Borodino class ships were sent out without any form of shake down and they had constant technical problems on their way east. Although the Russians had superior numbers on the day, there was really no way they could have won save a fair few lucky hits and Japanese ships exploding.

Of the Russian fleet there they had four modern but badly designed battleships, some good light cruisers and good destroyers but not enough of them (and the Cruisers commander was useless and basically a coward). The rest were older or utterly obsolete and for the most part should not have been there.
 
One question: What are the limits on the POD?

I imagine if you go back a ways you could find a pretty easy one, but if it has to be after the start of the war, that might be harder.
 
One question: What are the limits on the POD?

I imagine if you go back a ways you could find a pretty easy one, but if it has to be after the start of the war, that might be harder.

I started this thread with one particular PoD in mind, but I'm not limiting myself to just one. I just think that the Russo-Japanese war is often ignored for no good reason, seeing as it could radically change Europe's later history.
 
Russia can do better on land against Japan, but I don't think it's realistic for it to do any better on sea. As to whether or not a Tsushima-alone scenario would gain for Japan the prestige that Tshushima and Mukden together did......
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Given the difficulties Russia had with its supply line across Asia, the only way the war can be won is to prevent the Japanese build-up of troops and supplies. This can only be done at sea. So the only possible PoDs must result in Russia dominating the naval campaign.

Some PoDs to consider are: -
1) The Russian Navy is a more competent organisation than TOL - that will have to go back years - resulting in better trained officers & men with higher morale, and a more daring & inventive approach to warfare, along with better quality ammunition. If you like, a "Whale has Wings" scenario for the Tsar.
2) Stark, in command of the Far Eastern Fleet at Port Arthur, is successful in convincing Viceroy Alexeiev of the Japanese threat, resulting in a far more alert defence fending off the surprise Japanese torpedo attack. Battleships Retvizan & Tsarevitch are not damaged. Alexeiev does not issue his order restricting the fleet to no more than one day's sailing from Port Arthur. It would help if the entire Russian command had not been at a party as the Japanese attacked :p
3) Makarov's order on 13 April as the fleet steamed out from Port Arthur that the harbour mouth be swept for mines is carried out. The Petropavlovsk is not lost on return and Makarov survives. [I believe there is an established timeline for this.] The fleet is stronger in terms of command, material and (most importantly) morale. With a stronger mobile force to threaten Japanese lines of communication, Togo could be forced to more extreme measures to blockade Port Arthur; at the time this was a vital concern for the IJN as the Guards Division had barely started landing in Korea.
4) The Japanese lose the Shikishima to Russian mines on 15 May in addition to Hatsuse & Yashima. Or a more aggressive Witgeft (or the resurrected Makarov) follows up with the available destroyers, or in the following days takes advantage of the Russian advantage in battleships to force an action or attack Japanese troop & supply convoys.
5) The ammunition explosion that sank Mikasa at anchor on 11 September 1905 could have occurred at any time. If it had happened earlier, particularly around the loss of the two battleships mentioned above, the Russians would have had a major advantage in battleship numbers. If you want to be particularly evil, have Togo on board :D
6) The "lucky" hit on Tsarevitch at the Battle of the Yellow Sea that killed Witgeft is avoided, or -even better for the Russians - transposed onto the Mikasa, putting Togo out of action. At the time observers believed the Russians had the upper hand tactically, and it was the absolute confusion that befell the Russian battle line that decided the outcome. Ukhtomski - a "second rate man" - does not have the chance to flee unheroically from the field.

There is no point trying a PoD as late as Tsushima. The war on land had effectively been decided by the time Rozhdestvenski's Baltic Fleet arrived, and nothing short of an ASB miracle would reverse the overall result of that battle.
 
Top