Battle of Nanshan: Precursor of the Future?

[Thorgrimm]

Yeah it is amazing at a lot of what we think is true is just wishful thinking or misinterptation of the available data and becomes urban legends.

And if you ever finish your articles i will be waiting to read them!


Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[privatehudson]

Oh I should do, I have three weeks leave coming up in the next 3 months, I'm sure I can devote a day or two to writing

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Good effort, Thorgrimm.

I'll be expecting your contributions, privatehudson.

 

[Thorgrimm]

@XIII Thank you, as i have always been fascinated by the Russo-Japanese war. Because by all logic the Japanese should not have won. A combination of Japanese tenacity and Russian ineptness, allowed the Japanese to take their place on the world stage, and the boneheaded Europeans in their arrogance did not learn anything from it and repeated all the mistakes made at Port Arthur, only on a grander scale.


Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[CerberusIV]

I think this thread is being a little hard on the european military. Several european armies did pick up something from the Russo-Japanese war.

Most did recognise the machine gun was capable of dominating any attack on a fortified position. The usefulness of barbed wire and handgrenades were also taken on board.

The German army was the only one to pick up on super heavy artillery to smash forts. That was the inspiration for Krupps to be asked to design the 42cm howitzers that shattered the Liege forts in 1914.

The British were, understandably, more interested in the naval aspects of the war. They had observers on the Japanese ships and did pick up a number of issues, particularly gunnery techniques and the increasing range of naval combat.

The real problem is that, whilst the lessons were there to see, the conclusions we now draw were quite literally unthinkable in the early 1900's.

The idea of trench warfare, the obsolescence of cavalry and the thought of carnage and stalemate were too much to take on board. Only Germany was seriously prepared to take the risk of war between the major powers.

If the pre-WW1 generals had draw the correct conclusions from the siege of Port Arthur what were they to do? In 1914 public opinion demanded the removal of the Germans from French and Belgian territory. The fact the military technology of the time did not make this feasible was not accepted.

 

[Thorgrimm]

The one thing they did not learn was that frontal assaults on heavily fortified positions was not feasible, because the thinking of the time was that it was "only" the Russians and Japanese. I have read dispatches by British Army officers who were attached to the Japanese Army in the siege of Port Arthur and their statements were very condesending. One Captain even went so far as to say only the Japanese would have such terrible casualties, as a proper "European" army would have stormed the works. That is the attitude which caused such terrible carnage on the western front. It was only after the "Generals", and i use this term loosely, had wasted most of a generation of valiant men, did they try to find ways around trench warfare. The Germans with Stosstruppen infiltration, and whirlwind artillery bombardments in support. The Allies on technical means, aka, tanks. When if they would have taken the lessons to heart instead of brushing it off as a squabble between an Asiatic power and a third rate European power, maybe the first world war would have been less bloody or avoided all together.

Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by XIII

I'll be expecting your contributions, privatehudson.

You should have it by the end of the month

 

[CerberusIV]

I would agree that there was a feeling amongst the european military that is wasn't a "serious"war. However the effectiveness of concentrated rifle fire was obvious from earlier battles such as Plevna which were also disregarded.

It is also worth noting that Nogi was too impatient to conduct methodical siege operations. His decision to order the mine under Erlung Shan fort detonated prematurely turned what should have been a successful assault into a slaughter of the attackers. With that sort of example the idea that "we would have done better" amongst european observers is more understandable, although they should still have drawn better conclusions from what did happen.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Good point CerberusIV.


Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[pstanhag]

Im not sure how the Europeans viewed the American Civil War, but any serious look at the Union siege of Richmond-Petersburg VA gave an accurate picture of how war was evolving. Even without machine guns - trench warefare had taken hold.

 

[Thorgrimm]

@ pstanhag you are correct. And it illustrates the point also that Europe considered itself "superior" to everybody else, and they paid for it 10 years later, with almost an entire generation of fine men wasted because of arrogance.


Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[Serutan]

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
Yup this Battle and the rest of the siege of Port Arthur just screams the old maxim that "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." And as we saw, Sure enough, the first world war repeated the mistakes of Port Arthur, only on a grander scale.

Cheers Thorgrimm

Interesting. I too, am ignorant of details of this war, but
this sounds similar to the siege of Petersburg in the American
Civil War in that it was a small scale dress rehearsal for
WWI trench warfare, but was poo-pooed in Europe because it
was only "armed mobs" fighting, and real soldiers wouldn't have
those problems...

 

[Thorgrimm]

Yeah isn't it interesting what arrogance and pride can cost when you think nobody is as good as you!


Cheers Thorgrimm