The Japanese fleets had practised gunnery regularly since the beginning of the war, using sub-calibre adapters in their guns and gaining more experience than the Russians. The Japanese also used mostly high-explosive shells with shimose (melinite), which was designed to explode on contact and wreck the upper structures of ships.[38] The Russians used armour-piercing rounds with small guncotton bursting charges and unreliable fuses.[39] Japanese hits caused more damage to Russian ships relative to Russian hits on Japanese ships, setting the superstructures, the paintwork and the large quantities of coal stored on the decks on fire. (The Russian fleet often bought low-quality coal at sea from merchant vessels on most of their long voyage due to the lack of friendly fuelling ports).[citation needed]
Japanese fire was also more accurate because they were using the latest issued (1903) Barr and Stroud FA3 coincidence rangefinder, which had a range of 6,000 yards (5,500 m), while the Russian battleships were equipped with Liuzhol rangefinders from the 1880s, which only had a range of about 4,000 yards (3,700 m).[40] And finally, by 27 May 1905, Admiral Tōgō and his men had two battleship fleet actions under their belts, which amounted to over four hours of combat experience in battleship-to-battleship combat at Port Arthur and the Yellow Sea[41]
Ну и попробуйте без этого объяснить, как 4 броненосца потопили 8.
Т е применительно к флоту Паршев скорее всего прав т к все решалось тем, кто в кого лучше попадал снарядами и эффективностью действия этих попавших снарядов. Применительно к армиям Паршев скорее всего неправ; напр, в Англо-Бурской войне ОФС никакой решающей роли не сыграли.
В этой связи ваши попытки увести дискурс в обсуждение различий между шимозой и луддитом, это просто бессмыссленная распонтовка. Никакого отношения к Цусиме эти различия не имеют.
