Talk:Battle of Sinop

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Ottoman military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Guns

The description of Velikiy Knyaz Konstantin as having 120 guns conflicts strongly with the page it is linked to. Could they be two different ships of the same name? Kd5mdk 20:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

yes of course. I'm not sure how to distinguish in terms of page names... perhaps just put the launch date on each? there seems to be several different styles on wikipedia for doing this.

Order of battle

I think Sinop order of battle should be merged here. Thoughts? --AW 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed, it's not like this article is overburdened with content Modest Genius ^talk 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if the Order of Battle is added at the end. Cosal 11:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge. The order of battle for an article should nnot h ave a seperate page but it should be part of the article of the battle. Kyriakos 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE MAKE IT STUPID... Just kidding, I merged it. Puddytang 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Someone deleted a comment about the British ambassador only sending frigates to Sinope possibly in the hope that the Russians would attack Turkey. It's true that there had been some minor fighting before this battle, but nothing that would really "justify" intervention by Britain and France until this battle. So I think it's still a possibility? SpookyMulder (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it a Battle or just a Bust

someone should revise the article, because it contains some funny things like "battle with non-moved turkish ships"? damn, its not a batle. its typical bust--Orkh (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree that its a typical ambush--195.174.105.53 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Massacre" of Sinop?

I'm listening now to a history course by prof. Robert I. Wiener. He says that the Battle was called "the massacre of Sinop" by English press and a propaganda campaing was unleashed to make a pretext for invasion into Crimea. Would be interesting to find sources and add this information. --CopperKettle (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See that Google search brought: "Massacre of Sinope" --CopperKettle (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Battleship or Ship of the Line

I'm not sure that the use of the word battleship to describe some of the Russian ships is the best description. Although it may be technically acurate the word is most often used in association with post Dreadnought ships and that is the umage it conjures up. Ship of the line seems much more appropriate and acurate to me. IanOfNorwich (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed --AW (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

St. Andrew

It's probably significant that the attack was launched on St. Andrew's Day - can anyone confirm this? Drutt (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

casualties

Why is it not mentioned in the article that the Russians had 37 killed and 233 wounded and the Turkish had more than 3000 killed and wounded? Corvi cantus (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

not BATTLE, its ambush

how could it be categorized as a "battle"? its not about a naval fight, the article is about an ambush...--195.174.105.53 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that described it as " the Ambush of Sinop", by all means bring it to the discussion. Otherwise, "Battle of Sinop" is the accepted term.

Anyway, an ambush is still a battle; the Battle of Dorylaeum was an ambush, but we still refer to it as a battle.

And Russia and the Turks had been at war for a while before it happened, so it wasn't some kind of sneak attack; the Ottoman fleet was caught unprepared, and suffered accordingly. Xyl 54 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Paixhans guns

I know absolutely nothing about this battle; I came here from the Paixhans gun article. That article claims that the Paixhans guns used by the Russians were absolutely decisive in this battle, and not only determined the outcome of the battle but heralded the demise of the wooden warship. Our Ironclad warship article seems to support this, with every major navy starting plans for ironclads within 2 or 3 years of this battle, and the first ironclads launched 6 years later. That article also includes the statement:

It is often held that the power of explosive shells to smash wooden hulls, as demonstrated by the Russian destruction of a Turkish squadron at the Battle of Sinope, spelled the end of the wooden-hulled warship.[8]

It is also notable that the description of the damage to the Turkish ships is similar to the testing of the prototype Paixhans gun against the Pacificateur.

At present, this article doesn't mention Paixhans guns, or the nature of the Russian armament at all. If it is true that the Russians used Paixhans guns, and that this was a signal moment in naval warfare, could a more knowledgeable person please add this to the article? -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there seems to be little other obvious reason why the battle was so one-sided.69.151.14.159 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)