Talk:Battle of the Yalu River (1894)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Victory[edit]

The Japanese destroyed more ships but the Chinese managed to achieve their mission of protecting the landing operation. That would be a Japanese tactical victory and a Chinese "strategic" victory, unless this battle had somehow a larger impact on the rest of the war in favor of the Japanese (which is in no way supported by the article as it is now) in which case we'd have a Japanese strategic victory, a Chinese operational victory and a Japanese tactical victory. Nothing in the article supports the box's text of a Chinese tactical victory. So for the sake of consistency I'll reedit it and I'd be grateful if SYSS Mouse could tell me why the article as it is now is correct instead of just reverting it for "vandalism" 82.135.7.211 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It basically knocked the Chinese fleet out of the war, thus having a pronounced effect upon the rest of it.

Gunnery[edit]

According to McElwee, the the Japanese didn't manage to score a single hit with their 12.6" guns, whereas the Chinese scored a few with their 12". The fact that most of the Chinese fleet (exception, the two big battleships) were very vulnerable to the lighter Japanese guns (which fired more quickly) tends to overshadow this. The point is I don't think there's any real evidence that Japanese gunnery was better than Chinese. The horrible quality of Chinese shells kept the Chinese from doing much real damage.

Speed?[edit]

The two Chinese battleships are rated as having different speeds (12 and 15knots respectively), yet they were sister-ships. Can anyone suggest a reason for this?

Other sources suggest the speed of both as 14 knots. There are perfectly good reasons (different engines, grounding incidents) why two otherwise identical ships might have different speed ratings. I'd just like to know if this is the case or if it's merely sloppy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.170 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs additional citations -- there is progress[edit]

On September 2016 this article was tagged as needing more citations. I had no prior involvement with this article before this tagging. A few weeks ago I added a new source with 20+ inline citations for it. I am not necessarily saying it is time to remove the tag, but I wanted to note that since the tag was placed, there has been significant progress in the article having more citations. (talk) user:Al83tito 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)