TRAFALGAR AND JUTLAND
Trafalgar and the name of Nelson stand high in naval history. Let us draw a military comparison between Trafalgar and the battle of Skagerrak. At Trafalgar there were on the British side 27 ships of the line, (of which 8 had 80 guns, 16 had 74 guns, and 3 had 64 guns,) four frigates, and two smaller vessels. On the side of the allied French and Spanish fleet there were 33 ships of the line, (of which 10 had from 80 to 110 guns, 22 had 74 guns, and one had 64 guns,) three frigates, and two smaller vessels. The French and Spanish fleet was not only numerically stronger, but its ships were better built and better armed.
A GERMAN DIAGRAM OF THE BATTLE OF THE SKAGERRAK (JUTLAND)
In the battle of Skagerrak we had opposing each other: On the British side, thirty-one dreadnoughts, inclusive of six battle cruisers, and four armored cruisers; on the German side, twenty-one dreadnoughts, inclusive of five battle cruisers, and six older cruisers. Roughly speaking, we had twenty-seven big ships against thirty-live. Here also the better quality, judged by size, up-to-dateness, and armament, was on the side of the larger fleet. Apart from these big ships, there were on each side about fifty smaller vessels.
The total tonnage of the British fleet at Trafalgar was equal to about two modern dreadnoughts, as one of the ships of the line in Nelson's time was of about 2,000 tons. In numbers of guns and of crew there were more at Trafalgar, as at that time the ships were sailing vessels.
The British had between 17,000 and 20,000 men engaged, against 21,000 to 24,000. At Skagerrak we had from 35,000 to 40,000, as against 45,000 to 50,000 men. In this way we can compare the battle in its general aspect with Trafalgar. But if we look into the matter more closely, the French and Spanish fleet had within it an element of weakness arising from the fact that it consisted of two allied forces, between which there is never complete co-ordination. The French were further weakened by effects of the Revolution and exhaustion from previous battles. The French Admiral himself said: "Never before was the French fleet at such a low standard. We had bad masts, bad sails, bad rigging, bad officers, and bad seamen." Of the Spanish, Nelson said: "They have neither seamen nor officers." At the head of the allied forces was a French Admiral who had no confidence in the fleet and who was acting under instructions issued by Napoleon, which he felt incapable of carrying out. Opposed to him was the seasoned and well-schooled fleet of Nelson, so that it was not a battle of equal opponents and the result was annihilation. None of the French or Spanish ships was again seen at sea; nineteen were captured or destroyed, ten were driven into harbor and blockaded; four escaped, only to fall into the hands of the victors a few days later.
COMPARED WITH TSUSHIMA
And now Tsushima, another parallel. A Russian fleet, made up of any old vessels the Russians could get together, and of what ships still remained in the East—supported by Port Arthur—made one last bid against the sea power of the enemy. Without training, without points of support, honeycombed with revolutionary ideas, the Russian fleet started on its trip to the Far East, where it arrived on May 27, after suffering terrible hardships and being more than six months on the way to meet the enemy. Meanwhile, Port Arthur, with its fleet, had fallen. The Russian Admiral knew that he had absolutely no chance, but he did not have enough courage to retreat. Blindly and without confidence he started the battle against an opponent who was superior in numbers, equipment, and training. Of the 38 Russian ships which arrived on the morning of May 27, 1905, in the Strait of Korea, 19 were sunk and 7 captured, including 2 hospital ships. The Russian Admiral, 273 officers, and 5,833 petty officers and men were taken prisoner; 201 officers and 4,344 men were killed. Against this the Japanese lost only three torpedo boats and about 700 men.