In 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, a Russian fleet sailing all the way from the Baltic was annihilated by the Japanese fleet in the Tsushima Straits. The Russian fleet was larger, with thirteen battleships (five of them "second line') to four for the Japanese, but the Japanese ships were more modern and faster, and their crews better trained, to give them a technological superiority.
The Russians nevertheless tried to outmaneuver the smaller Japanese fleet with two "line ahead" formations, only to find themselves in the unfortunate position of having the Japanese fleet "cross their T," (a highly advantageous position for the Japanese). The alternative would have been to charge en masse in a line abreast formation, which would at least have the advantage of keeping the Russian fleet together instead of having the pieces "picked off" one by one, by the superior Japanese fleet. (Most survivors of the first day's battle surrendered the second day.)
With a numerical superiority and a technical inferiority, would the Russians have done better to opt for a battle of attrition instead (in the manner of America's Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee), perhaps using a line abreast formation?
Supposing that they could have made it a battle of "trading shots," could they possibly have sunk the four Japanese battleships for four of their own, or even all thirteen, instead of zero versus thirteen?