Fight in the Yellow Sea 28 July 1904 g. Part of 2. Squadron received by V.K. Vitgeft

120

Squadron battleship "Petropavlovsk" in Port Arthur

Having considered the brief biographies of the commanders in the previous article, we are moving to the state of the 1 Pacific squadron at the time when Rear Admiral V. K. Vitgeft temporarily took over the post. D. Commander Pacific Ocean Squadron. It must be said that by that time the state of our naval forces left much to be desired, and this applied both to the ship staff and to the preparation of teams for battle.

By the start of the war, the Port Arthur squadron had seven squadron battleships, an armored cruiser, three rank 1 armored cruisers and two rank 2 armored cruisers (apart from the former Zabiyaka sailing clipper, which had practically lost its combat significance, but still listed as a second-ranking cruiser). The light forces of the squadron included two mine cruisers, twenty-five destroyers, four gunboats and two special-purpose mine loaders. To this should be added three armored and one armored cruiser of the 1st rank in Vladivostok; there were 10 small destroyers. As for the Japanese, it is only in the main forces fleet (the first and second squadrons) there were six squadron battleships, six armored and eight armored cruisers, as well as 19 large and 16 small destroyers. And besides, there was a third squadron, and numerous forces that were not part of the aforementioned formations, but were assigned to various naval bases.

But nevertheless, it cannot be said that the Russian forces in the Far East were too few in number and were unable to give a general battle. The deployment of part of the cruisers in Vladivostok should have diverted a significant part of the second squadron (commanded by H. Kamimura) to itself, and so it happened in reality: in order to catch "Russia", "Rurik" and "Gromoboya" the Japanese were forced to divert four of their large armored cruisers. Accordingly, the Russian plan was a success, and for actions against the Arthur squadron, Heihatiro Togo had only six battleships and two armored cruisers, not counting light forces. At the same time, the Arturites, having seven battleships and an armored cruiser, would have eight armored ships for a general battle against eight.

Of course, such an account "over the heads" completely ignores the quality of the opposing squadrons, but now we will not compare in detail the thickness of armor, speed and armor penetration of the guns of Russian and Japanese ships. We only note that of the seven Russian battleships, three were laid already two years before the start of construction of a pair of the oldest Japanese squadron battleships Fuji and Yashima. And although the same "Sevastopol" entered the fleet in 1900 g (after 8 years after its inception) this, of course, does not make it equal to the "Sikisime" that the British laid for the sons of Mikado in 1897 in the same year.


Launching the battleship Sikishima

The technical progress in those years was moving with terrifying speed, so the five years between the bookmarks of these two ships represented a huge period: in addition, the Sikishima was about 30% larger than the Sevastopol. As for the battleships of the Victory and Peresvet, at the beginning of their design they were called in the working papers “battleships-cruisers”, “armored cruisers”, or simply “cruisers”. And even in 1895 g, when Peresvet was laid, in many documents of the MTC ships of this type were listed as “three-screw steel armored cruisers”. The British battleships of the 2 class “Centurion” and “Rinaun” were taken as a guide when designing them, as a result of which ships of the “Peresvet” type received lightweight weapons, besides their armor, formally powerful enough, did not cover the extremities, which for since the Russian-Japanese war was a significant drawback. Of course, these ships were listed in the Russian Imperial Navy by squadron battleships, but still in their fighting qualities they occupied an intermediate position between the Japanese armored cruisers and squadron battleships. Thus, only two Russian battleships, the Tsesarevich and Retvizan, could be considered equal to the Japanese ships of this class, and the only armored cruiser of the port-arthur squadron was a very unusual type of reconnaissance squadron almost twice as weak as any armored cruiser X. Kamimura and was not intended to fight in line.

Nevertheless, the advantage of the Japanese fleet as a ship was not so overwhelming that the Russians could not count on winning the battle. History knows cases when they won even at the worst alignment of forces. But for this, the Russian squadron should have collected all forces into a fist, and this they could not do from the very beginning of the war, when during the dashing night torpedo attack “Tsarevich” and “Retvisan” were undermined.



As of April 22 1904, when V.K. Vitgeft took command of the Port Arthur squadron, both of these battleships were not yet able to be returned to the fleet. Only the Pallas armored cruiser was repaired, but no special benefit was expected from it in the general battle. Under S. Makarov, during the March 13 exercise, the battleship Peresvet struck the stern Sevastopol with a ram, slightly damaged the casing and bent the blade of the right screw, which made the latter not able to repair the dock . Since there was no dock capable of accommodating the battleship in Port Arthur, a caisson device was required, but this was a long matter, so S. O. Makarov preferred to postpone the repair until later. And March 10 flagship "Petropavlovsk" exploded on a Japanese mine and sank, taking with him his admiral and depriving the squadron of another battleship. On the same day, the Victory was blown up, which, although it did not die, was permanently out of order. In addition, since the beginning of the war, the Boyarin armored cruiser, the Enisei minelayer and the three destroyers died in mines, in battle and for other reasons. Thus, V.K. Vitgeft joined the command of a squadron consisting of three battleships, counting the 31-hub Sevastopol (which was still repaired and completed only on May 10), one armored and three X-grade 15 armored cruisers, one X-NUMX-grade armored cruiser, two mine-cruisers, 1 destroyers, four canlodos and a minzag.

But the Japanese fleet received reinforcement: not only did all six battleships and the same number of armored cruisers remain in its structure, but in May and April the Argentinean Nissin and Kasuga had reached combat readiness, bringing the total number of armored cruisers of Japan to eight. Of course, with such a balance of forces, there could be no question of a general battle.



But, besides the quantitative (and qualitative) problems of the materiel, there was still the question of training the crews, and here the Russians had a very bad situation. The first test of strength, which took place in the morning of July 27 1904, when the Arthur squadron had approximately a 40-minute battle with the Japanese fleet, demonstrated the best training of Japanese commanders. Of course, the squadron did not think so. Here is how the senior artillery officer of the battleship Peresvet, Lieutenant V. Cherkasov, saw this fight:

“Soon we noticed that one of their battleships was strongly bent on its side, and now after this the Japanese turned aside to us and left, this was the occasion to break them, since“ Bayan ”, which was from them in 17 cable, I saw how, having departed from us, they began to take damaged ships in tow and then departed. ”


All of the above is one of a number of illustrations that should be treated with caution by witnesses. Unfortunately, in battle, people very often (and completely in good faith!) Are mistaken and see not what really happens, but what they really want to see: this is characteristic of absolutely all nations and absolutely at all times. Therefore, the saying that exists among historians “lies, as an eyewitness”, for all its seeming absurdity, is completely fair.

However, the intelligence data is even more interesting:

"From the reports of the Chinese:" Mikasa "drowned on the Arthur raid during the battle, three armored cruisers jumped into the Chefu."


After the years, the details of both Russian and Japanese injuries became known, on the whole the picture is as follows.

Comparative analysis of the accuracy of artillery fire in a battle 27 January 1904.



Of course, it would be desirable to “sort everything out”, specifying the number of shells fired and hits for each caliber, but, unfortunately, this is impossible. The number of shells fired by the Russian and Japanese squadrons is known, but the situation is worse with hits. It is not always possible to accurately identify the caliber of the projectile: in some cases it is easy to confuse the six and eight-inch shells or the ten and twelve-inch shells. So, for example, the Russian ships launched the 41 twelve-inch and 24 ten-inch shells, while three twelve-inch, one ten-inch and two ten-to-twelve-inch projectiles fell into the Japanese ships. Accordingly, the percentage of hits for twelve-inch projectiles ranges from 7,31 to 12,19%, depending on whether the last two projectiles were ten- or twelve-inch. The same picture for medium-caliber artillery: if the Russian cruiser Bayan, firing 28 shells, achieved one reliable hit (3,57%), then the Japanese ships reached 5 hits of eight to eight inches. In other words, we can only say that the Russians received at least five, but not more than fourteen hits with eight-inch shells, therefore, the accuracy of firing Japanese 203-mm cannons (firing 209 shells) is in the interval 2,39-6,7%. The grouping adopted in the table above allows one to avoid such a spread, but the mixing of calibers in itself gives rise to a certain incorrectness. In addition, the following should be noted.

The percentage of hits of Japanese twelve-inch guns is higher than indicated in the table, since some, alas, not fixed number of shots, they did not by the ships, but by the coastal batteries. Most likely, there were few such shots: the total number of large and medium caliber shells fired at ground targets did not exceed 30, and it is highly doubtful that the twelve-inch ones among them were more than 3-5 projectiles, but in any case, the Japanese shot slightly better than indicated in the table.

In addition to the Russian ships, coastal batteries also shot at the Japanese. In total, 35 "coastal" guns, which fired 151 projectile, took part in the battle, but of them only the battery # 9 was located close enough to send their projectiles to the Japanese. 25 six-inch projectiles were fired from this battery, but given the accuracy of firing the guns of this caliber (six-inch navy used 680 projectiles and 8 hits or 1,18%), hardly any of its projectiles hit the target. Therefore, the coastal shells are not taken into account at all in the table, but if 25 six-inch shots were added, which could still get into the Japanese, the percentage of hits of the Russian average caliber artillery will decrease from 1,27 to 1,23%, which, however, will not affect the overall picture.

A charming historical anecdote on the subject of coastal artillery is mentioned in his memoirs by V. Cherkasov, mentioned above. In the 27 battle of January 1905, coastal ten-inch guns fired at the Japanese, which had an 85 kbt firing range and therefore were fully capable of “getting” Japanese battleships. However, their actual range turned out to be only 60 KBT, which is why they could not cause any harm to the enemy. But how could such a big difference between passport and actual data come out?

“... this can be concluded from the telegram of Captain Zhukovsky, commander of the Electric Cliff battery, sent to the Artillery Committee in February or March 1904, asking to explain why sailors use the same gun to shoot 10 miles (Peresvet) or 8, 5 (“Victory”), and it cannot shoot further 6 miles, since the elevation angle, although it corresponds to 25 °, as on “Victory”, but more than 15 ° cannot be given, since then the gun will hit the breech into the platform serving for loading guns. This was followed by a reply from Petersburg: “Read the §16 instructions for handling this gun”, and indeed, when reading the §16, you learned that when shooting at elevation angles of large 15 °, you should remove this platform completely, for which you should unscrew four nuts and give four bolts connecting it to the unit. It follows that on the day of the battle these guns could shoot no further than the 60 cable. ”


In general, we can assume that when the main caliber of battleships were fired, the Japanese slightly outnumbered the Russians (by 10-15%), but their average artillery was 1.5 times more accurate. The shooting of the 120-mm cannons is not very revealing, since all the 4 of the Russian-made projectiles of this caliber were achieved by the Novik, which, under the command of dashing N.O. Essen came very close to the Japanese, and the rest of the ships in the bulk fought at great distances. But at the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that the Japanese "dogs" have not achieved a single hit with their 120-mm, probably due to the fact that the Japanese gathered the best commander from all other ships to armadillos and armored cruisers. Thus, undoubtedly, the best efficiency of armored giants was achieved, but at the same time the light forces were forced to settle for “you, my God, that we are not fit”: we observe the result of this practice using the example of the January 27 battle. But the shooting of three-inch guns is hardly indicative: the huge number of three-inch shells released compared to the Japanese suggests that while the main gunners of the Russian ships were engaged in adjusting large and medium caliber shooting, the three-inch calculations were “amused” by shooting “where” “to the other side” even from distances where it was impossible to throw a shell to the enemy. In any case, she couldn’t give anything to the crew’s morale, as the striking effect of their shells was absolutely insignificant.

Nevertheless, in general, the Russians in this battle shot out much worse than the Japanese. Interestingly, the battle took place on countercourses (that is, when the fighting columns of ships followed parallel to each other, but in different directions), where the Russian sailors had an advantage. The fact is that, according to some data, during the training of the Russian commanders, combat at countercourses was given considerable attention, while in the United Fleet it was not. Accordingly, it can be assumed that if the battle went on in ordinary wake columns, the percentage ratio of hits would be even worse for the Russians.

The question "why" has, alas, many answers. And the first is contained in the book “Cruiser Varyag” by R. M. Melnikov:

“Life on the Varyag was complicated by the departure of a number of officers and the dismissal of a large group of senior sailor specialists who had received a ship in America. They were replaced by newcomers, albeit graduated from specialist schools in Kronstadt, but who still did not have the skills to manage the latest technology. The staff of the commanders changed almost half, new miners and machinists arrived. ”


The following information is given in a footnote:

"In total, before the war, more than 1500 old servicemen, including some 500 specialists, were fired into the reserve before the war."


What can you say about this? Heyhatiro Togo, in his most audacious dreams, could not hope to strike the Pacific Ocean squadron with the blow that we had inflicted on ourselves by sanctioning demobilization.

The question: “Could the governor, Admiral Alekseev on the eve of the war prevent such demobilization?”, Alas, for the author of this article remains open. Of course, the representative of the sovereign emperor was a king and god in the Far East, but not the fact that even his influence would be enough for some progress in the super-powerful bureaucratic machinery of the Russian Empire. However, the governor did not even make an attempt: that he, the high leader and the strategist, had some kind of miners and commanders there?

Fight in the Yellow Sea 28 July 1904 g. Part of 2. Squadron received by V.K. Vitgeft

Pacific Squadron Chief Vice Admiral Oscar Viktorovich Stark (1846-1928, left) and the governor in the Far East, Admiral Adjutant General Yevgeny Ivanovich Alekseev (1843-1918, right) on the deck of the X-NUMX-grade armored cruiser “Askar”, “Ekk”, “Aksk”, “Aksk”, right.

In the second half of 1903, the domestic squadron in the Far Eastern waters was inferior in the number and quality of the ship personnel to the enemy. But this situation should not be delayed: Japan has already spent the loans for the construction of the fleet, and there was no more money to build it further. And in the shipyards of the Russian Empire, five powerful battleships of the Borodino type were built, prepared to be sent to Oslabya ​​in Port Arthur, the old, but strong Navarin and Sisoy the Great were repaired ... With the arrival of these ships, the temporary superiority of the United Fleet should have been " crumble with sakura petals, ”and this should be taken into account by both the Russian and the Japanese leadership. If Japan wanted war, then it should start at the end of 1903 or in 1904, and then it would be too late.

But if Japan, having an advantage, still decides to go to war, what can be opposed to its quantitative and qualitative superiority? Of course, only one thing - the skill of the crews, and in fact it has already suffered the greatest damage from demobilization. It means that only one thing remains - to train the personnel as intensively as possible, bringing the level of proficiency in equipment to the utmost perfection.

And what was done in fact? The first phrase “Testimony in the investigative commission on the July 28 fight of a senior artillery officer, Lieutenant V. Cherkasov of 1,” reads:

"The shooting of 1903 was not over."


Those. in fact, even the exercises in accordance with the rules of peacetime were not carried out to the end. And what about the governor?

“October 2 1903, Admiral Alexeyev made a great review of the squadron in the Far. The review lasted three days. The admiral should have evaluated our combat training. Admiral Stark was warned that the governor would pay special attention to the construction of the ships, so for two days the entire squadron stood in pairs, and in turn removed from the anchor to put it on the 2-3, felled right or left, depending on wind or current, and as luck would have it, by the time the governor arrived, due to the low tide that had begun, the ships that had just been leveled had dissolved a little, with which his Excellency was extremely dissatisfied, which he said to Admiral Stark. Then the usual program of shows began: the rowing race (the sailing for the freshness of the wind was canceled), boating under the oars and sails, the descent and ascent of the rowing ships, the landing assault, the teaching of the reflection of mine attacks, and even there was one shooting, but not fighting, but 37-mm trunks. The governor was very pleased with all this, which he expressed to the squadron with a signal. ”


In other words, Admiral Alekseev in general He was not interested in the combat training of the forces entrusted to him - he came, as if in a circus, to look "at the ships", he was angry that they did not go in formation, but, looking at the rowing races (the most important thing in the upcoming battle), he thawed out his soul and replaced anger with mercy. Shocking phrase V. Cherkasov: "Even there was one shooting. ” Those. In other cases, the governor and did without shooting? But further - worse:

“After the inspection, the ships returned to Arthur, and then we were all struck by the order:“ Russia ”,“ Rurik ”,“ The Thunderer ”and“ Bogatyr ”to go to Vladivostok for wintering, and for the other ships to enter the pool and enter the armed reserve” .


In other words, during the period of the greatest military danger, the governor did not think of anything better than to put the ships in reserve, completely ceasing all military training. But, perhaps, Admiral Alekseev was simply not able to add two to two, and due to some reason he was sure that the war would not take place? However, V. Cherkasov writes that the war was expected in the fall of 1903, and not only in the crews: the squadron was instructed to repaint in combat color, and this could only be with the knowledge of the governor. The squadron with its full complement left Vladivostok for Port Arthur, maneuvers began ...

"But a few weeks passed and everything calmed down."


So, in the atmosphere of the admiral's "calm", 1 November, 1903, the squadron of the Pacific Ocean joined the armed reserve. It would seem that it is impossible to come up with the worst decision, but who thought so underestimated the strategic genius of the governor Alekseev!



It is known that our bases in the Far East were not at all provided with everything necessary to support the fleet: the ship repair capabilities were relatively weak, which required "driving" the squadron from the Baltic to Vladivostok and back. And if the ships turned out to be in reserve, it was worth it to at least sensibly spend time, having spent the repair they needed as far as possible. But the governor, in the best traditions of “as if something did not work out,” approved a solution that was excellent in its half-heartedness: yes, the ships were taken to the reserve, but at the same time they had to maintain 24-hour readiness “for the hike and the battle”. Of course, with such an order no repair was possible. An exception was made only for the battleship Sevastopol, which was allowed to have 48-hour readiness, which allowed repairing the last machine and the main caliber tower.

If the governor believed that the war on the nose could begin at any time (24-hour readiness for battle!), Then in no case should ships be put in reserve, and the governor could decide this question on his own, in the extreme case appealing for approval to the sovereign. If he believed that there would be no war, then he should take the opportunity to provide maintenance for the squadron. Instead, in the "best" traditions of "as if something did not work out," Admiral Alekseev did neither.

How did the squadron live at this time? We return to the memoirs of V. Cherkasov:

“For two and a half months, complete peace reigned. I don’t know what was done in the diplomatic sphere, but in Arthur there were two balls for the governor, evenings and concerts in the Maritime and Garrison meetings, etc. ”


And only 19 on January 1904 of the year, after standing in reserve even more than 2,5 of the month, the squadron finally received an order to begin the campaign.

How did this affect the level of combat training? It is known that having once learned to ride a bicycle, you will never forget this simple science, but the military craft is much more difficult: in order to maintain a high level of combat readiness, you need regular training. The experience of the Black Sea Fleet, which in 1911 due to a lack of finances, was forced to take a three-week break in combat training, is quite indicative here:

“The reduction of allocations for the fleet made the squadron 7 Jun re-enter the armed reserve; as a result of the termination of the practice of shooting, the accuracy of shooting on all ships decreased, as it turned out, almost doubled. Thus, “Memory of Mercury”, instead of the 57% achieved earlier, from hits from 152-mm guns with the resumption of firing, only 36% could achieve.

Study at sea was resumed only on July 1 under the command of Vice Admiral I. F. Bostrem, newly appointed commander of the naval forces of the Black Sea.


In other words, even a slight interruption in classes caused serious damage to the squadron's combat capability, and only in combination with the departure of the most experienced old servicemen ... That's what the squadron chief O.V. reported about the readiness of the forces entrusted to him. Stark (Report to Viceroy Alekseev on 22 in January 1904):

"Short-term, by necessity, this voyage (the squadron sailed on January 21. - Approx. Ed.) Showed all its benefits after being parked in reserve, the reversal of many officers, the recent joining of new ones not accustomed to squadroning, more than fifteen hundred ships senior servicemen, of whom one third were specialists who served many years in this squadron.

The maneuvering of large ships and signal production on them, for these reasons and due to the autumn replacement of not only old signalmen, but also many navigator officers, leave much to be desired and require new practice, because, in addition to speed of execution, attention and knowledge is lost, not only in the squadron rules, but also in general basic instructions».


Before the war, 4 remained of the day.

In general, we can say with sadness that the squadron of the Pacific Ocean that entered the war on the night of 27 in January turned out to be much weaker than itself as of 1904 in the fall and the “arrogance” of the governor, Admiral Alekseev who managed to organize an armed reserve of ships that had just lost a lot of old servicemen and received replenishment by recruits.

What's next? On the very first night, the two strongest Russian battleships were undermined as a result of a sudden attack by Japanese destroyers, but what was done on the squadron to avoid such sabotage? Recall V. Semenov, "Payback":

“- But couples? network? lights? guard and security vessels? - I asked ...

- Oh, what you say! You don't know for sure! .. Could the squadron leader order this? We had the permission of the governor! ..

- Why didn't you ask? Did not insist? ..

- Not asked! .. How many times have asked! And not only in words - the admiral filed a report! .. And in the report with a green pencil the resolution - “Prematurely” ... Now they explain it differently: some say that they were afraid that our warlike preparations could be taken for a challenge and will speed up the onset of the gap, while others as if on 27, it was intended to solemnly announce the envoys ’recall, prayer, parade, appeal to become breasts, etc. ... But the Japanese were in a hurry for one day ...

- Well, and the impression made by the attack? Mood on the squadron? ..

- Well ... impression? “... When, after the first surprise attack, the Japanese disappeared, the firing subsided, but the frenzy has not yet passed,” our good-natured fat man Z. turned to the Golden Mount and with tears, but shouted with such malice in his voice: “They waited ? Infallible, all-brightest! .. ”And so on (inconvenient to print). That was the mood ... I think the general ... "


Then the January 27 morning fight. In the light of the above, there is no need to wonder: “Why did the mid-caliber artillery of the Russian squadron shoot one and a half times worse than the Japanese?” Rather, you should ask: “How did the Russian commanders manage to shoot off only one and a half times worse than the Japanese? ". All the more surprising that ten and twelve-inch heavy guns fired slightly worse than the Japanese. It can even be concluded that the system of training domestic gunners was in itself quite at the level, because if you recall the results of the shooting of the cruiser Memory of Mercury in 1911 before three weeks of standing in an armed reserve (57%) and after it (36%) , then we will see a drop in accuracy in 1,58 times, and how much did the accuracy drop after demobilization and 2,5-month standing on the Pacific Ocean squadron? And how would this skirmish with the Japanese fleet go if our 27 squadron of January 1903 r were trained at the level of the early autumn of 1903 of the year? The author of this article, of course, cannot say this for certain, but he assumes that in this case the accuracy of the Russian shooting could well surpass the Japanese.

Interestingly, Heyhatiro Togo, apparently, was not satisfied with the accuracy of its commander. Unfortunately, the author of this article does not have information about how the frequency and quality of the exercises of Japanese artillerymen have changed: however, it is beyond doubt (and we will see this later) that the Japanese improved their skills by the 28 July battle of 1904. Thus, the Japanese fired better at the beginning of the war, but they continued to improve their art, while at the same time our ships after the start of the war and before arrival at Port Arthur admiral S.O. Makarov was not engaged in intensive combat training. There were both objective and subjective reasons. Of course, some serious training for the crews of the Tsesarevich and Retvizan battleships before the ships returned to service was impossible. But no one interfered with the preparation of other ships for battle, of course, except for “take care and not risk it!”, Which hung over the squadron.

One can argue for a long time on whether Stepan Osipovich Makarov was a talented naval commander, or as such was made by popular rumor. But it should be recognized that it was precisely S. O. Makarov who took the only steps that were right at that time, encouraging the squadron by personal example:

“- At Novik! Flag - on the "Novik"! - suddenly, as if choking with excitement, the signalman shouted.


The admiral immediately began combat training and the coordination of the powers entrusted to his command. C.O. Makarov believed in the squadron’s ability to defeat the Japanese, but he understood that this would be possible only when he had at his disposal fired, perfectly trained and inspired crews, commanded by energetic and capable of independent decisions of commanders. This is exactly what the admiral did: he started systematic combat operations (destroyer operations), he gave people the opportunity to prove themselves and at the same time did not allow the Japanese to gird themselves. The trainings were conducted extremely intensively, but at the same time S. O. Makarov began personnel changes: for example, the commander of the squadron battleship Sevastopol was replaced by the well-known commander of Novik N.O. Essen, others were planned for this replacement.

No matter how correct the S.O. Makarov, for the month with a little that was released to him by the command of the Arthur squadron, he simply did not have time to “draw out” the powers entrusted to him to the proper level. The death of Stepan Osipovich Makarov put an end to all his endeavors, at the head of the port-arthur squadron stood a man to whom the personnel did not trust and who very quickly turned Makarov's undertakings. Of course, we are talking about the governor, Admiral Alexeyev. Of course, his almost three-week "management" of the situation did not improve at all: he again returned to "take care and not risk", again the ships defended in the harbor in the presence of the Japanese fleet.


The squadron battleship "Sevastopol" under the flag of the governor, April 1904.

However, as soon as it became known about the upcoming landing of the Japanese ground army in Bitszyvo, which is only 60 miles from Port Arthur, the governor left Port Arthur in a great hurry.

It happened on April 22, and now, before the arrival of the new commander, Wilhelm Karlovich Vitgeft, whose flag in the 11.30 of the same day was raised on the battleship Sevastopol, should have performed his duties.

To be continued ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    19 September 2016 07: 04
    Sumptuously good Read in one go smile Chic plus.
    I had a chance to read a number of both fiction and documentary works and monographs about the Russo-Japanese War. And personally, I agree with the author 100%. History indeed has a number of examples of victories of the weaker over the strong, for it is not ships that are fighting, but people. And even "a herd of rams led by a lion is stronger than a herd of lions led by a ram" smile Therefore, it should be noted that the general psychological state of the Arthurian sailors was many times worse than the state of the Japanese. Add to this the suppression of local initiative, the bureaucratic nature of the entire control system, the almost complete absence of combat training, the belief in God's will (miracles happen to those who do something, and not those who do nothing). Makarov’s attempt was inconclusive in view of the objective reason (death), which further undermined the desire to do something. Even if the lower classes wanted to do something, the upper classes could not for the reasons described above. Well, in those days I couldn’t wag a tail with a dog request
    The fish rots from the head ... what
    Once again - to the author a chic plus hi .
    1. +3
      19 September 2016 09: 21
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Read in one go

      Thank you, we are trying!:)
      Quote: Rurikovich
      History really has a number of examples of victories of the weaker over the strong, for people are not fighting ships, but

      Certainly
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Therefore, it should be noted that the general psychological state of the Arthurian sailors was many times worse than the state of the Japanese.

      Yes, how can I say? :) Under Makarov, there certainly isn’t - as soon as they felt on the squadron that the smell was real, the morale went up very high, I don’t know if the Japanese had something like that :)
      Quote: Rurikovich
      even if the lower classes wanted to do something, the upper classes could not, for the reasons described above.

      This is yes, alas.
      1. avt
        +3
        19 September 2016 10: 18
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Under Makarov, it certainly wasn’t - as soon as they felt on the squadron that the smell was real, the morale rose very high, I don’t know if the Japanese had something like that :)
        request Although Makarov did not have the opportunity to be a naval commander and with Napoleon's - “Is he lucky?” Arthur somehow exhausted himself. BUT he was a real leader! And from him the subordinates would NEVER hear anything, not only in combat, in general, they wouldn’t hear any situation - "I am not a naval commander." According to Alekseev in the article everything is in the suit good A stupid thief, not like Potemkin Tavrichesky. Although the level and complexity of the tasks are quite comparable, well, if you take into account the technical aspect of the times in which these historical personalities acted, hence the personnel distribution and the same Makarov in the form of a "white crow" with his own "unconventional" methods.In the very beginning of the article, Andrey hit the mark, maybe not very consciously
        Having considered the brief biographies of the commanders in the previous article, we are moving to the state of the 1 Pacific squadron at the time when Rear Admiral V. K. Vitgeft temporarily took over the post. D. Commander Pacific Ocean Squadron. It must be said that by that time the state of our naval forces left much to be desired, and this applied both to the ship staff and to the preparation of teams for battle.
        V.I.O. !!!! Exactly what VRIO is in fact and in spirit! And subordinates of a temporary worker smell in their gut! For those such as for Makarov, they do not follow his orders unconditionally up to the end. They always ignore them and jump off for a completely justifiable reason. This is what I meant when I said that Vitgeft brought the ships out of a chance. Rely on fate, not believing in success and ..... actually received by faith request in view of the lack of ability to turn the tide of events.
        1. +5
          19 September 2016 11: 35
          Quote: avt
          V.I.O. !!!! Exactly what VRIO is in fact and in spirit! And subordinates of a temporary worker smell in their gut!

          Yes, yes - although on Vitgeft, it seems, some shadow of hope among the naval was that he would lead everything differently than the governor. However, if there was hope, it died instantly - "Magna Carta of Abdication" and the Sabbath.
          Quote: avt
          According to Alekseyev, the article is all in the suit good Thief is stupid, not like Potemkin Tauride.

          Not only is a thief, but also a coward apparently.
          Quote: avt
          Oh, he was a real leader! And from him the subordinates would NEVER, not only in combat, in general, would not hear any situation - "I am not a naval commander."

          That's for sure :))) I do not consider Makarov sinless, but he saw the root and although he made mistakes, let’s say, not more often than that. And in the war, it’s not infallible that wins, but the one who makes less mistakes than the enemy :)
      2. -3
        18 July 2021 13: 28
        "on you, God, that we do not want" - there is no such thing. Right; "It's not good on you, which is not good for us." Here's the thing:
        this Ukrainian proverb; on tebe, nebozh ,, sho meni worthless. Heavenly is an analogue to our "poor relative" (to be more precise, this nephew is neither gods nor gods (in the South Nor Russian dialect - poor fellow ("not rich"). hi
  2. +3
    19 September 2016 07: 16
    The situation with parking at the external roadstead is not so clear, due to the weakness of the towing and port facilities, it was not possible for the entire squadron to go to the external roadstead. The fact that under Makarov the squadron went on an external raid was without a third of large ships. Alekseev’s figure wasn’t so intended ... He was an excellently educated sailor, perhaps his biggest minus was that he often relied on the opinion of his circle, because such imbalances in shipbuilding programs before the RIA were connected with this.
    1. Cat
      0
      19 September 2016 07: 24
      We look forward to continue!
      Chuyka says in the second part we will be cut not for life, but for .........
      1. 0
        19 September 2016 07: 56
        The most fun will begin when the battle itself and its consequences will be sorted out. Then it will be hot !!!
    2. 0
      19 September 2016 09: 23
      Quote: Nehist
      Everything is not so clear with the parking on the external roadstead, due to the weakness of the towing and port facilities, it was not possible for the entire squadron to go to the external roadstead

      Suppose, but still, little has been done to protect the squadron.
      Quote: Nehist
      The figure of Alekseev is not so designed ...

      Everything can be :))) But so far I do not see anything positive behind him. Maybe help find?
      1. avt
        +1
        19 September 2016 10: 22
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The figure of Alekseev is not so designed ...
        Everything can be :))) But so far I do not see anything positive behind him. Maybe help find?

        Well, how is it not !!! ???? Well, my contemporaries quite
        Seven pounds of august meat
        The nickname of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, chief of the Navy, son of Alexander III.
        Moreover, this is attributed not to some kind of mischievous carbonarians-raznochintsev, but Cozy.
        1. +1
          19 September 2016 11: 37
          Quote: avt
          Seven pounds of august meat

          So this is the general admiral, not the governor :)))
          1. avt
            +2
            19 September 2016 11: 56
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So this is the general admiral, not the governor :)))

            Yeah! Campaign beguiled laughing But their hell there will take apart illegitimate from Alexandrov No. 2 and No. 3. August meat campaign from number 3? Aetot then from No. 2 it turns out wassat But in fact, it is also august meat, only the difference in pounds. Well, judging by the result.
        2. +1
          19 September 2016 14: 02
          This is not the one. Grand Duke - Alexey Alexandrovich Romanov. Viceroy - Evgeny Ivanovich Alekseev. (According to rumors, too, Romanov, but illegal)
        3. 0
          19 September 2016 19: 37
          "and Cozy."
          Who is that? I know all the greats: Suvorov, Kutuzov, and this one like Kozi? no, I do not know.
  3. +2
    19 September 2016 08: 17
    Thank you so much for the new cycle. It is for the sake of such cycles that it is worth being subscribed to VO. I read it as a novel by Pikul. (Although of course I can offend the author by comparison, so Pikul wrote fiction, but here is a clean story) But the feeling that I am reading a novel does not leave me. Thanks again and look forward to continuing
    1. +1
      19 September 2016 09: 25
      Quote: D-Master
      Thank you so much for the new cycle

      You're welcome! It's nice to know that besides me and a few other people I know, this is interesting to someone :)
  4. +4
    19 September 2016 08: 17
    The battle in the Yellow Sea, causes and consequences ... A distant base for the fleet in Port Arthur, carelessness in the outer roadstead in front of a small "Pearl Harbor" performed by Admiral Togo in the Russian squadron. Admiral Makarov, who did not pay due attention to the report on the ships seen earlier, an untracked forvayer, a mine explosion of the flagship battleship Petropavlovsk, the death of an admiral, which could affect the course of the war at sea. The battle itself in the Yellow Sea, already under the siege of Port Arthur, a fatal shell against the "Tsarevitsa", where the stupid mushroom-shaped roof of the armored conning tower played its tragic role, becoming a "catcher" of fragments. Finally, the battleship "Tsesarevich" itself, whose progenitor was "Zhoregiberi", in which the main thing was not noticed, 274 mm guns were placed in the side towers. Admiral Makarov, who advocated the largest caliber, only noted the shortcomings of the French project when designing battleships of the Borodino type, mainly due to poor metacentric height and a tendency to overturn, but did not notice that a Russian Dreadnought could be born, put instead of 274 mm for 305 mm guns, get four turrets (two onboard, to the bow and stern) of the main caliber. The entire Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 is indicative, the hatred, corruption, the theft of tsarism, and the shit-ass of Britain, which once again solved the problem with someone else's hands, not only inciting, but actually building a modern fleet to the Japanese. This will not prevent our "partners" from dragging Russia into the Entente, and the Russian government honestly fulfilling its allied obligations to crafty friends. On the diagram "Zhoregiberi ", which did not become a" Dreadnought "for Russia.
    1. +3
      19 September 2016 09: 29
      Quote: Per se.
      I didn’t notice that the Russian "Dreadnought" could be born, put 274 mm guns instead of 305 mm, get four turrets (two side, to the bow and stern) of the main caliber.

      I agree in many respects, but then the dreadnought couldn’t work out. There were reasons for this both of a tactical nature (at small shooting distances, which were then going to be fought, the advantages of a large caliber were not obvious) and economic (the battleships carefully rammed 12 tons)
      1. +2
        19 September 2016 09: 58
        Techniques for long-range shooting have already been developed. In particular, the work that appeared just before the war, Lieutenant Colonel of the Marine Artillery Corps V. A. Alekseev, "Firing Speed" (St. Petersburg, 1903)
        Or
        Shooting at a distance of up to 60-70 kb was provided for in the instruction, which at the end of 1903 was developed by the flagship artilleryman of the Vladivostok cruiser detachment, Lieutenant Baron V.E. Grevenits. You can also highlight N.N. Kholodovsky with his "Experience in tactics of squadron combat" (Marine collection. 1903. No. 4-7).
        Notice this is all before the REV appears. That is, in full there was an opportunity to create the first Drennote with mono-caliber artillery. I don’t remember anyone, but someone from the shipbuilders proposed this option and it was in a displacement of 12-15000 thousand tons
        1. +2
          19 September 2016 11: 25
          Quote: Nehist
          Techniques for long-range shooting have already been developed

          Were not.
          Quote: Nehist
          In particular, the work that appeared just before the war, Lieutenant Colonel of the Marine Artillery Corps V. A. Alekseev, "Firing Speed" (St. Petersburg, 1903)
          Or
          Shooting at a distance of 60–70 kb was provided for in the instruction, which at the end of 1903

          Let's say :))) But there are several problems:
          1) These instructions did not imply an all-big-gan concept. Those. in order to come to this concept, it was necessary to conduct exercises according to these instructions and draw conclusions on them - there was nothing like this before the RNE, Rozhdestvensky shot 30 kb in the Baltic (on coastal targets) and once - 1TOE, all this is not enough .
          2) MGSH just looked at these instructions - i.e. they had it, they were studied, but not yet approved. Those. at the beginning of the REV they could not serve as a guide to action.
          3) And, finally, the most important thing :))) All the instructions to which you refer are from 1903. The tsesarevich was laid in 1898. Those who fought in Tsushima Borodino - 1901-02, it is clear that they were designed even earlier. Thus, none of the above could give us a dreadnought to the REV
          Quote: Nehist
          I don’t remember anyone, but someone from the shipbuilders proposed this option and it was in a displacement of 12-15000 thousand tons

          Well, you understand that this is absurd. Four towers of 305 mm will not fit in either 12 or 15 kilotons.
          1. +4
            19 September 2016 11: 55
            Greetings, Andrey! Yes, it is difficult to imagine that the then "brakes" from the fleet would have decided on such radical measures as a significant increase in displacement, which would have been inevitable, with a pair of two-gun turrets (in the bow and stern) and a pair of single-gun towers on the sides of 305 mm caliber (not to mention about two-gun on the sides). But, for such a remote theater of military operations as the Far East, and the Pacific region itself, it was the increase in displacement that gave the required characteristics of the cruising range, seaworthiness in general, firepower, armor protection, giving the quality of each large ship. Alas, okay, these are "yachts", but, excuse me, to skip the purchase of two new Italian armored cruisers, very opportunely offered by Italy, you have to be able to! Nowadays, but the current hauliers and bribe-takers have someone to learn from ... It is not surprising that with such an obstinate buyer from Russia, a more accommodating buyer was quickly found for the Italian cruisers, giving the new warships the names "Kasuga" and "Nissin". Whether the "Italians" fit our fleet or not, they should have been bought only so that they would not go to Japan, and the cruisers would really be useful to us. The whole history is a lesson for the worthwhile, just a "rustle of nuts", I personally have little interest in this, and there are a lot of lessons in the Russian-Japanese war of that era. In that sense, I cannot but thank for the plot, and, most importantly, it is interesting and meaningful.
            1. +4
              19 September 2016 13: 04
              Quote: Per se.
              Alas, okay, these are "yachts", but, excuse me, to skip the purchase of two new Italian armored cruisers, very opportunely offered by Italy, you have to be able to!

              That is yes. It’s clear that they aren’t in tactics for our fleet, but precisely for the sake of
              Quote: Per se.
              so that they do not go to Japan

              they should have been bought.
          2. +1
            19 September 2016 12: 05
            Well, the same thing, V.A. Stepanov still in 1884 proposed a project of an armadillo with four linear towers with eight 305mm guns .... and as far as I remember, everything at all in 11 thousand tons fit into the project ... Kuniberti also suggested a ship with a single caliber is true 203mm but with 20 nodal speed ... So, in full 20 years before the REV, the appearance of ships with a single caliber was justified. And in marine collection No. 5 of 1887 there is a very interesting article on the same topic. And the displacement limit was dictated by financial rather than technical reasons.
            1. +4
              19 September 2016 12: 33
              Gentlemen, this dispute boils down to the fact that a warship is a floating compromise of characteristics that depend on size, therefore, cost.
              Personally, my opinion is that you can cram four towers with 12000 8-mm guns into 305 tons. But just what will you have to sacrifice for this? Speed, reservation. Cruising range? After all, increasing the weight of weapons will require compensation for the weight of something else wink that is why all these tales about the failed Russian "dreadnought" remain a subjunctive mood, because neither the admirals, nor the ITC, nor the authorities were ready to make revolutionary changes to the projects. The British took a chance and won, not being afraid to increase the displacement and cost.
              Those. all the thoughts of the late 19th century were firmly tied to standards. And only attempts to break the framework in pursuit of benefits allowed to increase the size of ships.
              1. +1
                19 September 2016 12: 48
                I agree!!!! This is something that suffered me))) Too many mistakes before the war and in that war were made. By the way, Makarov proposed the concept of high-speed ships armed only with large-caliber guns and with minimal armor ...
                1. +1
                  19 September 2016 19: 19
                  Quote: Nehist
                  By the way, Makarov proposed the concept of high-speed ships armed only with large-caliber guns and with minimal armor ...

                  Makarov only voiced the concept of the Armstrong cruisers (also called the Elsvik cruisers) - a small fast ship (a cruiser is most suitable) with powerful weapons. Only such a concept was born in the late 80s of the nineteenth century, when the speed for a cruiser of 18 bridles was considered decent, and the level of fire control of the ships of that time was "by eye", so such ships had a chance of success. And Makarov was delighted with Armstrong's first Esperalda with its 254-mm cannons, which later became the Japanese Izumi with the replacement of the main caliber with 6-inch guns. And the same representatives were the Japanese "Naniwa" and "Takachiho", which at first had 260-mm guns and the same speed of 18 knots. That's what S.O. was delighted with. Makarov, but only a few years have passed, and with the improvement in the quality of fire control and the advent of rapid-fire guns, such cruisers no longer had superiority. And one should not forget about the qualitative improvements of ship boilers and steam engines. And the same Elsvik cruisers now had a speed of 21-24 bridles and rapid-fire artillery in the form of a set, depending on the type of ship, 120-152 mm guns. 203 mm guns were allowed, because. they still allowed for maintaining a relatively high rate of fire with a powerful projectile. These were in Chilean, Argentinean, Japanese (the well-known "dogs" "Kasagi", "Takasago", "Chit
                  Oze ")
                  Therefore, the concept for which Makarov favored changed very quickly over time and already did not meet the requirements for a number of requirements.
                  1. 0
                    21 September 2016 18: 01
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    Makarov only voiced the concept of Armstrong cruisers

                    So Amstrong was ordered by minor powers, and Britain reacted coldly to the new product. Coldness spread to rival countries. Only a little later appreciated.
              2. +2
                20 September 2016 07: 48
                "My personal opinion is that you can shove four towers with 12000-8-mm guns into the 305, just what will you have to sacrifice for this?", let's think about it. The Germans, creating much later their" battleship "-" pocket battleship "of the" Doichland "type, proceeded from the fact that it should have guns superior in power to those who could catch up with it, and a high speed in front of those The concept turned out to be quite successful, and the relatively powerful ship consisted of reasonable compromises, with a moderate displacement ("Admiral Scheer" 12100 tons). Who forced Russia to rest against a displacement of 10-12 thousand tons, moreover, the battleship "Mikasa "for Japan already exceeded 15 tons? The Americans could have made the same" Retvizan "for us as the forerunner of the" Dreadnought ", if our officials then wish six 000 mm guns (or eight), no, the project was squeezed to these ridiculous 305 tons of displacement, stuck in still light, but unreliable boilers instead of the ones offered. We signed an agreement to limit the displacement? No, banal greed under the pretext of "economy", with terry embezzlement. Finally, in Russia there were already ships with six guns of a specific caliber, this is a series of barbet battleships of the "Catherine II" type, pictured "St. George the Victorious". There is a good saying - a willing person seeks opportunities, and an unwilling person seeks reasons. Unfortunately, we were looking for reasons, and Russia could well have built a good battleship with six 12 mm guns in the range of 000-305 thousand tons of displacement.
                1. +1
                  20 September 2016 08: 13
                  Quote: Per se.
                  let's think.

                  Let's smile For starters, you do not need to mix together different eras of shipbuilding in order to prove your conclusions. In the discussions we are talking about the possibility of creating such a ship in the technological framework of the late 19th century.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Who forced Russia to rest against a displacement of 10-12 thousand tons, while the Mikasa for Japan already exceeded 15 tons

                  None. The country builds its ships (or orders abroad) based on its economic capabilities, and therefore, the criterion of price-quality-efficiency for each ship directly depends on the individuals who are in power. And if at that moment it seemed to them that it would be better to build roughly three armadillos of 12000 tons with 4-305 mm guns, than two 15000 tons with 4-305 mm guns too. It seems to be cheaper, and weapons too, but the fact that the speed is lower, the booking is worse, it’s a fee for saving. But everyone carries 4 -305mm guns. THIS is now we are reasoning, knowing what's what, and convince the minds of the past. wink
                  Quote: Per se.
                  The Americans could have made the same "Retvizan" for us, as a forerunner of the "Dreadnought", if our officials then wish six 305 mm guns (or eight), no project was squeezed to these ridiculous 12 tons of displacement, stuck in still light but unreliable boilers instead of the ones offered. Have we signed a displacement limitation agreement? No, banal greed under the pretext of "economy", with a double embezzlement.

                  You yourself answer your own questions why we did not build good ships.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Finally, in Russia there were already ships with six main-caliber guns, this is a series of barbet battleships of the "Catherine II" type, in the photo is "St. George the Victorious". There is a good saying - a willing person seeks opportunities, and an unwilling person seeks reasons. Unfortunately, we were looking for reasons, and Russia could well have built a good battleship with six 305 mm guns in the range of 15-16 thousand tons of displacement.

                  Here I disagree with you. Ships of the "Catherine II" type were a product of the currents in the brains of the naval commanders of the 60-70s of the 19th century, when ramming tactics prevailed in linear combat (the consequences of Lissa). Therefore, these essentially rams appeared with powerful longitudinal fire. And the same 4-305mm guns are fired on board and it is not a fact that the "Twelve Apostles" built later with the same 4-305mm guns but in 8000 tons (much cheaper "Ekaterin") will be weaker. So everything is relative and you need to take into account many objective and subjective moments in the appearance of certain ships. Both technical and economic with human wink
                  Asterisk for your opinion hi
                  1. +2
                    20 September 2016 10: 10
                    Yes, the epochs are different, if we are talking about a "pocket battleship" of the "Doichland" type, in fact a unique combat ship, a heavy cruiser with diesel engines, but the logic is independent of the era. You yourself called the ships of the "Catherine II" type a product of currents in the minds of naval commanders, these currents could arise earlier or later, in one direction or another, and it is not a fact that the barbets of "Catherine II" would not be transformed into towers, with the addition of three more fourth, nasal. All of the above I attributed primarily to the project based on the French Joregiberi, but the birth of the battleship-dreadnought could take place on the basis of the same "George the Victorious" or the battleship according to the American project, especially since the Yankees had already put on board two towers with 203 mm guns in addition to the main and traditional 305 mm guns, instead of four towers with 203 mm guns, it was quite possible to make two single-gun turrets with 305 mm, albeit with a slight increase in displacement, if it had not been done without it. It is a thankless task to speak for something that did not take place, you will always be left, if not in the fool, then against what really happened. There were proposals to make battleships with only "rapid-fire" 152 mm cannons, but there were also suggestions to have more of the largest guns. What happened, what happened, finally, the war with Japan could have been lost with the best ships, just like winning with what was. I think it is more interesting here not to state what has already happened, the obvious, but to try to think and draw conclusions from history, after all, history is important for that, otherwise we will have new tsushimas and "products of currents in the brains of naval commanders" that do not benefit the Russian fleet.
            2. +2
              19 September 2016 12: 56
              Quote: Nehist
              Well, the same thing, V.A. Stepanov still proposed a project of an armadillo with linearly located four turrets with eight 1884mm guns .... and as far as I remember, everything fit into 305 thousand tons of the project ...

              Naturally. Because the then two-gun 305-mm installation was almost three times lighter than the 305-mm tower of the "Tsarevich". But even at the same time, Stepanov believed incorrectly - only three two-gun mounts fit into the 11 thousandth Catherine.
              Quote: Nehist
              Kuniberti also offered a ship with a single caliber, though 203mm but with 20 knot speed

              Everything is correct. But the problem is that in those years (and even later) who didn’t offer anything (remember the water-armored destroyers), let alone the projects of "usimakhuchuyh" battleships - immeasurably. But it is still necessary to correlate the projects with the tactical views of that time. For example, the same project of Stepanov made some sense in the light of tactical views before the advent of rapid-fire artillery - and after its appearance, the stake on heavy guns could no longer be considered justified. I'll tell you even more - taking into account the rate of fire of the newest 305-mm blades, with which we fought in the RYA, the idea of ​​a single large caliber is sheer sabotage, since it was impossible to shoot from such guns
              Quote: Nehist
              So, in full 20 years before the REV, the appearance of ships with a single caliber was justified

              Yes. But 5 years before the REV - no longer.
              1. 0
                19 September 2016 13: 07
                This is how the concept of fast-gunners appeared after the Battle of Liss !!! But after that it took 20 years! The 305mm British drendnout did not differ much from the obukhovka))) And it was after the RYAW that they came to the conclusion that mono-caliber guns were just needed. Since Tsushima showed that at increased distances of 6-8 "shells do not penetrate armor, and since the rate of fire of 12" is not so hot, they decided to replace their quality with quantity
                1. +1
                  19 September 2016 13: 49
                  Quote: Nehist
                  So the concept of speed shooters appeared after the battle of Liss !!! But after it, 20 years have passed!

                  The concept - yes, but the rate of fire - a little later :))) In essence, it was like this - since the battleships received more and more powerful armor, the guns began to make it harder. To protect the armor from them, I had to pull it into the citadel, leaving the extremities unprotected. At this stage, Stepanov’s monster could still come to the court. And then came the speed gunners of Kane and Armostrong, capable, as it was then believed, of riddling the windows and drowning the ship without breaking through the armor. In this case, it does not matter how many guns of the main caliber will be on it - the dreadnought concession did not give a gain, but, as it was understood then, gave it quick-firing artillery and armored belts all over the waterline.
                  Quote: Nehist
                  305mm of the British Drendnout did not differ much from the jacks))

                  They differed fundamentally. On the RVN-ovskie guns, the rate of fire was approximately 1 round in 1,5-1,7 minutes. The charging cycle, provided that the charger is already loaded, was 90 seconds. Dreadnought has about 30 sec.
                  With the aforementioned rate of fire, shooting with 305 mm guns was impossible - too much will change in the interval between the salvos. Therefore, with all our instructions, we assumed shooting with a 6-dm gun, and only after the sight was determined should the 12-dm guns be involved
          3. avt
            +2
            19 September 2016 12: 53
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            ) And, finally, the most important thing :))) All the instructions to which you refer are from 1903. The tsesarevich was laid in 1898. Those who fought in Tsushima Borodino - 1901-02, it is clear that they were designed even earlier. Thus, none of the above could give us a dreadnought to the REV

            Exactly ! good “They didn’t finish the glory, let alone“ Andrew the First-Called ”with Paul! A special thank you "to uncle" Witte!
        2. 0
          20 September 2016 06: 39
          Titov in 1894 wrested a contest with two projects, but died
      2. Alf
        +1
        19 September 2016 19: 31
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Per se.
        I didn’t notice that the Russian "Dreadnought" could be born, put 274 mm guns instead of 305 mm, get four turrets (two side, to the bow and stern) of the main caliber.
        I agree in many respects, but then the dreadnought couldn’t work out. There were reasons for this both of a tactical nature (at small shooting distances, which were then going to be fought, the advantages of a large caliber were not obvious) and economic (the battleships carefully rammed 12 tons)

        Petropavlovsk was already unstable because of the high cent of gravity, and if even heavier towers with 12 dm on the sides were placed ... No matter how the Vase turned out.
    2. avt
      +3
      19 September 2016 12: 47
      Quote: Per se.
      Finally, the battleship "Tsesarevich" itself, whose progenitor was "Zhoregiberi", in which the main thing was not noticed, 274 mm guns were placed in the side towers. Admiral Makarov, who fought for the largest caliber

      Aya-ya-yay! Well, they didn’t overlook!wassat By the way - nothing
      Quote: Per se.
      Admiral Makarov, who advocated the largest caliber,

      On armored cruisers ?? Well, like, Novik "with a 12" gun bully The use of 6 "is quite justified in terms of the rate of fire and ......" Tsesarevich "with" Glory "with trained crews and competent use in the conditions for which they were designed - relying on a network of bases, proved to be excellent in the First World War in battles with dreadnoughts.
      Quote: Per se.
      but did not notice that a Russian "Dreadnought" could be born, put 274 mm guns instead of 305 mm, get four towers (two side, to the bow and stern) of the main caliber.

      And why did not the aircraft carrier stir it up ?? laughing Do you think the Dreadnought "only cannons? And where will you put the turbines? The same is with
      Quote: Per se.
      mainly due to poor metacentric height and a tendency to tip over,

      Look for at least the same Kostenko and you will be happy in learning about the metacentric height and overload of this project, but why it was formed. Again, look at the continuation in the face of "Andrey" (but not "from Chelyabinsk" laughing )
      Quote: Per se.
      The entire Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 is indicative, the hatred, corruption, the theft of tsarism, and the shit-ass of Britain, which once again solved the problem with someone else's hands, not only inciting, but actually building a modern fleet to the Japanese. This will not prevent our "partners" from dragging Russia into the Entente, and the Russian government honestly fulfilling its allied obligations to crafty friends.

      Who would argue, just not Az sinful, because he himself wrote about it.
  5. +4
    19 September 2016 10: 21
    Strongly plus! I look forward to continuing.
    By the way, I’m going to give birth to an article with a similar approach in the study on June 22 of the 41 year in the coming month. The basis will be an analysis of the experience of troops and commanders. I studied for myself, but the material turned out to be interesting, I think to share it with the people.
    1. +1
      19 September 2016 11: 27
      Quote: Alex_59
      Strongly plus!

      Thank you!
      Quote: Alex_59
      By the way, I’m going to give birth in the next month to an article with a similar approach in the study on June 22 of the 41st year.

      It will be very interesting. Once upon a time, I did analytics on the number of troops in the border districts - it was interesting, but this is just a small fragment of the overall picture. So - good luck and look forward to! drinks
    2. +3
      19 September 2016 12: 16
      Quote: Alex_59
      By the way, I’m going to give birth in the next month to an article with a similar approach in the study on June 22 of the 41st year.

      Oh, another promising and, hopefully, analytical article by an adequate author good hi
  6. +2
    19 September 2016 11: 05
    Hello fellow countryman! Of course +. I haven’t read an article (at one time, at work). But I can’t get past the hit table. The accuracy of the Japanese is 1,88 times higher than ours - nonsense. Why? Squadron combat, 75 mm guns should not be taken into account. Reasons: battle distances, it is impossible to adjust the shooting, sights, and the guns do not have the best commandants.
    And it turns out for 905 of our shots - 19 hits - 2,09% accuracy
    At 1351, a Japanese shot - 30 hits - accuracy - 2.22%.
    And it turns out that the Japanese shot 1,06 times more accurately than ours (agree that this is far from 1,88)
    With a compliment!
    1. 0
      19 September 2016 11: 48
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Hello fellow countryman!

      And hello to you!
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      But I can’t get past the hit table. The accuracy of the Japanese is 1,88 times higher than ours - nonsense.

      This is not nonsense, but pure mathematics :)) However, I agree that the 75 mm should be ignored - they are not indicative and I wrote about this in an article. See when there is time to read :)
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      And it turns out for 905 of our shots - 19 hits - 2,09% accuracy
      At 1351, a Japanese shot - 30 hits - accuracy - 2.22%.

      So it’s also not worth it. The fact is that hits should still be laid out in calibers. Because all the statistics of the RNE irrefutably testify - the larger the caliber - the greater the percentage of hits and 12-dm and 6-dm do not interfere.
      I suggest returning to the discussion after you read the article - I will gladly listen to your assessment of the reasons I have given :)))
      1. 0
        19 September 2016 18: 11
        Here I am. I read the article. I understand that everyone can offend an artist. WRITE and thank you for this. But in the table - 1, 88 times - too much. You contradict yourself. I wrote a number, and then you say: you do not need to summarize, you need to separate the calibers. So at YOU everything was divided, and then everything was crumpled.
        Yes, of course, the tops screwed up accuracy hit and la, la, la. But let's look for reasons, not build theories. They shot worse than the Japanese, This is a fact. Just not so disastrous. Blame the top - definitely. The crashes are not the same, the shells are not the same, the money is not the same, the admirals are not the same. Oh, I forgot, politics is not the same.
        But it was not so. There was a case, fatum. And in spite of the shells, who sent the most porosity?
      2. +1
        19 September 2016 19: 42
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        However, I agree that the 75 mm should be ignored - they are not indicative and I wrote about this in the article.

        It's just that many people may be confused by the number of 75-76-mm artillery on the ships of that time, but it seems to be not taken into account. You just need to accept that this is an anti-mine artillery and it has weight in the fight against destroyers and destroyers of that time, for which the weight of a three-inch shell is already sensitive. So such guns are essentially a tribute to the times and views in those days on the purpose of artillery on a ship. For me, they are also useless. It is much more unpleasant for a destroyer of that time to get a couple of 120-152-mm land mines than a dozen 75-current ones. And the rate of fire and the rate of guidance of the early-century guns made it possible to defend against destroyers with medium caliber battleships. So, it would be better if the weight of the three-inch batteries was spent on strengthening local booking and increasing the standard amount of medium caliber ammunition, or increasing the number of SK barrels. By the way, this came to the PMA. But the ships of the first line, and the cruisers of the 1st rank, had dozens (or even a couple of dozen) of absolutely useless weight in the form of 75-mm pukaloks. Their high-explosive shells are weak in power, they do little harm, armor-piercing shells are generally an anachronism for fighting destroyers. My personal opinion hi
        So your ignoring this caliber with a total calculation is quite adequate smile
        1. avt
          +1
          19 September 2016 19: 55
          Quote: Rurikovich
          You just need to accept that this is anti-mine artillery and it has weight in the fight against destroyers and destroyers of that time, for which the weight of a three-inch shell is already sensitive.

          No. Was already NOT sensitive to the then destroyers. In practice, they drove them with a larger caliber, up to 6 "
          Quote: Rurikovich
          So such guns are essentially a tribute to time and views in those days on the purpose of artillery on a ship.

          Rather, belching Marsoflot with different sizes on different decks. Well, somehow the idea of ​​abandoning the small things did not keep up with the technological progress in the supply of fireplugs and in the loading mechanisms of large calibers.
          Quote: Rurikovich
          By the way, this came to the PMA. But the ships of the first line, and the cruisers of the 1st rank, had dozens (or even a couple of dozen) of absolutely useless weight in the form of 75-mm pukaloks. Their high-explosive shells are weak in power, they do little harm, armor-piercing shells are generally an anachronism for fighting destroyers. My personal opinion

          Nah, definitely not your personal laughing in fact, contemporaries came through empirically - see how the same Vladivostok shooters practically at the end of the war. Well, the same "Russia" and "Thunderbolt", and then they added more in the Baltic. And theoretically, they offered all this to SROZU after commissioning, , Rurik ", well, to adjust this small-caliber zoo in 6", and put 8 "in the towers. BUT! The Supreme ordered to sculpt again like a sailing three-deck battleship. request But the sailing armament was not installed on Rossiya any more.
          1. +1
            19 September 2016 20: 22
            Quote: avt
            Was already NOT sensitive to the then destroyers. In practice, they drove them with a larger caliber, up to 6 "

            I agree. But it was more likely understood by the cruisers, because the comrades on the armadillos used six-inches for basic purposes. Cruising also more often went on assignments and they quickly reached the depravity of certain weapons of ships wink
            Quote: avt
            Rather, belching Marsoflot with different sizes on different decks. Well, somehow the idea of ​​abandoning the small things did not keep up with the technological progress in the supply of fireplugs and loading mechanisms of large calibers.

            For this, in the drawings and drawings, the views of naval commanders and retinues of His Majesty pleased the sides, bristling with dozens of trunks. So it will be more correct wassat The same series "Rurik" - "Russia" - "Gromob
            oh "on paper it looks just brutal. feel
            Quote: avt
            Definitely not your personal

            Personal, personal ... Within the framework of the forum
            Quote: avt
            really contemporaries came empirically - see how they changed the same Vladivostok practically at the end of the war

            Heard ... Until the thunder hits - the man does not cross himself. Here are just these weapons changes written in blood winked Indeed, during the repairs after the battle in the Korean Strait on 14.08.1904/75/XNUMX, those began to improve their ships, and those that went to Tsushima could not think about it yet and considered their ships still perfect and powerful. It will reach them, and the MTK, and the Naval Headquarters, before the WWII, because even in WWII the Bayans and Auroras had batteries of XNUMX-mm cannons.
            Quote: avt
            And theoretically - they offered all this to SROZU after the commissioning of "Rurik", well, to adjust this small-caliber zoo in 6 ", and put it in towers by 8. BUT! The Supreme ordered to sculpt again a la sailing three-deck battleship.

            But the British looked immediately frightened and built their own "Powerful" and "Terribble". Only then did they understand how they got into a mess ... But even without casualties, they realized the harmfulness of such a concept of the composition of weapons smile
  7. +3
    19 September 2016 11: 36
    Excellent, by the way, it would probably be worth mentioning one more aspect that inevitably influenced combat training (especially gunners) - the requirements of "economy" and, in general, the material interest of the naval leadership in it.
    Even the elementary supply of ships with practical shells and the construction of "shields" for this have always been associated with lengthy correspondence and attempts to save as much as possible ...
    1. +1
      19 September 2016 12: 34
      Quote: Taoist
      Fine

      Thank you!
      Quote: Taoist
      Even the elementary supply of ships with practical shells and the construction of "shields" for this have always been associated with lengthy correspondence and attempts to save as much as possible ...

      Nuuu, in terms of saving finances with an armed reserve, it can hardly be compared :))) And besides, one still gets the feeling that the squadron shot well before the war - not even looking at all the financial obstacles
      1. +1
        19 September 2016 13: 27
        Well, the very notion of "armed reserve" was invented precisely from "economy" ... Another question that in itself required additional flexibility which our system, let's say, "did not suffer". The already shortened period of real combat training was further reduced in the end ... And to be honest, there were no uniform training methods, apart from everything else, each commander de facto himself decided how much and what he would teach his crew and how much for this business to allocate time and money.
      2. +1
        19 September 2016 18: 02
        So individual ships could shoot well ... but as part of the squadron, count the ships and did not prepare ...
    2. 0
      20 September 2016 02: 45
      What does all this have to do with it if the quartermasters on the ships simply overmoistened the explosives in the shells to create the first "revolutionary situation"? Just like the overland quartermasters in Manchuria, and on the way to it, shoes rotted in a number of warehouses.
      There were hits on Japanese ships - there were almost no breaks.
      1. +2
        20 September 2016 10: 54
        You are confusing something here ... What does the intendants have to do with it? the story of the waterlogged pyroxylin is generally muddy - but it refers to the campaign of the second squadron ... We are talking about the "battle in the yellow sea" here. The question that "there were no gaps" is also more of a question for General Brink's detonators, and not for pyroxylin or supplies ... And it certainly does not apply to combat training.
        1. 0
          20 September 2016 11: 22
          What does the murky story have to do with the fact that they were all non-Russian, the story of Blanca's two revolutionary situations, and just as corrupted by the chain of warehouses on the road to Manchuria with soldier's shoes?
          1. 0
            20 September 2016 12: 18
            Where did you get this information? Again from the speculation of alternativeists? In the work on the REV I did not come across such information
            1. 0
              21 September 2016 13: 09
              Why aren't you like that? In the works of Lenin, something about creating a revolutionary situation came across? And also in any literature about the history of sabotage, especially during wars?
            2. 0
              22 September 2016 18: 06
              This Albanian-Canadian miracle has already been noted in the discussion of the previous part of this series of articles.
              Do not take it seriously, colleague. Well, unless applied psychiatry is part of your interests laughing
              1. 0
                22 September 2016 18: 12
                it’s clear that you haven’t visited these specialists for a long time ...
                1. 0
                  23 September 2016 08: 40
                  I don’t need anything. Only to the medical board for the rights, perhaps.
                  But to you, judging by your reports, it would often be necessary laughing
                  1. 0
                    23 September 2016 21: 07
                    Do you buy pills to look like a person on the black market? Nevertheless, go and surrender to them for analyzes, maybe they will forgive and write them out, otherwise it doesn’t look like a person at all.
  8. +1
    19 September 2016 11: 46
    By the way, in this regard, RYAV really became a catalyst that made all nations eventually revise the methods of training gunners. In particular, in the British navy appeared and became widespread "tootkotmetchik" - a simulator that made it possible to significantly simplify (and even reduce the cost) training of gunners of secondary equipment.
    In addition, in preparation, they finally began to pay attention not only to "individual training" but to prepare the entire fire control system.
  9. +3
    19 September 2016 12: 27
    Good day to all. The article is sensible. I'll bring in my "5 kopecks". As part of the 1st Pacific squadron, there were 2 more cruisers of the 2nd rank - they are "Dzhigit" and "Robber", but their combat value was not higher than that of the "Bully".
    I also want to say that by 28.07.1904 the Japanese fleet also suffered some losses (though incompatible with the Russian ones), namely the cruiser "Ioshino", the advice note "Miyako", the fighter "Akatsuki", destroyers No. 48 and No. 51 and gunboats Oshima died. "and" Kaimon "
    1. +2
      19 September 2016 13: 01
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Explanatory article

      Thank you!
      Quote: VohaAhov
      As part of the 1st Pacific squadron there were 2 more cruisers of the 2nd rank - these are "Dzhigit" and "Robber"

      Yes, I should have mentioned them - I forgot, however, thanks for reminding me!
      Quote: VohaAhov
      I also want to say that by July 28.07.1904, XNUMX, the Japanese fleet also suffered some losses

      So it’s by July 28.07, and so far I have only until Vitgeft took office, i.e. until 22.04/XNUMX
    2. +1
      19 September 2016 19: 26
      Quote: VohaAhov
      As part of the 1st Pacific squadron, there were 2 more cruisers of the 2nd rank - they are "Dzhigit" and "Robber", but their combat value was not higher than that of the "Bully".

      All of them were sail-screw clippers of 1880 with a stroke of 11-12 knots and old cannons in 152 mm and 107 mm, shooting smoke powder. Because their combat value was practically zero and they could not be remembered wink
  10. +3
    19 September 2016 12: 45
    Question: “Could the governor, Admiral Alekseev on the eve of the war, prevent such a demobilization?”, Alas, remains open to the author of this article.


    “5)“ At the appointed time, replenish all lower special specialists and even form an extra set of such with the Kwantung crew in case of loss ”.

    “If the training squads of the Baltic Sea and the cruiser of the 1st rank“ Dmitry Donskoy ”are not able to prepare the required number of people, then the training of a part of the specialists should be assigned to the training squad of the Black Sea.”

    “As a last resort, call on the spare in the Baltic and Black Seas, and more experienced specialists. being in active serviceѣ, send to the Pacific Ocean “.”

    This excerpt from a note proposed in the fall of 1903 to Rozhestvensky Z.P. In his resolution on this item below, he did not even pay attention to the proposal to strengthen the Pacific squadron by additional specialists.

    "That" Donskoy "with" Dzhigit "(the 2nd rank cruiser" Dzhigit "was a training ship for training quartermasters for the Pacific squadron) is also a fact that does not appeal to the further care of the Main Naval Headquarters."

    It seems to me that with this attitude of the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Alekseev E.I. has little to do in this matter.
    1. +2
      19 September 2016 12: 58
      In fact, his proposals simply went on the brakes, as far as I remember in the armed reserve, he also sent the 1st TOE not of his own free will and was trivial because of a lack of finances, especially since he and Witte did not perpetuate each other
      1. +1
        19 September 2016 14: 56
        Quote: Nehist
        as far as I remember, he also sent the 1st TOE to his armed reserve not of his own will, but corny because of a lack of finance


        Totally agree with you. Often they write about the second set of shells, or rather, about its absence, although by half it was still manned. But the fact that the squadron had to be equipped with coal also is not often seen. To start financing the construction of the dock in Port Arthur, Admiral Alekseyev E, I. had to turn personally to the king. Well, the equipment of the second exit for the squadron, which was able to be included in the budget for the port arrangement, had to be financed before 1910 !!! In such circumstances, it is difficult to maintain the combat readiness of the squadron.
        1. 0
          19 September 2016 15: 51
          Quote: Nehist
          as far as I remember in the armed reserve, he also 1TOE not of his own free will

          Quote: 27091965i
          Totally agree with you

          Unfortunately, I cannot lay claim to exhaustive knowledge on this issue, but I have never met any documents where the governor tried to somehow solve the issue of the armed reserve in 1903. That the armed reserve was introduced everywhere and not by the will of the governor - this is understandable, but having the threat of war, the governor had to protest, if necessary - appeal to the king.
          Perhaps you have documents of this kind?
          Quote: 27091965i
          This excerpt from a note proposed in the fall of 1903 to Z. Rozhestvensky

          Alekseev?
          1. +1
            19 September 2016 17: 04
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Alekseev?


            Hello Andrey. This was proposed at a special meeting by Captain 2nd Rank Brusilov. The attitude of the Main Naval Headquarters to proposals for the additional staffing of the squadron was shown.

            “Upon the arrival of Admiral Alekseyev in Port-Arthur in 1900, the question was raised about the need to build a dock for the battleships, but the following resolution of the Naval Ministry of Naval Navigation asked for this submission:“ I do not find it necessary because I have the authority to. The British do not build a dock in Weihaveѣ, but send ships to Hong Kong. ”

            You think with such an attitude he would be able to do more in Port Arthur. It seems to me at that time, as now there were groups that fought both for influence on the tsar and for greater access to governing the state. What is very much harmed Russia.
            1. +2
              19 September 2016 18: 06
              Quote: 27091965i
              “Upon the arrival of Admiral Alekseyev in Port-Arthur in 1900, the question was raised about the need to build a dock for the battleships, but the following resolution of the Naval Ministry of Naval Navigation asked for this submission:“ I do not find it necessary because I have the authority to. The British do not build a dock in Weihaveѣ, but send ships to Hong Kong. ”

              But the minds of those days could not but know that in the event of a war with Japan, they had to stomp again through the narrow gates of the Tsushima Strait in full view of the adversary. And it is not a fact that he would sit silently and watch the enemy change the operational situation. It is one thing when there is room for tactical maneuver (in our case, the sea), another thing when there is only one way. So, no matter how much the Manager of the Ministry of the Sea wanted to be either smart or something like the British, but he didn’t succeed. winked
            2. 0
              19 September 2016 18: 07
              Good evening Igor!
              Quote: 27091965i
              You think with that attitude he would be able to do more in Port Arthur

              Maybe (and even most likely) would not have been possible, but I had to try.
          2. +1
            19 September 2016 17: 08
            Alekseev also protested since for the remaining fleets the armed reserve was maintained since 1898, and in the TOE only since 1902
  11. +3
    19 September 2016 18: 56
    Mdya ... It's sad ....
    But if you count, then (in the case of more active stirring) at the beginning of 1904, in the case of mobilization of forces (it is banal - to stimulate to follow from Spezia directly to Port Arthur, and not to Bizerte; to pull up the Vladivostok cruisers, "Varyag" with a stationary services withdrawn) could have been included in the 1st Pacific 5 EBR, 3 battleship cruisers, 4 armored cruisers against the Japanese 6 + 6. This is despite the fact that the "Bogatyr" in terms of protection was something between the armored and armored cruisers.
    In such a scenario, the Japanese could think very strongly about the equality of forces and decide to wait for the "Garibaldians" - well, we would have got some head start in time.
    1. +1
      19 September 2016 18: 58
      Damn, in terms of stimulating to go from La Spezia to Port Arthur, I missed the "Oslyabi commander".
    2. +1
      19 September 2016 20: 00
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      This is despite the fact that the "Bogatyr" in terms of protection was something between the armored and armored cruisers.

      "Bogatyr" certainly did not go on protection between armored and armored cruisers request It was the product of the terms of reference for "6000-ton reconnaissance cruisers with 23 knot travel and 12-152 mm guns." It's just that the series was located at foreign shipyards in different firms, therefore the Krum's Varyag, Askold Shikhau and Vulkanovsky Bogatyr turned out to be so different with the same terms of reference and with the same characteristics. It's just that the Bogatyr turned out to have well-protected artillery due to a decrease in the range navigation (a decrease in coal reserves went to strengthen the reservation). Here, by the way, is a typical example of the difference in the characteristics of one type of ships from the difference in the approach when designing for a given displacement ... And so this is an ordinary armored cruiser. Simply in a successful performance, which is typical for the Germans and which served as the ancestor of a series of similar ships ("Oleg", "Ochakov", "Memory of Mercury" and the "Vityaz", which was quickened on the slipway), which, by the way, were no longer German execution, but ours, therefore and ran only with 20,5 - 21,5 knots speed, which already worsened their tactical characteristics. hi
      1. +1
        19 September 2016 20: 59
        This refers to the protection of the GK guns.
  12. +2
    20 September 2016 01: 51
    in addition to quantitative (and qualitative) problems of the materiel, there was also the issue of training crews, and here the Russians were doing very badly. In general, we can assume that when firing the main caliber of the battleships, the Japanese were slightly superior to the Russians (by 10-15%), but their average artillery was one and a half times more accurate

    Dear Andrey, it is more likely that the matter is that the Japanese have telescopic sights that were absent at the First Pacific Squadron, as well as more Barr & Stroud rangefinders. Remove these same sights from Japanese guns, leave them with only one rangefinder on each battleship, replace Fisk’s stadometers with Myakishev’s angle meters, and the big question is, who will show the best shooting results under the same conditions, Russians or Japanese. Personally, I would not bet on the Japanese.
    On the attached images:
    Japanese six-inch gun with a tripod for an optical sight, the scheme of which is attached.

    1. +1
      20 September 2016 11: 05
      Yes, perhaps this should be mentioned separately, you are absolutely right! drinks
    2. 0
      21 September 2016 18: 13
      Quote: Comrade
      rangefinders Barr & Stroud

      Some sources say that the range finders on the TOE-1 ships were ordered before the war, but they did not reach Arthur.
      The British company Barr & Stroud developed the rangefinder FA2 in 1901, and its new modification - FA3 - in 1903; the first foreign buyers of these rangefinders were the Japanese. They very quickly adopted new British developments and methods, which dramatically increased the effectiveness of their naval artillery. All Japanese battleships were equipped with four Barr & Stroud RAZ rangefinders, which gave high accuracy of fire at a distance of 7,3 km, although they had a rather large error. Japanese armadillos were also equipped with 24-fold telescopic sighting devices of the 1903 model. Russian ships were significantly worse equipped with British equipment, which greatly impeded the development of their naval artillery. At the beginning of the war in 1904, the Retvizan and Tsesarevich had one Barr & Stroud FA2 rangefinder, and the Borodino class armadillos later received one Barr & Stroud FA3 rangefinder. At the same time, none of the battleships of the 1st Pacific Squadron had telescopic sights.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Yes, perhaps it should have been mentioned separately.

      But about the supply, coal brands (which will affect the speed), the condition of boilers, refrigerators, food, will we talk? Or just a purely personality / accuracy / situation.
      1. +1
        21 September 2016 18: 24
        Quote: Retvizan
        At the same time, none of the battleships of the 1st Pacific Squadron had telescopic sights.

        I forgot to add why it happened with optics.
        At the beginning of the 1905th century, Russia did not have its own optomechanical industry. Almost all devices had to be imported from abroad. In several cities of the country there were small optical workshops, which were mainly engaged in "screwdriver assembly" from foreign parts and assemblies. But their existence did not in any way affect the overall bleak picture. Naturally, this situation could not continue indefinitely. A really serious undertaking was the organization in 1863 of an optical workshop at the Obukhov plant. After the catastrophic defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, as a result of which most of the Russian navy was destroyed, the question arose about starting the production of domestic optical devices, primarily for warships. The workshop was initiated by the outstanding Russian scientist, shipbuilder, academician Alexei Nikolaevich Krylov (1945-1899). A great contribution to laying the foundations of the domestic optical-mechanical industry was made by the engineer-general, graduate of the Naval Cadet Corps and the Mikhailovskaya Artillery Academy Ya.N. Perepelkin, who in XNUMX created the original telescopic sight, first tested in the Tsushima battle. Alas, the high quality of the device could not affect the result of the battle.
        And there is also information that Barr & Stroud rangefinders could have been purchased after the breakdown of diplomatic relations from Japan itself. In addition, unofficially, Japan and the Republic of Ingushetia traded all the time, from ammunition to food and coal.
      2. 0
        23 September 2016 03: 44
        British firm Barr & Stroud developed the FA2 rangefinder in 1901

        Not quite so, the production of this model began in 1895.
        Borodino-class battleships later received one Barr & Stroud FA3 rangefinder

        In two.
  13. +2
    20 September 2016 04: 49
    But such a situation should not have been delayed: Japan had already spent loans for the construction of the fleet, and there was no more money for its further buildup.

    Dear Andrew, just in 1903, the Japanese Ministry of the Navy adopted the Third Shipbuilding Program (§ 10 and § 12 "extraordinary expenses"), and 100 yen were allocated for it. This shipbuilding program was, in retrospect, the first part of the "Shipbuilding and Port Equipment" appropriation program approved by the Ministry of the Navy behind closed doors in 000. The second part called for the allocation of 000,00 yen. Considering the parity of the ruble and the yen, as well as the fact that the construction of a ton of ship displacement in England was one and a half times cheaper than in Russia, this is quite serious money.
    1. 0
      20 September 2016 11: 04
      Dear Valentine, welcome!
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear Andrew, just in 1903, the Japanese Ministry of the Navy adopted the Third Shipbuilding Program (§ 10 and § 12 "extraordinary expenses"), and 100 yen were allocated for it. This shipbuilding program was, in retrospect, the first part of the shipbuilding and port equipment appropriation program.

      Did I understand correctly that it was still not about shipbuilding, but about equipping bases? Just shortly before the RYA, the Japanese ordered the last pair of Katori armored carriers, which entered the fleet only in 1906, and they were able to lay down the next armored cruisers only in 1905.
      Those. yes, they continued to build a fleet, but the pace no longer allowed them to count on dominance.
      1. +2
        21 September 2016 02: 02
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Did I understand correctly that it was still not about shipbuilding, but about equipping bases? Just shortly before the RYAV, the Japanese ordered the last pair of "Katori" armored carriers, which entered the fleet only in 1906, and they were able to lay down the next armored cruisers only in 1905. yes, they continued to build the fleet, but the pace no longer allowed them to count on dominance

        Dear Henry, I do not know the contents of this program, however, let's see what the Japanese put into operation by 1908.
        The battleships "Katori" and "Kashima", the armored cruisers "Tsukuba" and "Ikoma". How much they cost, I do not know, however, the armored cruiser "Kurama" which entered service in 1911

        cost 14 yen, that is, cheaper than the battleship of the Borodino class. One hundred million yen could have built seven such armored cruisers, and most likely all eight.
        Suppose the Russian-Japanese war did not start because "Emperor Alexander III" and "Oslyabya" managed to come to the Far East, and there a year later the other four "Borodinians" approached. Well, the Japanese did not dare. In the next three years, the First Pacific Squadron had nowhere to wait for serious replenishments, and now let's imagine that three years pass, and the four mentioned by your humble servant are successively entering service. Here is your dominance again in 1908, which was lost in 1905 with the arrival of the five "improved" "Tsarevichs".
        I think Japan would never have decided to prepare for a war with Russia if it had not been encouraged and pushed by a variety of forces from the West. So the Japanese would always be given money to develop the fleet and to achieve superiority over Russia at sea.
        1. 0
          21 September 2016 11: 14
          Greetings, dear fellow countryman!
          Quote: Comrade
          In the next three years, the First Pacific Squadron of serious replenishment was nowhere to wait

          Why? Already "Andreev Pervozvannykh" would have been commissioned without fail, and what and how much they would have laid next - no one knows. After all, we do not have a war, there are no global revisions of the Andreev projects, funds are given to the fleet on a regular basis, etc.
          1. 0
            22 September 2016 02: 12
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Why? Already "Andreev Pervozvannykh" would be commissioned necessarily

            Doubtful.
            "Emperor Paul I" was built at the Baltic Shipyard (as we remember, "Emperor Alexander III" was built there fifty four months). Work on the slipway began in mid-October 1904, and so that he ended up in Port Arthur in late February - early March 1908 (the last of the four mentioned, the armored cruiser Ikoma, entered service on March 24, 1908), his the construction, taking into account the three-month transition to the Far East, had to meet thirty eight months. This is exactly how much it took to build the "Prince Suvorov", but this was already the second ship of this type, built at the Baltic Shipyard, and the shipyard personnel had already gained experience. However, the battleship did not even go through the entire cycle of tests. And "Emperor Paul I" is a ship of a new project, in addition, a larger one, hence the doubts that it would have been built and accepted into the treasury in less than forty months.
            "Andrew the First-Called" was built on Galerny Island (as we remember, "Eagle" was built there fifty nine months). Work on the slipway began in September 1903, which means that in order to reach Port Arthur a couple of weeks before the commissioning of the armored cruiser "Ikoma", it had to be built and handed over to the treasury for fifty months.
            Whatever one may say, the battleships of the "Andrey Pervozvanny" type did not make it to the Far East before the Japanese commissioned the battleships "Katori" and "Kashima", the armored cruisers "Tsukuba" and "Ikoma", built under the Third Shipbuilding Program.
            1. 0
              22 September 2016 05: 40
              Here I don’t agree a lot, after Tsushima the construction site was frozen for almost a year and a half for revision, so we had time to complete it, but again everything will run into the organization hi
              1. 0
                23 September 2016 03: 29
                And you can count for yourself how many months are between the bookmark of "Emperor Paul I" and the commissioning of the armored cruiser "Ikoma". And then compare the figure obtained with the construction time of the mentioned battleships of the Borodino class. Their construction proceeded without any hindrance.
            2. 0
              23 September 2016 12: 11
              Quote: Comrade
              "Emperor Paul I" was built at the Baltic plant (as we remember, "Emperor Alexander III" was built there for fifty-four months). Works on the slipway began in mid-October 1904

              It is true, but here life is rich in nuances of shades - if not for the general fuss with the outbreak of war. Melnikov writes:
              In 1904, the war with Japan, which struck the bureaucracy, struck the world and Russian society with the unceasingly multiplying losses and failures of the Russian fleet. Projects of new armadillos became of little relevance. In such circumstances, the Baltic Shipyard took care of the feverish completion of three armadillos, the construction of a series of submarines, the business trip of 200 workers to repair ships in Port Arthur, and the preparation for sailing of ships of the 2nd and then the 3rd Pacific squadrons.

              All this time, the project of "Emperor Paul I" had to be dealt with only in fits and starts. The whole year was spent on its revision. All this, torn between the concerns of the builder and the chief ship engineer of the plant, Colonel V.Kh. Offenberg (PM Melnikov "Battleship" Andrey Pervozvanny ", St. Petersburg, 2003). It was possible to start work on the slipway only in mid-October 1904.

              In addition, they could always order a thread abroad :)))
    2. +1
      21 September 2016 18: 29
      Quote: Comrade
      the fact that the construction of a ton of a ship's displacement in England cost one and a half times cheaper than in Russia is quite serious money

      And faster!
      The same fact applies to the version - it was easier and cheaper to build almost half of the fleet in America (according to Russian projects with monitoring and refinement) than in RI.! Although without orders, the RI industry would not have developed (would have won the battle, would have lost in progress)
  14. +1
    20 September 2016 05: 07
    If you remove the mat, then there will be nothing left (((
    The article is excellent, and it is true, it is read in one breath, but it leaves a rather bitter precipitate (((
  15. 0
    20 September 2016 10: 04
    Funny thoughts are stated in the article.
    However, nothing new.
    What wonderful ships the Japanese had and what bad the Russians had.
    It is nothing that enough information has appeared that allows a slightly different look at the "technical excellence" of the Japanese fleet. But why ?
    Fuji and Yashima had outdated main battery guns; six out of ten medium-caliber guns were covered only with shields, the extremities were not covered by armor, and the actual speed reached 15 knots.
    "Sikishima" and "Asahi" were protected by Harvey armor and only "Mikasa" by Krupp armor.
    Even more interesting are the "world's best" armored cruisers.
    Tight turrets of the main caliber with a maximum of manual operations. The lifts are not adapted for lifting shells weighing 118 kg, which is why they used "Latin American" shells weighing 95 kg. Poor placement of medium artillery cellars, which reduced the feed rate and, accordingly, the rate of fire. Only the Yakumo had order here.
    But, most importantly, speed. None of them in real life even reached 19 knots. The first and the last pair walked, with difficulty, for a short time, 18 knots. As well as the "Italians". "Yakumo" - squeezed, briefly, up to 17 knots. "Azuma" - 16 knots, and 15 knots for a long time. And these cruisers are called the "forerunners" of battle cruisers, refusing this to ships of the "Peresvet" class. So, "Peresveta" at least did not yield to them in speed, significantly superior in armament, having shells weighing 225 kg. Yes, the Peresvets had unprotected extremities, as did the Fuji and Harvey armor, like the Sikishima, Asahi, Asama and Tokiwa.
    Their real problems are construction overload, which was solved by operational underloading.
    It should be added to this that a Japanese sailor of average condition had a body weight, on average, twenty kilograms less than a Russian. Before WWI, the British created a 140mm gun for the Greeks. And the Japanese switched to this caliber, with a smaller projectile mass. Cordite charges, which were used by the Japanese, led to a rapid burnout of the barrels, which also forced to reduce the rate of fire. In the battle in the Yellow Sea, on the "Poltava", after twenty shots from medium-caliber guns, they had to be banned. And the Japanese, with their unsuccessful cordite, after how many shots they banned the guns. In the battle in Chemulpo, the Varyag fired considerably more shells in terms of both quantity and total mass than the Asama. The fire performance of the "best in the world" armored cruisers turned out in practice to be lower than that of the Russian cruisers with a displacement of 6000 tons, which was convincingly proved by the "Askold" in the Yellow Sea.
    PS They also like to laugh at the lack of Russian high-explosive shells for 75 mm guns. I propose to laugh at the Japanese, who also did not have them. And, at the same time, over the British and French, because it was their systems that were used in the REV. According to the views of that time, it was the blank that allowed to cause irreparable damage to the cars and boilers of destroyers, which explains the absence of a high-explosive three-inch caliber in the fleets of all countries of the world.
    1. +1
      20 September 2016 10: 59
      Well, to be honest, I didn’t notice such a message from Andrey ... Rather, it was a natural regret that the Russian squadron, from the point of view of the technical specifications and preparation of the ships, was a perfect hodgepodge with a very wide range of characteristics. But the Japanese squadrons were reduced to the same type of combat units.
      This does not mean that the Japanese ships did not have technical flaws - but they were nevertheless similar in characteristics to the ships, which facilitated control in battle and ensured the best characteristics of the squadron as a whole (we measure by the weakest)
    2. +1
      20 September 2016 11: 41
      Quote: ignoto
      It is nothing that enough information has appeared that allows a slightly different look at the "technical excellence" of the Japanese fleet. But why ?

      Let's take a look at your "different" view
      Quote: ignoto
      "Fuji" and "Yashima" had outdated installations of the main battery guns

      Yes. And to what extent were these obsolete installations inferior to the latest Russian 305 mm in rate of fire? :))
      Quote: ignoto
      six out of ten medium-caliber guns were covered only with shields

      At "Sevastopol" 4 guns out of 12 did not even have such protection - they stood openly behind the steel of the hull, without armor. The remaining 8 turret guns had a "crazy" rate of fire of 1 rounds / min due to unreliable materiel. AND?
      Quote: ignoto
      the ends were not covered by armor

      And in Sevastopol - were? laughing
      Quote: ignoto
      and real speed reached 15 knots.

      Sevastopol hardly walked 13.
      Quote: ignoto
      Even more interesting are the "world's best" armored cruisers

      Well, yes, "Rurik" is much stronger, of course laughing
      Quote: ignoto
      In the battle in the Yellow Sea, on the "Poltava", after twenty shots from medium-caliber guns, they had to be banned. And the Japanese, with their unsuccessful cordite, after how many shots they banned the guns.

      Yeah. As a result, the Japanese 4 EBRs fired 603 12-dm shells, the Russians 344.
      Quote: ignoto
      In the battle in Chemulpo, the "Varyag" fired shells, both in number and in total mass, much more than "Asama"

      In other cases, the Russians fired significantly less shells than the Japanese.
      1. 0
        20 September 2016 12: 53
        Well, here the argument is pointless, the ships were approximately equal in terms of performance characteristics, but their use by teams and commanders makes a striking difference !!! And the Varangian is generally a separate song !!! The question is, where did he launch such a thuja heap of shells and who got it?
        1. +2
          20 September 2016 13: 32
          What are we talking about. Petropavlovsky is roughly the equivalent of Fuji, but Sikisims is more abrupt, Retvisan and Tsesarevich are comparable to Sikishima but weaker than Mikasa, and Peresvet is an armadillo cruiser and is stronger than any asamoid, but weaker than any armadillo. The superiority is still Japanese but not fatal, it was quite possible to fight
          And Varyag shot much less than in the official report of Rudnev
          1. +2
            20 September 2016 14: 22
            Well, there is still Japanese data on Varyag - what was left in the cellars after the ascent ... In general, it is also a typical example "they shot a lot and often, but only hit the fish" (c)
            It wouldn’t matter if the data are inconsistent, but the Varangian is a very typical example of what the blockage with combat training combined with problems in the materiel leads to ...
            1. +2
              20 September 2016 17: 05
              Quote: Taoist
              Well, there is still Japanese data on the Varyag - what remains in the cellars after the rise ...

              That's right :))) But there is another problem - the fact is that during the arrival in Chemulpo Varyag did not have full ammunition - some of the shells were shot. Based on the available data, it can be assumed that in total Varyag fired not 425, but 271 6-dm shells
            2. 0
              20 September 2016 17: 07
              Quote: Taoist
              The Varangian is a very typical example of what the blockage with combat training in combination with problems in the materiel leads to ...

              That's right - more than half of the commandants were dispersed on a demobilization, and the cruiser was caulked into a chemulpo, where you can’t really train
              1. 0
                20 September 2016 17: 36
                There, not only depended on it !!! The Varangian has always experienced problems with machines, more precisely with boilers! But there is no Retvizan !! And he always gave his contract 18,2 knots! I repeat, the ships were approximately equal, but alas, their use varied. The EDB type of Poltava (whoever does not know Sevastopol, Poltava and Petropavlovsk) seems to be of the same type !!! But there heaped such a thing .... One even had a car working in the opposite direction ... Although the project itself was good, Navarin’s kind of development, but as always, execution failed
      2. 0
        22 September 2016 18: 33
        So in Chemulpo no more. And if you recall the effectiveness ...
    3. 0
      22 September 2016 02: 26
      Quote: ignoto
      The fire performance of the "best in the world" armored cruisers turned out in practice to be lower than that of the Russian cruisers with a displacement of 6000 tons, which was convincingly proved by the "Askold" in the Yellow Sea.

      Be so kind as to confirm this thesis with your specific figures. On the left is the consumption of shells on "Askold" during the breakthrough, on the right - the consumption of shells on "Yakumo" for the same period of time. Agree, without this kind of information, it is difficult to understand how true your words are.
  16. +2
    20 September 2016 10: 48
    Therefore, the table does not include shells of coastal batteries at all, but if you add 25 six-inch rounds that could still hit the Japanese, the percentage of hits of the Russian medium-caliber artillery will decrease from 1,27 to 1,23%,


    Hello Andrey. I did not write yesterday because you had to answer many comments. Perhaps this passage from an article on the issue of firing coastal batteries will be of interest to you. Its headquarters was published by Captain Solomon in 1907.

    "As for the guns 6" Kane, out of 10 guns of this sample, battery No. 2 (5 guns) fired 12 practical bombs filled with sand, instead of combat shells: this happened because the battery for wars had not yet been tested and the combat shots were from it When the Japanese squadron appeared, there were no shells on the battery, with the exception of those mentioned above, filled with sand. While they ran to the battery No. 9 and brought the shells, it took 20-30 minutes and the battery fired 10 shells with sand. 9 brought 10 combat shells, it was already too late: I had to confine myself to a few farewell shots to the departing squadron. "
    1. 0
      20 September 2016 12: 03
      Hello Igor!
      Thanks for the material - I read about Cherkasov about sand shells with sawdust, but anyway - thanks! drinks
      1. 0
        20 September 2016 14: 24
        The Lord is with you, we always had practical shells equipped like this - nobody fired guns with combat ... By the way, practical bombs still equip them with dry cement - then it's easier to take into account hits ...
        1. 0
          20 September 2016 15: 39
          Quote: Taoist
          we always have practical gear so equipped


          There are no questions about this. It was just that at the moment of the start of the battle there were no others. So I had to shoot shells equipped with sand.
          1. +1
            20 September 2016 16: 58
            Cherkasov describes this moment even more fun
            Another interesting fact is indisputable that, in serf artillery, in addition to cast-iron grenades and segmented shells or shrapnel, there are also armor-piercing shells for shooting at armored ships (there are no high-explosive shells at all), but these shells are not stuffed with pyroxylin or gunpowder, as in the Navy, but are stuffed sand with sawdust, [23] as our training equipment. When I asked the commander of Camp Battery No. 16 why this is so, he answered me that they were taught at the school that if the armor-piercing shell was equipped with explosives, he would not fulfill his purpose, as he would have burst without breaking through the armor, but from a blow to its surface, and that he had only recently heard that in the fleet armor-piercing shells are equipped with pyroxylin. There was nothing to do, it was necessary to release the required amount of 6-dm and 10-dm armor-piercing and high-explosive shells from Mining Town on all coastal batteries, but, in any case, armor-piercing sand or cast-iron were used in the battle on January 27.
            1. 0
              20 September 2016 17: 43
              Andrew!!! Well, sorry !!! Serf artillery was subordinate to the fortress and not to the fleet !!! And as you know, serf artillery had nothing to do with the fleet at all !!! Even with the same guns, they even had different shooting tables, I don’t speak about shells at all ...
              1. 0
                20 September 2016 18: 26
                Quote: Nehist
                Andrew!!! Well, sorry !!!

                Apologies do not get off. Only a duel! Weapons - snowballs, distance - 100 m, to death! To the barrier! laughing
                Quote: Nehist
                Serf artillery was subordinate to the fortress and not to the fleet !!

                And who is arguing? Am I saying the opposite? :))) I didn’t insert this episode in the article either
        2. 0
          20 September 2016 17: 45
          For a long time, not with cement but with a chalk mixture !!! Cheaper out)))
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. +1
    21 September 2016 18: 42
    I read it with pleasure. I also look forward to continuing.
    For the moments that are familiar, unsubscribed above.
    The RPE confirms (in addition to system crises and caps that usually increase, the stronger the crisis, the more caps fly) a simple truth for the Republic of Ingushetia, the USSR, and the Russian Federation — well, one cannot be equally strong at all points. And it seems like a strong (in number) at a particular point is always weaker.
    Not from a good life, such things are in the 1st TOE. They started well, it seemed, with development, but the traditional Russian slowness (and often banal theft and lack of initiative) had a bad effect on the MTO.
    Alekseev was the main thing, but he could not pay attention to everything. And in general, he was often a typical representative of that era in the Republic of Ingushetia, whose system crashed in the REE.
    Individual representatives of the RI era of the 1905 model could save a lot in that war! Makarov, Kondratenko, Ivanov, Bely and others .. But I was wondering - was it worth it? Isn't the parallel between the "Prussian teacher" for France and the "Japanese" for RI better? Or was it worth winning that "not" small victorious one to strengthen the regime?
    Some representatives are sorry, sorry for the personnel and courageous defenders and sailors - but the regime and system are not sorry for the slightest harm.
  19. +1
    22 September 2016 14: 19
    “... this can be concluded from the telegram of Captain Zhukovsky, commander of the Electric Cliff battery, sent to the Artillery Committee in February or March 1904, asking to explain why sailors use the same gun to shoot 10 miles (Peresvet) or 8, 5 (“Victory”), and it cannot shoot further 6 miles, since the elevation angle, although it corresponds to 25 °, as on “Victory”, but more than 15 ° cannot be given, since then the gun will hit the breech into the platform serving for loading guns. This was followed by a reply from Petersburg: “Read the §16 instructions for handling this gun”, and indeed, when reading the §16, you learned that when shooting at elevation angles of large 15 °, you should remove this platform completely, for which you should unscrew four nuts and give four bolts connecting it to the unit. It follows that on the day of the battle these guns could shoot no further than the 60 cable. ”
    Interesting post. Add a little offtopic.

    Here is a photo of that 10 ”gun. On the very battery where the commander was captain Zhukovsky.
    Something is not very clear how to shoot at high elevation angles. Fit the pad, fasten it, load the gun, then unscrew the pad, then roll the pad, shoot. And so again and again. Smart people, however, came up with !!!! % -))) Read the instructions, fools !!!!
    Thank you to the Japanese, Chinese and especially the unknown Soviet battery commander for the safety of the gun. This gun was left alone thanks to him.
  20. 0
    22 September 2016 17: 42
    Quote: Per se.
    not only setting, but also actually building the Japanese modern fleet.

    Our nods to Britain, with its cunning, are not entirely baseless, but are very similar to the attempt of a bad dancer to look for the guilty away from himself. lol

    1. England was building a fleet not only of Japan, but to all countries that were not technically developed enough to make their own fleet, and well-off enough to pay for it.

    2. In particular, Russia also made some purchases of finished ships in England, and also built a lot according to English drawings and samples. Incl. a series of destroyers "Falcon" (later qualified as destroyers), 27 copies - based on the Yarrow project, plus further development of this series.

    The Russian navy lists 41 ships built in England. It is quite comparable with the number of British ships in the Japanese fleet, according to the place of creation, although this list is mostly small and auxiliary ships, but it does not include the aforementioned "falcons" and other Russian ships of English design.
    And with the participation of Vickers specialists and on the basis of the Vickers gun, the "Obukhov" 102-mm gun was created.

    3. I'm not talking about the huge deliveries of weapons to Russia from England and through England during WWI. Including the Sopvich fighters, and the most massive Russian armored cars Austin-Putilovets, in which there was only armor from the Putilov factory.
    And there were Vickers’s howitzers of 114 mm, in the amount of about 400 pieces, and 152 mm in number, obviously more than a hundred (I don’t remember the exact number and look for laziness, but several dozen of them survived to the Second World War), machine guns, ammunition, motors and spare parts ...
    That was British Russophobia laughing

    4. A very significant number of Russian ships, incl. participating in the RYA, incl. the best Russian armored cruisers, as well as the Kasatka series destroyers, were made in Germany.

    In total, 58 Russian ships from the Russian navy were made there, plus a comparable number of their clones were made in Russia, plus a significant number of units and components came to Russia from Germany.
    Similar German assistance to Russia continued after the REV.

    Why didn't this cause a flood of Japanese complaints about such Teutonic treachery? lol

    5. Complaints about the political intrigues of England, I won’t go into their lengthy discussion, are justified to about the same extent laughing
    It is enough to say that, even in the presence of the union agreement of 1902. with Japan, England did not take full advantage of Russia against the opportunities open to her as a result of the Gull incident.
  21. 0
    22 September 2016 18: 00
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    in spite of the shells, who sent the more porosity?

    by the funeral, you mean?

    At sea - Russian casualties are many times more than Japanese, no matter how many count. One Tsushima repeatedly covers all Japanese losses at sea during the whole war. The 5 killed were officially announced even before the real figures were clarified, and if we subtract from the personnel squadrons of erupted, interned and captured prisoners, there remains a difference of 7,5 thousand.

    On land - no matter how they like to lie with us about the multiple superiority of Japanese losses, it is not confirmed by real numbers. Really - rather the opposite.

    As for the funerals ... Almost half of the killed Russians are not marked with any funerals, because we were classified as "missing." In most battles, they were 2-3% of the participating personnel.
    And then they didn’t show up in this world.
    The Japanese have a few missing, for the whole war a little more than a hundred. And prisoners for the whole war a little more than 2 thousand against about 80 thousand of ours.
  22. 0
    22 September 2016 18: 24
    Quote: ignoto
    In the battle in Chemulpo, the "Varyag" fired shells, both in number and in total mass, much more than "Asama"

    Are you drawing this conclusion from Rudnev's report? And do you believe in "Takachiho" that sank 10 years before its real sinking? And in Santa Claus? laughing

    In reality, shells 75 / 76mm and below can be ignored - in any case, they could not cause significant damage to the enemy. Asama fired 203 27mm rounds, 152mm 103mm shells. After lifting it, it fired no more than 160 152mm rounds according to the contents of the Varyag's cellars.
    That is, in terms of the total number of shells, the advantage seems to be behind the Varyag, but not in any way “significant” - but in terms of mass it is almost equally.

    According to Rudnev's report, he fired 6 "shells more than three times more than in reality. And in the retelling of the crystal-baked authors, who add 152mm, 76mm and 47mm indiscriminately, in general, more than a thousand turns out laughing But such "data" is not for everybody.

    And most importantly - that the Japanese shots were much more accurate and more effective. Shooting a trick is not great, but to get there is how to be able to do this, they used to say in those days.
  23. 0
    22 September 2016 23: 47
    "Thus, only two Russian battleships," Tsarevich "and" Retvizan ", could be considered equal to Japanese ships of this class, and"
    Sorry, but to consider Fuji and his sistership is ultramodern and with a full belt means to tell the truth ....
  24. 0
    22 September 2016 23: 49
    "Thus, only two Russian battleships," Tsesarevich "and" Retvizan ", could be considered equal to the Japanese ships of this class,"
    if not a secret than our Poltava worse than Fuji?
    1. +1
      23 September 2016 03: 25
      In speed, inferior, for example.
  25. 0
    23 September 2016 08: 54
    Quote: Nehist
    The question is, where did he launch such a thuja heap of shells and who got it?

    Yes, not such a question. In the report of Rudnev, a greatly overestimated consumption of shells is indicated - he felt blundered and tried to justify himself as horrible as possible, including lied recklessly.

    He often refers to sources that either did not have the information attributed to them (like anonymous foreign observers who were unable to see the observations attributed to them), or with an inaccessible speed of information passing (allegedly information about the drowned Takachiho from Shanghai, the price of which is now easy to understand ), etc.

    In particular, for his justification, he greatly went too far with the number of shells he fired: allegedly 425 152mm shells, 470 75mm shells, 210 47mm shells (it is generally not clear why and for what purposes shells 3 "and less could make sense Newspapers and subsequent authors generally put all the calibers into one heap laughing
    1. 0
      23 September 2016 10: 00
      Alas, I had to interrupt, I continue.

      In such a simple way, "more than 1000 shells" are obtained, while it is understood that they are all GK, and legends are born about the inhuman rate of fire of the "Varyag" gunners in addition to other similar beauties.

      In reality, the examination of the Varyag after lifting revealed a shortage of 160 main battery shells to full ammunition load, while a small part of the shells was also used up the day before.
      That is, if we proceed from 3% of hits received by "Varyag" in shooting practice, in a calm environment and at a short distance, up to 5 hits can be expected. In battle, as we understand it, the result can be much worse, especially considering the destruction of the rangefinder post at the very beginning of the battle.

      The alleged sinking of the cruiser Takachiho by Rudnev after the battle from the received damage, as we understand it, is nonsense. "Takachiho" not only lived up to WWI, he also managed to participate in RYAF, ie. left the battle at Chemulpo not only alive, but also quite (at least) healthy: in the summer of the same year he took part in the sinking of the cruiser "Rurik" in the Korea Strait.

      Rudnev's report also attributed the sinking of the Japanese destroyer, later newspapermen and other similar "experts" increased the number of sunk destroyers to two, and some wrote about "two or three". None of the Japanese destroyers in Chemulpo were actually sunk - they survived to be scrapped after WWI.

      The Rudnev report also writes about allegedly significant losses on board other Japanese ships. Not that it was completely unbelievable, but the source is doubtful - a retelling of some port rumors, not confirmed by any authoritative data.

      The Japanese themselves do not confirm this: in every possible way praising the bravery and courage of the enemy, his real samurai spirit, having awarded Rudnev with his order, and so on, they nevertheless rated his shooting very poorly: acceptable accuracy in direction, but very large dispersion in distance.

      Here is a sufficient, I hope, answer to your question.
  26. 0
    2 December 2016 00: 16
    I found this series of articles and began to read, written well, read with pleasure.
    But after reading it, I noticed some inconsistencies. In the first part, the author writes: ".... in the night attack on the Port Arthur squadron, he (meaning Togo) for some reason breaks his destroyers into several detachments and orders them to attack sequentially. ....". The first detachment achieved success thanks to the surprise of the attack, but why did the rest stop the received order to carry out what? I suppose it is unlikely, and therefore, during the battle on the counter-courses, the Russian squadron was attacked by Japanese destroyers, which can explain the shooting from three-inch guns, which were designed for this and were even called "anti-mine caliber". Moreover, medium-caliber guns could periodically be distracted by firing at destroyers, which fully explains their lower efficiency compared to the Japanese, which fired at larger and less mobile and fast targets throughout the battle. In addition, I believe that Russian ships sometimes had to evade torpedoes (in the then terminology of self-propelled mines), which knocked down the aiming and the main caliber.
    The author believes that eyewitnesses lie unintentionally and at the same time unconditionally trust the memoirists, who just lie intentionally in order to put themselves in their own memoirs in a more favorable light than it was in reality and always find some reasonable explanation for their mistakes and varnish either explain the necessity of their unseemly deeds.
    Upon further reading, I decided to distract myself and ask what was meant by "armed reserve", I found this: "In the armed reserve, the ship lowered a pennant, that is, it was withdrawn from the campaign and defended in the harbor, doing repair work and in-ship exercises and exercises. "
    But in general, the author has great respect, I will continue reading.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"