Military Review

Navy leading powers at the beginning of World War I

58
Before the start of World War I, the great powers paid great attention to their naval forces, and large-scale naval programs were being implemented. Therefore, when the war began, the leading countries possessed numerous and powerful fleets. Particularly stubborn rivalry in building naval power went between Great Britain and Germany. The British at that time possessed the most powerful Navy and merchant fleet, which made it possible to control strategic communications in the World Ocean, to tie together numerous colonies and dominions.

In 1897, the German Navy was significantly inferior to the British fleet. The British were 57 armadillos I, II, III, class, Germans 14 (4 ratio: 1), the British 15 battleships coastal defense, the Germans 8, the British 18 armored cruisers, the Germans 4 (4,5 ratio: 1), the British 125 class 1-3 cruisers, the Germans 32 (4: 1), the Germans were inferior in other combat units.

Arms race

The British wanted not only to maintain the advantage, but also to increase it. In 1889, the parliament passed a law according to which more funds were allocated for the development of the fleet. At the heart of London’s naval policy was the principle that the British Navy should have surpassed the two fleets of the most powerful maritime powers.

Berlin initially did not pay much attention to the development of the fleet and the seizure of colonies, Chancellor Bismarck did not see much point in this, considering that the main efforts should be directed at European policy and the development of the army. But under Emperor Wilhelm II, priorities were revised, Germany began to fight for the colonies and the construction of a powerful fleet. In March 1898, the Reichstag passed the "Fleet Law", which provided for a sharp increase in the Navy. For 6 years (1898-1903's) planned to build 11 squadron battleships, 5 armored cruisers, 17 armored cruisers and 63 destroyer. The shipbuilding programs of Germany were subsequently constantly adjusted upwards - 1900, 1906, 1908, 1912. According to the 1912 law, the number of fleets planned to bring to the 41 battleship, 20 armored cruisers, 40 light cruisers, 144 destroyers, 72 submarines. Particular attention was paid to battleships: in the period from 1908 to 1912 in Germany, the 4 battleship was laid annually (in previous years, two each).

In London, believed that the naval efforts of Germany pose a great threat to the strategic interests of Britain. England intensified the naval arms race. The task was to have 60% more battleships than the Germans. From 1905, the British began to build battleships of the new type - "dreadnoughts" (after the name of the first ship of this class). They differed from the squadron battleships in that they had stronger armaments, were better armored, with a more powerful propulsion unit, a larger displacement, etc.

Navy leading powers at the beginning of World War I

Battleship Dreadnought.

Germany responded by building its dreadnoughts. Already in 1908, the British had 8 dreadnoughts, and the Germans had 7 (some were in the process of being completed). The ratio of "dodrednouet" (squadron battleships) was in favor of Britain: 51 versus German 24. In 1909, London decided to build two of its own on every German dreadnought.

The British tried to preserve their naval power through diplomacy. At the 1907 Hague Peace Conference of the Year, they proposed to limit the scope of construction of new warships. But the Germans, believing that this step would be beneficial only to Britain, rejected this proposal. The naval arms race between England and Germany continued until the First World War. To its top, Germany firmly took the position of the second naval power, overtaking Russia and France.

Other great powers - France, Russia, Italy, Austria-Hungary, etc., also tried to build up their naval armaments, but for a number of reasons, including financial problems, they could not achieve such impressive successes.


"Queen Elizabeth" - the lead ship of the super dreadnoughts series Queen Elizabeth.

Fleet value

The fleets were supposed to perform a number of important tasks. First, to protect the coasts of countries, their ports, important cities (for example, the main purpose of the Russian Baltic Fleet is to protect St. Petersburg). Secondly, the fight against enemy naval forces, the support of their ground forces from the sea. Thirdly, the protection of maritime communications, strategic points, especially for Britain and France, they owned huge colonial empires. Fourthly, to ensure the status of the country, a powerful navy showed the position of the state in the world informal table of ranks.

The basis of the then naval strategy and tactics was linear combat. In theory, the two fleets were to line up and find out in the artillery duel who the winner was. Therefore, the basis of the fleet were squadron battleships and armored cruisers, and then dreadnoughts (from 1912-1913's and superdreadnoughts) and battle cruisers. The battlecruisers had weaker reservations, artillery, but were faster and had a longer range. Armadillo squadrons (battleships of the pre-dreadnought type), the armored cruisers were not written off, but they were brought to the background, ceasing to be the main striking force. Light cruisers were supposed to carry out raids on enemy naval communications. Destroyers and destroyers were intended for torpedo attacks, destruction of enemy transports. Their combat vitality was based on speed, maneuverability and secrecy. The Navy also included special-purpose ships: minelayers (installed sea mines), minesweepers (making passages in minefields), transports for seaplanes (hydro-cruisers), etc. The role of the submarine fleet constantly increased.


Cruiser "Goeben"

United Kingdom

The British at the beginning of the war had 20 dreadnought, 9 battleships, 45 old battleships, 25 armored vehicles and 83 light cruisers, 289 destroyers and destroyers, 76 submarines (most of them were outdated, they could not operate in the open sea). I must say that, despite the power of the British fleet, its leadership was distinguished by great conservatism. New items hardly found their way (especially not related to the linear fleet). Vice-Admiral Philip Colomb, a naval theorist and historian, author of the book “Sea War, Its Basic Principles and Experience” (1891 year), said: “There is nothing that would show that history maritime warfare laws have changed in some way. " The admiral justified the theory of "possession of the sea" as the basis of the imperial policy of Britain. He believed that the only way to achieve victory in the war at sea is to create complete supremacy in the naval forces and destroy the enemy's navy in one general battle.

When Admiral Percy Scott suggested that “the era of the dreadnoughts and superdreadnaughts has ended irrevocably” and advised the Admiralty to focus on development efforts aviation and the submarine fleet, its innovative ideas were sharply criticized.

The general leadership of the fleet was carried out by the Admiralty, led by W. Churchill and the first sea lord (chief of the naval headquarters) Prince Ludwig Battenberg. British ships were based in the harbors of Humberg, Scarborough, Firth of Fort and Scapa Flow. In 1904, the Admiralty considered the relocation of the main forces of the Navy from the English Channel region to the north, to Scotland. This decision brought the fleet out of the threat of a narrow strait blockade by the growing German Navy, and allowed it to quickly control the entire North Sea. According to the English maritime doctrine, which Battenberg and Bridgman developed shortly before the war, the basing of the main fleet forces in Scapa Flow (a harbor in Scotland on the Orkney Islands), outside the effective range of the German submarine fleet, should have led to the blockade of the main forces of the German fleet, which and happened during the First World War.

When the war began, the British were in no hurry to thrust themselves to the German shores, fearing the blows of submarines and the bearing forces. Major hostilities unfolded on land. The British confined themselves to covering communications, protecting the coast and blockading Germany from the sea. The British fleet was ready to join the battle if the Germans brought their main fleet into the open sea.


British "Big Fleet".

Germany

The German Navy had 15 dreadnought, 4 battlecruisers, 22 old battleships, 7 armored ships and 43 light cruisers, 219 destroyers and destroyers, 28 submarines. For some indicators, for example, in speed, the German ships were better than the British. On the technical innovations in Germany paid much more attention than in England. Berlin did not have time to complete its naval program, it was supposed to be completed in 1917 year. Although the German naval leaders were rather conservative, for example, Admiral Tirpitz initially thought that he was fond of building submarines "frivolously." A dominance of the sea is determined by the number of battleships. Only when he realized that the war would begin before the completion of the linear fleet construction program, he became a supporter of unlimited submarine warfare and the accelerated development of the submarine fleet.

The German Open Sea Fleet (Hochseeflotte), based in Wilhelmshaven, was to destroy the main forces of the British fleet (Grand Fleet, the Big Fleet) in open battle. In addition, the naval bases were in Kiel, Fr. Helgoland, Danzig. The Russian and French naval forces were not perceived as worthy opponents. The German Open Sea Fleet posed a constant threat to Britain and forced the English Grand Fleet to constantly be in the North Sea area in full combat readiness throughout the war, despite the lack of battleships in other theaters of war. Due to the fact that the Germans were inferior in the number of battleships, the German Navy tried to avoid open clashes with the Grand Fleet and preferred the strategy of raids into the North Sea, trying to lure some of the British fleet, cut it off from the main forces and destroy. In addition, the Germans focused on conducting an unrestricted submarine warfare to weaken the British Navy and lift the naval blockade.

The factor of the lack of autocracy affected the combat effectiveness of the German Navy. The main creator of the fleet was the grand admiral Alfred von Tirpitz (1849 - 1930). He was the author of the "risk theory", it was argued that if the German fleet compares with the English in strength, the British will avoid conflicts with the German Empire, because in the event of war, the German Navy will have a chance to inflict sufficient damage to the Grand Fleet for the loss by the British fleet of dominance at sea. With the beginning of the war, the role of the grand admiral fell. Tirpitz became responsible for building new ships and supplying the fleet. The “open sea fleet” was led by Admiral Friedrich von Ingenol (in 1913 — 1915 years), then Hugo von Pohl (from February 1915 of the year to January of 1916, before that he was Chief of the General Naval Staff), Reinhard Scheer (1916-1918). In addition, the fleet was the favorite brainchild of the German Emperor Wilhelm, if he trusted the decision to make generals to the army, the Navy managed it himself. Wilhelm did not dare to risk the fleet in an open battle and allowed to wage only a “small war” - with the help of submarines, destroyers, and mine settings. Line fleet had to adhere to a defensive strategy.


German "Open Sea Fleet"

France. Austria-Hungary

The French had 3 dreadnought, 20 battleships of the old type (battleships), 18 armored ships and 6 light cruisers, 98 destroyers, 38 submarines. In Paris, they decided to focus on the "Mediterranean Front", since the British agreed to defend the Atlantic coast of France. Thus, the French saved expensive ships, since there was no big threat in the Mediterranean - the Ottoman Navy was very weak and connected by the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Italy was neutral at first, and then went over to the side of the Entente, the Austro-Hungarian fleet chose the passive strategy. In addition, there was a fairly strong British squadron in the Mediterranean.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire had a 3 dreadnought (4 was launched in 1915 year), 9 battleships, 2 armored and 10 light cruisers, 69 destroyers and 9 submarines. Vienna also chose a passive strategy and "defended the Adriatic", the Austro-Hungarian fleet stood in Trieste, Split, Pula for most of the war.


"Tegethof" in the prewar years. Austro-Hungarian battleship type Viribus Unitis.

Russia

The Russian fleet under Emperor Alexander III was second only to the naval forces of England and France, but then lost this position. The Russian Navy received an especially big blow during the Russo-Japanese War: almost the entire Pacific squadron and the best ships of the Baltic Fleet sent to the Far East were lost. The fleet was necessary to recover. During the period from 1905 to 1914, several naval programs were developed. They envisaged the completion of 4 battleships previously laid down, 4 armored cruisers and the construction of 8 new battleships, 4 linear and 10 light cruisers, 67 destroyers and 36 submarines. But by the beginning of the war, no program had been fully implemented (the State Duma, which did not support these projects, also played its role in this).

By the beginning of the war, Russia had 9 old battleships, 8 armored ships and 14 light cruisers, 115 destroyers and destroyers, 28 submarines (much of the old types). Already during the war, the 4 dreadnought type “Sevastopol” entered the Baltic Sea, all of them were laid in the 1909 year - “Sevastopol”, “Poltava”, “Petropavlovsk”, “Gangut”; on the Black Sea - 3 dreadnought type "Empress Maria" (laid in 1911 year).


"Poltava" during the First World War.

The Russian Empire was not a backward power in the naval area. In some areas even lead. In Russia, excellent destroyers of the Novik type were developed. The ship to the beginning of the First World War was the best destroyer in its class, and served as a world model for the creation of destroyers of the military and postwar generation. Technical conditions for it were created in the Marine Technical Committee under the leadership of prominent Russian shipbuilding scientists A. N. Krylov, I. G. Bubnov and G. F. Schlesinger. The project was developed in the 1908-1909 years, the shipbuilding department of the Putilov factory, which was headed by engineers D. D. Dubitsky (mechanical part) and B. O. Vasilevsky (shipbuilding part). In the Russian shipyards, in the 1911 — 1916 years, in the 6-ti typical projects, a total of 53 ships of this class were laid. The destroyers combined the qualities of a destroyer and a light cruiser - speed, maneuverability and quite strong artillery weapons (4-e 102-mm gun).

Russian railway engineer Mikhail Petrovich Naletov was the first to embody the idea of ​​a submarine with anchor mines. Already in the 1904 year, during the Russo-Japanese War, participating in the heroic defense of Port Arthur, Naleytov built his own submarine with a displacement of 25 tons, capable of carrying four mines. Conducted the first tests, but after the surrender of the fortress apparatus was destroyed. In 1909 — 1912, a submarine was built at the Nikolaev shipyard, dubbed the “Crab”. She became part of the Black Sea Fleet. During the First World War, "Crab" made several combat exits with mine settings, even reached the Bosphorus.


The world's first underwater mine layer - the submarine "Crab" (Russia, 1912 year).

Already in the course of the war, Russia became the world leader in the use of hydro-cruisers (aircraft carriers), thanks to which the factor of domination in the field of creation and use of naval aviation contributed. Russian aircraft designer Dmitry Pavlovich Grigorovich, he worked as a technical director of the plant of the First Russian Aeronautical Society from 1912, in 1913 he designed the world's first seaplane (M-1) and immediately began to improve the aircraft. In 1914, Grigorovich built the flying boat M-5. It was a double biplane wooden structure. The seaplane entered service with the Russian fleet as a scout and spotter of the artillery fire, and in the spring of 1915, the plane made its first combat departure. In 1916, the new aircraft of Grigorovich, the heavier M-9 (naval bomber), was put into service. Then the Russian nugget designed the world's first seaplane fighter M-11.

On the Russian Dreadnought type "Sevastopol" for the first time applied the installation system is not two-and three-gun turrets of the main caliber. In England and Germany, they were initially skeptical of the idea, but the Americans appreciated the idea and the Nevada type battleships were built with three-turrets.

In the 1912 year, the 4 battle cruisers of the "Izmail" type were laid. They were intended for the Baltic Fleet. These would be the most powerful battlecruisers in the world for artillery weapons. Unfortunately, they were never completed. In the 1913 — 1914, eight Svetlana-type light cruisers were laid, four each for the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. They were going to be put into operation in 1915-1916 years, but did not have time. Russian submarines of the Bars type were considered among the best in the world (they began to be built from 1912 onwards). Total built 24 "Barca": 18 for the Baltic Fleet and 6 for the Black Sea.

It should be noted that in the Western European fleets in the prewar years paid little attention to the submarine fleet. This is due to two main reasons. First, the previous wars have not yet revealed their combat significance, only in World War I did their great importance become clear. Secondly, the then dominant naval doctrine of the “open sea” assigned submarine forces one of the last places in the struggle for the sea. The rule of the seas should have been won by battleships, having won the decisive battle.

Russian engineers and naval gunners made a great contribution to the development of artillery weapons. Before the war, Russian factories mastered the production of improved samples of naval guns caliber 356, 305, 130 and 100 mm. The manufacture of three-turrets began. In 1914, the engineer of the Putilov factory F. F. Lender and the artilleryman V.V. Tarnovsky became pioneers in the field of creating a special anti-aircraft gun with a caliber in 76 mm.

In the Russian Empire, three new torpedoes (1908, 1910, 1912) were developed before the war. They exceeded the same-type torpedoes of foreign fleets in speed, range, although they had a smaller total weight and charge weight. Before the war, multitubular torpedo tubes were created — the first such apparatus was built at the Putilov factory in 1913. He provided a volley fire with a fan, the Russian sailors mastered it before the start of the war.

Russia was a leader in the field of mine business. In the Russian Empire, after the war with Japan, two special minelayers, Amur and Yenisei, were built, and the construction of special minesweepers of the “Zapal” type began. In the West, before the start of the war, no attention was paid to the need to create special ships for launching and trawling sea mines. This is proved by the fact that in 1914, the British were forced to buy a thousand ball mines from Russia to protect their naval bases. The Americans bought not only samples of all Russian mines, but also trawls, considering them to be the best in the world, and invited Russian specialists to train them in the mine business. Americans and seaplanes Mi-5, Mi-6 bought. Before the beginning of the war in Russia, galvanic impact and shock-mechanical mines of the 1908 and 1912 samples were developed. In 1913, a floating mine (P-13) was constructed. She was kept submerged at a certain depth due to the action of an electric swimming device. Mines of previous models were kept at a depth due to buoys, which did not give much stability, especially during storms. P-13 had an electric shock fuse, a charge in 100 kg of tola and could stay at a given depth for three days. In addition, Russian experts have created the world's first river mine "Rybka" ("P").

In 1911, the fleet was armed with undercutting kite and cutter trawls. Their use shortened the timeframes of sweeping operations, since the mines that were hit and undermined were immediately destroyed. Earlier mines had to be towed to shallow water and destroyed there.

The Russian fleet was the cradle of radio. Radio has become a means of communication and control in battle. In addition, before the war, Russian radio engineers designed radio direction finders, which made it possible to use the device for reconnaissance.

Considering the fact that the new battleships on the Baltic did not enter service, moreover, the Germans had complete superiority in the forces of the line fleet, the Russian command adhered to a defensive strategy. The Baltic Fleet was to protect the capital of the empire. Mine defenses were the basis of naval defense — during the war years, 39 thousand of mines were laid at the mouth of the Gulf of Finland. In addition, on the coast and the islands were powerful batteries. Under their cover, cruisers, destroyers and submarines made raids. The battleships were to meet the German fleet if it tried to break through the minefields.

By the beginning of the war, the Black Sea Fleet was the master of the Black Sea, since the Turkish Navy had only a few relatively combat-ready ships - the 2 of the old battleships of the battleship, the 2 armored cruisers, the 8 destroyers. Attempts by the Turks before the war to change the situation by buying new ships abroad did not bring success. With the beginning of the war, the Russian command planned to completely block the Bosphorus and the Turkish coast, to support the troops of the Caucasian front (and, if necessary, the Romanian) from the sea. The question of carrying out a landing operation in the area of ​​the Bosphorus, to capture Istanbul-Constantinople, was also considered. The situation was somewhat changed by the arrival of the newest battlecruiser “Goeben” and the light Breslau. ” The cruiser “Goeben” was more powerful than any old Russian battleship of the old type, but together the squadron battleships of the Black Sea Fleet would have destroyed it, therefore, in a collision with the entire squadron, “Goeben” retreated using its high speed. In general, especially after the commissioning of the dreadnoughts of the "Empress Maria" type, the Black Sea Fleet controlled the Black Sea basin - supported the troops of the Caucasian Front, destroyed Turkish transports, and attacked the enemy coast.


Destroyer type "Novik" ("Ardent").
Author:
58 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. J_silver
    J_silver 1 February 2012 09: 18
    +1
    By and large it turned out that all countries simply threw out money for the construction and maintenance of the fleet!
    1. Splin
      Splin 1 February 2012 10: 58
      +3
      Russia is so accurate. The fleet in the Baltic was locked with cans and out of idleness the sailors went to the revolutionaries.
    2. altman
      altman 1 February 2012 11: 38
      -1
      if one country had battleships and the other didn’t, there would be an interesting situation, right? or maybe our ancestors, as well as the British, Germans, and so on were more stupid than you and they had no money to do? and in general, why do we need this fleet .. to configure boats, let them run along the coast .. what the hell creep into the oceans ?
    3. viktor_ui
      viktor_ui 1 February 2012 14: 11
      +7
      the creation of heavy monsters is not very bad at moving a bunch of related technologies and science ... or is it not? the first turbine in the world was played exactly in the fleet, etc.
    4. Kibb
      Kibb 1 February 2012 19: 18
      0
      Are you Engels? smile it seems too painful
      1. viktor_ui
        viktor_ui 2 February 2012 15: 27
        0
        Che - I liked the face bully
    5. rexby63
      rexby63 1 February 2012 21: 54
      0
      The same can be said for all types of strategic weapons. But on the other hand, always, at all times, let them be "down the drain" than "for business."
  2. SenyaYa
    SenyaYa 1 February 2012 10: 42
    -2
    Speak nonsense
  3. J_silver
    J_silver 1 February 2012 10: 50
    +1
    Is not it so?
    England built Grandfleet and it sat in its entirety and guarded the High Seas Fleet - and so what? Throughout the war, something like a game of chess in the hope of an yawn of the enemy, and the main problem with their ships is to understand the conditions of worthless communication and the corresponding interaction of the units ...
    Once agreed, and parted without the slightest success ...
    The Baltic Fleet smoked the whole battleship with the battleships, gained a revolutionary spirit ...
    The Austro-Hungarian fleet also smoked the sky, and ships died from plywood boats ...
    The Raiders acted quite successfully, but it was light cruisers and converted vehicles, not to mention submarines ...
    1. Kars
      Kars 1 February 2012 11: 14
      +2
      Granflit guaranteed the victory of Great Britain in the First World War.
      Why would Inachi Tirpitz build his fleet of the open sea.

      Out of sheer historical curiosity, I regret a hundred German Baden did not have time for Jutland.

      And the raiders did not destroy the ships more than they died simply from accidents and storms.
    2. Delta
      Delta 1 February 2012 12: 36
      +5
      First, the ships came together more than once. Secondly, how is it without the slightest success ??? and the destroyed 3 British battlecruisers and battleship (not counting smaller ships)? tactically, the German fleet won the battle of Jutland, strategically - lost. And all due to the fact that Britain created a fleet that even the loss of 5-6 battleships did not bother much. That's the point in creating a large fleet. And Germany, having created a sickly fleet, fettered the actions of the British, made him be in constant tension. Even in World War II, by creating a very small surface fleet, Germany forced the entire English fleet to strain in pursuit of two or three German battleships.
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 1 February 2012 12: 39
        0
        What is a battleship? Otherwise, I agree
        1. Delta
          Delta 1 February 2012 12: 54
          0
          Yes, yes, wrong. In addition to the battle cruisers, there were armored cruisers.
    3. rexby63
      rexby63 2 February 2012 08: 31
      0
      Yes, I completely agree with you. I meant that it would be much worse if all these armada went out to sea and began firing at each other from the main caliber until they were completely destroyed. That is, they would have been used for their intended purpose (money is not "down the drain"), but this would not make anyone feel better
  4. Splin
    Splin 1 February 2012 11: 05
    0
    tirpbopbrobro
  5. 755962
    755962 1 February 2012 11: 48
    +7
    An English pirate of the era of Elizabeth I Relay wrote: “He who owns the sea, owns world trade. And who owns world trade, owns the wealth of the earth and it itself. ” In other words, the dominant power at sea can always force its continental adversary to fight against the resources of the whole world. This was convincingly demonstrated to France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Germany under William II and Hitler, Russia under Nicholas I, the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
    1. altman
      altman 1 February 2012 11: 57
      0
      forgot to add - modern americos ....
  6. Strabo
    Strabo 1 February 2012 12: 10
    +1
    The Russian fleet under Emperor Alexander III was second only to the Navy of England and France, but then lost this position. The Russian Navy received a particularly big blow during the Russo-Japanese War: Here, the author is not right. Russia has not lost its naval greatness. And the lessons learned from the defeat with Japan were only beneficial and the Russian fleet radically began to re-equip itself. The shipyards began to build the latest models of warships. And if not for the Jewish revolution of 1917. Equal to the Russian fleet would not be in the world.
    1. Andy
      Andy 1 February 2012 16: 31
      -1
      Of the Russian ships, only the newcomers were worthwhile military equipment, the rest was junk. all of these Sevastopol-Poltava. non-navigable, weakly armored. read on the internet about armor tests. the plot is such - the compartment of the old battleship was booked like our dreadnoughts, simulated the conditions of the battle distance and .... classified the results. they themselves hid the troughs from sin in the rear.
      and the transition of Sevastopol to the Black Sea in the 30s ... about the submarines of the 1st World War, what victories did our sailors achieve? Germans - 3 English cruisers at once to the bottom, our "Pallada" ... just don't need to train crews - level I think it was quite comparable, which cannot be said about the technique.

      already the second article about our "advanced" army since the 1st World War. only no airplanes, no shells, no ships. name our tank of those times ...
      all our successes are due to the courage of the soldiers.
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 1 February 2012 19: 20
        0
        Hmm, someone I missed this post, to the point !!!
        A bit out of topic, but I often dive near the "Chesma"
    2. Kibb
      Kibb 1 February 2012 16: 34
      0
      What is the benefit of the lesson of the REV? What are some examples?
      1. Andy
        Andy 1 February 2012 16: 43
        +1
        instead of the Bayan sunk in Port Arthur, new ones were created - Bayan, Admiral Makarov. apparently they were preparing for the war of the past. And it came to the point "Tsarevich" and "Glory" against two dreadnoughts.
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 1 February 2012 16: 54
          0
          I still do not understand, but what is the lesson of RYAV? The Russian Fleet has many glorious and heroic pages in its history, one Ushakov is worth two Nelsons, but why suck the feats out of your finger that didn’t exist? You yourself write “How did it come to” all four “super-duper” (armored barges with good guns for their caliber) dreadnought dangled from the walls and the old men fought
          1. Andy
            Andy 1 February 2012 17: 14
            +1
            and forgot the new "Pallada" ... lesson? not just outdated designs.

            or I wrote incomprehensibly or you are not able to read. What is incomprehensible in the creation of obsolete ships? After all, they were built like the PortArthur "Bayan" project of the late 19th century !!! and if you would like to read history, what battles were in the Irbensky Strait and Moonsund, to say that there was no feat. 2Armored carriers against 2 dreadnoughts, not a feat? By the way, "Glory" after that remained in the fairway of the Moonsund Strait and cut it into metal in years independence of the 20-30s. Why not confirmation of that battle?
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 1 February 2012 17: 21
              0
              Which Palada? Maybe "Rurik 2"? Those. it turns out that the lesson is one - they set up morally outdated ships on which they could not really fight (we look at Gotland and think). Once again, I repeat - the country is building a fleet so that it can fight, and sailors are not trained so that they can take skyscrapers with rifles at the ready (no matter how good they are in this capacity) .Noviki ... yes, this can be written as a plus, but how many was in the 14th year .. a whole one! Palada2, do not remember, for example, how she was sunk ... went the lesson to the use?
              1. Andy
                Andy 1 February 2012 17: 36
                +1
                speech about lessons RYAV- "Rurik" was the only powerful cruiser built after that war, the rest - the trinity "Pallada", "Bayan", "Adm. Makarov" - based on the Bayan of the late 19th century. not only do you not know history, you do not know how to read.
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 1 February 2012 18: 49
                  -1
                  Do you really think so? Have you just claimed yourself that the Palad and others like them are the lessons learned from the REE?
                  I wrote that the lessons didn’t work, you got upset about the Palada, I said that this is crap, you accused me of not knowing the story ...
                  But that's not even the point ... So why is this "powerful cruiser" running from Roon? By the weight of the volley, he should simply tear it to pieces ...
                  1. Andy
                    Andy 1 February 2012 19: 07
                    0
                    4th and last time I say that the lessons have not been learned. spawn bayans, the volley of which is inferior to the Germans. can you read? posts 16.43 17.14 17.36. are you kidding me? Do not like my presentation or it is not clear, contact the search engine.

                    Roon-4 210mm guns. button accordion and ad. Makarov, 2 203 mm each. a third will be added later.
                    1. Kibb
                      Kibb 1 February 2012 21: 41
                      0
                      Your presentation? Yes, it’s not very clear ... nothing, I’m not proud ... I’ll understand over time ... maybe
    3. rexby63
      rexby63 2 February 2012 10: 46
      0
      by the beginning of the war, not a single program was fully implemented (the State Duma, which did not support these projects, also played a role in this).

      Does the Kudrin affair live and win?
  7. Kibb
    Kibb 1 February 2012 12: 47
    -5
    On paper, yes, but as practice shows, this is not enough ... And inappropriately clever. The brave Baltic men constantly poured out the Germans in advance of winning fights without any Jews, the country simply fleet the fleet so that it would fight and not stand in bases and self-propelled
    1. Delta
      Delta 1 February 2012 13: 25
      0
      Can you give examples of pro.sr.anykh "pre-winning" battles in the Baltic?
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 1 February 2012 16: 11
        0
        Yes, no problem .... Gotland
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 1 February 2012 16: 46
          0
          The Black Sea Fleet waged a war without any heroes, but there were many embarrassments, but war doesn’t happen without it, and the Baltic Fleet beat the garbage excuse me and the result was a drunken motorbike in St. Petersburg, Essen did not live well
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 1 February 2012 17: 50
            -3
            The Black Sea Fleet did nothing at all. One German cruiser was able to block the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. And the Black Sea Fleet could not do anything with the 1 cruiser.
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 1 February 2012 18: 16
              +1
              You are greatly mistaken, the Black Sea Fleet very successfully neutralized the actions of the "Goeben", and the entire war was very well supported by the Caucasian front, disrupted transportations across the Black Sea (the Baltic Fleet cannot boast of this in the wrong war, not in the Second World War)
            2. Prometey
              Prometey 1 February 2012 18: 17
              +3
              The Black Sea Fleet until the end of the war remained quite combat-ready. As far as it is known, the Black Sea fleet was supposed to break through the straits when the conditions for landing on the coast of Turkey were established. Until that time, the task was to protect coastal facilities. As for the German battle cruisers on the Black Sea, after the shootout at Cape Sarych with the not the newest Russian battleship, German ships were ordered to avoid fighting with Russian ships on the Black Sea, if possible. By the way, according to the Germans themselves, the Russian sailors had excellent training and in terms of rate of fire and accuracy they were in no way inferior to them.
              1. Kibb
                Kibb 1 February 2012 21: 45
                0
                HERE, the key words "until the end of the war, remained combat-ready" can we say this about the BF?
            3. Delta
              Delta 1 February 2012 19: 39
              +2
              could not only because the "Goeben" was a battle cruiser. This means much more high-speed than any Russian battleship. So he ran from the Russian battleships. Valor, of course, is to run away.
              1. Kibb
                Kibb 1 February 2012 21: 53
                0
                That's right, the whole war he was an "undefined threat" and nothing more, speed is not an indicator, the Germans claimed that "Maria" was going 25uz? Will we believe?
              2. Prometey
                Prometey 1 February 2012 23: 43
                0
                By the way, such a class of ships as "battle cruiser" was built only by the British and Germans, other countries, due to limited finances, did not build such ships.
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 2 February 2012 09: 45
                  0
                  Russia built Ishmaels, so they were not LKR, but rather high-speed battleships.
            4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2012 08: 14
              +4
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The Black Sea Fleet did nothing at all. One German cruiser was able to block the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.

              From this tin :))) Dear, are you generally with a story like that?
              The Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Empire is the ONLY one of ALL WWI fleets to provide regular support to the Caucasian front, including through successful landing. "one German cruiser" did not block anything (the most powerful Anglo-French squadron, many times outnumbering the Black Sea fleet, could not pass the Dardanelles, the geben did not even stick out at this time.
            5. Alex
              Alex 3 June 2014 11: 34
              +2
              Rather, the opposite: the battlecruisers and light cruisers (I keep silent about the Turkish fleet) were not able to effectively counteract the Black Sea Fleet’s fulfillment of its main (at that time) task - support for the Caucasian Front. And the upcoming 1917 r could well put an end to the blockade of the Bosphorus. But this is from the category of an alternative story ...
      2. Andy
        Andy 1 February 2012 16: 55
        0
        the landing of a German landing on Ezel Island. Neither the submarines nor the "forward" battleships even jerked. It's a winning battle or not, but the landing operation is very sensitive to such attacks. Some noviks fought in the Irbens and Monzunde. As a result, the garrison was defeated, the batteries were suppressed.
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 1 February 2012 17: 12
          0
          Well, and what is the logic? Why then build a fleet? Ezel is not an example at all - you have a messy post, I didn’t understand Nicerta ...
          1. Andy
            Andy 1 February 2012 17: 25
            0
            have you read the story? why you do not understand here, the fleet did not disrupt the landing operation. under its very nose. and after all, 4 dreadnoughts and 2 battleships of the "Andrew the First-Called" type, the same "advanced" boats. the coast was not covered damn well. logic, look for it in their "knowingly winning" operations.
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 1 February 2012 17: 42
              0
              AND? What year was the Ezel operation? Have you read the story? Do you know a lot of successful fleet operations against berg defense? And then they pissed away (there are many other factors) I'm talking about the actions of the BF as a combat force during the war, and you give an example from another basket. And if so, then you only confirm my thought - and where are the "Perpopulated" and "Sevas", what is not a winning situation - the fleet against the coast for the fleet is a losing one, but again not an example -17 year does not lend itself to rules
              1. Andy
                Andy 1 February 2012 17: 49
                0
                in the 17th. and this is not the actions of the fleet in the course of the war ?? successful operations of the fleet against bergovy defense "- gee, it is banal to disrupt the landing on your territory. under the nose, whose batteries do you intend to storm IN YOUR TERRITORY? all, finish.
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 1 February 2012 18: 12
                  +1
                  We argue niochem, well, let's put it on the shelves
                  1. I’m talking about the fact that the fleet, as it were, is needed for something (for example, to disrupt the landing on its territory)
                  2.Baltic dreadnoughts were built precisely in order to thwart the German breakthrough in the Gulf of Finland, i.e. for battle in Mozund, the Gulf of Riga, Ezel, etc. They are not suitable for the open sea, only for battle in the mine-artillery position.
                  3.When the moment comes to go out to sea and support the batteries, the battleships stand at the wall, "because they shoot there."
                  4 So what did the BF do during the war?
                  1. Andy
                    Andy 1 February 2012 18: 26
                    0
                    in addition to the "advanced" battleships at the wall and no less "advanced" submarines (who had suffered heavy losses from no one knows whom) there were novices. I hope for the actions of the newcomers, are you not ashamed? or for Glory? but this is just an insignificant power compared to the buyers.
                    total
                    1 destroyers - first-class
                    2 people knew how to fight (destroyers, Glory, gunboats in Moonsund)
                    3 vaunted battleships, submarines, g ... (I do not touch their crews because they were not given the opportunity to show themselves, this is an answer to your understanding that they did not know how to fight)
                    4 only under Essen fleet moved.
                    5 RYAV lessons were not learned, trampled on the same rake. For example, a series of cruisers of the Bayan type. Not high-speed, not having sufficient weight of the side salvo. this is a rebuke to shipbuilders, not to crews.

                    to the question of what is heroic, see paragraph 2
                    1. Kibb
                      Kibb 1 February 2012 18: 30
                      0
                      You just don’t notice that you are proving the same as what I'm trying to say? Or are you just kidding me? winked
                      PS Yes, the destroyers are very good, and I did not argue about the qualities of the Russian sailor and soldier
                      ZYY Here comment on the Gotland Brie in terms of the ability to fight?
                      In fact, we argue about nothing - we hit at one point
                      1. Andy
                        Andy 1 February 2012 18: 54
                        0
                        I answered you about the technique. since you do not seem to be aware of the creation of cruisers and battleships, the main striking force of the fleet. I answered you a question about the lessons and wrote repeatedly. But you again understood the same topic. count how many times you asked a question about exploits BF answers you ignore

                        Here, comment on the Gotland Brie in terms of the ability to fight?

                        the battle was not pros. The results may not be so good. But let us recall the percentage of hits. Norms of that time. and ours is not a shame. and still look at the composition of our ships, any German armor. The cruiser has superiority. Exception is Rurik.
                      2. Kibb
                        Kibb 1 February 2012 18: 56
                        0
                        As for the battleship cruisers, it seems you are not in the know. Well, okay, argue no reason, maybe I'm wrong. But you’re talking about the BF as people (I won’t say that it’s bad), but I as a combat system
                      3. Kibb
                        Kibb 2 February 2012 00: 44
                        -1
                        T. E, do you think it is normal that Bogatyr and Oleg shot Albatros for an hour and could not destroy him?
                        "Iklyuchenie Rurik" - he alone could chase the entire so-called German Baltic fleet with a towel
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2012 08: 41
                        +4
                        Osspad, but what is there to disassemble? Albatross (minesag) and Augsburg (light cruiser with 105 mm guns) are going, accompanied by 3 destroyers, and they attack "Admiral Makarov" "Bayan" (armored cruisers with 203 and 152 mm guns), as well as, although armored, but still have towers " Bogatyr "and" Oleg "the Germans understand that their khan and Augsburg, taking advantage of their speed advantage, are trying to drag the Russian cruisers along. It didn't work out - Bakhirev, instead of developing full speed to get close to the Albatross (in fact, a lightly armed steamer), which our cruisers were not even able to scratch, started a complex maneuvering. With four cruisers he took the unfortunate steamer in pincers and began to shoot him from extreme distances. They fired at least an hour (more likely even an hour and a half) - it's not even a shame, it's a SHAME. Then "Roon" comes up with "Lubeck" - if Roon was stronger than our "Makarov", then Lubeck was obviously weaker than the Bogatyr - and our FOUR cruisers against TWO German ones turn around and leave the battle am
                        They were motivated by a shortage of shells, although this is at least strange - they still had to have shells for at least a half hour battle - and Rurik was on the way. Here is the answer to the question about the quality of the shooters - to land more than half of the ammunition on the ship, but not to drown it (Albatross jumped on the stones)
                        about Rurik's hits in "Roon" - it's a dark matter, but from Lubeck they got to Rurik more than once. As a result, Rurik "saw" the submarine, turned around, lost Roon, did not look for him (why? Suddenly he would start shooting) and left.
                        Compare this with the battle of "Efstafia" and "Goeben" - when our battleship, being much weaker than the German battle cruiser and unlikely worse protected, breaks into this very cruiser in a matter of minutes so that it turns around and runs away ... Or with in another battle, when at the limit of range (emnip with 100 cab or 18,5 kilometers!) Potemkin achieves a hit in Goeben from the first (!) salvo ...
                      5. Kibb
                        Kibb 2 February 2012 09: 49
                        0
                        That’s what I gave the day to, thanks for the support smile
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2012 10: 08
                        +3
                        Not at all, and always welcome!
                        In general, there is a feeling that the Black Sea and Baltic fleets belong to different countries. Black Sea - the Russian Empire, Baltic ... I don't even know ... some Russians. The Chernomorites kick the "great and terrible" Goeben all over the Black Sea - and so that after two short skirmishes, he does not even risk approaching our single battleship. Landing and providing troops. They bombard the coast, They put active minefields (Crab). Turkish communications are being cut at the root (the supply of coal has been crushed so much that the electricity in Istanbul had to be cut off for lack of fuel) Kolchak was preparing to land in the Bosphorus, and, what is funny, I am 100% sure that he would have captured the Bosphorus :))) The Baltic. .. the only real success of Russian ships in the Baltic is Novik's victory over two German destroyers. Everything else - active mine laying - was still carried out secretly, by no means in view of the enemy's ships, and cannot be counted among sea battles. And in all other cases of contact with the enemy - in complete contradiction with Makarov's behest - our skedaddle from the strongest enemy, skedaddle from an equal, skedaddle from the weakest.
                      7. Kibb
                        Kibb 2 February 2012 11: 23
                        +1
                        Nobody knows about this on this site? But they are driving a complete blizzard about other "Great Battles"
                      8. Trapperxnumx
                        Trapperxnumx 6 October 2012 23: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In general, there is a feeling that the Black Sea and Baltic fleets belong to different countries. Black Sea - of the Russian Empire, the Baltic ... I don’t even know ... any Russia

                        As I here agree with you here !!!
              2. Alex
                Alex 3 June 2014 11: 44
                +2
                Quote: Kibb
                fleet offshore for the fleet earlier losing
                Against another shore - yes (although not a fact, there were successful operations, it all depends on planning, command, resources and the general situation). But the protection of YOUR coast from the sea - here you must already be able to lose. And they managed: the fleet did not even leave Helsingfors.

                17 year defies rules
                It just gives in. The desire and ability of the top leadership of the army, navy and the country as a whole to maintain the integrity of the state is clearly visible. In Pikul's "Cruisers" and "Moonsund" the moral situation is shown better than you can imagine. However, that's another story ...
  8. Arc76
    Arc76 1 February 2012 15: 02
    0
    I doubt that the Russian fleet would be the most powerful. The new battleships in their performance characteristics were intended to be fought in the central mine-artillery position, in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Finland. It was a fleet of one solid military unit. By the way, the German fleet was a fleet of the North Sea.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 February 2012 08: 15
      +2
      Already for the Izmailov, the task was set to "be a free sea power to protect the interests of Russia where necessary."
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 2 February 2012 11: 30
        +1
        Yes, "Izmail" were very, very interesting ships ...
    2. Kibb
      Kibb 2 February 2012 11: 37
      +1
      And when the question arose about using these very battleships for their intended purpose, they stayed at the wall, there they shoot a pancake !!!
  9. Arc76
    Arc76 5 February 2012 01: 41
    0
    In the open ocean, we lacked not the training, but the will of the command.
  10. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 6 October 2012 23: 25
    0
    Excellent article, thank you!
  11. Oles
    Oles 8 November 2012 11: 40
    0
    our fleet throughout the 20th century has shown itself to be the most combat-ready and backward in the world .... a disgrace ..... so to defame our military deeds of the past .....