Start no later than 1914

77
Briefly about the armed forces of Russia and Germany in 1914.

The army of opponents were recruited on the basis of universal conscription. In Russia, the term of personnel service is 3, in Germany - 2 (for infantry). The Russian soldier was in the reserve of the first and second categories, the Germanic was in reserve, as well as in the Landwehr of the first and second appeals. Persons who did not serve in the field forces, but one way or another fit for service, as well as persons outside the age barrier served in the militia (Russia) and landscape and erzatzrezreve (Germany) [more see Military Encyclopedia / under. ed. V. O. Novitsky. 1911. T. VII. C. 275-276, Rostunov I.I. The Russian Front of the First World War. M., 1976., Golovin N. N. Russia's military efforts in the World War. Paris, 1939]. Dates of service, as well as the age of conscription for active service differed slightly.



Peacetime armies numbered 1423000 and 761000 people in Russia and Germany, respectively.

The Russian army began to move toward uniformity of structure, but did not manage to complete the reorganization. The serf and reserve troops were abolished (15% of the army) and due to this 7 standard infantry divisions and a rifle brigade were formed.

The army corps was the highest tactical unit.
The Russian 32-battalion corps consisted of 48000 people (including 33000 active bayonets), had 108 guns (in 14 batteries) and 64 machine guns, and the German 24-battalion corps - 45000 people (including 25000 active bayonets) The 160 guns (in 28 batteries) and 48 machine guns. From the composition of 108 Russian guns - 96 divisional 76-mm cannons and 12 guns - corps mortar division - 122-mm howitzers. The Germans acted more thoughtfully. In their 105-mm field howitzers were part of field divisions. But at the corps level there was an additional 16 155-mm heavy field artillery guns. The German Army Corps, therefore, had an effective fire fist and, as a result, increased strike power. In the armies of the Entente, heavy 150-mm caliber guns at the hull level were absent “as a class” (and the French had light field howitzers). The army corps also possessed reinforcement and support units — by the air detachment, communications units, engineering and convoy units, and corps cavalry.

Army corps and cavalry divisions in various proportions (as a rule, 2-6 army corps and 1-4 cavalry divisions, which also brought in corps) formed operational units - the army. Several armies formed the front - by the way, it was Russia that for the first time stories create these operational-strategic alliances.

The German army on 1914 had 25 army corps (21 AK, 3, Bavarian AK and Guards Corps) without reserve duplicates or 79 field divisions (with separate brigades 83), 29, Landner, 15-ersz-reserve, and reserve units. - 11 thousand personnel army, 761 million 1 thousand reservists, 100 million 1 thousand landver, 919 million 1 thousand landsturm [Takman B. The first blitzkrieg. August 1914. Statistics. M.-SPb., 1999. C. 495].

Russian army - 37 corps (113,5 divisions) and 22 cavalry divisions (without separate brigades). Personnel army - 1 million 423 thousand, 1 million 200 thousand second-line troops, 3 million 115 thousand spare, 800 thousand militia warriors [Ibid. C. 497].

The organizational structure of the German army was less cumbersome and, accordingly, more convenient to manage (if we compare it not only with the Russian, but also with any other European army).

Speaking about the combat training of troops, it should be said that the peacetime armies stood at about the same level. In the Russian army as a result of the reforms of 1905-14. Significant changes were made. There are fresh programs for military schools, in 1907-14. new statutes and manuals adopted [Manual on bayonet battle of St. Petersburg, 1907; Charter of the Field Service St. Petersburg, 1912; Manual for infantry action in battle St. Petersburg, 1914], taking into account both the experience of foreign armies, and especially the Russian-Japanese war. In particular, offensive actions serve as the basis for infantry combat activity; the initiative of a fighter in battle is determined. Progressive were questions of the structure of the battle formations, the interaction of the armed forces, maneuvering. A battle formation in the form of a rifle chain was used, transforming into a denser formation depending on the situation. Depending on the situation, the infantry must use rifle and machine-gun fire, bayonet fighting, and hand grenades.

The disadvantages of the Russian statutes and manuals were:
a) underestimation of artillery fire (70% infantry loss in combat according to the experience of world war);
b) underestimation of infantry digging in combat;
c) this form of battle was not considered as a counter.

However, these omissions were characteristic of almost all the armies of the time. In the French army, for example, before the war, the officer received a disciplinary action for familiarizing the unit with digging trenches.

German statutes [The combatant infantry regulations of the German army. St. Petersburg, 1906] and combat instruction was also based on offensive action. The Germans are familiar with the head-on battle, the attack of fortified positions. The interaction of infantry with artillery was studied most thoroughly. At the same time, unlike the Russian army, the Germans, having no 1870-71 years. combat experience, used more dense combat construction, bearing in the first battles unreasonably high losses. Appreciation to the terrain and maneuvering in offensive combat, the use of reserves was underestimated.


1. German machine gunners on pre-war maneuvers

The human resource of the armies of both opponents stood at a high level, modern methods of personnel training were used.

The Russian imperial army was distinguished by a magnificent soldier, non-commissioned officer and officer personnel. Particular emphasis on fire training (for example, the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, commander of the St. Petersburg Military District and the troops of the Guard, dismissed the post of regiment commander who did not receive "excellent" as a result of firing) led to the Russian peacetime infantry superbly shot (for example, a number of battles 1914 g.). The officers conducted tactical classes, prepared reports on military topics, and military games were carried out. The most important flaw was the qualifications of senior officers (again, in general, characteristic of all armies), but in Russia they were aggravated by the existence of an outdated price system.

The armament of the opposing armies, on the whole, was identical. The main weapons infantry was a shop rifle with good ballistic qualities. The strengths of the Russian rifle of S. I. Mosin were reliability and unpretentiousness in a combat situation, as well as a triangular bayonet.

At the beginning of the war, an infantry regiment had 6-8 machine guns, which was clearly not enough. The regimental machine-gun team was headed by an experienced officer and, including a significant number of soldiers, non-commissioned officers, horses, equipment, was a significant mobile reserve in the hands of the regiment commander. In the Russian and German armies, mainly heavy (easel) machine guns of Maxim’s systems were used.


2. Russian machine gunners

Artillery turns into a "God of War." Massaging of artillery fire, maneuvering battalions and batteries on the battlefield was an important guarantee of victories. Traditionally, Russian gunners, in the unanimous opinion of both domestic and foreign specialists, were the best in Europe. They used tactical innovations (for example, German artillery did not practice fire from closed positions at the beginning of the war), and shooting accuracy was unmatched. The materiel of the opponents as a whole was equivalent, but the Russian three-inch and field 122-mm howitzer were among the best in their class. But the most important factor was the significant superiority of the Germans in heavy artillery. The Russian army had 7030 guns (including only 240 heavy howitzers and cannons) [Details see Barsukov EZ Artillery of the Russian Army (1900-1917). M., 1948-1949; he is Preparing Russia for a world war in artillery relation. M.-L., 1926]and the German one - 6528 guns (including 1688 heavy - 150 - 420-mm caliber). Germany was also an innovator in the use of heavy mortars. In both states, anti-aircraft guns appear.


3. German artillerymen

A significant miscalculation of the warring parties is the absence of guns at the battalion and regimental level, that is, the lack of means for effectively supporting infantry on the battlefield.


4. Russian heavy battery in position

Both in the Russian and German armies developed before the war aviation, road transport, armored vehicles, communications, engineering tools.

During the mobilization, the Russian army received 4,2 thousand cars, and the German one 4 thousand, but the Germans had a larger share of trucks.

Only Russia had special heavy bomber aircraft “Ilya Muromets” at the beginning of the war. Parachute (developed in 1911 by G. E. Kotelnikov) is also a Russian invention. Russia had 263 aircraft at the start of the war, and Germany had 232. In the conditions of the Eastern Front, aviation was used primarily for reconnaissance purposes, especially at the beginning of the war.

In the naval sphere, Germany focused on the British the fleetThe Baltic Sea was considered a secondary theater of operations. Prior to the entry of the Sevastopol dreadnoughts into operation, the Russian Baltic Fleet was seriously inferior to the Germans, and the main task facing it was to prevent the Germans from entering the Gulf of Finland to Petrograd, primarily through a mine war (which, incidentally, was successfully completed).

It is also worth noting that the first Russian dreadnoughts of the “Sevastopol” type (commissioned in November – December 1914) were among the strongest in their class (especially their Black Sea variant). Both foreign experience and the experience of the Russian-Japanese war were fully taken into account. Destroyers of the Novik type were the first turbine destroyers; the German destroyers with 102-mm artillery could not carry on them with weapons (88-mm guns). The first in the world underwater mine layer “Crab” is a domestic novelty. By the beginning of the war, Russia had 23, and Germany had 28 submarines, but the Bars Russian submarine was considered one of the best in the world. Homeland hydroaviation - also Russia. For the first time, all the war (especially on the aircraft fleets of the Black Sea Fleet) were launched: D. P. Grigorovich seaplanes M-1, M-2, M-4. M-5, M-9. Three-gun ship towers, some fire control methods also owe their appearance to the Russian fleet.

The Russian fleet deservedly won first place in the development of mine weapons. Torpedo model 1912 g. In speed and range exceeded foreign analogues. For the first time, a three-tube torpedo tube appears and an innovative method of volley firing by a fan (later adopted by the British) is used. The Russian sea mines of the electro-shock and shock-mechanical type left far behind foreign designs for technical data and reliability. The British acquired Russian mines throughout the war. Ahead of the Russians were in the field of washing weapons.

Combat training in the Russian and German fleets was quite comparable. The emphasis of the Germans was on artillery firing, in which they were very successful (the squadron of the Black Sea battleships fired best of all). Of the Russian fleets, the Baltic Fleet was particularly brilliant in combat training (the great merit of its commander, N. O. von Essen). The exercises were held year-round; connections were created to solve independent operational and tactical tasks. The number of practical shooting was great, including through fast loading. Seriously organized training on the use of mine-torpedo weapons (especially in real conditions of mine-artillery positions of the Gulf of Finland). Attention was also paid to the development of the actions of the fleet together with ground forces (which the Germans did not attach much importance to). Summarizing the above, it can be noted that the German squadron of the Baltic Sea has a more than serious rival in the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Finally, there are great prospects for the development of the Russian army and navy. In particular, Russia's military spending in 1908 was 1511000 francs, and Germany - 1504000 francs (in France this figure was 1100000, and in Austria-Hungary - 529000 francs).

In 1913, the Russian Empire adopted a large program for the construction of the armed forces, calculated up to 1917.

In accordance with it, the land army increased in peacetime to 1710000 people, infantry personnel increased, 32 infantry, 26 cavalry, 6 rifle regiments were to be formed.

But most importantly, in the artillery relation, Russia leveled off with Germany and even surpassed it. Thus, the artillery brigade of the infantry division included 9 cannon and 2 howitzer (122-mm) batteries - 66 guns in the division instead of 48 and plus howitzers, which were not at the divisional level. A heavy division of 4 batteries (107-mm guns and 152-mm howitzers) was attached to the army corps. What is the worst for the Germans, with a larger number of battalions, our corps was superior to the German one and in the number of gun barrels (instead of the ratio of 108 to 160, we got 200 to 160).

The naval shipbuilding program envisaged the construction of four most powerful battlecruisers with 356-mm artillery of the main caliber of the type "Izmail", and the Russian Empire was developed with the 406-mm main caliber. These ships were to become the basis of Russia's ocean power, giving it a Mediterranean squadron (as in the days of Ushakov's expeditions) with a station in Bizerte. By a sad coincidence, Bizerte became the last refuge of the Russian Black Sea Fleet after the Crimean exodus at the end of the Civil War.

According to German historians and memoirists, to win such a Russian army would be very problematic. Time worked for Russia — the Germans should use the available advantages at the earliest opportunity, using the very first opportunity to unleash a war. Earlier - better than later. And this was a very important factor in the outbreak of war by the states of the German bloc precisely in 1914.


5. German battery in 1914
Our news channels

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

77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    5 October 2017 06: 42
    Very interesting article, good photos, informative, thanks!
  2. +4
    5 October 2017 07: 37
    complete nonsense.
    "a Russian boat of the Bars type was considered one of the best in the world."
    but what Tsvetkov writes in “Bars-type submarines” - “The main difficulty in building these boats, as well as others, was the lack of finished diesel engines. The war prevented the supply of diesel engines ordered in Germany, and the St. Petersburg plant“ Ludwig Nobel "Could not quickly master the production of large-capacity diesel engines. Under these conditions, the ministry was forced to order the installation of diesel engines with a capacity of 11 hp developed by the Kolomensky Zavod and diesel engines removed from the Amur gunboats on the first 250 boats of the Bars type. type “Flurry.” Four more submarines were supposed to install diesel engines (420 hp) purchased in America from the company “New London.” This, of course, worsened the most important tactical and technical elements of the boats in comparison with the technical conditions, but there was no other way out. And only on the last three submarines it was planned to install full-time 1320-horsepower engines, the production of which was supposed to be mastered by then Avod “Ludwig Nobel”. "
    from the results - “On the other boats“ Amur ”diesel engines with a power of 2x250 hp were installed. In this regard, all Bars-type boats participating in the hostilities in the Baltic Sea had an underestimated surface speed of up to 11,5 knots against the design 17,5 knots.
    The enemy’s transports were about the same speed as submarines in the surface position. How difficult it is to take an advantageous position for a torpedo attack when the speed of the boat is lower than the speed of the target, or at best equal to it, everyone knows this, and not just the commanders of the submarines. It seems that not one attack of “leopards” failed precisely for this reason. Bars-type boats were constantly at risk of being discovered and destroyed by convoy guards due to too long diving times. They could not secretly, while at a depth with the mechanisms turned off, wait out the attacks of the guard ships, because they did not have air regeneration devices and were content with the reserve that was during the dive "
    and many many others.
    Yes, and "Sevastopol" is still that masterpiece.
    1. +18
      5 October 2017 09: 15
      And here is what is written:
      "in some important characteristics they were superior to their closest competitors, for example, in underwater swimming range. The main design flaws were the lack of waterproof bulkheads, which significantly reduced the survivability of the submarines and poor power supply. The Barca conscientiously and successfully fought in World War I, survived Revolution, participated in the Civil War (on both sides), and then regularly served in the ranks of the Navy of the USSR until the Second World War, which was met as a training facility. The last submarine of the Bars type - Panther from the composition of the Navy of the USSR in 1942 and was converted into a CCD, in 1955 it was disassembled for metal. "
      And more:
      "Bars-type submarines became a timely, important and necessary acquisition of the Russian Imperial Fleet. The launch of the Bars series significantly strengthened the fleet and allowed the command to feel more freely in the operational spaces of the Baltic - taking not only defensive, but also attacking positions . Despite all the design flaws of the boat and the difficult operating conditions - the Russian sailors loved the Bars and achieved excellent results. After the war, having joined the Soviet Navy, the Bars brought up more than one generation of submariners and set more than one record. submarines of the Bars type are one of the record holders among submarines of the beginning of the century in terms of service life - 37 years - which is a lot for that time. "
      "Sevastopol" nobody seems to call masterpieces. At the level.
      And Shershov writes in the History of Naval Shipbuilding, noting their strengths: "a continuous freeboard reservation was applied, ensuring it from the action of armor-piercing and high-explosive shells, as well as a very successful linear arrangement of twelve 305-mm guns in three-gun towers."
      The pros and cons of everything
      The processes were underway, and some are more active than those of foreigners - here, in my opinion, the main thing
      1. +3
        5 October 2017 09: 37
        If you look at the Sevastopol LC as a mobile floating battery, then it is in full order with it, it could cheer to trawl minesweepers in a mine position, and it was not worth it to engage in battle with classmates.
        1. +16
          5 October 2017 09: 43
          And what are the conditions of the Baltic war?
          And not everything is so simple
          1. +1
            5 October 2017 11: 17
            However, the “Sevastopol” ALL WAR ... went from base to base or stood in the bases!
            And the old battleships, gunboats and destroyers puffed out for them!
            Here they besieged the siege of Leningrad helped to survive!
        2. +11
          5 October 2017 11: 13
          Quote: Cartalon
          If you look at the Sevastopol LC as a mobile floating battery, then it is in full order with it, it could cheer to trawl minesweepers in a mine position, and it was not worth it to engage in battle with classmates.

          Not so long ago at the VO there was an analysis of Sevastopol and comparing them with a "probable opponent". Quite a decent ship, second only to the last two series of German battleships.
      2. +1
        5 October 2017 09: 40
        I want to remind you that the “level” was hidden from the rear in the rear and that he didn’t accept a single fight. And the results of the reservation test on Chesme were classified.
        "So, the Bars-type submarines are one of the record holders among the submarines of the beginning of the century in terms of service life - 37 years - which is a lot for that time." - you still remember Dzhevetsky’s square with pedal drive: they served even longer ... like beacons.
        war will best reveal its effectiveness — the Germans and the British have successful torpedo attacks from warships from underwater position, the Russians do not. in their statistics, transports, moreover, sunk from the surface. Panther exception with the English destroyer.
        here's another “poor shape of the Bars boat’s hull was not the only reason for the increased resistance of the boat to water and speed reduction. Dzhevecki’s trellised torpedo tubes installed in special hull niches — four devices on each side also contributed to this process. These devices created only the appearance of the power of torpedo armaments, they did not ensure the safety of torpedoes in salt water, complicated their testing and preparation for firing, they were frozen during the winter, in the assault conditions they led to the loss of torpedoes, they were damaged during the course of the boat in broken ice. the same years of operation, they were transferred to the upper deck, but this did not change much, and subsequently they were abandoned altogether. " so from 12 torpedo tubes we have ... but we have nothing in fact, 8 then trellised!
        1. +10
          5 October 2017 11: 48
          Quote: Andy
          I want to remind you that the “level” was hidden from the rear in the rear and that he didn’t accept a single fight. And the results of the reservation test on Chesme were classified.

          And after all, what is interesting is not so much ours and made a mistake - as we see, at distances 70-80 KBT excellent German armor-piercing shells took 229-mm armor every time. But our “trouble” is that having said “A”, I had to say “B” as well. Realizing that the distances of naval battles had grown greatly, our artillerymen wanted to have armor-piercing shells capable of penetrating enemy armor at these increased distances. For this, the concept of “light projectile - high initial speed” was no longer suitable, so our developers created a Wunderwaffe 470,9-kg, with which the new 305-mm / 52 gun was ahead of the entire armor penetration plane. By that time, the first series of our battleships had long been standing on the stocks ... And then they passed the tests, and we were horrified, knowing that the armor of Sevastopol did not protect at all from our armor-piercing shells of the 1911 sample of that time also extremely vulnerable for that creations of gloomy domestic genius and that imported guns do not have such an all-destructive power, they somehow did not think about it.
          https://topwar.ru/58854-linkory-tipa-sevastopol-u
          speh-ili-proval-chast-2.html
          1. 0
            5 October 2017 22: 11
            what caliber are "excellent German shells"? and when did they work on armor if there were no fights?
            1. +4
              6 October 2017 08: 24
              Quote: Andy
              what caliber are "excellent German shells"? and when did they work on armor if there were no fights?

              It means Jutland. I specifically gave the link, everything is painted in detail there
          2. 0
            8 October 2017 11: 45
            There was also a 1912 shell weighing 512 kg, but it was too heavy for the guns of the new battleships.
    2. +16
      5 October 2017 13: 11
      Here is what Yu. V. Apalkov writes about the Black Sea dreadnoughts (such as “Empress Maria”): the armor protection of the side and towers has been strengthened, the number of mine artillery guns has been increased to 20, increasing the caliber to 130 mm. For the first time in world practice, each of the towers of the Civil Code was equipped with rangefinders. Warships of the Russian fleet. SPb., 1996. S. 120. Less speed and more powerful booking (not inferior to the German dreadnought "Nassau"). And the “Imparator Nikolay I” received a keyed connection dovetail armor plates and an additional increase in the thickness of the armored bulkheads
  3. +6
    5 October 2017 07: 55
    A parachute (developed in 1911 by G. E. Kotelnikov) is also a Russian invention. Russia had 263 airplanes by the beginning of the war ... That's just one thing ... how many airplanes were produced by Germany during the war and how many Russia ... and most were foreign-made and of different types .. Quantity doesn’t mean quality .. For 1914- 1917 in Russia, 5000 aircraft engines were assembled .. there weren’t enough catastrophic ones for Russian aviation ... A parachute, too expensive a pleasure for Russian aviation, was invented, but was practically not used, until the beginning of the 30s ...
    1. +19
      5 October 2017 09: 29
      Dear parusnik
      After all, we are talking about the situation AT THE BEGINNING of the war
      Her postponement affected production and organizational matters.
      And as for the fact that the parachute was actively used (at least by balloonists) - let me mention the article "Silk Road to the Ground" - published in the military-industrial complex (Military Industrial Courier). Moreover, in the aeronautical parts of the parachute allowed to minimize the loss of crews of tethered balloons
      1. +4
        5 October 2017 10: 29
        Before World War II, the Main Military Technical Directorate ordered 70 knapsack parachutes for aviation and aeronautics. However, parachutes were not found to be used in aviation squads or aeronautical companies. It was only in 1916 that it was decided to transfer them to field-based aeronautical companies, which were armed with tethered balloons. Of the 70 Kotelnikov parachutes, some of them became unusable as a result of various experiments. The rest could not satisfy the needs of all aeronautical companies. This forced them to urgently purchase parachutes from the allies of Russia-France and England, where they had long been an obligatory accessory of a tethered balloon. Only by 1917 the Petrograd Triangle factory had mass-produced parachutes of the Zhukmes system from domestic materials .... And the situation at the beginning of the war is very beautiful .. Lubok .. Full of arsenals .. all in abundance ... "Fly falcons, eagles!" .. In two weeks we will take Berlin.
        1. 0
          5 October 2017 10: 42
          In two weeks we’ll take Berlin.
          SO IT WOULD TAKE IF THE RUSSIAN ARMY HAD NOT HINDENED
        2. +9
          5 October 2017 11: 09
          Quote: parusnik
          ... And the situation at the beginning of the war is very beautiful .. Lubok .. Full of arsenals .. all in abundance ... "Fly falcons, eagles!" .. In two weeks, we will take Berlin.

          So after all, it is almost one-on-one reminiscent of what poured from each reproducer and was in the Soviet newspapers on the eve of the Second World War ... "With little blood, a mighty blow ... We will fight on foreign territory." There are more tanks and planes than the imperialists ... And our citizens had no doubt that the valiant RKKA would be in Berlin in a month ....
          In fact, as you know, everything turned out very differently and it took time, big sacrifices and enormous stress of all forces to turn the tide in our favor ....
          The same thing happened in the WWII - over time, the situation gradually improved and problems that were exposed with the outbreak of war were resolved ....
          The level of combat capability of the Imperial Army was seriously affected, among other things, by the fact that the personnel of the Army were mostly knocked out. By 1916 no more than 3-4 staff officers remained in the infantry regiments, and accelerated graduations from military schools and ensign schools were no longer a full substitute for the losses incurred in personnel ...
          This circumstance later affected the behavior of the renewed officer corps in 1917, which was no longer welded, as before, by the oath, corporate spirit and centuries-old traditions ...
          1. 0
            5 October 2017 13: 38
            Yes ... the situation is one to one ... before the war ...
        3. +16
          5 October 2017 12: 55
          parusnik
          A parachute, too expensive a pleasure for Russian aviation, was invented, but was hardly used, until the beginning of the 30s ...

          So all the same, parachutes were used not from the beginning of the 30s, but during the WWII? ...
          Let me give you the following interesting statistics
          Ballooning in 1917
          On May 29, artilleryman-observer of the 25th Army Aeronautical Detachment Poltoratsky jumped out of a balloon set on fire by an enemy aircraft from a height of 700 m. During the descent, he lost consciousness and was slightly injured in the fall.
          On June 2, an observer of the 27th Army aeronautical detachment, Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Vlasenko, jumped out of a hot air balloon set on fire by an enemy aircraft during a descent — from a height of 300 m. Zhukmes’ parachute wasn’t fastened, and Vlasenko jumped, wrapping a rope around his arm and neck. He survived, but received cuts to his arms and neck.
          On June 2, an observer of the 20th Army Aeronautical Detachment, senior non-commissioned officer Bryantsev, jumped out of a balloon set on fire by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 530 m.
          On June 3rd, an ordinary soldier of the same part of Peikal - the same
          On June 10, Fedorovsky, an observer of the 45th Corps Aeronautical Detachment, jumped out on a Zhukmes parachute from an attacked balloon from a height of 450 m. 104 holes were found in the balloon. Safely
          On June 10, the artillery observer of the 45th Corps Aeronautical Detachment Yarchevsky - the same. Safely
          On June 10, Kurbas, an observer of the 7th Army Aeronautical Detachment, jumped out of a hot air balloon set on fire by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 650 m.
          On June 11, an artillery observer of the 25th army aeronautical detachment, Kochetkov, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 400 m. The parachute did not fully open (2 trigger cords were torn), and Kochetkov, having received leg bruises, was taken to the hospital on a stretcher
          On June 16, an observer of the 14th Army Aeronautical Detachment Ulyanovsky jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 600 m. As a result of a late jump (the fire spread to the balloon gondola), about a third of the parachute was burned - Ulyanovsky received burns, but survived.
          On June 19, Samghin, an observer of the 2nd Corps Aeronautical Detachment, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 700 m. The parachute stuck together and did not open - Samghin died.
          On June 23, an observer of the 7th Corps Aeronautical Detachment, Vasiliev, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 200 m.
          On June 23, an observer of the 9th corps aeronautical detachment, Smelov, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Kotelnikov parachute from a height of 250 m. The slings were not fastened with straps, and Smelov held them in his hands. Landed safely.
          On June 23, an observer of the 19th Army Aeronautical Detachment, Alexandrov, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 200 m.
          On June 25, Nekrasov, an observer of the 2nd Guards Corps Aeronautical Detachment, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft from a height of 40 m. The parachute opened when Nekrasov was already on the ground, and the aeronaut died
          On July 1, an observer of the 45th corps aeronautical detachment, Rudenko, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 300 m.
          On July 1, an observer of the 45th Corps Aeronautical Detachment Troitsky (assault battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division) jumped from a Zhukmes parachute balloon from a height of 300 m.
          On July 5, an observer of the Grenadier Corps Aeronautical Detachment, non-commissioned officer Kochmar, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a parachute of Kotelnikov from a height of 125-150 m He received a slight injury to his legs
          On July 6, an observer of the 18th Army Aeronautical Detachment (and its commander) Bonet jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 400 m. The falling burning shell of the balloon covered the parachute in the air, and the officer died.
          On July 12, an observer of the 29th Corps Aeronautical Detachment, Porchinsky, jumped from a balloon attacked by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 600 m.
          Then non-commissioned officer Langman
          On July 27, Sosnin, an observer of the 9th Corps Aeronautical Detachment, jumped from a balloon attacked by an enemy aircraft on Kotelnikov’s parachute from a height of 125 m. He received minor bruises
          On August 11, an observer of the 2nd Siberian Corps Aeronautical Detachment Vrumel jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 700 m.
          On August 12, Sobolev, an observer of the 16th corps aeronautical detachment, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 300 m. During a belated jump, the aeronaut's parachute caught on the tail parachutes of the balloon, then cut them off, but did not have time to turn around. Sobolev died.
          On August 13, an observer of the 6th Siberian Corps Aeronautical Detachment Matskait jumped from a balloon attacked by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 520 m.
          On August 25, an observer of the 3rd Corps Aeronautical Detachment, Vorontsov, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 500 m.
          On August 26, an observer of the 22nd Army Aeronautical Detachment, Smirnov, jumped from a balloon lit by an enemy aircraft on a Zhukmes parachute from a height of 300 m.
          On September 13, an observer of the 2nd Army Aeronautical Detachment, Wilsh, jumped from a Zhukmes parachute from a balloon set on fire by an enemy aircraft from a height of 625 m. He received minor bruises

          Thus, statistics illustrate that out of 27 cases of using parachutes in a combat situation, only in 3 balloonists died. That is, almost 89% of observers were saved.
          1. +1
            5 October 2017 13: 43
            I’m talking about mass use .. and began to be used in large numbers since the 30s, when the parachute became a mandatory attribute .. The facts you listed are known .. did not surprise ...
            1. +16
              5 October 2017 14: 09
              I didn’t try to surprise
              You just wrote - the parachute was practically never used until the 30s.
              I clarified
  4. +4
    5 October 2017 09: 31
    It is also worth noting that the first Russian dreadnoughts of the Sevastopol type (entered service in November - December 1914) were among the strongest in their class (especially their Black Sea version). /// I hope this is such a humor or the author about Queen Elizabeth did not hear?
    1. +20
      5 October 2017 09: 39
      It is also worth noting that the first Russian dreadnoughts of the Sevastopol type (entered service in November - December 1914) were one of the strongest in their class

      As I understand
      First, one of the strongest is different from the STRONGEST (I'm talking about Queen Elizabeth, about which everyone has heard).
      Secondly, SPEECH ABOUT 1914. Queen Elizabeth joined the fleet in January 1915.
      Thirdly, Queen Elizabeth is actually even a ship of a different generation of dreadnought
      1. +5
        5 October 2017 10: 59
        Quote: soldier
        Secondly, SPEECH ABOUT 1914.

        Isn’t it so that for the 14th year only the British built and adopted 3 types of superdreadnoughts? Orion type 4 ships, King George V type 4 ships and Iron Duke type 4 ships, and Queen Elizabeth type 5 ships were already being built afloat. And say that 4 Baltic unfinished buildings were at the time of commissioning “among the strongest in the world” - well, it’s only a propaganda stamp, like a “fig leaf,” to cover up a failed project! Yeah, as the author of this article says:
        The foreign experience and the experience of the Russo-Japanese War were fully taken into account.
        It’s taken into account that the booking of the dreadnought was at the level of a battle cruiser! Sevastopol - the main belt-225 ... 125 ... 100 mm; battle cruiser "Lion" - the belt-102 ... 229 mm. So we took into account that we created a “super-battleship” for Tsushima rather than for a battle with contemporaries!
        Quote: soldier
        As I understand
        First, one of the strongest is different from the STRONGEST

        By such logic as yours. Can any squalor be called "one of the best", it (squalor) does not pretend to be the best? request
        1. +14
          5 October 2017 11: 53
          Hm. In fact, Britain is a maritime power with colonies and dominions scattered around the globe, which was the reason for the predominance of fleet spending in the British budget. Russia could not afford to build as many dreadnoughts as England. As for the qualities of “Sevastopol”, the guns of the “Sevastopol” and “Queen Elizabeth” guns were approximately equal in firing range and initial projectile speed. The first depended on the elevation angle of the gun, and the second on the type of charge used.
          As for the reservation, that S. Ye. Vinogradov in his work “The Last Giants of the Imperial Fleet” writes that the Russian MGSH counted primarily on the speed of the battleship in battle and the imposition of an advantageous starting position on the enemy, and
          . it was planned to establish the thickness of the main armor belt only on the basis of the condition of not allowing the projectile to enter the hull as a whole. To keep the shell fragments and armor fragments, it was decided to provide at a distance of 3,5-4 m behind the main belt a powerful rear armored bulkhead 50 mm thick.

          A similar pattern of armor was on the German "Koenig", which the Jutland battle with the British calmly survived.
          1. +1
            5 October 2017 21: 03
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            A similar pattern of armor was on the German "Koenig", which the Jutland battle with the British calmly survived.

            Only you forgot to point out that on “Königah” the maximum thickness of the belt reached 350 mm, unlike the 225 mm “Sevastopol”, well, and further down the list in the same ratio. Somehow it’s generally incorrect, you don’t find it, putting them on one board ?
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            Russian MGS primarily counted on the speed of the battleship in battle and the imposition of an advantageous starting position on the enemy

            Well, yes, yes, the experience of the Russian Federation’s war was taken into account, the “loop of Togo” and all that, and of course, the ratio of the speeds of the two squadrons in that battle! BUT ... Winning 2 knots of speed to the detriment (and such damage!) booking, and consequently, the survivability of the ship! Yes, I read all the vicissitudes of the design of Sevastopol, it runs everywhere with a red thread, that under Tsushima the Russians produced SUCH effect of Japanese high-explosive shells that the "main shipbuilder" Krylov was literally infected with manic the idea was to cover almost every centimeter of the surface with armor. As a result, the armor was "smeared" on the maximum area of ​​the side. And when it dawned (including after shooting the former battleship Chesma on the Black Sea) that this cardboard means nothing against the "modern" armor-piercing shells, it was too late to change something.
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            A similar armor pattern was on the German Königs,

            The Germans, unlike other countries, always had the priority of protecting the ship, even to the detriment of its offensive capabilities! Remember, even the newest German battleships of the II MV, unlike other countries where they built for a long time on the principle of "all or nothing," also had bevels armored decks and the second (sometimes third) armored belt, which was then considered an anachronism.
        2. +10
          5 October 2017 11: 57
          Quote: Vladislav 73
          Isn’t it so that in the 14 year only the British built and adopted the 3 type of superdreadnoughts? Orion type 4 ship, King George V type 4 ship and Iron Duke type 4 ship, and Queen Elizabeth type 5 ships already afloat

          These were the ships of the Allied fleet and, all the more, Russia was not going to dispute the naval power of Britain.
          It’s taken into account that the booking of the dreadnought was at the level of a battle cruiser! Sevastopol - the main belt-225 ... 125 ... 100 mm; battle cruiser "Lion" - the belt-102 ... 229 mm. So we took into account that we created a “super-battleship” for Tsushima rather than for a battle with contemporaries!


          The conclusion from this is this. At a distance of about 80 kb and higher, our battleships could fight Germans without receiving (but without doing) critical damage, although in general there were a dozen or so barrels spitting 470,9-kg projectiles with lower speed (and a greater angle of incidence on such distances than the Germans' flat-fired guns) will have an advantage over 8-10 barrels of the battleships König and Kaiser. At a distance in 60-75 kbt, the Germans will have an advantage, but starting from 50 kbt and less everything is in the hands of the Lord, for there is already German, that Russian armor will be pierced through. True, one can argue that 50 kbt as a battlefield for dreadnoughts is a completely frivolous distance, but I want to remind you that in Jutland it happened to fight with kbt 45.
          And I also want to note an important nuance. At a distance in 60-70 kbt, the commander of the German Kaiser will seek to fight out of ten twelve-inch guns, not eight. To do this, he will have to put his battleship practically on the traverse and on parallel courses to the Russian Dreadnought (otherwise one of the middle towers will not be able to fight). But, having set his own armored belt under 90 degrees to the guns of the Russian battleship, he will automatically put the Sevastopol guns in the best conditions, and his armor will still be vulnerable ... And to change course - yes, Kaiser will get an obvious defense gain, but 8 guns against 12 with a heavier projectile ...
          Someone may say that I play along with Russian dreadnoughts. I want to remind you of the battles of the German “Goeben” against the battleships of the Russian Black Sea fleet. In theory, at distances of the order of 60, the KBGB “Goeben” could have shot Russian ships in a dash, and those would not have had a chance to inflict decisive damage on it. In fact, we have the fact that the two attempts of the German ship to fight with the Russian battleships ended in the swift flight of the Geben.
          Therefore, I am still inclined to think of Sevastopol-type battleships about equal to the “Kaiser”, but inferior to “Koenig”. However, it should be noted that even the Kaisers were laid down after Sevastopol, the Kaiser battleships being the third German type of dreadnought (the first was Nassau, the second was Helgoland), and the Germans had gained a certain base and experience, and Sevastopol is the first among Russians. Well, while Nassau and Helgolands met with the Baltic Dreadnoughts in battle, it was absolutely contraindicated ...
          https://topwar.ru/58854-linkory-tipa-sevastopol-u
          speh-ili-proval-chast-2.html
          1. +11
            5 October 2017 13: 47
            All this is dreadnaughting. What is the point of comparing the performance characteristics of the dreadnought, if they did not justify themselves in the WWI. It would be better if they let money into the army (that we, that the Germans)
          2. +2
            5 October 2017 21: 14
            Quote: Trapper7
            These were the ships of the Allied fleet and, all the more, Russia was not going to dispute the naval power of Britain.

            I just wanted to say that it is extremely incorrect to talk about “Sevastopol” as “one of the strongest in the world.” Or then it’s necessary to clarify, type: “yes, at the time of laying, they stood next to those and those, but the concept was initially flawed, as well as unfinished turned these / one of the strongest in the world / dreadnoughts into second-class ships. "Well, something like that! hi
    2. +8
      5 October 2017 10: 37
      the first US battleships also did not represent anything outstanding, although the American industrial potential was already the most powerful at that time
      1. 0
        5 October 2017 11: 11
        Yeah, only the first US battleships before the Dreadnought were designed ..
        1. +8
          5 October 2017 12: 06
          Quote: Cartalon
          Yeah, only the first US battleships before the Dreadnought were designed ..

          Well then, the USA, having the most powerful economy in the world, could not build them before the British? and then what claims to Russia?
    3. +12
      5 October 2017 11: 20
      Queen Elizabeth is a ship of the ally country once, Sevastopol was built against Germany.
      Sevastopol was laid in the 1909 year and at the time of laying it was more than a worthy adversary to any ship in the world, and the fact that the "great liberal" Duma did not allocate money for their construction for two years was not the fault of the fleet, after the construction began, the ships were built quickly enough, although it turned out to be somewhat outdated with respect to the latest super dreadnoughts, it was quite competitive in other ships, and all kinds of trash like Nassau were torn up simply without options for the latter.
      1. +1
        5 October 2017 11: 55
        And when did they break Nassau?
        1. +10
          5 October 2017 12: 01
          Quote: Cartalon
          And when did they break Nassau?

          Good. "would have broken." Or do you want to say the opposite? ))))
          1. +1
            5 October 2017 13: 18
            Why not.
            "Sevastopol" did not go to the defense of mine positions ...
            And battleships like "Nassau" covered the 2nd breakthrough that began on August 16, 1915!
            To participate in the second breakthrough, the dreadnoughts of the 2nd Posen Division (flag of operation commander Vice Admiral Schmidt) and Nassau were involved: the light cruisers Graudenz (flag of the commander of the 2nd reconnaissance group of Rear Admiral Hebbinghaus), Pillau, and Bremen "and" Augsburg "; destroyers V-99, V-100 and V-108. 8th. 9th and 10th MM flotillas (31 ships in total) and 1st and 2nd minesweeper divisions: auxiliary minesweeper division of the Swineemünde base and the Ost fairway guard flotilla of the Neufarwasser base (8 ships); an auxiliary mine layer "Deutschland". three steamers intended for flooding and the Otensen and Solingen minefields.
            The cover was carried out by the ships of the High Sea Fleet:
            the battle cruiser Seidlnz (flag of the commander of the reconnaissance forces of Vice Admiral Hipper), Moltke and Von der Tann; dreadnoughts of the 1st Division Ostfriesland (flag of the acting commander of Rear Line Admiral Gedecke's 1st linear squadron), Oldenburg, Thuringen and Helgoland; dreadnoughts of the 2nd Rhineland Division (flag of the acting junior flagship of the 1st squadron of Captain 1st rank Engel), Westfalen, dreadnoughts of Braunschweig, Alsace, armored cruiser Roon (flag of the commander of reconnaissance forces in Rear Baltic Admiral Hopman), cruiser Regensburg, Stralsund, Lübeck, Kohlberg (flag of Captain 1st Rank von Restorf, the youngest flagship of the destroyer forces);
            1st. 3rd and 5th destroyer fleets (32 ships in total).
            In addition, in Libau, the pre-dreadnought battleships Wittelsbach, Wettin, Schwaben (flag of the junior flagship of the 4th squadron of Rear Admiral Alberts), Mecklenburg, Woerth, Brandenburg were in readiness; Answald and Santa Elena air transport; hospital ship "Schleswig" and four destroyers.
            Russian ships approached only around noon.
            From a distance of 110 kbt. (20000 m), the destroyer Novik, a large number of destroyers and destroyers, were identified among them gunboat "Brave", battleship "Glory" (commander captain 1st rank Vyazemsky) and mine-loader "Cupid".
  5. +2
    5 October 2017 11: 20
    Anyhow yes ...
    It was smooth on PAPER (rifles and cartridges "extra" were sold and handed out).
    NOBODY COUNTED WAR ON DEPLETION!
    NONE!
    The Russian Empire LOSED THIS WAR!
    1. +11
      5 October 2017 13: 49
      No one counted, yes. Neither we, nor Germans, nor French. But the article is not about that at all.
      PySy The war was not lost by the Russian Empire, but by Soviet Russia, then.
  6. +14
    5 October 2017 11: 29
    An excellent and, as always, objective article, demonstrating remarkably that the Germans, unlike other European countries, persistently and consistently prepared for the pan-European war and were its initiators. To the author - my gratitude for the work done!
    PS I first learned about the project of superdreadnoughts like "Russian Empire". The presence of such a project proves that the Maritime Ministry of the Republic of Ingushetia closely watched the dreadnought arms race and did not intend to allow Russia to lag behind in this area.
    1. +1
      5 October 2017 11: 44
      I wonder where this stuff is - superdreadnoughts like "Russian Empire"?
      Izmail is a battle cruiser of the Russian Imperial and Soviet Navy, leading in a series of battle cruisers of this type.
      Laid down on December 6, 1912 at the Baltic Plant in St. Petersburg. Senior ship builder I.I. Bobrov. It began construction on April 1, 1913.
      UNFINISHED! No one...
      The guns intended for Izmail were installed on railway conveyors. One gun remained at the Rzhev marine test site. They took part in the Great Patriotic War.
      HAVE TO SUPERVISION YOU ...
      1. +17
        5 October 2017 12: 50
        I wonder where this stuff is - superdreadnoughts like "Russian Empire"?

        It was a LINCOR project with 406 mm main caliber artillery
        1. +1
          5 October 2017 13: 06
          Share this PROJECT!
          And then in all my books, the story ends with battlecruisers of the Izmail type!
          And the last MORTGAGE LINCOR is considered to be "EMPEROR NICHOLAS I"!
          Laid down in June 1914 and launched in October 1916! NOT COMPLETED! In 1927, disassembled for metal!
          Under the USSR, they also designed and even began to build battleships "Soviet Union" -DO NOT CONSTRUCTED! War.
          1. +11
            5 October 2017 13: 22
            The selection of documents offered to readers from the funds of the Russian State Archive of the Navy just introduces this little-known moment in the history of domestic shipbuilding. Due to the significant volume. “The main tasks ...” are published in the form of separate extracts, which, nevertheless, on the whole quite adequately reflect the views of MGS specialists. Their approach, interpretation and justification for the various elements of the future battleship.

            Thus, on the battleships of the Baltic Sea three 4-gun turrets of the double-barreled type with 16 guns should be installed.


            http://alternathistory.com/proekt-lineinogo-korab
            lya-vodoizmeshcheniem-35000-tonn-rossiiskaya-impe
            riya
            1. 0
              5 October 2017 13: 44
              Again alone - SHOULD BE ...
              “The Soviet Union” and “Soviet Ukraine” at least MORTGED!
              And THIS IS RECEIVED SIMPLY PICTURES!
              1. +10
                5 October 2017 14: 03
                Quote: hohol95
                Again alone - SHOULD BE ...
                “The Soviet Union” and “Soviet Ukraine” at least MORTGED!
                And THIS IS RECEIVED SIMPLY PICTURES!

                You asked for a PROJECT, I gave it to you, so what more))))
                1. +2
                  5 October 2017 14: 14
                  Thanks for the link! But the author turns out to distort - what a battleship of the type "Russian Empire", when this name does not appear in the above documents!
                  And the project was rather a conceptual sketch on the basis of which the already real linear ship project was to be born!
              2. +14
                5 October 2017 14: 06
                In fact, these were projects designed for the post-war period. In a country holding a front against three enemy powers (Austria-Hungary, Germany, Turkey) no one in their right mind would spend money and money on building such giants for which there were no goals in the WWII (in fact, this is the answer to the question why the Ishmaels were built so slowly) . The Germans after 1915 and Jutland-1916 did not particularly aspire to the Baltic region stuffed with Russian mines. They again launched operations against the Baltic Fleet only in 1917, after the weakening of the Russian fleet by revolutionary traitors.
                But in the post-war world for the "allies", in particular, for Britain, such ships would become a weighty argument in favor of taking Russian interests into account.
                1. 0
                  5 October 2017 14: 51
                  It was a project FOR PEACE TIME! And to realize the construction of 8 such ships by 1924, Russia could only NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE WORLD WAR!
                  1. +15
                    5 October 2017 17: 56
                    Excuse me, why are you so sure that Russia could implement such projects only without participating in the world war? In principle, the industrial capacities of Russia were quite enough for the construction of these ships in the post-war period.
                    1. 0
                      6 October 2017 08: 14
                      "Dreadnought" appeared in 1905!
                      In December 1907, a competition was announced for the design of a new battleship.
                      Received 51 SKETCH DESIGN.
                      The design of the Baltic plant was selected.
                      June 3, 1909 laid 3 battleships !!! ("Dreadnought" for 4 years)
                      In the summer of 1911, the descent of the hulls into the water!
                      BUT ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION began in 1912, and the BASIC VOLUME OF CONSTRUCTION WORKS WAS MADE IN 1913!
                      ACCEPTANCE OF SHIPS as part of the ACTING NAVY was carried out from OCTOBER to DECEMBER 1914!
                      They were not even commissioned at the beginning of the war!
                      And you want to build another 8 ships during the war with even more powerful tactical and technical characteristics !!!
                      They built it in peace - there were constant delays due to the unpreparedness of the mechanisms and weapons!
                      The Empresses were more fortunate - they were built faster!
                      But already the "Emperor Nicholas I" laid down in June 1914 was not completed and by October 1917!
                      One ship could not finish! And give you 8 more!
                      And for the onset of the POST-WAR PERIOD - IT IS NECESSARY TO WIN IN THE WAR! Yes, preferably with less loss than opponents!
            2. +1
              5 October 2017 18: 30
              sir, did you know that ...
              in RI there was a practice - first technical specifications and projects, then they select the best project, start building the ship and during the construction (!!) make changes to the project several times ... Dm Donskoy and Izmail passed it. in the end, a mess that most importantly what properties or still the price and a long in 2-3 longer period of construction of the ship.
              what am I doing this? besides, even the approved project was completely redone, and you are talking about some kind of even unapproved desire to have a battleship with 406 mm guns.
              py.s. Do you know about the project of the submarine cruiser Zhuravlev with a retractable turret of 130mm guns? so it turns out, the project is a project, but nobody even thinks of building it!
          2. 0
            5 October 2017 13: 22
            The project, it seemed like his chip, was that this monster could not go through the Danish straits, and therefore nothing stronger than it would have appeared in the Baltic, shorter than a colossus to protect the marquise puddles.
  7. +3
    5 October 2017 13: 27
    As for me, even in the articles for the VO site, I should not allow stretch marks and distortions (colloquially - blunders).
    Examples.
    "Only Russia had at the beginning of the war special aircraft for heavy bomber aircraft" Ilya Muromets. "
    Yes, indeed, by August 1914, 4 (four) Ilya Muromets aircraft had been built. Moreover, there were already 1 (one) pilot capable of piloting these four aircraft, which was absolutely not intended for military operations - their creator was Igor Sikorsky. Therefore, the commander of the Aircraft Squadron created in December 1914, M. Shidlovsky had to start from scratch. And for the first time, squadron planes flew on a mission in February 1915. In May 1915, combat flights were made by as many as 2 (two) Ilya Muromets).
    Total in the years 1914-1917. 66 aircraft were built. Therefore, despite the fact that the role of "Ilya Muromets" in world aircraft construction is huge, its influence on the course of hostilities of the First World War is negligible.
    And if we compare the aircraft industry of Russia and Germany at the beginning of the WWII, the picture will not be in favor of the first, since it completely depended on supplies from France. Therefore, a comparison of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the war does not mean anything. In addition, there were 232 pilots on the 263 (according to other sources 129) aircraft.
    Mine Crab "Crab" - really the first in the world underwater mine. However, he was launched on the Black Sea in 1915, during the war he completed three mine operations and one Turkish gunboat was blown up on his mines. True, there are versions of the bombing of the Breslau cruiser on his mines. But this is just a version.
    "... the first Russian dreadnoughts of the Sevastopol type (entered service in November - December 1914) were among the strongest in their class (especially their Black Sea version)."
    These "class-strongest" ships were inferior even to the Austro-Hungarian "classmates" and never fired at the enemy. "Glory", an armadillo from the time of the Russo-Japanese War, alone fought with the battleships of the Germans.
    And most importantly, what is missing from what articles of this kind should begin is the assessment of the military-industrial potential, since this is the main factor for the successful conduct of such a long war.
    1. +3
      5 October 2017 13: 41
      You, as always, see the root!
      We are proud of Sikorsky’s brainchildren, BUT FORGETING THE NUMBER of machines produced for the war and during the war!
    2. +10
      5 October 2017 14: 12
      Quote: Curious
      And most importantly, what is missing from what articles of this kind should begin is the assessment of the military-industrial potential, since this is the main factor for the successful conduct of such a long war.

      Good time!
      You know, in my opinion, given the title of the article, the information is disclosed quite well, at least not very blurry, brief information is given that Germany in 1914 was ready for a land war, but her opponents did not.
      1. 0
        5 October 2017 14: 19
        All who are preparing for war are ahead of those with whom the war is being waged!
        Or was it the other way around in history (I won’t be surprised, but it was possible)?
        ALL FILES OF THE PARTICIPANT OF THE IMPERIALIST ZAVARUKH WERE READY FOR A QUICK WAR!
        But ONE ONE turned out to be capable of ONLY ONE !!!
        1. +11
          5 October 2017 14: 48
          Aptom and speech. Germany was gearing up and 1914 was the best year to start. For by 1917 this advance would no longer exist.
          1. +2
            5 October 2017 14: 53
            At the same time, Russia and France turned out to be less ready of all!
            But France had a DEVELOPED INDUSTRY (plus colonies) and the proximity of Britain! And Russia has the GERM OF INDUSTRY!
            1. +11
              5 October 2017 15: 56
              From whom "all"? Who was better prepared than Russia and France, except Germany?
              1. 0
                5 October 2017 16: 17
                ALL Europe was prepared in different variations!
                BUT ALL were preparing for a quick attack and easy victories!
                But the Germans were ahead of the French and thus had to exert all their forces for defense!
                And the Russians generally fought against three opponents - Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey!
                Russia was not ready for such an exertion of forces!
    3. +16
      5 October 2017 14: 47
      Quote: Curious
      Moreover, there were already 1 (one) pilot capable of piloting these four aircraft, which was absolutely not intended for military operations - their creator was Igor Sikorsky. Therefore, the commander of the Aircraft Squadron created in December 1914, M. Shidlovsky had to start from scratch.

      Nevertheless, aircraft of this class and such carrying capacity were in service with only one country in WWII - the Russian Empire. It is a fact. As for the production of engines, Ri was well aware of this problem and in 1917 it was planned to commission several engine-building plants. industry then generally developed at a frantic pace: http://polit-ec.livejournal.com/10400.html
      The same thing with the number of aviation at the front, Russian aviators put up a number of aircraft commensurate with the Allies and Austro-Germans: http://kosmodesantnick.livejournal.com/7585.html
      As for the “Sevastopol”, they did not shoot in the Baltic just because they did not find worthy targets at that time. Or would you like battleships to go to sea to disperse German destroyers and transports? (Although, to tell you the truth, my opinion - it would be better yes, they did. Both ours and German, because then the crews of the ships would have much less time to listen to the nonsense of revolutionary agitators. And it would be easier to deal with the agitators themselves at sea .) But "Empress Maria", built on a project based on "Sevastopol" fired. And how she shot. Even in the whole Trebizond operation she managed to participate.
      PS And on the basis of what data do you conclude that the Russian battleships were inferior to the Austrian?
      1. +2
        5 October 2017 15: 36
        Was this for Sevastopol’s goals during the second attempt to break into the Gulf of Riga?
        Yes, there were plenty of goals! Only these same “goals” could “aim” in response so that we would lose all three “Sevastopol”.
        To participate in the second breakthrough, the dreadnoughts of the 2nd Posen Division (flag of operation commander Vice Admiral Schmidt) and Nassau were involved: the light cruisers Graudenz (flag of the commander of the 2nd reconnaissance group of Rear Admiral Hebbinghaus), Pillau, and Bremen "and" Augsburg "; destroyers V-99, V-100 and V-108. 8th. 9th and 10th MM flotillas (31 ships in total) and 1st and 2nd minesweeper divisions: auxiliary minesweeper division of the Swineemünde base and the Ost fairway guard flotilla of the Neufarwasser base (8 ships); an auxiliary mine layer "Deutschland". three steamers intended for flooding and the Otensen and Solingen minefields.
        The cover was carried out by the ships of the High Sea Fleet:
        the battle cruiser Seidlnz (flag of the commander of the reconnaissance forces of Vice Admiral Hipper), Moltke and Von der Tann; dreadnoughts of the 1st Division Ostfriesland (flag of the acting commander of Rear Line Admiral Gedecke's 1st linear squadron), Oldenburg, Thuringen and Helgoland; dreadnoughts of the 2nd Rhineland Division (flag of the acting junior flagship of the 1st squadron of Captain 1st rank Engel), Westfalen, dreadnoughts of Braunschweig, Alsace, armored cruiser Roon (flag of the commander of reconnaissance forces in Rear Baltic Admiral Hopman), cruiser Regensburg, Stralsund, Lübeck, Kohlberg (flag of Captain 1st Rank von Restorf, the youngest flagship of the destroyer forces);
        1st. 3rd and 5th destroyer fleets (32 ships in total).
        And this is your lack of goals ... I don’t want to choose ...
        1. +14
          5 October 2017 18: 12
          I agree with you that in August 1915, Sevastopoli, in principle, could take part in the battles, but keep in mind that German second-line ships did not even move for the entire battle in the Gulf of Riga. And speaking of the reservation, I want to remind you that the Glory, the pre-dreadnought battleship battled on equal terms with the German dreadnoughts Nassau and Posen, which could not cause him significant damage. Sevastopoli, with their 12 main guns and a higher speed of movement, could have achieved considerable results if it had not been for the MGS’s decision to keep them in the Gulf of Finland in case an attempt was made to break the German High Seas Fleet to St. Petersburg.
          1. +1
            6 October 2017 08: 26
            Without even causing a SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE to "Glory", German ships broke through minefields and entered the Gulf of Riga!
            Destroyed the gunboat "Sivuch", and the gunboat "Korean" blew up their own crew !!!
            And LINEAR SHIPS calmly stood in bases or covered mine productions !!!
            1916 and 1917, they gloriously stood in Helsinki !!!
      2. +3
        5 October 2017 16: 26
        Hello, Lieutenant!
        "And yet, aircraft of this class and such carrying capacity were in service with only one country in WWII - the Russian Empire.". Nobody argues with this. I wrote that the contribution of this aircraft to the global aircraft industry is enormous. But you’ll understand his contribution to military operations. The Japanese also had already two of the largest battleships in the world during WWII.
        "The same thing with the number of aircraft at the front, the Russian aviators put up a number of aircraft commensurate with the Allies and Austro-Germans"
        Aircraft Production 1914-1918

        France 67
        UK 58
        Germany 48 units
        Italy 20 pcs.
        USA 15 pieces
        Austria-Hungary 5 pcs.
        Russia 4 pcs. (mainly - the assembly of car kits for French and British aircraft).
        “As for the Sevastopol, they didn’t shoot in the Baltic just because there were no worthy goals for them at that time.”.
        Lieutenant, I’m uncomfortable for you. Pikul, or something, read ..
        1. +11
          5 October 2017 16: 53
          Quote: Curious
          But here is his contribution to military operations - you yourself will understand.


          The contribution of aviation to the database at the beginning of the WWII is generally insignificant. And the contribution of IM against the general background is quite noticeable - it flew, bombed, impressed both ours and enemies.

          Quote: Curious
          Aircraft Production 1914-1918


          And what if without 1918?
        2. +14
          5 October 2017 18: 34
          Hello Curious!
          Quote: Curious
          Aircraft Production 1914-1918

          I ask you to be more attentive to the numbers. Data on aviation production during the WWII varies greatly. In the article, the link to which I gave you, there are already three versions of these figures. but in reality, even TSB (Great Soviet Encyclopedia) recognized that
          .. by the end of the war Germany had 2 aircraft, Austria-Hungary - 730, France - 622 3, Great Britain - 321 1, USA - 758, Italy - 740, Russia - 842
          and this, I emphasize towards the end of the war, which came by November 1918. K. November. 1918. The year. Russian industry began to decline in March 1917, when revolutionary unrest began, while in Germany, England and France, the defense industry was increasing production rates until the end of 1918. Do you understand the difference? For more than a year and a half, the Allies put into operation factories and increased the output of military products. At this time, we ... chaos and devastation were growing. That is, comparing the production volumes of England, France and Germany over the 4 years of the war with Russia over 2,5 years is at least incorrect. And given the fact that the revolution prevented the introduction of new aircraft plants, it’s completely wrong. And while the factories were operating at a normal pace, the number of aircraft allowed the end of 1916 to hold 724 aircraft at the front, and by February 1917 - 1039 aircraft. Not the best indicator, but quite at the level of opponents.
          Quote: Curious
          Pikul, or something, read ..

          Excuse me, but when I read this “advice” of yours, I did not manage to restrain my homeric laughter. With all due respect to Pikul the writer, Pikul the historian was, to put it mildly, incompetent. He was too free to deal with historical facts and sources, for which he was criticized more than once. You might as well recommend me reading Roman Zlotnikov. The author is good, he only writes about “fellow travelers” in the AI ​​genre, which is why his works are of only artistic but not historical value.
          1. +2
            5 October 2017 22: 05
            Dear Lieutenant. From the previous discussions with you, I have made one significant conclusion for myself.
            If I give even one hundred evidence that in Russia at the beginning of the war there was completely no national school of engine building, which did not appear until the end of the war, you will find one hundred excuses for this situation.
            If I cite the fact that the gross output of all Russian aircraft factories, even in the most favorable year of 1916, did not exceed 30-40 aircraft per month, while the production of aircraft engines of national design was still absent, you will answer that this is at the level, albeit somewhat worse but ok.
            Well and so on. So with all due respect, no more than two rounds with you and that’s it. And then this run in a circle will be endless. The network has a ton of materials on this subject - look if you wish.
            As for Pikul, this is satire. When I read your comment about the lack of targets for battleships, I also laughed for a long time, so Pikulya wrote.
            1. +4
              6 October 2017 12: 21
              Quote: Curious
              in Russia, at the beginning of the war, the national school of engine building was completely absent, which did not appear until the end of the war


              How could it be "completely absent" if in RI before the war even several materials of its own design were made even in the material?

              Quote: Curious
              If I cite the fact that the gross output of all Russian aircraft factories, even in the most favorable year of 1916, did not exceed 30-40 aircraft per month, while the production of aircraft engines of national design was still absent, you will answer that this is at the level, albeit somewhat worse but ok.


              And it is right. Because the figure 30-40 itself does not say ANYTHING. Is it a lot or a little? She can only speak in comparison. For example, in comparison with production AT THE SAME TIME of other participants in the war.
              1. 0
                6 October 2017 12: 39
                You better give an example of installing these engines on airplanes. Well, at the same time, the production of aircraft in Germany, England, France is a monthly one. So it will speak.
                1. +2
                  6 October 2017 13: 21
                  What for? You said about the “completely absent”, although it is not so, and the figure of 30-40 aircraft did not please you. You and cards in hand.
                  1. +1
                    6 October 2017 14: 20
                    And what are you then delivering remarks from the audience to remind yourself of?
                    1. +1
                      6 October 2017 14: 45
                      I submit that it would become obvious that you are either simply off topic or deliberately disingenuous.
                      1. 0
                        6 October 2017 16: 53
                        And, I realized, the local John avenging for everyone. Oh well.
  8. +21
    5 October 2017 14: 03
    Well, the elements of the military-economic potential are a little spelled out by the author earlier - in the article on the HE "Russia and Germany in 1914".
    And here it is said: BRIEFLY about the ARMED FORCES of Russia and Germany in 1914
    In the 14th year they are outlined.
    But trends during the war are a separate and cumbersome topic.
    These "class-strongest" ships were inferior even to the Austro-Hungarian "classmates" and never fired at the enemy. "Glory", an armadillo from the time of the Russo-Japanese War, alone fought with the battleships of the Germans.

    So if EVEN “Glory” so opposed the Germans - why would the “Sevastopol” division have worked worse? They simply took care of her - the king’s personal order was needed to leave her at sea.
    On the battleships of the Black Sea, booking was increased - and it corresponded to classmates. And even with a slightly reduced speed - “Goeben” drove.
    But the most important thing in my opinion is not even these details - but
    In 1913, the Russian Empire adopted a large program for the construction of the armed forces, calculated up to 1917.

    And the growth of the military budget before the war allowed it
    in artillery terms, Russia was aligned with Germany and even surpassed it. Thus, the artillery brigade of the infantry division included 9 cannon and 2 howitzer (122 mm) batteries - 66 guns in the division instead of 48, plus plus howitzers, which were not at the divisional level. And the army corps was given a heavy division of 4 batteries (107 mm guns and 152 mm howitzers). What is most terrible for the Germans, with more battalions, our corps was superior to the German one in terms of the number of gun barrels (instead of the ratio of 108 to 160, it turned out to be 200 to 160).

    Time really worked for Russia and the enemy did not have to (if he wanted to fight) drag out.
    Well, it turned out what happened
    Thank you hi
  9. +2
    6 October 2017 16: 59
    Curious,
    I do not understand what you mean. But for you it would be better not to clown, but simply to admit that they screwed up, would save face.

"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"