Military Review

Why does the Russian Empire have a military fleet?

198



It is known that the question "Does Russia need an ocean fleet, and if so, why?" still causes a lot of controversy between supporters and opponents of the “big fleet". The thesis that Russia is one of the largest world powers, and as such it needs a fleet, is countered by the thesis that Russia is a continental power that does not particularly need a navy. And if she needed some naval forces, then only for the immediate defense of the coast. Of course, the material offered to your attention does not pretend to be an exhaustive answer on this issue, but still in this article we will try to reflect on the tasks of the navy of the Russian Empire.

It is well known that at present approximately 80% of the entire foreign trade, or rather, foreign trade turnover is carried out by sea transport. It is equally interesting that sea transport as a means of transportation is leading not only in foreign trade, but also in the world cargo turnover as a whole - its share in total commodity flows exceeds 60%, and this does not take into account inland water (mainly river) traffic. Why is that?

The first and key answer - shipping is cheap. They are much cheaper than any other type of transport, rail, road, etc. And what does it mean?

It can be said that this means additional profit for the seller, but this is not entirely true. It was not for nothing that in old times there was a saying: “Over the sea, the heifer is half a sheaf, and the ruble is hauling.” We all understand very well that for the end customer of the product its cost consists of two components, namely: the price of the goods + the price of delivery of this very product to the territory of the consumer.

In other words, here we have France of the second half of the 19 century. Suppose that she has a need for bread and the choice to buy wheat from Argentina or from Russia. Suppose also that the cost of this same wheat in Argentina and Russia is the same, which means that the profit extracted at the same sale price is the same. But Argentina is ready to deliver wheat by sea, and Russia only by rail. Shipping costs for Russia will be higher. Accordingly, in order to offer an equal price with Argentina at the place of consumption of the goods, i.e. in France, Russia will have to reduce the price of grain by the difference in transportation costs. In essence, in world trade in such cases, the difference in the cost of transportation to the supplier has to pay extra from its own pocket. The buyer's country is not interested in the price “somewhere out there” - it is interested in the price of goods in its territory.

Of course, no exporter is willing to pay the higher cost of transportation by land (and today by air) transport from his own profit, therefore, in any case, when the use of sea transport is possible, they use it. It is clear that there are special cases when it turns out to be cheaper to use road, railway or other transport. But these are particular cases, and they do not make the weather, but they mostly resort to land or air transport only when, for whatever reason, sea transport cannot be used.

Accordingly, we will not be mistaken in declaring:
1) Sea transport is the main transport of international trade, and the overwhelming majority of international cargo transportation is carried out by sea.
2) Sea transport has become such as a result of cheapness relative to other means of delivery.

And here we often hear that it was precisely the Russian Empire that did not have maritime transport in sufficient quantities, and if so, then why does Russia need a navy?

Well, let us remember the Russian Empire of the second half of the 19-th century. What was going on in its foreign trade then and how valuable was it for us? Due to the lag in industrialization, the volume of industrial goods of Russia exported fell to ridiculous values, while the bulk of exports were food products and some other raw materials. In essence, in the 2-th half of the 19-th century, against the backdrop of the rapid development of industry in the United States, Germany, etc. Russia quickly slipped into the rank of agrarian powers. For any country, its foreign trade is extremely important, but for Russia at that moment it turned out to be extremely important, because only in this way could the newest means of production and high-quality industrial products enter the Russian Empire.

Of course, it was reasonable to buy, because, by opening the market to foreign goods, we risked destroying even the industry that we had, because it would not withstand such competition. Therefore, a significant part of the 2-th half of the 19-century, the Russian empire followed a policy of protectionism, that is, they imposed heavy customs duties on imported products. What does this mean for the budget? In 1900, the revenues of the Russian ordinary budget were 1 704,1 million rubles, of which customs duties formed 204 million rubles, which is quite noticeable 11,97%. But these 204 million rubles. the profit from foreign trade was not exhausted at all, because the treasury also received taxes on exported goods, and in addition, the surplus between imports and exports provided the currency to service the public debt.

In other words, manufacturers of the Russian Empire created and sold for export hundreds of millions of rubles (unfortunately, the author did not find out how many were shipped in 1900, but in 1901 they shipped products by more than 860 million rubles). Naturally, due to this sale in the budget were paid a tidy amount of taxes. But in addition to taxes, the state additionally received additional excess profits in the amount of 204 million rubles. from customs duties, when the money gained from export sales, acquired foreign products!

It can be said that all of the above gave a direct benefit to the budget, but it was also indirect. After all, producers did not just sell for export, they made a profit on the development of their farms. It is no secret that the Russian Empire bought not only colonial goods and all kinds of junk for those in power, but, for example, also the newest agricultural machinery — far from as much as was needed, but still. Thus, foreign trade contributed to an increase in labor productivity and an increase in total production, which, again, subsequently contributed to the replenishment of the budget.

Accordingly, it can be said that foreign trade was a super profitable business for the budget of the Russian Empire. But ... We have already said that the main trade between countries is by sea? The Russian Empire is by no means an exception to this rule. Most, if not to say - the vast majority of goods were exported / imported from Russia / to Russia by sea transport.

Accordingly, the first task of the fleet of the Russian Empire was to ensure the security of the country's foreign trade.

And here there is one very important nuance: the foreign trade brought super-profits to the budget, and not the presence of a strong merchant fleet in Russia. More precisely, there was no strong merchant fleet in Russia, but there were significant budgetary preferences from foreign trade (carried out by sea on 80). Why is that?

As we have said, the price of goods for the country of purchaser consists of the price of goods in the territory of the country of origin of the cost of delivery to its territory. Consequently, it doesn’t matter who carries the products: Russian transport, British ship, New Zealand canoe or Nautilus by Captain Nemo. The only important thing is that the transport is reliable, and the cost of transportation is minimal.



The fact is that it makes sense to invest in the construction of a civilian fleet only in those cases if:
1) The result of this construction will be a competitive transport fleet, capable of providing the minimum cost of shipping in comparison with the transports of other countries.
2) For any reason, the transport fleets of other powers cannot ensure the reliability of cargo transportation.

Unfortunately, at least due to the industrial backwardness of the Russian Empire in the 2-th half of the 19-th century, it was very difficult for it to build a competitive transport fleet, if at all possible. But even if it was possible - what will we achieve in this case? Strangely enough, nothing special, because the budget of the Russian Empire will have to find funds for investments in the marine transport industry, and it will only receive taxes from the newly formed shipping companies - perhaps a similar investment project would be attractive (if indeed we could build a maritime transport system at the level of the best in the world) but still did not at all promise profits in the short term, and superprofits never did. Strangely enough, to ensure Russia's foreign trade, its own transport fleet was not very necessary.

The author of this article is not in any way opposed to a strong transport fleet for Russia, but it should be understood: in this regard, the development of railways was much more useful for Russia, because in addition to domestic traffic (there is no sea in the middle of Russia, you want it or not, but it has to be transported by land) is also a significant military aspect (acceleration of mobilization, transfer and supply of troops). And the country's budget is not rubber. Of course, a transport fleet of the Russian Empire was needed, but the development of the merchant fleet of an agrarian power at that time should not be given priority.

The military fleet is needed to protect the country's foreign trade, i.e. cargo transported by the transport fleet, it is absolutely unimportant whose transport fleet carries our cargo.

Another option is - what will happen if we abandon sea transportation and focus on land? Nothing good. First, we increase the cost of delivery and thereby make our products less competitive with similar products from other countries. Secondly, unfortunately, or fortunately, Russia traded with almost all of Europe, but it bordered - far from all European countries. By organizing trade "land" through the territory of foreign powers, we always have the danger that, for example, the same Germany at any moment will introduce a duty for the transit of goods through its territory, or will oblige to carry only its own transport, breaking the transport for an utter price and ... What will we do in this case? Let's go to the foe of holy war? Well, if he borders with us, and at least theoretically we can threaten him with an invasion, and if there are no common land borders?

Sea transport does not create such problems. The sea, besides the fact that it is cheap, is also remarkable by the fact that it is nobody's. Well, with the exception of territorial waters, of course, but they generally do not do special weather ... Of course, if we are not talking about the Bosporus.

As a matter of fact, the statement about how difficult it is to trade through the territory of not too friendly countries is perfectly illustrated by the Russian-Turkish relations. For many years, the kings looked at the Straits with lust, not because of congenital quarrelship, but for the simple reason that while the Bosphorus was in the hands of Turkey, they were in control of a significant part of Russian exports that went directly through the Bosphorus on ships. In the 80 and 90 of the 19 century, the Bosphorus was exported to 29,2% of all exports, and after the 1905 year, this figure increased to 56,5%. According to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, over the decade (from 1903 to 1912), export through the Dardanelles amounted to 37% of the total export of the empire. Any military or serious political conflict with the Turks threatened the Russian Empire with enormous financial and image losses. At the beginning of the 20 century, Turkey closed the Straits twice - it happened during the Italian-Turkish (1911-1912) Balkan (1912-1913) wars. According to the calculations of the Russian Ministry of Finance, the loss on closing the Straits for the treasury reached 30 million rubles. monthly.

The behavior of Turkey perfectly illustrates how dangerous the position of the country, whose foreign trade can be controlled by other powers. But this is exactly what would happen with Russian foreign trade, try to conduct it by land, through the territories of a number of European countries that are not always friendly to us.

In addition, the above data also explains how the foreign trade of the Russian Empire with the Bosporus and the Dardanelles was interconnected. For the Russian Empire, the capture of the Straits was a strategic task not because of the desire for new territories, but to ensure uninterrupted foreign trade. Consider how the navy could contribute to this task.

The author of this article has repeatedly met the view that Turkey, if it really squeezes, we could conquer the land, i.e. simply occupying its territory. This is largely true, because in the 2-th half of the 19-th century, the resplendent Port gradually slipped into senile marasmus, and although it was still a fairly strong adversary, it still could not resist Russia in a full-scale war alone. Therefore, it would seem, for the conquest (temporary occupation) of Turkey with the withdrawal of the Bosporus in our favor, there are no special obstacles, and the fleet for this would not seem necessary.

The problem in all this reasoning is only one - no single European country could have wished for such a strengthening of the Russian Empire. Therefore, there is no doubt that in the event of the threat of seizure of the Straits, Russia would immediately face powerful political and then military pressure from the same England and other countries. As a matter of fact, the Crimean War of 1853-56 was caused by similar reasons. Russia should always take into account that its attempt to seize the Straits would face political and military opposition from the strongest European powers, and as the Crimean War showed, the Empire was not ready for that.

But even worse was possible. If suddenly Russia nevertheless chose such a moment when its war with Turkey for some reason would not have caused the formation of an anti-Russian coalition of European powers, then while the Russian army cut its way to Constantinople, the British, having carried out a lightning landing operation, could well have To “grab” the Bosphorus for itself, which would be for us a grave political defeat. For worse, the Straits in the hands of Turkey for Russia would be the Straits in the hands of Foggy Albion.

And therefore, perhaps the only way to seize the Straits without getting involved in a global military confrontation with a coalition of European powers was to conduct its own lightning operation with the landing of a powerful assault force, seizing the dominant heights and establishing control over the Bosphorus and Constantinople. After that, it was necessary to urgently transport large military contingents and to strengthen coastal defenses in every possible way - and prepare to stand the battle with the British fleet "in advance positions."

Accordingly, the Black Sea navy was needed for:
1) The defeat of the Turkish fleet.
2) Ensuring the landing of troops (fire support, etc.).
3) Reflections of a possible attack by a British Mediterranean squadron (based on coastal defenses).

It is likely that the Russian land army could have won the Bosphorus, but in this case, the West had enough time to think and organize opposition to its capture. It is quite another thing to quickly capture the Bosphorus from the sea and put the world community in front of a fait accompli.

Of course, you can argue about the realism of this scenario, remembering how strongly the allies were involved, having besieged the Dardanelles from the sea in the First World War.



Yes, having spent a lot of time, effort and ships, dropping powerful landings, the British and French, as a result, were defeated and were forced to retreat. But there are two very significant nuances. First, it is impossible to compare the slowly dying Turkey of the sample of the second half of the 19 century with the “Young Turkish” Turkey of the First World War - these are two very different powers. And secondly, the Allies for a long time tried not to capture, but only to force the Straits, using only the fleet, and thus gave Turkey time to organize land defense, concentration of troops, subsequently repulsing the Anglo-French landing forces. The Russian plans did not envisage the forcing, but the seizure of the Bosphorus, by carrying out a sudden landing operation. Consequently, although in a similar operation Russia could not use resources similar to those that were thrown by the allies in the Dardanelles during the first world war, there was a certain hope of success.

Thus, the creation of a strong Black Sea fleet, obviously superior to the Turkish and corresponding to the power of the British Mediterranean squadron, was one of the most important tasks of the Russian State. And you need to understand that the need for its construction was determined not by the whim of those in power, but by the most burning economic interests of the country!

A small remark: hardly anyone who reads these lines considers Nicholas II to be an exemplary statesman and a beacon of state wisdom. But the Russian shipbuilding policy in World War I looks perfectly reasonable - while in the Baltic the construction of the Izmailov was completely curtailed in favor of light forces (destroyers and submarines) dreadnoughts continued to be built on the Black Sea. And not at all the fear of “Goeben” was the reason: having a rather powerful fleet of 3-4 dreadnoughts and 4-5 battleships could risk and try to capture the Bosphorus, when Turkey completely exhausted its forces on the land fronts, and the Grand Fleet another will keep quietly rotting in Wilhelmshaven Fleet of the open sea. Having thus put our valiant allies on the Entente before the accomplished fact of “swords of dreams” of the Russian empire.

By the way, if we talk about a powerful fleet to capture the Straits, then it should be noted that if Russia reigned on the shores of the Bosphorus, the Black Sea would finally turn into Russian Lake. Because the Straits are the key to the Black Sea, and a well-equipped land defense (with the support of the fleet) was likely to repel any attack from the sea. And this means that there is absolutely no need to invest in the land defense of the Black Sea coast of Russia, there is no need to keep troops there, etc. - And this is also a kind of savings, and quite considerable. Of course, the presence of a powerful Black Sea fleet to some extent made life easier for land forces in any war with Turkey, which, in fact, was perfectly demonstrated by the First World War, when Russian ships not only supported the coastal flank with artillery fire and landing forces, but that is even more important , interrupted the Turkish shipping and thus excluded the possibility of supplying the Turkish army by sea, "closing" it on land communications.

We have already said that the most important task of the Russian Imperial Navy was to protect the country's foreign trade. For the Black Sea theater and in relations with Turkey, this task is very clearly specified in the seizure of the Straits, but what about the other countries?

Of course, the best way to protect your own maritime trade is to destroy the fleet of a nation that dares to attack it. But to build the world's most powerful navy, capable, in the event of war, to crush any competitor at sea, to drive the remnants of its navy into ports, block them, cover their communications with cruisers in masses and ensure unimpeded trade with other countries without any problems opportunities of the Russian Empire. In the 2-th half of the 19-th and the beginning of the 20-th century, the construction of the military fleet was perhaps the most high-tech and technologically advanced industry among all other human occupations - it’s not for nothing that the battleship was considered the pinnacle of science and technology of those years. Of course, Tsarist Russia, with a certain amount of difficulty reaching the 5-th place in the world in terms of industrial power, could not count on building a military fleet superior to the British.

Another way to protect our own maritime trade is to somehow “convince” countries with a more powerful navy to stay away from our products. But how can this be done? Diplomacy? Alas - political alliances are short-lived, especially with England, which, as we know, “has no permanent allies, but only permanent interests”. And these interests are to prevent any European power from excessively strengthening - as soon as France, Russia or Germany began to demonstrate power sufficient for the consolidation of Europe, England immediately threw all its forces into forming an alliance of weaker powers to weaken the power of the strongest.

The best policy argument is power. But how to show it to the weakest at sea power?
To do this, remember that:
1) Any first-class maritime power itself conducts a developed foreign trade, a significant share of which is carried out by sea.
2) Attack always has priority over defense.

This is exactly how the theory of “cruising war” emerged, which we will consider in more detail in the next article: for the time being we only note that its key idea: the conquest of dominance at sea through cruising operations turned out to be unattainable. But the potential threat to maritime traffic, which was created by a fleet capable of conducting cruising operations in the ocean, was very great and even the mistress of the seas, England was forced to take it into account in her policy.

Accordingly, the creation of a powerful cruising fleet served two tasks at once — the cruisers were excellently suited both to protect their own freight and to interrupt enemy maritime trade. The only thing the cruisers could not do was fight with far better armed and protected armadillos. Therefore, of course, it would be a shame to build a strong cruising fleet in the Baltic Sea and ... to be blocked in the ports by few battleships of some kind of Sweden.

Here we are concerned with such a fleet task as protecting our own coast, but we will not consider it in detail, because the need for such protection is obvious both for supporters and for opponents of the ocean fleet.

So, we state that the key tasks of the naval force of the Russian Empire were:
1) Protection of Russian foreign trade (including by seizing the Straits and creating a potential threat to foreign trade of other countries).
2) Protecting the coast against threats from the sea.

How the Russian Empire was going to solve these problems, we will talk in the next article, but for now let us pay attention to the question of the cost of the navy. And really - if we say that the military fleet is necessary to protect the country's foreign trade, then the budget revenues from foreign trade should be correlated with the cost of maintaining the fleet. Because one of the favorite arguments of the opponents of the “big fleet” is precisely the gigantic and unjustified costs of its construction. But is it?

As we said above, in 1900, revenues from customs duties on imported goods alone amounted to 204 million rubles. and this, of course, the benefit from the foreign trade of the Russian state was far from exhausted. And what about the fleet? In 1900, Russia was a first-class maritime power, and its fleet could well claim to be the third fleet in the world (after England and France). At the same time, mass construction of new warships was carried out - the country was preparing to fight for the Far Eastern frontiers ... But with all this, in 1900, the expenses of the Naval Department for the maintenance and construction of the fleet amounted to only 78,7 million rubles. This amounted to 26,15% of the amount received by the Ministry of War (expenditures for the army amounted to 300,9 million rubles) and only 5,5% of the total budget of the country. True, it is necessary to make an important caveat.

The fact is that in the Russian Empire there were two budgets - ordinary and extraordinary, with the latter often being used to finance the current needs of the military and naval ministries, as well as to wage wars (when they were) and some other goals. The above 78,7 mln. Rub. according to the maritime ministry, only the ordinary budget was spent, but how much money the Maritime Office received under the emergency budget, the author does not know. But the total for the emergency budget for the needs of the Military and Maritime Ministries in 1900 r was allocated 103,4 million rubles. and it is obvious that from this amount sufficiently large funds were spent on suppressing the boxing uprising in China. It is also known that from the emergency budget, the army was usually allocated much more than the fleet (for example, in 1909 g more than 82 million rubles were allocated for the army, less than 1,5 million rubles for the fleet), therefore it is extremely difficult to assume that the total cost of the Marine Ministry in 1900 g exceeded 85-90 mln. rub.

But in order not to guess, let's look at the 1913 statistics of the year. This is the period when the combat training of the fleet was given increased attention, and the country implemented an enormous shipbuilding program. 7 dreadnoughts (4 “Sevastopol” and 3 of the “Empress Maria” type ship on the Black Sea), 4 giant Izmail type cruisers, as well as six Svetlana light cruisers were in various stages of construction. At the same time, all expenses of the Marine Ministry in 1913 (for ordinary and extraordinary budgets) amounted to 244,9 million rubles. At the same time, the income from customs duties in 1913 g was 352,9 million rubles. But the financing of the army exceeded 716 million rubles. It is also interesting that in 1913, the budget investments in state assets and enterprises amounted to 1 billion. 108 million rubles. and that's not counting 98 mln. rub., budget investments in the private sector.

These figures irrefutably indicate that the construction of a first-class fleet was not at all an imposing task for the Russian Empire. In addition, it should always be borne in mind that naval construction required the development of a huge number of technologies and was a powerful stimulus for the development of industry as a whole.

To be continued ...
Author:
198 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Cartalon
    Cartalon 17 November 2017 15: 48 New
    +5
    In general, everything is true, Russia should not build the fleet on the principle that the fleet exists, but for specific tasks, but for what tasks did Sevastopol and Izmail build?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 16: 10 New
      13
      Quote: Cartalon
      But what tasks did Sevastopol and Ishmael build?

      Let's get to them :))))
      I was planning to publish a series of seemingly disparate articles, which, as you read them, will allow you to draw certain conclusions about the concepts and purpose of ships in the RIF :)))
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 17 November 2017 17: 40 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        as you read them, you will be able to draw certain conclusions about the concepts and purpose of ships in the RIF:

        what good drinks Finally a favorite topic wink hi
      2. badens1111
        badens1111 17 November 2017 18: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I was planning to publish a series of seemingly disparate articles, which, as you read them, will allow you to draw certain conclusions about the concepts and purpose of ships in the RIF :)))

        That's great, your comments are already read with great interest, and here is a series of articles. We are waiting. Successes. good
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 November 2017 19: 00 New
          +4
          Thank you :))) And let's start - from afar, from mine-artillery positions, and our beloved "Glory". I have already laid out the first article, but when it appears on the main one, I don’t know :)
          1. badens1111
            badens1111 17 November 2017 20: 14 New
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I have already laid out the first article, but when it appears on the main one, I don’t know :)

            I have to vote. I AM FOR.
            It’s useful and interesting for us to know the history of the Fleet on land, and especially with a good and clear presentation of the material.
      3. antivirus
        antivirus 17 November 2017 20: 54 New
        0
        These figures irrefutably indicate that the construction of a first-class fleet was not at all an impossible task for the Russian Empire.

        -and will never be a priority for Russia
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 November 2017 20: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: antivirus
          -and will never be a priority for Russia

          If you compare the costs of the fleet with the War Department, you will see that in order to build a first-class fleet, Russia did not need to be given priority. We had the third fleet of the world, spending on it barely 25% of the cost of the army
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 17 November 2017 21: 00 New
            +1
            to ride a horse with a saber - this is ours.
            to raise a new generation of "sea" people is more difficult than to call in cavalry or armored peasants.
            AND NOW THE SAME.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              17 November 2017 21: 05 New
              +3
              Quote: antivirus
              to raise a new generation of "sea" people is more difficult than to call in cavalry or armored peasants.

              The Turks, whom Ushakov was tearing in the tail and mane, strongly disagree with you
    2. pacific
      pacific 17 November 2017 23: 34 New
      +2
      With Sevastopol, everything has long been clear: this is a battle with the German fleet at the central mine-artillery position at the mouth of the Gulf of Finland. That is why all 4 LCs stood in Helsinki throughout the war.
      But with the Ishmaels, everything is not so simple - the Baltic for them would still be too small.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        17 November 2017 23: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: pacific
        With Sevastopol, everything has long been clear: this is a battle with the German fleet at the central mine-artillery position at the mouth of the Gulf of Finland.

        Opinion is as widespread as erroneous, alas.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 18 November 2017 07: 37 New
          0
          how erroneous, alas.

          - everything in the world is relative. if RI-RF needs to overcome land distances - buy auto production (screwdriver) and road-building equipment + Sapsans and Swallows.
          what overseas to do if all our foreign markets
          - in Europe and Asia?
          everything needs to be developed, of course.
          MOST IMPORTANT - TIME ON THE WAY FROM CHELYABA TO MOSCOW OR VLADIK, AND NOT FROM GAVR TO NEWYORK ???
        2. Kibb
          Kibb 18 November 2017 13: 07 New
          0
          The opinion is completely erroneous - in TTZ everything is said - open Baltic.
          (Russia may be a very rich country, however, building four dreadnought for the role of huge monitors for the Gulf of Finland is already too much smile )
    3. yehat
      yehat 27 July 2018 16: 27 New
      0
      the tasks are all formulated 100 500 years ago
      but you need to build not for tasks, but for the coincidence of growth in demand for solving problems and opportunities.
      the ocean fleet is not an axiom, but an expensive tool that helps foreign trade.
      its existence directly depends on the development of the economy and if there is no economy, such a fleet is not needed ..
  2. Kibb
    Kibb 17 November 2017 15: 50 New
    +4
    In general, everything is clear and understandable (+). Not a bad educational program for those who do not know or do not want to understand Mahan's doctrine.
    Of course, today a lot has changed, and there are some controversial points in the article, but the doctrine continues to work ... however, I will wait for the continuation
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 16: 12 New
      +6
      Quote: Kibb
      In general, everything is clear and understandable (+)

      Thank you!
      Quote: Kibb
      Of course, much has changed today.

      And much :) So far I was going to limit myself to the RIF, but I can "stretch it out" to this day
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 November 2017 18: 02 New
      +8
      Quote: Kibb
      Not a bad educational program for those who do not know or do not want to understand Mahan's doctrine.

      And how is it consistent with this doctrine that in none of the wars in which the very existence of Russia was decided, our fleet was never the main "player"? From strength auxiliary role.

      After all, by and large, it’s always not about whether a fleet is needed or not. The question is whether the fleet can gain an advantage over the army in financing and providing resources.

      Information for consideration: the construction of the light cruiser "Maxim Gorky" cost 60 million rubles. This is the 222 T-34 tank of the first releases. That is one fifth of all issued before the war.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 17 November 2017 18: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Information for reflection

        MG actively participated in the defense of Leningrad, so the money was not spent in vain.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 November 2017 18: 50 New
          +4
          Quote: Dart2027
          MG actively participated in the defense of Leningrad

          Perhaps it was precisely these two hundred tanks that were not enough to not bring the situation to the point of defending Leningrad?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 November 2017 19: 06 New
            +4
            Quote: Spade
            Perhaps it was precisely these two hundred tanks that were not enough to not bring the situation to the point of defending Leningrad?

            Absolutely, no.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 November 2017 21: 04 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Absolutely, no.

              But I’m not at all sure about this ...
          2. Dart2027
            Dart2027 17 November 2017 19: 22 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Perhaps these two hundred tanks were not enough
            With tanks, and so everything was fine, so it is unlikely.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 November 2017 21: 04 New
              +3
              Yeah ... Everything is fine, but Leningrad had to be defended ...
              "And the rest is a beautiful marquise" (c)
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                17 November 2017 21: 44 New
                +3
                Quote: Spade
                Yeah ... Everything is fine, but Leningrad had to be defended ...

                We have stamped these tanks more than all the other powers of the world combined. And you seriously argue that 200 was not enough? :)))))))
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 17 November 2017 22: 29 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  We have stamped these tanks more than all the other powers of the world combined.

                  Do you consciously replace concepts? We are talking about preparing for war, aren't we. Retreating to the suburbs is not a very good course of action.

                  And about "more than everyone else" .. 8))) Americans during the Second World War produced 148 tanks and self-propelled guns, the USSR - 410 105 units, Germany - 251 46. That is, the USSR and Germany overtook the Americans by only two thousand .
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    17 November 2017 22: 32 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Spade
                    Do you consciously replace concepts?

                    No. But I do not understand where the substitution
                    Quote: Spade
                    And about "more than everyone else" .. 8))) Americans during the Second World War produced 148 tanks and self-propelled guns, the USSR - 410 105 units, Germany - 251 46. T

                    I apologize, but for some reason it seemed to me that we were talking about the beginning of the war and that it would be better for us - KRL or 200 tanks. And by 1941, it was precisely that we had riveted the tanks more than all the other powers taken together that we had the EMNIP of 24 thousand tanks in the Red Army
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 17 November 2017 22: 42 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And by 1941, it was precisely that we had riveted tanks more than all the other powers combined

                      But they weren’t enough, were they. Motorization and equipping with other means of traction - practically the horse did not roll. Thanks to the Americans, supported. With artillery an even greater failure. With anti-tank weapons, the blockage is completely complete.
                      So, the money for a large and expensive toy was clearly spent in vain. Moreover, a very significant part of them turned out to be completely thrown into the wind. When they dismantled the cruisers and battleships already under construction.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        17 November 2017 23: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        But they weren’t enough, were they.

                        Yes, there were much more than necessary. There was not much else, and this to a large extent did not even concern technology.
                        There was no quality training for the army. No funds were found for abandoning the territorial divisions, for the timely expansion of the Red Army, for normal training ... And yes, theoretically, something could be transferred from the fleet for these needs. However, with 100500 tanks or with more than 25 thousand aircraft - even more so.
                        Quote: Spade
                        So, money for a big and expensive toy

                        The fleet is not a toy at all.
                      2. pacific
                        pacific 18 November 2017 01: 17 New
                        +3
                        If you decide to judge such "expensive toys" as ships and compare their usefulness and effectiveness with other types of weapons, read at least the basic works on naval history and strategy. Such as “The Sea Power of the State” by S. G. Gorshkov, “On the Eve” by N. G. Kuznetsov, “The Influence of Sea Power on History (1660-1783)” by A. Mekhen, books of A. Patients and S. Pereslegin.
                        By the way, Pereslegin in his book “A New History of the Second World War” has a very interesting economic analysis regarding the effectiveness of replacing the production of military equipment with vehicles.
                        PS It is very interesting to see your calculation of re-profiling the Baltic Plant (namely, the Maxiim Gorky LKr was built there in 1936–38) for the production of land equipment, no matter whether it’s automobile or armored.
                        Why do I ask you to make such a calculation? It's simple - ALL tank and tractor factories have already been loaded with tank production. Where are you going to build an additional 200 tanks?
                        PPS "Maxim Gorky" was laid in 1936, launched in 1938, surrendered to the fleet (raised the flag of the Navy) in 1940. A tank T-34 started (!) to develop in 1937, and in March 1940 two(!) prototypes reached Moscow on their own and were presented to the government. If you, dear Mr. Lopatov, have even the elementary beginnings of analysis, you will see that your statement about the greater usefulness in the defense of Leningrad of 200 thirty-fours instead of 1 cruiser pr.26 bis does not withstand any criticism. If it were done according to yours, then there would be no cruiser or tanks in the defense of the city.

                        And about the participation of cr “Maxim Gorky” in the defense of Leningrad, there are many articles on the Internet. Read. God knows something super-duper is heroic, but his contribution to the defense of the city and the breakthrough of the blockade are quite comparable with the hypothetical contribution of 200 T-34 tanks in a wooded area.
                2. ty60
                  ty60 18 November 2017 00: 18 New
                  0
                  Expensive egg for Christ's Day.
              2. Dart2027
                Dart2027 18 November 2017 06: 47 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Yeah ... It's alright
                Having a lot of tanks and having an army that can use them effectively is not the same thing. At the beginning of the war, the Germans fought better.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 18 November 2017 08: 13 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  At the beginning of the war, the Germans fought better.

                  Communications and aviation, in fact, the recipe for this "fought better." Both that, and another could be created, having invested in them the money, which went to the incomprehensible in the sphere of the fleet.
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 18 November 2017 13: 07 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Spade
                    Communications and aviation, in fact, the recipe for this "fought better"

                    There were also enough planes, but with the connection everything is more interesting.
                    July 24, 1942, the Supreme High Command Headquarters issues a directive:
                    The fighting experience shows that command and control of the troops remains at an unacceptably low level ... Command of the troops is carried out as long as there is a wire connection, but as soon as the wire connection is broken, the command is immediately lost. They still use radio communication facilities reluctantly, forcibly, do not care about radio stations, keep them far from command posts, and sometimes at second tier headquarters. Not enough attention is paid to the training of radio operators; for the most part, our radio operators work slowly and have little knowledge of radio communication technology.
                    That is, in 42 you have to order the use of radio communications. What kind of money?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        17 November 2017 18: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        And how is it consistent with this doctrine that in none of the wars in which the very existence of Russia was decided, our fleet was never the main "player"?

        Should I have?
        We have the Air Force in no war, where it was decided the existence of Russia were not a "decisive player", so well, planes to landfill?
        But the most important thing is that the fleet is precisely what is needed so that there are no wars where the existence of Russia is decided
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 November 2017 19: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Our Air Force has not been a "decisive player" in any war where the existence of Russia was decided

          And the Great Patriotic War?
          I am afraid that the contribution of aviators is no less than that of tankers or artillerymen. That is gigantic.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 November 2017 19: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            And the Great Patriotic War?

            I'm sorry, but - I doubt it very much. The player was decisive ... doubtful. The Luftwaffe spent the whole war on our heads for 45 inclusive, we stockpiles and all kinds of technical supplies even in 1944 were buried in the ground because we couldn’t cover ours from the air.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 November 2017 20: 24 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I'm sorry, but - I doubt it very much.

              Your right to doubt ...
              Is it true that on the account of Soviet naval aviation 2/3 of the sunken and damaged ships and enemy ships?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                17 November 2017 20: 58 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Is it true that on the account of Soviet naval aviation 2/3 of the sunken and damaged ships and enemy ships?

                Perhaps so, I don’t know, because I didn’t really study the history of the USSR fleet in the Second World War (a very sad story) But even if you are right - does that say something outstanding about the Air Force?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 17 November 2017 21: 10 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  does that say something outstanding about the air force?

                  Well, if in your opinion there wasn’t much sense from aviation, then from the fleet, in which they invested a lot more money, it turns out that it was even less?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    17 November 2017 21: 37 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Well, if in your opinion there wasn’t much sense from aviation, then from the fleet, in which they invested a lot more money, it turns out that it was even less?

                    Fear God, 11 Pe-247, even if you count half a million (and there at other plants even reached 2 thousand), this is 700 billion rubles.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 17 November 2017 21: 53 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Fear God, 11 Pe-247, even if you count half a million (and there at other plants even reached 2 thousand), this is 700 billion rubles.

                      Too lazy to look for all the years, but only for 37 years spent 930 million rubles on the shipbuilding program. Even 700 thousand each is 1328 Pe-2. That is more than three times more than it was at the time the war began.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        17 November 2017 22: 41 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Too lazy to look for all the years, but only for 37 years spent 930 million rubles on the shipbuilding program.

                        Are you sure what exactly to shipbuilding? Or for the entire Navy of the USSR? Let’s look anyway. And we recall that on 01.01.1941, the Red Army Air Force totaled 26392 aircraft, of which 14628 combat and 11438 training aircraft, and even if you count 300 thousand per plane, this is almost 8 billion rubles. And these are ONLY airplanes, without associated costs
                2. NN52
                  NN52 17 November 2017 22: 38 New
                  +9
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk

                  I didn’t want to comment on your statement about aviation in the Second World War, but after reading your statement about something outstanding about the Air Force, I’m IN SHOCK ..
                  Write on marine topics, let you be considered a specialist on marine topics ...
                  But please do not meddle in other specific topics in which you are ZERO.
                  I mean aviation.
                  And if you are asked about naval aviation, but you don’t know,, and talk about the role of our Air Force in the Second World War, then I don’t even know what to say ...
                  No offense.
                  1. badens1111
                    badens1111 17 November 2017 22: 56 New
                    +2
                    Quote: NN52
                    And if you are asked about naval aviation

                    Fir-trees of a winder .. Well, the article is about a fleet up to 1 world, what are you asking questions about aviation, instead of the proposed discussion?
                    And aviation and artillery, tanks and everything else is necessary for defensive ability, and they would have argued why they were misunderstood in Ri, that as a result they got an unbalanced fleet, lack of tanks, bad artillery and the absence of tanks with terrifying confusion in small arms, read Kersnovsky.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 November 2017 00: 03 New
                      +3
                      Quote: badens1111
                      what are you asking aviation questions instead of the proposed discussion?

                      Sorry, but we're discussing something else entirely. Namely: what fleet of Russia could afford, is and will be.

                      Given that for obvious reasons, priority should be in the maintenance and equipment of the necessary and sufficient Army. That is, the ground forces and the air force guarding the land borders.
                      When Napoleon or Hitler rushed to Moscow, it was completely drummed how well we can defend our merchant ships in the Indian Ocean.

                      Again, if you recall the First World War, Libau took the units of the Reichswehr. The fleet could not stop it. A similar thing happened in Port Arthur. Despite a bunch of invested funds and resources, the fleet could not even protect its own bases.
                      1. badens1111
                        badens1111 18 November 2017 11: 17 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        Given that for obvious reasons, priority should be in the maintenance and equipment of the necessary and sufficient Army. That is, the ground forces and the air force guarding the land borders.

                        The name is an exit to two oceans and two essentially inland seas to refuse to have a fleet of madness.
                        A strategic, naval component, what is it not needed for? But the submarine is not a panacea for everything and everything, it means surface ships of other classes are needed and there is no getting away from it if we want to see the country among the first among equals, and not one of many.
                        Quote: Spade
                        When Napoleon or Hitler rushed to Moscow, it was completely drummed how well we can defend our merchant ships in the Indian Ocean.

                        Would have had a fleet in the war with Napoleon, would have done him a lot of problems on the French coast, from the Pas de Calais to almost Spain.
                        Not to mention small things like all sorts of psheks and other small Germans.
                        The same would apply to the Hitler gang, operations on the ways of supplying the Reich, had their value even in that, the previous version, with an unbalanced fleet.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Again, if you recall the First World War, Libau took the units of the Reichswehr.

                        And what was the ground army doing, whose task was to defend the fleet’s coastal bases?
                        Quote: Spade
                        A similar thing happened in Port Arthur. Despite a bunch of invested funds and resources, the fleet could not even protect its own bases.

                        Well, no, my friend, I don’t agree with you ... in Port Arthur the action was not the superiority of the Japanese, but the elementary betrayal of Stessel, as Kodratenko died, that’s all, the defense was over.
                        We take the unfortunate strategist Kuropatkin and what we see? And we see that with the superiority of forces, tremendous illiteracy in using them, cowardice and indecision, the result, including the impossibility of deblocking Port Arthur and his treacherous surrender.
                        The battle of Liaoliang, lost, the battle in Jinzhou, lost the total-shameful Portsmouth world.
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 November 2017 11: 59 New
                      +2
                      Quote: badens1111
                      The name is an exit to two oceans and two essentially inland seas to refuse to have a fleet of madness.

                      But am I saying that he is not needed? It just needs to be financed on a residual basis and exclusively within the framework of the tasks assigned to it for coastal defense and, as it is now fashionable to call it, A2 / AD, restrictions and prohibitions of access and maneuver.

                      Quote: badens1111
                      Strategic, marine component, what is it not needed?

                      We don’t have money for it. Because in order to at least “butt” the Americans in this area, at least a comparable military budget is needed. And he has 4 times more than the entire defense budget of Russia in the US Navy
                      Quote: badens1111
                      Would have had a fleet in the war with Napoleon, would have done him a lot of problems on the French coast, from the Pas de Calais to almost Spain.

                      No problem. But at the same time they would have been forced to capitulate to Russia itself. The fleet is expensive, and increasing spending on it automatically means reducing spending on the army. And for the French themselves, this would be so, a minor nuisance. Indeed, similar actions by the British fleet did not force them to capitulate, did they?
                      Quote: badens1111
                      The same would apply to the Hitler gang, operations on the ways of supplying the Reich, had their value even in that, the previous version, with an unbalanced fleet.

                      I repeat, 2/3 of sunken and damaged ships and vessels are on the account of naval aviation. Maybe it was necessary to develop it, and not build battleships with heavy cruisers?
                      Quote: badens1111
                      And what was the ground army doing, whose task was to defend the fleet’s coastal bases?

                      Retreated. Because of his weakness. Including due to the fact that someone wanted new expensive toys to replace those lost in Russian-Japanese. World War I - artillery warfare And the artillery of the Russian army turned out to be the weakest, even weaker than the Austro-Hungarian one (we have 3.4 guns per 1000 bayonets or sabers, they have 3.5). And the worst thing was there was no production capacity, only Romania was losing to us by the end of the war, Austria-Hungary had one and a half times more artillery, and Germany and France doubled.
                      Quote: badens1111
                      in Port Arthur, action was not taken by the superiority of the Japanese, but by the elementary betrayal of Stessel

                      When you have to appoint so many traitors, the question immediately arises: is it all about them?
                      1. badens1111
                        badens1111 18 November 2017 12: 15 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        But am I saying that he is not needed? It just needs to be financed on a residual basis and exclusively within the framework of the tasks assigned to it for coastal defense and, as it is now fashionable to call it, A2 / AD, restrictions and prohibitions of access and maneuver.

                        Sorry colleague, but we already had one corn go, that the Fleet was cutting. What this led to was clearly visible.
                        Fleet capabilities are not limited to the coast of their country.
                        Quote: Spade
                        We don’t have money for it. Because in order to at least “butt” the Americans in this area, at least a comparable military budget is needed. And he has 4 times more than the entire defense budget of Russia in the US Navy

                        And no one even says that we need a Fleet comparable to the Amreikan one, the question is different, we need a Fleet that sufficiently prohibits the actions of the US fleet and, in the strategic component, has the ability to cause irreparable damage to bandits from behind a puddle.
                        In addition to protecting your own coast, where do you get the fact of the need to ensure the safety of the sea routes, including away from your coast? Demonstration of the Flag is equal to the demonstration of strength and capabilities. And if there is a need, for example, to have excellent relations with Indonesia or the Philippines, is the Fleet needed or not? Rather, yes than not.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Retreated. Because of his weakness. Including due to the fact that someone wanted new expensive toys to replace those lost in Russian-Japanese. World War I

                        Because of the theft in the budget of both the Army and the Navy, and after the Japanese fleet, the people raised money in general .. Lack of artillery in the 1st World War, miscalculation of the General Staff of the Republic of Ingushetia.
                        Quote: Spade
                        the artillery of the Russian army was the weakest, weaker even the Austro-Hungarian (we have 3.4 guns per 1000 bayonets or sabers, they have 3.5). And the worst thing was there was no production capacity, only Romania was losing to us by the end of the war, Austria-Hungary had one and a half times more artillery, and Germany and France doubled.

                        Namely, the miscalculation of the General Staff overlapped with the weakness of domestic policy regarding the development of heavy industry.
                        Quote: Spade
                        When you have to appoint so many traitors, the question immediately arises: is it all about them?

                        And why is there someone to appoint, if there is a fact, the surrender of the fortress, which still had enough strength to defend?
                        Shortly before the possibilities of defense were exhausted, the Japanese did not take the fortress - the fortress was surrendered. The chief of defense, the chief of the Kwantung region, General Stessel, decided to surrender the fortress. He gathered a council of war, at which most of the participants spoke in favor of continuing the defense. However, Stessel has already decided to surrender the fortress. Actually, it was very well voiced by Colonel Reis. Here is how his speech at the military council sounded: “The only question is which is better: whether to delay the surrender of the fortress for several days or even hours, or to save the lives of two tens of thousands of unarmed people? One or another solution to the question, of course, is a matter of personal view. But it would seem that the latter is more important. Therefore, since there will be a serious danger on the second line, this line should be used as a means to begin the negotiations of surrender. ”

                        What is interesting here? At all times, when the position of cowards and traitors is considered, there is always a question of saving the lives of poor, unhappy, innocent soldiers and sailors. At the same time, it is forgotten that the soldiers and sailors took the oath and it is their duty to fight and die for their homeland. Talking about saving the soldiers covered not only Colonel Reis and General Stessel. They hid Admiral Nebogatov, who handed over the Russian ships in the Tsushima battle. They hid General Vlasov, who surrendered the remaining soldiers of the second shock army. As a matter of fact, all cowards and traitors hide behind similar words.
                        http://www.dentv.ru/content/view/sdacha-port-artu
                        r/
                    3. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 November 2017 12: 48 New
                      +2
                      Quote: badens1111
                      Sorry colleague, but we already had one corn go, that the Fleet was cutting. What this led to was clearly visible.

                      It is "clearly visible." This led to the achievement of a “mutual guaranteed destruction” situation with the United States.
                      After all, he is no less than the Navy and slaughtered the Army. Together with aviation. And after all, somewhere these resources were going, weren't they? Right, many times critically spat upon missiles. Which were at that time the only adequate means of delivering nuclear charges from the territory of the USSR to the territory of the United States. And so they remain to this day.
                      Do you really think that Khrushchev was obliged to develop a fleet instead of developing nuclear deterrents?

                      Quote: badens1111
                      we need a Fleet that sufficiently prohibits the actions of the US fleet and, in the strategic component, has the ability to inflict irreparable damage to bandits from behind a puddle.

                      Once again, look at the budget of the American Navy. Even if we give our quarter, the army, the Air Force and Strategic Missile Forces can be safely disbanded.

                      Quote: badens1111
                      Lack of artillery in the 1st World War, miscalculation of the General Staff of the Republic of Ingushetia.

                      8))) Lack was a consequence of the backwardness of industry. And the General Staff had nothing to do with this area. The GAU was subordinate to this, subordinate to the General Institute of Arts, in turn subordinate directly to the Tsar.
                      And if the industry is backward, then its production capacity is limited and cannot be rapidly increased. It follows that the construction of expensive and unnecessary toys for the fleet at that time stole not only money (which could be stolen), but also resources (which were much more difficult to stole) and production capacities (which were not actually stolen at that time in history ), and the work of a few highly skilled workers (which is impossible to steal at all)
                      1. badens1111
                        badens1111 18 November 2017 13: 11 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        The shortage was a consequence of the backwardness of industry. And the General Staff had nothing to do with this area. The GAU was subordinate to this, subordinate to the General Institute of Arts, in turn subordinate directly to the Tsar.

                        Yeah, the General Staff. Planning something there, saint, did everything go between him?
                        In 1905, the Russian General Staff, called the “General Directorate of the General Staff,” was finally allocated to an independent body headed by the Chief of the General Staff, independent in official position from the Minister of War. This structure of the Russian General Staff actually copied the organization of the General Staff of Germany, made it possible to work out alternative solutions to the opinion of the Minister of War. The Chief of the General Staff received the most important right to a personal report to the emperor.

                        During the reform, the functions within the military department were redistributed. The military ministry received full priority in resolving all administrative and business issues, including the production of military equipment and ammunition. The headquarters of the General Staff (GUGSH) were transferred to the issues of strategic and operational planning. But, as it traditionally happens in Russia, a good, strategically advantageous, but inconvenient for noble retrogradov reform does not live long: it is either canceled or smoothly translated into its opposite. And already in the 1908 year, as the horror of Mukden and Tsushima began to be forgotten, the General Staff's ideas “a la von Schlieffen” were also ordered to be forgotten. GUGSH was returned as a unit to the Military Ministry, and the Chief of the General Staff became subordinate to the Minister of War.
                    4. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 November 2017 14: 17 New
                      +1
                      Quote: badens1111
                      Yeah, the General Staff. Planning something there, saint, did everything go between him?
                      In 1905, the Russian General Staff under the name "General Directorate of the General Staff" was finally allocated to an independent body led by the chief of the General Staff, independent in official position from the Minister of War.

                      This, of course, is good ...
                      However, it does not answer the question. how any army institution of that time, whether GAU or GUGSH, could give birth to a) additional cash, b) additional resources in the form of special metals, etc. c) additional production capacities, d) additional highly skilled workers. In order to preserve the unacceptable state of the artillery of the ground forces while maintaining the full scope of the shipbuilding program.
                      1. badens1111
                        badens1111 18 November 2017 15: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        However, it does not answer the question. how any army institution of that time, whether GAU or GUGSH, could give birth to a) additional cash, b) additional resources in the form of special metals, etc. c) additional production capacities, d) additional highly skilled workers. In order to preserve the unacceptable state of the artillery of the ground forces while maintaining the full scope of the shipbuilding program.

                        How? Yes, you probably don’t spend money on ballerinas and Baden-Baden with Courchevel. Do not you think so? This is equivalent to the periods that to the current state.
                        According to the Fleet ... the Syrian Express ... survived, there is no sense of either UDC or TDK, that is, either old galoshes or chartered junk, we collect from all fleets of the Navy in order to feed the SV group in the ATS.
                        Is the Fleet needed or not?
                        Sending to the USSR Fleet since the pre-war period ... there wasn’t enough metal in the country to fully satisfy industry, not to mention other needs, including the Fleet, although they started, the program was, war again ... just started. Corn, again then he’s outlined, hunchbacked cartilage ... then he’s fingered .. let's see how it will be now, if there is enough will.
                        The pogrom of the armed forces, including the army., Under Khrushchev and Gorbachev with Yeltsin, he was damaged in the war, well, not the scale of the Great Patriotic War, but still ..
                        Well, at the expense of artillery .. who then, in the Republic of Ingushetia, ruled artillery and adopted it as a panacea for everything, a good three-inch, but still not meeting all the requirements of the war, to the detriment of other types of artillery? Not seeing sense in artillery larger calibers and species?
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    17 November 2017 23: 12 New
                    +2
                    Quote: NN52
                    No offense.

                    Yes, it’s clear that no offense, you know, I’m never offended by constructive criticism. And even put you + for comment
                    Quote: NN52
                    But please do not meddle in other specific topics in which you are ZERO.

                    Do you understand what the matter is? I have two "skates" that interest me very much and for the study of which I spend my time. This is the history of the Navy of the world (starting from the era of the couple) and the second world war. This does not mean that I do not know anything about the other story, but ...
                    So - whenever I tried to impartially (and in another way I can not) study the history of our Air Force in the Second World War, I felt so ... bad that I abandoned this business. And therefore, I am completely frankly and directly saying that:
                    a) I am not an expert in the field of the Soviet Air Force of the Second World War.
                    b) What I know about them makes a terrible impression on me
                    If this is shocking you, I'm sorry. But I really have a very low opinion about the USSR Air Force in the Second World War, although I understand that I can be wrong, because I didn’t have enough for a really deep study of the issue
                    1. NN52
                      NN52 17 November 2017 23: 43 New
                      10
                      I understood you.
                      You just have to go a little deeper into the topic of aviation ...
                      But not in this thread (otherwise some comrades already swear).

                      Let it get so bad that all the Luftwaffe was shot down by anti-aircraft gunners and committed suicide.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        17 November 2017 23: 55 New
                        +2
                        And I, in turn, will try to refrain from discussing the USSR Air Force in the Second World War
                        But, again, if you want to speak out about this somewhere - I have absolutely nothing against it (after all, is this a discussion of my article, or where? :))))))
              2. Nehist
                Nehist 18 November 2017 00: 53 New
                0
                With the total numerical superiority of the USSR naval aviation on All theater of operations, this is not surprising. Although not critical
            2. Bogatyrev
              Bogatyrev 21 November 2017 03: 11 New
              0
              I apologize, but:
              1. Regarding the Air Force in the Second World War, the work of bomber and attack aircraft is the most important factor in the victory. The Luftwaffe was simply not enough to defend its troops. They shot down a lot, but could not stop the bombing.
              2. The fleet played a decisive role in the Northern War. It is important for the existence of Russia, right? The fleet was important in the Russo-Turkish wars. So your thesis is not entirely true.
      3. avt
        avt 17 November 2017 19: 43 New
        +3
        [
        Quote: Spade
        And how is it consistent with this doctrine that in none of the wars in which the very existence of Russia was decided, our fleet was never the main "player"?

        With mother Katya No. 2, they cleaned up the Turks from Chesma with the seizure of islands in front of the straits and riotous pirates taken by different Albanians so that shaved shook themselves! That is, not just recklessness at Chesme, but a STRATEGIC operation
        over a fairly long period of time, and even bases in Italy rented like this,
        that de juro still belongs to ... bully
        Quote: Spade
        Information for consideration: the construction of the light cruiser "Maxim Gorky" cost 60 million rubles. This is the 222 T-34 tank of the first releases. That is one fifth of all issued before the war.
        That is, the ship program and the timing of its implementation must be thought out, as well as the deployment of forces and means on probable theater of operations, it is necessary not only ahead of time, but .... more carefully, because the price of an error and its elimination is an order of magnitude more expensive, as evidenced by reduced price tag. And now add a digital figure to it - how many ships stood at the wall almost the entire war (I mean the same cruisers and destroyers) in the Baltic, and how many scrapped scoop, collecting from the Pacific Fleet, from Great Britain due to the division of the Italian fleet in the North for escorting convoys. At the same time, look at how many Lend-Lease vehicles are recessed. You can tear up the vest on your chest as much as you like, “You could have done it yourself!” BUT deliveries, especially since the testicle is still expensive for Christ's Day, were STRATEGIC for the USSR! Stalin defined them as such.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 November 2017 21: 17 New
          +5
          Quote: avt
          That is, the ship program and the timing of its implementation must be considered

          What is there to think? Russia is unable to create a normal fleet. First of all, because of its size. relatively low population density and the need to maintain a large army associated with these factors.
          And it always has been.
          1. komvap
            komvap 18 November 2017 01: 44 New
            +3
            Quote: Spade
            ... Russia is unable to create a normal fleet ...


            Just invest in the term "normal fleet"?
            The one that can defeat the fleet of a potential enemy?
            The one that can ensure the security of all sea communications of the state?
            The one that can provide control over economic resources in coastal areas?

            Or just an abstract set of small ships (the more enormous the more prestigious_ toys for self-satisfaction of officials from the fleet and politicians?

            The task of breaking the enemy’s fleet is not worth it during small local conflicts, but it’s easier to scare him with aviation.
            In a global conflict, all large formations of large ships are destroyed by nuclear charges. (By aviation and what is better with ballistic missiles)
            Russia does not have sea communications that need to be continuously protected in peacetime.
            To control the coastal economic zone, you need to saturate it with small watchtowers, preferably each with a helicopter.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 18 November 2017 08: 17 New
              +3
              Quote: komvap
              Just invest in the term "normal fleet"?

              But what does it mean by those who now demand "more new ships for the fleet"?
              Namely, "an abstract set of large ships (the more enormous the more prestigious_ toys for self-satisfaction of officials from the fleet and politicians?"
          2. avt
            avt 18 November 2017 08: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Russia is unable to create a normal fleet.

            wassat bully With all due respect, but somehow study the gistoria at your leisure. They created it more than once. The last one at all during the USSR was the SECOND in the World. Although the idea of ​​balance still has to work and work. Well, the army also had THREE main tanks in service. Again, precisely because
            Quote: Spade
            First of all, because of its size.
            and the presence of a huge coastline, the fleet is not just needed, but necessary! But this is a very costly and feasible task only for a highly developed country in terms of science and industrial potential. Well, a competent definition and statement of the problem.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 18 November 2017 09: 21 New
              +1
              Quote: avt
              With all due respect, but somehow study the gistoria at your leisure. Created more than once

              8))). That's it, the story. Question: at least once our fleet was so strong. to compete on equal terms with the fleets of "sea powers"?

              Quote: avt
              and the presence of a huge coastline

              Well, it’s definitely not to be called “huge”. Putting on an aircraft carrier for every 500 km of the Arctic coast is, to put it mildly, redundant.
              At the same time, there is a gigantic difference between the coastal defense (which is necessary for us) and the prohibition of the sea blockade (which is necessary for the "sea powers"). First of all, in expenses.
              1. Nehist
                Nehist 18 November 2017 10: 15 New
                0
                Under Peter, they opposed the best army in Europe as well as the very strong fleet of one of the leading naval powers of that time. You can still recall the Russian-Turkish wars, and Turkey was considered one of the leading naval powers. This is so offhand.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 18 November 2017 10: 26 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Nehist
                  Under Peter confronted the best army in Europe

                  The army. But the Swedish fleet before the then British was like backing up to Beijing
                  1. Nehist
                    Nehist 18 November 2017 14: 48 New
                    0
                    Recall the year 1863 and two Russian squadrons ... Something the great and mighty British fleet was saving ...
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 November 2017 16: 41 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Nehist
                      Recall the year 1863 and two Russian squadrons ...

                      It’s better not to remember ... The USA didn’t fall apart. Unfortunately.
                      1. Nehist
                        Nehist 18 November 2017 20: 14 New
                        0
                        And this is to your question about whether our fleet was so strong that it would confront the leading naval powers! As you can see it was.
                      2. Kibb
                        Kibb 18 November 2017 20: 26 New
                        0
                        Nope, remembered that the fleet is a serious ace in geopolitics
                      3. badens1111
                        badens1111 19 November 2017 09: 15 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Helped not to fall apart the United States. Unfortunately.

                        Exactly.
                        And nevertheless, with the Holiday, comrade artilleryman, success and all the best to you in life, in professional activity!
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 17 November 2017 19: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Information for consideration: the construction of the light cruiser "Maxim Gorky" cost 60 million rubles. This is the 222 T-34 tank of the first releases. That is one fifth of all issued before the war.

        Less. Because the cost of the T-34 began to fall only after the outbreak of war - due to the simplification of design and technology.
        The average cost of the T-34 in 1941:
        February - 298.800 rubles per car
        March - 279.300 rubles.
        July - 248.600 rubles.
        October - 238.750 rubles.
        The average annual cost is 249.272 rubles.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 November 2017 20: 19 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Less.

          Even if you take the maximum February-200 tanks. 6 light cruisers - two more full-blooded tank divisions
      5. pacific
        pacific 18 November 2017 00: 09 New
        +2
        And how is it consistent with this doctrine that in none of the wars in which the very existence of Russia was decided, our fleet was never the main "player"? From strength auxiliary role.

        Indeed, in wars to defend the country, the fleet had a supporting role. BUT! It was this role that the navy was assigned in military doctrines.
        But in order to effectively and quickly defeat the enemy - here the fleet is often simply irreplaceable. How many soldier lives were saved by the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Chesme? To what extent did the blockade of the Dardanelles and the deprivation of Istanbul supply of Egyptian grain accelerated the readiness of the Turks to conclude the Kuchuk-Karnadzhi peace?
      6. Kibb
        Kibb 18 November 2017 14: 51 New
        0
        That's all, all the wars that Russia waged were to survive
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 17 November 2017 15: 51 New
    +4
    A plus! Today, a lot of copies really break down about the need for the Russian fleet (most likely, which fleet is needed - Akiyansky a la USA with all the consequences, or coastal, to protect exclusively their interests in the economic zone with the consequences arising from this more likely of an economic nature because of cost savings)
    My personal opinion is that the Fleet is needed! A fleet needs a balanced one, capable of solving tasks far from its shores.
    History has repeatedly shown how the state of maritime shipping affects conflicting countries. Therefore, the presence of the Fleet, capable of influencing global trade, is undeniable. Another thing is that it is necessary to make this factor qualitative and asymmetric due to the development of technical thought recently, so as not to chase the quantitative component, but to make the mobresource in case of war become a weighty argument. Attempts used to be in the form of a Voluntary Fleet, but our Russian lack of enthusiasm ruined profitable maps of the sea cruising war (RYAV)
    Therefore, it makes no sense to be equal to YueSei, but to create a Fleet that surpasses the surrounding neighbors is quite affordable and to create systems that, after re-equipping sea transport with them, can make it a hidden trump card in the open sea, affecting sea transit routes, are also quite realistic. smile
    By the way, if my memory serves me right, this question has already been discussed (for sure in the comments)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 16: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Attempts used to be in the form of a Volunteer fleet, but our Russian lack of enthusiasm ruined profitable maps of the sea cruising war (RYAV)

      Nuuuuu, strictly speaking, there were also external interventions dissatisfied with our cruising operations :)))
      Quote: Rurikovich
      My personal opinion is that the Fleet is needed! A fleet needs a balanced one, capable of solving tasks far from its shores.

      drinks A yak zhezh :)))) Any potentate who has an army and navy has two hands, and who only has an army is not potentate, but impotent! laughing
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 17 November 2017 16: 50 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nuuuuu, strictly speaking, there were also external interventions dissatisfied with our cruising operations :)))

        It looks like today's situation - we are rather concerned with what others will say, instead of resolving our own tasks firmly and purposefully yes
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 November 2017 17: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Rurikovich
          It looks like today's situation - we are rather concerned with what others will say, instead of resolving our own tasks firmly and purposefully

          And there is no objection to this! drinks
  4. Kibb
    Kibb 17 November 2017 15: 58 New
    +2
    Quote: Cartalon
    In general, everything is true, Russia should not build the fleet on the principle that the fleet exists, but for specific tasks, but for what tasks did Sevastopol and Izmail build?

    Sevastopol for the open part of the Baltic Sea, Ishmael is redundant for the Baltic, however, like Svetlana and Noviki - most likely assumed the actions of an ocean squadron as part of the Entente, for example, from Bizerta.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 17 November 2017 17: 34 New
      0
      Sevastopol has never once sunk into the open sea, and it’s not clear how the Ishmaels pass through the straits.
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 17 November 2017 18: 08 New
        +1
        Well, for many reasons, they did not poke around, regardless of why or how they were built.
        And why didn’t the Ishmael go through the straits?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        17 November 2017 18: 50 New
        +3
        Quote: Cartalon
        Sevastopol has never once sunk into the open sea

        Von Essen was going to act actively with them, but he did not live. The second person - Ludwig Berngardovich Kerber, who understood how to fight, one might say - the heir to Essen, did not become a comforter because the German (spying and mistrust of German names divorced). They put Canin at the head of the fleet, and who is this? That stood ...
  5. Curious
    Curious 17 November 2017 16: 33 New
    10
    In 1924, the Head of the Military Academy of the Red Army M.V. Frunze instructed the teacher of the eastern branch of this academy B.I. Dolivo-Dobrovolsky write a book that could give the commanding staff of the Red Army the necessary basic information about the naval power of the state.
    The book was written and published in 1925.

    I really liked how almost a hundred years ago, the Soviet military commanders explained the advantages of sea routes.
    "A study of the properties of the sea reveals above all that the sea is extremely beneficial, convenient and
    cheap means of communication, cheapness, convenience and profitability of which are incomparable with any means
    land communications and unattainable on land.
    We know, for example, that one horsepower carries 15 tons on rails at a speed of one meter per second.
    The same horsepower carries 100 tons of water at the same speed of one meter per second.
    From a comparison of these two numbers “15” and “100”, that monstrous difference in human consumption is clearly visible.
    its meager energy reserves for land transportation and for shipping sea.
    Given the totality of the conditions of land and sea transportation, Western European literature believes
    that shipping on an average global scale is 25 times cheaper than rail transportation and 60 times cheaper than highway transportation. "
    Today, of course, the ratio will be different, but the principle itself is extremely clear. The author somehow missed this point by inviting the reader to take the word that “by sea” is cheaper than “by land”.
    Well, the thesis "in this case, it does not matter whose transport fleet carries our goods."
    We turn to the same author.
    "In fact, in life itself we certainly and everywhere see a direct and obvious connection between the concepts of" wealth "
    and the “sea”, and we don’t know of a single poor and economically unsettled people who were not continental in their geography or in the lack of will to strive for marine work. This is true for everyone
    but it is especially true for those states whose national economy is mainly based on the production of just bulk cargo.
    Bulk producers must be sailors, otherwise, under modern conditions of dispensation
    world production forms, their production will be exploited unfavorably for them by foreign foreign capital.
    Famous words of the French scientist Davelui that economic independence of a state is determined
    the presence of trade tonnage - they applied to all countries in general, but with special justice
    they would have to relate to bulk-producing countries. "
    Those. if you use a foreign carrier, then he will determine the conditions of carriage. And at one point, it turns out that your shipping costs make your products uncompetitive. In addition, the income from transportation goes into the pocket of another country and in the development of its economy.
    And what is a mass load. Bulk cargo - cargo sent, as a rule, by large volumes, providing full loading of rolling stock. Grain and other agricultural products also belong to such cargoes - the main export item of RI in the period considered by the author.
    In Russia they understood this.
    As of January 1, 1901, the Russian merchant fleet consisted of 745 steamboats with a total displacement of 364 tons and 360 sailing ships with a total displacement of 2 tons.
    From January 1, 1901 to January 1, 1913, the Russian merchant fleet was replenished with 271 steamships with a total displacement of 122 tons, and the sailing fleet lost 554 tons, despite the fact that it increased by 12 ships.
    Thus, in general, the displacement of the steamships of the Russian merchant fleet from January 1, 1901 to January 1, 1913 increased by 122 tons, or by 500%.
    This was a result of the encouragement by the Russian government of parasite companies. But these efforts were clearly not enough.
    If in general over 10 years the total cargo turnover of maritime shipping in Russia (import and export in aggregate) increased from 18 163 thousand tons to 29 843 thousand tons, i.e. by 11 680 thousand tons, or 64,3% , in this increase the share of ships flying the Russian flag amounted to only 1 thousand tons, while the share of ships flying a foreign flag reached 920 thousand tons.
    But what about the military fleet?
    "In peacetime, the sea is accessible to all coastal states that want to approach the seashore and organize their economic maritime work.
    And in wartime, it will be available only to those who have naval power, to insist on their right to send merchant ships to the sea and communicate with the outside world. If this force is not there, and if during the war the enemy uses his naval fleet to control the sea lanes, and if he, using the sea lanes for military and economic purposes, closes the sea to the economy and strategy of another country, then this side will be in catastrophic position. "
    They used to be able to write simply and easily about complex things before.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 16: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: Curious
      They used to be able to write simply and easily about complex things before.

      That's for sure, a great link! drinks
      Quote: Curious
      Famous words of the French scientist Davelui that economic independence of a state is determined
      the presence of trade tonnage - they applied to all countries in general, but with special justice
      they would have to relate to bulk-producing countries. "

      Alas, he was mistaken :)
      Quote: Curious
      Those. if you use a foreign carrier, then he will determine the conditions of carriage. And at one point, it turns out that your shipping costs make your products uncompetitive.

      This is not so, because there is no carrier who usurps the right to carry your goods. I do not like this one - we turn to another, that's all. There are no monopolies in maritime transport
      1. Curious
        Curious 17 November 2017 17: 10 New
        +2
        "Alas, he was mistaken." It is unlikely that Rear Admiral Rene Davelui, whom Sytin’s military encyclopedia describes as an outstanding person, was mistaken, since he wrote about his time from the perspective of his time. You fall into an anachronism, analyzing the state of shipping in the middle of the XNUMXth and beginning of the XNUMXth centuries from the perspective of today.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 November 2017 17: 24 New
          +3
          Quote: Curious
          It is unlikely that Rear Admiral Rene Davelui, whom Sytin describes as an outstanding man, was mistaken, as he wrote about his time from the perspective of his time.

          People then and later showed many different points of view, but not all of them are true. Everyone is mistaken, only the one who does nothing is not mistaken, Makarov said, and he himself was greatly mistaken with the idea of ​​an armless vessel.
          Quote: Curious
          You fall into an anachronism, analyzing the state of shipping in the middle of the XNUMXth and beginning of the XNUMXth centuries from the perspective of today.

          Why - from today? In those years, shipping companies were more than enough. And the main obstacle to the development of the transport fleet of Russia was precisely the cheapness of sea transport, which we could not keep up with
          1. Curious
            Curious 17 November 2017 20: 18 New
            0
            “People then and later showed many different points of view, but not all are true.”
            “On the state of Russian merchant shipping and measures for its development” (1 book, M., 1895; 2 book, M., 1896) "- N. A. Shavrov
            Rummel, Migulin, Filippov, Mogilev, etc. etc., the State Duma of the Russian Empire, everyone was mistaken.
            Then they made a mistake in the USSR, where the marine merchant fleet was considered as one of the main factors of ensuring the economic and military security of the state, as well as a source of foreign exchange earnings and brought it by fifth to fifth place in the world.
            Now the Government of Russia has begun to make mistakes. The Ministry of Transport asks to ban transportation on the Northern Sea Route on foreign ships.

            “Amendments to the draft law propose to establish that transportation and storage of hydrocarbons and coal loaded on ships in the Northern Sea Route can be carried out exclusively using ships flying the state flag of the Russian Federation.”
            How many mistaken, don’t you?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              17 November 2017 20: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: Curious
              How many mistaken, don’t you?

              Let's get it right. As I said, we have a fact - foreign trade flourished, profits poured into the budget, and there was no merchant fleet. Will we argue? :)))
              Quote: Curious
              Rummel, Migulin, Filippov, Mogilev, etc. etc., the State Duma of the Russian Empire, everyone was mistaken.

              Sorry, but your thought eludes me. Well, take the same Rummel. Yes, he is campaigning for a merchant fleet and writes about the need for government participation in the creation of this fleet itself. But, I apologize, and so it is clear that it is better to be rich and healthy than the poor and sick. And where to find the funds for all this in order to build a merchant fleet as effective as that of the leading foreign powers? And what exactly will we get from this?
              Let’s still get away from the transfer of surnames to the specific postulates of one or another author.
              Quote: Curious
              Then they were mistaken in the USSR, where the marine merchant fleet was considered as one of the main factors ensuring the economic and military security of the state

              Pfff, here in the USSR they weren’t mistaken, but we built a car author, as here without our own merchant fleet?
              Quote: Curious
              Amendments to the draft law propose to establish that the transportation and storage of hydrocarbons and coal loaded on ships in the Northern Sea Route can be carried out exclusively using ships flying the state flag of the Russian Federation

              The usual extortion :))) What does it have to do with its own fleet? Any import company registers a branch with us, transfers its vessels under our flag - and go calmly, just pay taxes from us, that's all.
              1. Curious
                Curious 17 November 2017 21: 11 New
                0
                "Pay taxes with us " is the key phrase. The rest could not be written.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  17 November 2017 22: 06 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Curious
                  The rest could not be written

                  And again you speak in riddles.
                  The Northern Sea Route, well, this is never the Indian Ocean, in order to keep it open, large unproductive efforts (icebreakers) are required. It was on this basis that the USSR considered the Northern Sea Route its internal waters :) With the collapse of the USSR, for some reason we opened it to everyone, however, those who wanted didn’t really happen :))))
                  Now, under our interesting coastal contracts, some import offices can fit in, offering Gazprom more favorable conditions than our shipping companies. At the same time, if cheaper companies come in, our carriers will die and the budget of their ruble will be missed - no one will pay taxes.
                  And instead of supporting ours, the government makes an order “under the flag of the Russian Federation” - which is translated into Russian “I’m deeply in the drum for a domestic producer, but if someone wants to work here, let them cough into the budget of the Russian Federation”
                  And where did you see the support of the transport fleet of the Russian Federation?
                  1. Curious
                    Curious 17 November 2017 23: 17 New
                    0
                    As you remember, I wrote "starting to make mistakes." The adopted federal law 305-ФЗ of 2011 “On supporting shipbuilding and shipping” also contains the term “shipbuilding”. Of course, the existence of the law does not guarantee anything, but it is possible - this is the first step.
                    As for attracting tonnage under the Russian flag, I don’t see how these revenues are worse than income from protectionist import duties, which you spoke of so commendably at the beginning of this article.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      17 November 2017 23: 33 New
                      0
                      Quote: Curious
                      The adopted federal law 305-ФЗ of 2011 “On support of shipbuilding and shipping” also contains the term “shipbuilding”

                      But there is an interesting nuance - today we can very well deal with the world regarding the quality of maritime transport services. :))) That's honest - after the 90s, we and the world can do anything at all :) Personnel allow :))) Who survived 90s ...
                      Quote: Curious
                      As for attracting tonnage under the Russian flag, I don’t see how these revenues are worse than income from protectionist import duties

                      So the whole question is just whether you need your own merchant fleet to receive these duties. It seems not needed :))))
                      1. Curious
                        Curious 18 November 2017 00: 21 New
                        +1
                        With the help of sea transportation, China at one time increased its exports three times in five years, Mexico doubled in six. At the same time, both countries purposefully built their own merchant flotillas. Because they understood: modern world trade is designed in such a way that without a sufficient number of cargo ships any large economy is like in a transport trap.
                        Above all, sea freight transport is a huge business. By 2025, analysts predict an increase in shipping volumes to 53 trillion. dollars.
                        In the presence of a merchant fleet you receive, in the absence - you give. And as you can see from the above figure - there is something to fight for.
                        78% of global trade is sea shipping. And in the foreign trade turnover of Russia, shipping takes only 60%.
                        In principle, we can easily draw a line under the discussion.
                        Ask for a review of your article by experts, for example, from the St. Petersburg State University of Water Communications. We trust the experts.
  6. Elevator
    Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 16: 38 New
    +2
    “Attack always takes precedence over defense.” - controversial thesis.
    Now to the topic: We’re never a sailor, we’re connected and dirty, hence knowledge / understanding, so that’s just IMHO, no more: of course, one or two extremely powerful naval groups for “overseas voyages” are necessary, but mass is debatable , and extremely expensive. Our “argument in response” is a sufficient number of nuclear submarines. It is also expensive of course, but they are a reasonable necessity. No matter how numerous the surface fleet is, it still will not be able to prevent an invasion, the maximum will make it difficult. The confrontation will be in the depths, in the fields and in the weights, we have observed this more than once or twice. And the key to victory is in the hands of the land armies. Here it is the money that they spend on toys such as aircraft carriers, it is much more useful and wise to give. I repeat, I am not against the fleet, only FOR, but coins ..
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 16: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: Hiss
      “Attack always takes precedence over defense.” - is always?!! I will never agree with this thesis.

      Do not agree, your right :)
      Take two Vikings, one give an ax, the second - a shield. Who will win? The question is rhetorical.
      Can a person wearing body armor defeat an enemy armed with a firearm? In which war did ground-based air defense gain an unconditional victory over the enemy air force? What happened during the Second World War with France and Poland, trying to build their strategy from defense?
      1. Elevator
        Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 16: 54 New
        0
        "Take two Vikings .." - the second will dig a hole with a shield on the path .. You need to think. France and Poland were protected by the "rules" of World War I. And Moscow was defended by the realities of a new war. Where are the attackers? And yes, with the same defense, air defense still won.
        1. Elevator
          Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 16: 56 New
          0
          And yes, the shield is not only a "defense", but also a serious weapon. And the body armor thing is extremely effective ..
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 November 2017 17: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: Hiss
            And yes, the shield is not only a "defense", but also a serious weapon

            Well, try to win the holmgang with him :)))
            Quote: Hiss
            And body armor is an extremely effective thing.

            Put on a bulletproof vest, go against the armed enemy, and after he fires a couple of shots (the bullet will not penetrate but the effect is comparable to a good hit of a bit) try to do something
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 November 2017 17: 02 New
          +3
          Quote: Hiss
          "Take two Vikings .." - the second will dig a hole on the path with a shield ..

          And settle down there without a fight? You do not know the Vikings well :)
          Quote: Hiss
          It is necessary to think

          Think, am I really bothering you?
          Quote: Hiss
          France and Poland were protected by the "rules" of World War I.

          True, defense in its purest form
          Quote: Hiss
          And Moscow was defended by the realities of a new war

          That's right, but how was it defended, recall? Offensive operation, as a result of which they almost surrounded the Army Group Center :)))
          Quote: Hiss
          And yes, with the same defense, air defense still won.

          I asked you a specific question
          Quote: Hiss
          What war ground Air defense won an unconditional victory over the enemy air force?

          Moscow’s air defense defended the city precisely by fighting in the air, i.e. attacking actions of fighters destroying German bombers, and by no means defense
          1. Elevator
            Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 17: 14 New
            0
            Well, why hog? In your pit with stakes al spike shield for beauty? Or are counter-offenses prohibited in a defensive war? And yes, a concrete answer: competent defense exhausted the enemy, made it possible to accumulate resources, and go on the offensive. And the air defense of Moscow definitely won in their confrontation with the Luftwaffe in this sector of the front, as well as the air defense of Leningrad!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              17 November 2017 17: 31 New
              +2
              Quote: Hiss
              Well, why hog?

              You laugh now. At least - I hope so.
              Quote: Hiss
              In your pit with stakes al spike shield for beauty?

              Tell me at least one case when a Viking was hurt in a pit with stakes :))))
              The shield in the martial arts of the Vikings is a consumable that came into disrepair the field of several ax attacks. And the spike - yes, it was like that, and you can embed it with the edge of the shield not weak, but this is possible only if you have in your hands not only a shield, but also something else. Otherwise, the enemy will not allow you to attack with a shield.
              Quote: Hiss
              Or are counter-offenses prohibited in a defensive war?

              I did not write anything about a defensive war. I wrote about the priority of attack over defense. Counterattack is an attack
              Quote: Hiss
              And yes, a concrete answer: competent defense exhausted the enemy, made it possible to accumulate resources, and go on the offensive.

              If we could defend ourselves competently, the Germans would not have reached Moscow at all. But we, after the catastrophes in the border battle, did not have the opportunity to competently defend ourselves.
              1. Elevator
                Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 17: 47 New
                +2
                Excuse me, are you just a troll, or "uncle - you" ..? Do you have examples of armies trapped? Open the encyclopedia, or at least the “Book of future commanders,” there are more than enough examples in history.
                And yet, I am “personally” not familiar with the Vikings, unlike you, but the fact that in the epic of at least the Scandinavian peoples, even the Siberian, even the European ones are repeatedly referred to as “wolf pits” fact. And yes, according to your “logic”, give he’ll even kill an aikido master, and even take an interest in how special forces storm, armed criminals firing in all directions, without a single shot in response, and take them alive for the next trial.
                PS You tired me, go have a drink, drink al in Lol chop, maybe there you will understand what is defense, and what is trolling and stupidity.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  17 November 2017 18: 40 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Hiss
                  You got me tired, go have a drink

                  Yes, of course I’ll drink, and what I’m tired of is not surprising. In a dispute with me, you need to think, but for you it is very tiring.
                  Quote: Hiss
                  Open the encyclopedia, or at least the “Book of future commanders,” there are more than enough examples in history.

                  Can you give an example?
                  Quote: Hiss
                  And yes, according to your "logic", give any fool a piece of iron, he will even kill an aikido master.

                  And for you, the news that a hand-to-hand master against an armed enemy doesn’t roll from a word at all? Have you seen enough militants? Well, I hasten to disappoint - if your opponent is armed even with a knife, it will be extremely difficult to deal with him at the expense of a melee, and if he wields this knife even a little - your chances are illusory. Especially for aikidok - martial arts are all about nothing. Unless kadochnikov ... yes, he can.
                  Quote: Hiss
                  And also, take an interest in how special forces storm, armed criminals firing in all directions, without firing a single shot in response, and they take them alive for a subsequent trial.

                  In a tough, extremely attacking manner, focusing on speed and previously deafening the enemy with something like a stun grenade. Those. the whole point is to do your job even before the enemy has time to remember that he has weapons.
                  By the way, this is a classic example of the superiority of attack over defense :)))
                  1. badens1111
                    badens1111 17 November 2017 19: 00 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    By the way, this is a classic example of the superiority of attack over defense :)))

                    It seems that this character of Hiss. Understood a little from the article, didn’t understand what you were explaining to him at all, and didn’t understand at all in tactics, strategy, and only about melee and melee weapons had representations from compigres.
                2. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 17 November 2017 18: 57 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Hiss
                  Excuse me, are you just a troll, or "uncle - you" ..?

                  This is the author of the article.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    17 November 2017 19: 08 New
                    +3
                    Quote: mordvin xnumx
                    This is the author of the article.

                    He will now say that the article is continuous trolling :))))
                    1. badens1111
                      badens1111 17 November 2017 20: 16 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      He will now say that the article is continuous trolling:

                      Give him a link to the World of Ships, Nehai is training)))) laughing
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        17 November 2017 20: 41 New
                        +1
                        Quote: badens1111
                        Give him a link to the World of Ships

                        Eeee ... sorry, I don’t understand. Maybe you give me a link? :) repeat
                      2. badens1111
                        badens1111 17 November 2017 20: 43 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Eeee ... sorry, I don’t understand. Maybe you give me a link? :)

                        No .. I better him))) laughing
                        Him, Hiss, syudy.
                        http://worldofwarships.ru/join/2484_RU1?utm_campa
                        ign = search_brand_rus & sid = SIDap_o6fPuhwxLRN4eG
                        1xXIEQNbKzlDraRKJpIF6Qia2SfFUj0UkdwVIFCAGFhmMOqY3
                        ZxTR0KITwF2HSEiwJProx7JQuKrm6rn1arV0KqGYqe-Jcaupc
                        f3ZbqZz8ra8NDtWe70GLozHqK53cHC7x7BarimGHNXKUushlw
                        N69Vv9YeEwg1chIpEn1h5_id7JuKd5T1dfDlkkaB7ZXozx6CW
                        GlQ1zaPAqs0dzFfMANNzUS3 & utm_medium = 4363 & u
                        tm_source = wotcpu & lpsn = WoWS_videoback_old_ns_n
                        f_SOI lol
                        And I better read your articles. good
    2. Kibb
      Kibb 17 November 2017 16: 48 New
      0
      Isn't the submarine a fleet?
      1. Elevator
        Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 17: 00 New
        0
        The Premier League is a "thing in itself" ..
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 17 November 2017 17: 10 New
          0
          Oh, the thing in itself is that some kind of Papuan king who decided to play independence and squeeze out what lies badly, the submarines are not afraid of the word at all.
          1. Elevator
            Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 17: 17 New
            0
            A pair of "powerful groups" is not enough for the "Papuan king"? Then this "king" is not a sin and to send hello hot with the Premier League submarine!
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 17 November 2017 17: 19 New
              0
              Enough. And will it be an attack or defense?
              1. Elevator
                Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 17: 36 New
                +4
                You, like the Chelyabinsk citizen, are just interested in trolling, or do you still bother to re-read my post? Where did I write that the Russian fleet is not needed "finally"? I have designated the "price component" in which the funds invested in it will not benefit the country's defense. If we had a “banknote machine”, with two hands “For” for this beauty (fleet) would be. But while the enemy prints greens, and our means are limited, to concentrate, IMHO, is to ensure and develop a "guaranteed answer" and land defense. And yet, I’m not from the General Staff, and, unfortunately, I don’t possess their level of knowledge or knowledge of information, but there is a plus - I have the right to make mistakes. And my judgment described above is only a private vision of the situation, and this is a forum, and it is intended both for delivering information and for expressing opinions. Good.
    3. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 17 November 2017 16: 53 New
      +5
      Quote: Hiss
      but massiveness is debatable and extremely expensive.

      And you take China for an example. At first, the economy began to be built, now the navy is riveting with might and main, and it is also pouring islands. That is, what kind of economy, such and the fleet.
      1. Elevator
        Elevator in the building 17 November 2017 16: 58 New
        +1
        in my post and there was no money, all in the land. there is - the fleet to be. excuse me for developing a thought poorly.
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 17 November 2017 17: 26 New
        +3
        Quote: mordvin xnumx
        That is, what kind of economy, such and the fleet.


        Greek millionaire George Averov made a prepayment of a quarter of the cost for the ship under construction, which was named in his honor. What prevents the Russian oligarchs from contributing to the construction of the Navy, rather than buying yachts commensurate with modern corvettes such as the "Guardian" and England football clubs from Germany? So the Greek helped build the ship and went down in history, and what history will the Russian oligarchs enter ??? This is the question of the economy in the construction of the Navy. This means that instead of whining about the lack of funds and their savings, which in turn affects the construction of the fleet, proceed with the modernization of economic management and the redistribution of cash flows within the country. Or are we afraid of a new "revolution" and we will continue to wipe our snot and talk about a lack of funds, and will these funds from exploiting the bowels of a huge country settle in the pockets of the owners and spend on beautiful trinkets and participate in foreign economies?
        The Chinese thanks to the system that we are poorer .... sorry, we lost in the 90s and achieved our goal. Just a little adjusting the social economy to the capitalist bias without distortions like privatization. There, the economy is strong, and there are millionaires who behave according to the course of the party and government, and therefore it does not offend them, and the fleet is being built ...
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 17 November 2017 17: 38 New
          +5
          Quote: Rurikovich
          and there are millionaires who behave according to the course of the party and government,

          We do not have the course of the party and government. More precisely, this rate depends on the price of oil. And those who disagree in China are being shot. Although many say that the number of thieves from this does not decrease, but as a percentage of the inhabitants of China, the number of people shot is a drop in the bucket. And our aligarchs are sitting on the Chumudans. Why do they need the Russian fleet?
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 17 November 2017 17: 50 New
            +2
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            We do not have the course of the party and government. More precisely, this rate depends on the price of oil

            There’s nothing to say yes
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            And those who disagree in China are being shot. Although many say that the number of thieves from this does not decrease, but as a percentage of the inhabitants of China, the number of people shot is a drop in the bucket.

            Are we all afraid that our neighbors will tell us? The Chinese are not afraid, but they still trade with them and do not impose sanctions what So the matter is not in the Chinese, but in us? what
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            And our aligarchs are sitting on the Chumudans. Why do they need the Russian fleet?

            So thieves? .... What prevents you from really combating theft? What will the "world community" in the person of the Anglo-Saxons say?
            It’s all about you, the Russians, yourself ... you create your own fate, and try to avoid honest answers, accusing everyone around you except yourself that you live so badly and the world is so unfair ... request We have already built a just society that had a strong Fleet wink
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 17 November 2017 18: 03 New
              +5
              Quote: Rurikovich
              We have already built a just society that had a strong Fleet

              Built, yes. Dad fished in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, told how they and the Japanese fired from rocket launchers. And now they’re taking fish straight to Japan, and the one that the mother’s Japanese sons are culling back to Russia. It's a shame. They built a system where an official on a customs officer sits and drives the inspector.
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 17 November 2017 19: 22 New
                +4
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                They built a system where an official on a customs officer sits and drives the inspector.

                Exactly good
                Under the Union, on a regular collective farm there was 1 foreman for 20 people of the brigade, moreover, he received less than each individual worker, now I have 2 workers at work for four workers (at the same time receiving an order of magnitude more workers), plus the head of the site and the dispatcher laughing And how much more you need to feed these four at the top - only God knows wink
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 17 November 2017 22: 18 New
                  +4
                  We are going to do what kind of labeling system for goods they are going to do, and Usmanov is attracted to this garbage. Something like Plato, as I understand it.
        2. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 17 November 2017 19: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          What prevents the Russian oligarchs from contributing to the construction of the Navy, rather than buying yachts commensurate with modern corvettes such as the "Guardian" and England football clubs from Germany?

          R.Abramovich has 4 yachts with a total value (I will round) 540 million. pounds. We translate into dollars, multiplying by a factor of 1,3, we get roughly 700 million green American tugriks.
          The cost of the Strogiy corvette of the 20380 project is 17 billion wooden Russian rubles, which will be transferred to greens somewhere around $ 283 million.
          As a result, we have that the fleet of yachts of the oligarch Roman Abramovich stands as TWO Corvette type corvette and still remains at half past two !!!!
          Karl, the "patriot" Abramovich could build two modern corvettes !!!! request But prestige is higher than patriotism fellow
          So this is only Abramovich .... what
          Curtain to the topic, where to get money for the Navy wink
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 17 November 2017 19: 58 New
            0

            Yacht "Dilbar" - 256 million green. Owner A.Usmanov
            Another near-potential corvette what .....
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 17 November 2017 20: 01 New
              0

              "Superyacht A" brothers Melnichenko - 323 million US money - another failed corvette of the project 20380 ....
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 17 November 2017 20: 11 New
                0

                "Siren" by Yuri Sheffler - 300 million American presidents - another failed brother of the "Guardian" request
                And you say there is no money for the Fleet! They are, they just need a good look!
                Morality - in the USSR, with all its shortcomings, there were more than 200 nuclear submarines and the Ocean Fleet, but neither Parteigenoss nor the directors of factory-ship ships had yachts.
                Now Russia has a couple of dozen nuclear submarines on the go and there is no Ocean Fleet (even a full-fledged connection cannot be sent on a long hike from the remnants), but the yachts from the owners of ship-factories, ships and State Duma deputies will get another fleet!
                Otkudova money ???? .... what I don't understand Carl request
          2. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 17 November 2017 23: 43 New
            +7
            Take and share everything !!! Carl, was it already was. Do you want it again ???
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 17 November 2017 23: 52 New
              0
              Quote: Okolotochny
              Take and share everything !!! Carl, was it already was. Do you want it again ???

              Fear God, my dear! Just make sure that the money received from the exploitation of the country's natural resources works precisely for the good of this country yes
              And how this will be done is another matter. wink Nobody calls to take Smolny again request And an example is given to understand the current state of things in worship repeat so that there is no moaning that "there is no money" wink
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                17 November 2017 23: 59 New
                +2
                Quote: Rurikovich
                Nobody calls to take Smolny again

                And I, frankly, am almost ready .... In fact, the only thing that separates us from the "meaningless and merciless" is the lack of a sane alternative to the existing government
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 18 November 2017 00: 24 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  this lack of a sane alternative to existing power

                  Someone said that "there are no hopeless situations - just the right way out of the situation may not like it."
                  It seems to me personally that the problem of the existing government in fear of radical measures is the notorious "what will people say" lol dominates more than moaning of one’s own people about existing problems. A typical relic of the 90s, when a generation of "investors", "democrats" and other husks looking in their mouths parasitized on people's fears grew up.
                  Stupidly need a PERSONALITY, not afraid of responsibility for their actions, able to restore order. The problem is only in the scale of the country and the scales of the right person comparable with this requestSuggested example: Lee Kuan Y. But the scale is not comparable. What Singapore and which Russia .... what
                  Morality - Revolution is not foreseen recourse but really want to restore justice
                  So ... A personal look at the problem hi
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    18 November 2017 01: 10 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    Someone said that there are no hopeless situations.

                    .. because from any hopeless situation you can always find the entrance :))))
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    It seems to me personally that the problem of the existing government in fear of radical measures is the notorious "what will people say"

                    It's getting worse. The problem of today's power is expressed in the saying: "The hedgehog is a proud bird, until you kick it, it will not fly." Those. their main task is to abstract as much as possible from responsibility and from any irritants that interfere with indulging in sweet idleness. By the way, even the GDP (and he is the creator of this system) is already trying to stir up, kick harder .. alas.
                    1. Rurikovich
                      Rurikovich 18 November 2017 07: 46 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Those. their main task is to abstract as much as possible from responsibility and from any irritants that interfere with indulging in sweet idleness.

                      good A XNUMX% fall in the style of "management" of my nashalithe drinks
                  2. Okolotochny
                    Okolotochny 19 November 2017 23: 12 New
                    +5
                    So what's the problem? Take and try. Become you. The same comments day by day. The essence of which is the same - bad power, the dominance of oligarchs, etc. And just a statement without suggestions.
          3. pacific
            pacific 18 November 2017 01: 46 New
            +1
            "patriot" Abramovich could build two modern corvettes !!!!

            It would be interesting to see the Abramovich corvette as part of the Navy laughing
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 18 November 2017 07: 47 New
              0
              Quote: pacific
              It would be interesting to see the Abramovich corvette laughing as part of the Navy

              Alas, ento is impossible due to the fact that they measure the value of their yachts with the same opponents much more interesting than giving "blood earned" for the benefit of the people wink
              1. pacific
                pacific 7 June 2018 13: 40 New
                0
                Quote: Rurikovich
                Alas, ento is impossible due to the fact that they measure the value of their yachts with the same opponents much more interesting than giving "blood earned" for the benefit of the people wink

                All these Abramovichs simply do not see the steepness of such an act.
                Although Abramovich himself is not so hopeless - he swelled the loot in FC, it is only a pity that it was not in the domestic one.
    4. Odysseus
      Odysseus 17 November 2017 20: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Hiss
      Now to the topic: We’re never a sailor, we’re connected and dirty, hence knowledge / understanding, so that’s just IMHO, no more: of course, one or two extremely powerful naval groups for “overseas voyages” are necessary, but mass is debatable , and extremely expensive.

      Sorry, but you are discussing the question - do we need a fleet now?
      And the author discussed the question of whether the RI fleet is needed at the end of the 19th century. These are two completely different topics.
  7. Kibb
    Kibb 17 November 2017 17: 02 New
    0
    [/ Quote]
    Take two Vikings, one give an ax, the second - a shield. Who will win? The question is rhetorical.
    Can a person wearing body armor defeat an enemy armed with a firearm? In which war did ground-based air defense gain an unconditional victory over the enemy air force? What happened during the Second World War with France and Poland, trying to build their strategy from defense? [/ Quote]
    Naturally - Defense cannot be equally strong everywhere, in addition, the attacker himself chooses the moment and place of attack - the truths are common, however, nobody has canceled active defense either
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 17: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: Kibb
      Naturally

      I agree, but it’s strange that some people still don’t understand this.
  8. Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 17 November 2017 17: 27 New
    0
    But tell me, if everything was so good and there was a lot of money, why did the troops lack armament and get loans? And why didn’t England possess an army comparable to the armies of land powers?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 17 November 2017 17: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: Pilat2009
      And why did not England possess an army comparable to the armies of land powers?

      Because England owned a Fleet comparable to the fleets of all powers taken together and believed that it was better not to allow an airborne landing than to fight on its territory with the troops that landed. request It’s quite reasonable for its time and the strength of the economy, the benefit of the colonies was enough. Everything is interconnected, the rich colonies made a strong economy, which created a strong Navy, which could protect the sea communications that supplied the metropolis.
      By the way, the United States today is almost England in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Who owns the sea - owns the world wink hi
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 18: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: Pilat2009
      But tell me, if everything was so good and there was a lot of money, why did the troops lack armament and get loans?

      Because the generals are not corny guessed with the amount of weapons needed. Still, it depended on the wishes of the army - and they believed that they would tear everyone up with the available reserves. We had rifle factories in front of the PMV for fun, while the military department had unallocated funds. They thought they had done enough already ...
  9. Cartalon
    Cartalon 17 November 2017 17: 48 New
    +3
    There is one caveat: the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, an extremely non-typical time for the Republic of Ingushetia, a surplus and steadily growing budget without rape of the economy by emergency measures, if such happiness can be repeated and the ocean fleet can be thought of, but for now it would be better to cover the strategists and carriers of cruise missiles with rivets.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 18: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Cartalon
      There is one caveat: the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, an extremely non-typical time for RI, a surplus and steadily growing budget without raping the economy by emergency measures

      I’m writing about the Russian Empire :))) But we didn’t have a surplus budget (taking into account the emergency - a deficit) and there were problems. But in those years, Russia was quite rapidly developing its industry (although it was late from other countries, but ... tried to reduce the backlog)
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 17 November 2017 19: 10 New
        0
        By 1910, and with an extravagant budget, they went into surplus, was it not because the Germans started the war
        1. barbiturate
          barbiturate 17 November 2017 21: 17 New
          +2
          Where did this sweet budget go? The war began and everything turned out to be very deplorable, there was nothing to fight “suddenly”, but the worst thing was to produce weapons with the same nothing and no one. As it turned out, war requires more than money. And people who knew the real state of affairs, already in 1914 realized that a revolution was inevitable, sooner or later such people would be swept away from power by the people or the Germans or all together. Why already in 1914?

          “The first formidable“ bell ”for all front-line soldiers was heard as far back as DECEMBER 1914 (!!!), when, like a bolt from the blue, an UNEXPECTED CRIMINAL HUNGER was discovered in the Russian army.
          This is what the officer of the General Staff of the Russian Army writes about this, Captain B.N. Sergeevsky, seconded to one of the divisions of the X Russian army, which waged heavy defensive battles during the second invasion of Russian troops in East Prussia:
          “One evening, I remember - on December 7, from the headquarters of the corps a small blue envelope was received behind the seal, with the inscription:“ To the head of the 3rd brigade. In our own hands. ” I took the bag from the officer who brought him, and went into the room of the gene that was already going to bed. Wolfhound, handed it to him and left.
          A few minutes later the general called me. I found him sitting on the bed with the received paper in his hand and crying. Through tears, he said to me:
          "Boris Nikolaevich, Russia is dead!".
          - "What are you saying, Your Excellency! Is it possible to say such words to your subordinate? Calm down! What's the matter?"
          "Read it yourself!".
          I took a leaflet and read a "very secret" message that the supply of light and mountain artillery shells in Russia had run out, that the work of our artillery plants could not satisfy even a small fraction of the army’s needs, that foreign orders could not arrive earlier than the fall of 1915. Therefore, it was prescribed to reduce artillery fire to a minimum, so that on average each battery would produce no more than one shot per day!
          One shot! And here, in the days of battles, batteries were consumed by more than a thousand shells!
          The meaning of the order was clear - continue to fight without artillery !!
          It also spoke about the lack of rifles ...
          I immediately and clearly understood the whole horror of the situation: in the midst of an unprecedented war, Russia was almost unarmed.
          They were silent for a long time. The wolfboy sobbed.
          Finally, I began to say that, of course, this is terrible, but still far from the death of Russia. We will probably have to retreat, maybe even lose the war, but for Russia to die, this is still very far away. Do not exaggerate ...
          “No, Boris Nikolaevich, said Volkoboy, you don’t understand this. It’s not the Germans who will destroy Russia, but“ he ”, our soldier, will not forgive us. We will kill all the officers; there will be a revolution like the rest of the world! You don’t know our peasant! Yes, and you can’t bear this horror (he pointed to the received paper)! We will all die in a terrible riot ... Russia will not be! "
          I did not believe and tried, as I could, to calm him down.
          Outwardly, I succeeded. But from now on the gene. Volkoboy finally fell into pessimism.
          Years passed ... And how many times did I recall this conversation and was surprised at the prophetic words of Pyotr Mironovich. He undoubtedly felt with his gut that what the vast majority had not yet seen and understood ...
          In the soul of everyone, not only a soldier, but also an officer, too many disappointments gradually accumulated. At the same time, the conclusion from the totality of the mass of diverse impressions was not even a thought, but a feeling that
          "not the bad qualities of soldiers and combat officers and not the special valor of the enemy defeat us or limit our successes, but the mistakes, lack of courage and dishonesty of the top"

          Here you have a surplus budget, and Russia was developing, sought to catch up with someone there ... but it turned out all the lyrics and boltology. But the Communists did not engage in boltology in the production of weapons, and the budget is not particularly known, but the result is known)
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 November 2017 21: 41 New
            +1
            Quote: barbiturate
            Here you have a surplus budget

            Biting, but alas, not to the point
            I just draw your attention to the fact that after a year, the Russian Empire without any extra effort increased the production of shells 10 (!) Times from the pre-war.
            Quote: barbiturate
            But the Communists did not engage in boltology in the production of weapons, and the budget is not particularly known, but the result is known)

            Like yes. If you try to be impartial, you will notice that the German was not standing at the gates of Moscow in WWI.
            1. barbiturate
              barbiturate 18 November 2017 05: 47 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I just draw your attention to the fact that after a year, the Russian Empire without any extra effort increased the production of shells 10 (!) Times from the pre-war.


              This is only a figure, unfortunately, the situation with shells, guns and rifles, as well as with cartridges for these rifles, was simply disastrous (and not only in these positions). The needs of the front were not satisfied. And this is VERY weakly said.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Like yes. If you try to be impartial, you will notice that the German was not standing at the gates of Moscow in WWI.


              Yes, I’m just impartial and I understand that the Germans did not build plans for the capture of Moscow, and France was their main adversary. Maybe that's why wink 7 !! cadre German armies went to Paris, and East Prussia was left to defend alone! The 8th made up of reservists and defeated our shock armies. This is just impartial.
          2. Cartalon
            Cartalon 17 November 2017 21: 51 New
            0
            Yes, the result is known. The USSR collapsed without war in itself, because according to the Communists, all Communists were traitors.
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 17 November 2017 22: 32 New
              +2
              Quote: Cartalon
              Yes, the result is known. The USSR collapsed without war in itself, because according to the Communists, all Communists were traitors.

              Here, we deviate greatly from the topic of the article, but I cannot help but notice that here you are somewhat wrong.
              The collapse of the USSR was the result of the gradual degeneration of part of the top of the CPSU, and this degeneration, in turn, was the logical consequence of the erroneous ideological and managerial decisions of Khrushchev.
              The issues of military construction and the production of ammunition during the Second World War have nothing to do with the fact of the collapse of the USSR.
              1. Cartalon
                Cartalon 18 November 2017 05: 20 New
                0
                Even as they have the USSR contained the armed forces, which could not afford to contain.
                1. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 18 November 2017 07: 41 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Cartalon
                  Even as they have.

                  Barbiturate wrote about the production of ammunition during the Second World War. The collapse of the USSR has nothing to do with it.
                  Quote: Cartalon
                  The USSR contained armed forces that it could not afford to contain.

                  And this is not true. The myth of "large military expenditures" was launched at the final stage of perestroika (and those who launched it were not able to voice the exact figure of these large expenditures).
                  In fact, the military spending of the USSR was much less than in the 30-60s. And then what did the USSR not fall apart?
                  The dismantling of the USSR was consistently carried out by the Central Committee of the CPSU during perestroika. It was a political choice, neither the economy as a whole nor military spending in particular had anything to do with it.
                  The story about the "excessive burden of the army" is simple, excuse me, wiring for suckers, a smoke screen for dismantling Soviet military power. And, of course, the economy did not gain anything from reducing military spending and reducing the army in 1989-1991, on the contrary, it accelerated the dismantling process state.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. barbiturate
              barbiturate 18 November 2017 06: 03 New
              0
              Quote: Cartalon
              Yes, the result is known. The USSR collapsed without war in itself, because according to the Communists, all Communists were traitors.


              Yes, you are right, only the point was that in the war, when the main blow of Germany and the allies was against the USSR, our country, under the leadership of the Communists !!!, showed absolutely fantastic vitality and the will to win, coupled with amazing opportunities built Communists !!!, industry!
              But under Tsar Nicholas, we demonstrated our complete industrial remnant, and there were big problems with the will to win. It is difficult to show the will to win in such conditions. (When there is nothing to fight)

              But why then, after several decades, the USSR decayed, this is a separate issue.
  10. Odysseus
    Odysseus 17 November 2017 20: 43 New
    0
    Here you need to separate the grain from the chaff. The question is whether Russia needs a navy is abstract and therefore meaningless. Which Russia? Modern or 500 years old? This question is essentially just a derivative of the question, and what goals does Russia set for itself in a given period. Even if we narrow the question down to the size of RI, then the period of RI, then this is almost 200 years.
    Even the end of 19th — beginning of 20th — at a very different time, for example, the construction of large ships in 1913, taking into account plans for joining a major continental war, does not seem to be the optimal solution.
    But for the period of the late 19th century, we can say that the RI fleet was needed, because despite the fact that the leading Western powers had already industrialized and had colonies, the world was not yet as densely divided as it is now, there was still a “window of opportunity” for in order to redistribute spheres of influence, and, for example, the Pacific Ocean, was still poorly developed.
    But there is a fundamental problem - the development of its own fleet is industrialization, industrialization is capitalism (or socialism) - and capitalism is death for the estate-monarchist RI. Dead end.
    So, from the point of view of the abstractly taken interests of Russia, she needed a fleet at the end of the 19th century, but from the point of view of the interests of RI, she didn’t.
    And here for RI a dead end from all sides — it begins to build capitalism — it blows it up from the inside (as it actually happened), acts smarter and does not start (as the Qing Empire did in China) —and everything is fine inside, but without an army and the fleet of European "civilizers" come and destroy it, just like they destroyed old China.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2017 20: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: Odyssey
      Here you need to separate the grain from the chaff.

      Necessary.
      Quote: Odyssey
      The question is whether Russia needs a navy is abstract and therefore meaningless. Which Russia? Modern or 500 years old?

      In fact, the table of contents says "Do I need the Russian Empire ..." that as if hints :))) There is no empire for today :)))
      Quote: Odyssey
      Even if we narrow the question down to the size of RI, then the period of RI, then this is almost 200 years.

      Yes, that's why I limited myself to the period from the middle of the 19th century
      Quote: Odyssey
      Even the end of 19th — beginning of 20th — at a very different time, for example, the construction of large ships in 1913, taking into account plans for joining a major continental war, does not seem to be the optimal solution.

      Well, I bet in the very near future :))))
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 17 November 2017 21: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In fact, the table of contents says "Do I need the Russian Empire ..." that as if hints :))) There is no empire for today :)))

        I agree, but judging by the comments, not everyone understood your plan)) Perhaps it should be emphasized even more clearly that we are talking about a specific period in the second half of the 19th century.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, I bet in the very near future :))))

        With pleasure, but the dispute may not work))
        The decision to build these ships looks like a clear mistake, taking into account the afterlife, that is, knowledge of what happened after 1914, in 1913 nobody knew this yet.
        With this in mind, in my opinion, the construction of these ships is not a mistake, but simply not an optimal, not too far-sighted decision.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          17 November 2017 21: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: Odyssey
          I agree, but judging by the comments, not everyone understood your plan))

          This is yes, but that's okay. We will consider light trolling for my part laughing Especially since they have already recorded me in trolls laughing
          Quote: Odyssey
          With pleasure, but the dispute may not work))

          I will try, chesslovo! I mean, to give a qualitative argument in support of my point of view
          Quote: Odyssey
          With this in mind, in my opinion, the construction of these ships is not a mistake, but simply not an optimal, not too far-sighted decision.

          If you know in advance that the war will be in 1914, and it is in such a format as it happened, then certainly. And then say, even in this case I would not call the construction of dreadnought at the World Cup a mistake
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon 17 November 2017 22: 06 New
            0
            But does anyone consider the construction of battleships at the World Cup a mistake, the Baltic raise questions.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              17 November 2017 22: 44 New
              0
              Quote: Cartalon
              Did anyone consider the construction of battleships at the World Cup a mistake

              Let's just say - I came across such a point of view
              1. Kibb
                Kibb 17 November 2017 23: 11 New
                +1
                Hmm, a rather strange point of view - I suspect that I sounded from the "alternative" (I just know that you are there "regularly")
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  17 November 2017 23: 35 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kibb
                  Hmm, a rather strange point of view - I suspect that it sounded from the "alternative"

                  That's right, but as for here - I do not remember this.
            2. Kibb
              Kibb 17 November 2017 23: 17 New
              0
              Forgive me for wedging in, but why did you mention that Ishmaels cannot leave the Baltic? Ie why specifically they can not get out of there?
              1. Cartalon
                Cartalon 18 November 2017 05: 26 New
                +1
                In peacetime, they could, but they built it at the height of the war, but the next series could not have come out.
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 18 November 2017 13: 02 New
                  0
                  They thought that before the war, when it would begin no one knew.
                  Attacks, if necessary, would have walked Grandfleet to Skagerak, anyway he was bored smile (as an alternative delirium wink )
          2. Odysseus
            Odysseus 17 November 2017 22: 35 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I will try, chesslovo! I mean, to give a qualitative argument in support of my point of view

            Will wait wink
            This article in itself, in my opinion, is interesting and quite convincing.
        2. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 17 November 2017 22: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: Odyssey
          I agree, but judging by the comments, not everyone understood your plan))

          It often happens that comments develop other topics than the one to which the comments relate. For thoughts have the property to develop and as a result of any dispute go away from the topic of conversation ... There is nothing wrong with that request
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            17 November 2017 22: 43 New
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            There is nothing to worry here

            Again, I fully agree :)
  11. serg2108
    serg2108 17 November 2017 22: 34 New
    +2
    wonderful article I look forward to continuing!
  12. pacific
    pacific 17 November 2017 23: 53 New
    +2
    Andrei - you, definitely, are WONDERFUL! To raise such a topic and try to talk about the naval doctrine of the Russian Empire in almost comic mode is my respect for courage. God grant good luck.
    But why did you take this particular period?
    Nevertheless, the words of Peter I about the “potent, having only one arm”, if he does not have a fleet, it is appropriate to confirm from the beginning of the XNUMXth century.
    After all, there is no more effective confirmation of Peter's words about the fleet than the course of the Northern War itself. Namely - after the defeat of the Swedes near Poltava in 1709, hostilities were waged with them for another 12 years. Moreover, mainly at sea. And while the Russian fleet did not grow stronger, Sweden did not even think about peace.
    And in the future, all wars with the Swedes resulted in a series of naval battles, having lost which, Sweden quickly made peace with Russia.
    And the classic "indirect action" of Catherine II (right across Liddle Gart), when she sent the Baltic squadrons to the Mediterranean during the Russian-Turkish war!

    I look forward to continuing with interest. Good luck
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 November 2017 12: 14 New
      0
      Thank you, dear Pacific!
      Quote: pacific
      But why did you take this particular period?

      The fact is that I still specialize more in the history of steam fleets.
      Quote: pacific
      After all, there is no more effective confirmation of Peter's words about the fleet than the course of the Northern War itself. Namely - after the defeat of the Swedes near Poltava in 1709, hostilities were waged with them for another 12 years. Moreover, mainly at sea. And while the Russian fleet did not grow stronger, Sweden did not even think about peace.

      I don’t argue at all, but the fact is that the Swedish war itself is a very specific thing, and its description alone can stretch out over a whole series of articles :)))
  13. Nehist
    Nehist 18 November 2017 01: 29 New
    +2
    Hooray!!! Finally, the normal cycle of articles will be. And lately, more and more some superficial and sometimes not sane opuses.
    Andrei is waiting for the continuation.
  14. Nemesis
    Nemesis 18 November 2017 05: 29 New
    +1
    Does Russia need an ocean fleet? The answer to this question was received in the 20th century, in Spain, where, due to the lack of a standing ocean fleet, the USSR lost ... It’s not worth it to close up on the coastal defense, you need to be able to bite on enemy communications ... Someone will say that for this enough nuclear submarines ... Not quite so ... Why not quite so? Read about the use of submarines during the Caribbean crisis, you will understand ... if you think about it ...
  15. faiver
    faiver 18 November 2017 13: 40 New
    +1
    very interesting reading and comments to catch up, we look forward to continuing
  16. Torins
    Torins 18 November 2017 14: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Cartalon
    What tasks did Sevastopol and Ishmael build?

    Sevastopol in its conception was a platform for the most powerful naval weapons at that time, and this was done to the detriment of seaworthiness. Accordingly, the task of these LCs was the use of these weapons, where and as another matter, but the German infantry these guns worked perfectly even after 40 years. Ishmael was a more versatile ship and was intended primarily for the qualitative strengthening of squadrons led by Sevastopol.
  17. pin_code
    pin_code 18 November 2017 14: 52 New
    0
    In the first photo, a brigade of squadron battleships of the Borodino type, in the distance is Oslyabya, and Oleg and Aurora are on the left. if memory serves me right ...
  18. Torins
    Torins 18 November 2017 14: 58 New
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Perhaps it was precisely these two hundred tanks that were not enough to not bring the situation to the point of defending Leningrad?

    Maybe then there was no need to build airplanes?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 November 2017 16: 42 New
      +1
      It is necessary. For aviation in the war just the same actively participated.
  19. Kibb
    Kibb 18 November 2017 20: 45 New
    +1
    Nehist,
    The arrival of Russian ships in American ports was more a political action than a military one. Britain on the Polish question was counting on another coalition, but the coalition began to fall apart before our eyes. In this case, there was no discussion of the confrontation of the fleets - Britain was faced with the need to either repeat the Crimean one (i.e., the landing with the support of the fleet), but without allies, while also chasing the Russian cruisers, pretending not to notice the confederation cruisers, and the British fleet would not have pulled out a lot and a lot of everything with all the will, the army all the more. A wonderful use of the fleet as a political trump card, unfortunately rare for Russia. But the Russian fleet would not have survived a direct battle in the open sea with the British - there was no second Ushakov.
    1. pacific
      pacific 1 February 2018 22: 37 New
      +1
      But a direct battle on the high seas with the British, the Russian fleet would not have survived

      So these squadrons were formed from frigates and clippers. The ideal composition for cruising operations on British trade routes.
      Based on both coasts of the USA, plus our Far East, Russian America, the Sandwich Islands, possibly Japan. Suez Canal is not yet. Our squadrons would have arranged such a rout for British shipping, where the "Doenitz boys" are!
      The Britons understood this well. As well as the fact that they simply can’t catch ours and force them into at least some regular battle.
  20. Nehist
    Nehist 18 November 2017 22: 18 New
    +1
    Kibb,
    Well, remember. It was only then that the United Anglo-French fleet opposed these two squadrons. At that time, generally transcendental power. And as far as it can be seen from the documents of that time, they did not work to melt both squadrons. In general, the fleet was and remains precisely a global geopolitical instrument, therefore ships of the first rank are simply necessary especially in the northern and Pacific fleets
    1. Kibb
      Kibb 18 November 2017 23: 15 New
      0
      I totally agree
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 19 November 2017 07: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: Nehist
      It was only then that the United Anglo-French fleet opposed these two squadrons. At that time, generally transcendental power. And as far as it can be seen from the documents of that time, they did not work to melt both squadrons.

      Exactly. For the North won in any scenario. Especially after he took up the fight against slavery at one stage of the war as a method of destroying the South’s not so great economic power.
      And the British were absolutely aware of this. Therefore, they were not particularly zealous, they solved their problems in relations with the North.
      Interfering with Russia "in spite" was not a particularly smart decision. And most of all resembled an attempt to help the Sun rise in the east in the morning.
  21. Comrade
    Comrade 19 November 2017 04: 18 New
    +2
    Hello Andrey !
    I admit, I missed your work. I enjoyed reading the first part of a new cycle promising to be interesting, everything is logically and intelligibly painted. But, if you will, a little clarification.
    in 1900, the expenses of the Maritime Department for the maintenance and construction of the fleet amounted to only 78,7 million rubles.

    The limit budget of the Ministry of the Navy for 1900 is +59 500 rub. - was planned back in 1895, then in 1897 and 1898 there were two additional appropriations to it (total: 22 000 000,00 rubles). In addition, 6 000 000,00 rub was requested. to Port Arthur and Vladivostok, as well as 128 015,00 rub. other expenses.
    The draft estimate was reviewed and then “cut back”, as a result, the total cost of the Ministry of the Sea in 1900 amounted to +86 628 rubles, incl. But at the same time, three loans totaling more than five and a half million rubles. were assigned to "conditional leave". After some time, these loans were allowed to be spent on a common basis, net of 700 000,00 rubles. But judging by the articles, these loans were spent later, until the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War.Thus, in fact, the Ministry of the Sea in 1900 could spend the maximum amount 86 628 015,00 minus 5 500 000,00, i.e. +81 128. Although it cannot be ruled out that some of these “cutback” loans were spent already in 1900.
    Sorry, if I seemed too verbose on such a trifling occasion, just glad to have the opportunity to talk with you.

    PS And what about the "Verb"? If you will spread the continuation, please give me the news.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 November 2017 11: 54 New
      +3
      Good day, dear Valentine! hi
      Thanks so much for the budget info! Do I understand correctly that the figures you cited are the total amounts of financing for the regular and emergency budgets, i.e. all expenses of the Ministry of the Sea? Or is it still just an ordinary budget?
      Quote: Comrade
      But what about the "Verb"?

      I’m at the very ... most ... in general, I am at the culmination of the final battle :) In principle, it remains only to find appropriate words for it, write the end and a short epilogue. Immediately after that I will start spreading it, and, of course, I will inform you about it :)
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 19 November 2017 17: 54 New
        +1
        Hello, dear Andrey!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thanks so much for the budget info!

        Not at all, if necessary, I have for other years at the turn of the century.
        Do I understand correctly that the figures you cited are the total amounts of financing for the regular and emergency budgets, i.e. all expenses of the Ministry of the Sea?

        Exactly. Extraordinary expenses have already been pledged there, primarily three million each for Port Arthur and Vladivostok.
        But this is in theory, how much was actually mastered that year, can be found only in the archives, and even then, most likely, not completely. By the way, in this amount several hundred thousand are taken from the future budget, i.e., the budget of 1901.
        Immediately after that I will start spreading it, and, of course, I will inform you about it :)

        Thanks, I'll wait. I’m banned from AI, so for the sake of such a case I will have to register on a new one. I don’t know which nickname will be, but by the avatar you immediately recognize me, I’m used to the crocodile.

        I have a small article in development right now, I think it might interest you. Remember, Melnikov says that the Americans, specifically for the sake of Retvisan, introduced the Krupp armor production technology? Your humble servant did not specifically set out to disprove this thesis. Of course, it turned out, and then the article will focus on something else.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 November 2017 20: 04 New
          +2
          Quote: Comrade
          I'm banned on AI

          Yes, how to say? The fact is that the owner of the site made an interesting decision - to consider deleting part of your materials as the work of evil hackers who cracked your account. Therefore, he announced that your blog will be temporarily blocked in order to avoid intrusions of unwanted elements, but as soon as you decide to return, and let him know - he will inform you of new passwords and you will be with us again :)
          Quote: Comrade
          I have a small article in development right now, I think it may interest you

          Dear Valentin, absolutely any material of yours will interest me :))) You always find this ... I still remember laughing about Polish battleships :)))) About how the Poles tried to use them as cargo ships on the stage :) ))))
          Quote: Comrade
          Not at all, if necessary, I have for other years at the turn of the century.

          Of course! I still use your wonderful article on budgets as a reference material, but after all there - only since 1907, and I would be happy to have information on earlier periods
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 19 November 2017 23: 49 New
            +3
            The fact is that the site owner made an interesting decision

            The most he made an interesting decision even earlier: to side with the moderator, who used his powers for personal purposes during a discussion in front of the public.
            as soon as you decide to return

            I really want to, but I won’t do it.
            I will be interested in absolutely any of your material

            The material was selected really good, old English and American sources - this is sometimes such a treasure for people like you and me, you sometimes make such unexpected discoveries ..
            But this is nothing compared to the find I made this summer, and you are the first to whom I tell you about it. One museum has declassified the archive of Packinham, the very one. It turns out that the book with the reports of the English attaches is not too serious. For they were written for the American magazine Prosidings and were intended for a half-wide public. And there were also, attention, reports of Pekingham for British naval intelligence and for one specialist, from the Lords of the Admiralty. And there is that treasure. By the way, the Peckingham archive is a whole layer of materials, his reports from English ships before the Russo-Japanese War, and after the Russo-Japanese one.
            In Russian today, the best that is about the Tsushima battle is the book of Krestyaninov. From the Japanese side, he took materials from Meiji, but they are not detailed enough, to say the least. And the reports of Pekingham, which at the end of July this year became accessible to people from the street, are greatly benefited. When I saw what it is now possible to touch, I simply could not believe my eyes, for I did not even suspect the existence of such things. Moreover, if I understood correctly, the documents are only an insignificant part in handwritten form, but basically it is typed text. And I was delighted when I found out that in addition to the materials of Pekingham, his archive includes eighty-seven photographs of Tsushima. About forty of them were made not by him personally, but by a Japanese admiral who was a lieutenant in Tsushima and presented to him. I do not know in what form they are (photographs or negatives), but at Beijingham it is precisely glass negatives. It is clear that the pictures from them are worth something, probably a couple of tens of pounds per shot, but there is quality there too!
            You know, several months have passed, and I still can’t get over it. There are diagrams and a detailed description (recall how he “chewed” Asama’s participation in the battle near Cape Shantung) of the Tsushima battle through the eyes of a professional, all of whose responsibilities were to record everything that was happening properly in real time.
            I still use your wonderful article on budgets as a reference material, but after all there - only since 1907, and I would be happy to have information on earlier periods

            Let's do it.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 20 November 2017 06: 35 New
              +1
              Quote: Comrade
              One museum has declassified the archive of Packinham, the very one.

              Quote: Comrade
              And there is that treasure.

              Quote: Comrade
              a detailed description (remember how he “chewed” Asama’s participation in the battle near Cape Shantung) of the Tsushima battle through the eyes of a professional, all of whose responsibilities were reduced to recording everything that was happening properly in real time.

              belay good
              Valentin, and you, having such information, do nothing to publish it ????
              1. Comrade
                Comrade 21 November 2017 00: 51 New
                0
                Quote: Rurikovich
                and you, having such information, do nothing to publish it?

                Now, according to the plan, I am publishing a translation from German of one book on an aviation topic. The main work is done by a NF68 colleague, followed by a little literary processing and various little things. If you are interested, then in my profile you can find links to the first three parts.
                Then, at the same time, I collect, as I have already mentioned above, a small note from the era of armor and steam. All this against the background of at least a twelve-hour absence from home due to work :-(
                When this is completed, I proceed to translate the reports of Beijingham. Everything is not going smoothly there either, I'm not a professional translator of naval texts, so I constantly encounter the need to find out the meaning of a word. And sometimes they are not so easy to find, you have to turn to the centenary texts, look for an interpretation there.
                But the road will be overcome by a walking one :-)
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              20 November 2017 11: 29 New
              0
              Quote: Comrade
              He made the most interesting decision even earlier: to side with the moderator, who used his powers for personal purposes during a discussion in front of the public.

              Dear colleague, that’s how it is, but here is the thing - it’s good for you and me to talk about etiquette in network communication, but here’s a Beard ...
              Firstly, that moderator comes from the structures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and sometimes they have a very specific outlook on life. He will not pay attention to some things, but some other little things will make him your enemy for the rest of his life. And - he will never forget, he will do nasty things at every opportunity. I don’t want to erect a slander at the Ministry of Internal Affairs at all, there are many worthy people there, but such harmful people are found outside their ranks, but still they have it more often than usual.
              Secondly, the moderator is "Hero ATO"
              Thirdly, Beard himself has long held a very unpopular viewpoint in Ukraine today - he was categorically against the Maidan, against the new government, against the ATO in the Donbass, etc. As you know, now in Ukraine such views are simply dangerous to health. It’s really dangerous, especially since it is rumored that Beard has already come to the attention of the “peacemaker”
              Fourth, as far as I know, before Beard spoke out on the part of that conflict, he had a private conversation with Voldemaar08.
              And finally, in the fifth - I was struck by the change in the tone of the Beard. He was always an opponent of the ATO, and then suddenly "there is not so simple" and "you would listen to eyewitnesses."
              All this fits into one extremely vile logical chain, although, as you know, I certainly can’t prove or affirm anything. It is one thing to maintain justice on the site and quite another - when for this there is a threat to yourself, family, relatives ... Personally, I am not at all sure that I would choose justice on the site repeat
              Quote: Comrade
              And there were also, attention, reports of Pekingham for British naval intelligence and for one specialist, from the Lords of the Admiralty. And there is that treasure. By the way, the Peckingham archive is a whole layer of materials, his reports from English ships before the Russo-Japanese War, and after the Russo-Japanese one.

              Oooooooooooo ..... !!!!! There are no words ...
              And now what are you going to do with this wealth, dear Valentine? With such sources, it’s really possible to write a better book about the Tsushima battle than all that have been written so far (I’m so ... hinting slightly :))))))
              Quote: Comrade
              Let's do it.

              Thank you very much in advance!
              1. Comrade
                Comrade 21 November 2017 02: 31 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Dear colleague, that’s how it is, but here is the thing - it’s good for you and me to talk about etiquette in network communication, but here is Beard

                Well, in that case there was nothing to post the rules. No rules - no problems. Do whatever you want, “beard,” no one will poke you with your nose in the absence of a clause in the rules, for the alleged violation of which your moderator issues a “warning” to people.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It is one thing to maintain justice on the site and quite another - when for this there is a threat to oneself, relatives, relatives

                Dear Andrey, was there a “fright”? The “beard” on the main page is “Alternative Politics”, it’s not for me to tell you what it is about and what comments it is there. At the same time, the “beard” was not afraid and not afraid of the OUN, the UPA, or the SBU that they would come and ask why he was planting “separatism” on his site? And then suddenly my link to the Wikipedia article was “scared” to such an extent that it began to cover the lawlessness. Paradox :-)
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And now what are you going to do with this wealth, dear Valentine?

                In addition to jokes, I’ll sit down for a book, not just now, but later. Russian officialdom and testimony of crew members, statistics from the "Top Secret History", a description of the actions of the opponents of 14 on May 1904 through the eyes of an objective observer (Peckingham), and not interested (involuntarily) parties. To all this, schemes of getting into ships, but the schemes are not Japanese, but modern reconstruction. The battle plan is not general, although it is available, but in stages, a battle fragment after a fragment, and descriptions and explanations to them. Dozens of photos of the Tsushima battle itself, as well as the events of the next day. This is the look of future work, if you try, you will succeed.
                The perishing "Sisoy" I have had for a long time, but there the quality is so-so, and here it comes from glass negatives. And if you colorize the photo? Sources are not pictures from offset printing, but negative, which means that the result will be good.
                Yes, then publish it all on coated paper, a gift edition, so to speak. Are there few enthusiasts now who, at their own expense, publish their own books on topics of interest to us? It is clear that we are not talking about profit, even symbolic, it’s for the soul. Although, it would be good to justify the costs.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Thank you very much in advance!

                There is no ready-made one, you need to dig into the "bins", but on Sunday I will do it and send it to you by mail. Yes, do you need the details, or is the total amount just needed?
              2. Comrade
                Comrade 21 November 2017 05: 12 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Thank you very much in advance!

                Sorry, dear Andrew, another question after. How to deal with 1904-1905, also send? But there the expenses of the Naval Ministry by the pre-war standards are prohibitive, since they also include the costs of warfare. Unfortunately, I do not have detailed information to single out separately spent on a war at sea.
                And I apologize that I raised the unnecessary question about my "bath", it all failed in failure. It was just a shame, I tried for the site for so many years, and they spat in my face in response.
                To defuse the situation, see what kind of funny photo I got, this is "Thuringen" (clickable).
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  21 November 2017 13: 19 New
                  0
                  Quote: Comrade
                  There is no ready-made one, you need to dig into the "bins", but on Sunday I will do it and send it to you by mail. Yes, do you need the details, or is the total amount just needed?

                  I am completely satisfied with the total amount
                  Quote: Comrade
                  Sorry, dear Andrew, another question after. How to deal with 1904-1905, also send? But there the expenses of the Naval Ministry by the pre-war standards are prohibitive, since they also include the costs of warfare. Unfortunately, I do not have detailed information to single out separately spent on a war at sea.

                  Oh well, I’ll do it without detail, any conclusions can be made
                  Quote: Comrade
                  And I apologize that I raised the unnecessary question about my "bath", it all failed in failure. It was just a shame, I tried for the site for so many years, and they spat in my face in response.

                  All this was also extremely unpleasant to me. Yes, I almost never appear there now
                  In fact, if it were not for the presence of a number of colleagues whom I respect, I would probably have waved my hand to the site for good.
                  Quote: Comrade
                  To defuse the situation, see what a funny photo I got

                  :) good
                  Quote: Comrade
                  In addition to jokes, I’ll sit down for a book, not just now, but later.

                  I can only wish you all the best of luck!
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 20 November 2017 06: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            absolutely any of your material :))) You always find this ...

            belay And me too ... will be ... interested fellow good hi
            1. Comrade
              Comrade 21 November 2017 04: 12 New
              0
              Quote: Rurikovich
              And me too ... will be ... interested

              If you are interested in “rivets” of the era of armor and steam, then you will lick your fingers :-)
  22. pacific
    pacific 1 February 2018 23: 01 New
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Interfering with Russia "in spite" was not a particularly smart decision. And most of all resembled an attempt to help the Sun rise in the east in the morning.

    Well, you need to at least read something on the story! Or keep quiet if you don’t know.
    Russia solved exclusively its own tasks - it was necessary to destroy the nascent new Anglo-French coalition. And to do this it was only necessary forcing Britain to exit from it. For the French, even in alliance with the Austrians, were not afraid of us.
    But the British could be “forced into peace” only by creating a real threat to their wallet. There were only 2 ways to do this - either send an expeditionary force to India, or create a threat to British merchant shipping. That is, cruising war on communications.
    Support for the United States (northerners) made it possible to obtain unlimited possibilities for basing cruising squadrons. Which was done.
    And the British perfectly understood this beautiful move: we support the northerners and have their unconditional support, and at the same time pose a threat to British communications on the 2 oceans.
    Our squadrons, if they influenced the course of the Civil War in the United States, only morally. So to say a nice bonus to the main task.
    It was a classic indirect action. Britain immediately refused to participate in the coalition. In the meantime, we once again crushed another rokosh clandestine.
    You can read about the history of the next Polish uprising and about who supported him and how he wanted to fuck from this on the same site.