Military Review

Four battles of "Glory", or Efficiency of mine-artillery positions (part 4)

67
The 4 October 1917 battle of the year is interesting because absolutely everything is mixed in it: selfless courage and loyalty to duty, cowardice and alarmism, professionalism and carelessness, and besides, a fair amount of black humor.


In order not to force readers to search for the previous article, we will present the map of the Moonsund Archipelago once again, highlighting on it the place of the 4 battle of October



Further. Let's just say, almost all the descriptions of the October 4 bout are either extremely compressed and do not allow to understand how Russian and German ships maneuvered and fired, or they are replete with terrain references (“having reached Paternoster Parallel, went to the island”), which without a map and the directory can not figure out what the reader usually does not. Therefore, the author took the liberty to portray the movement of ships, putting them on the scheme from the book Kosinsky. Of course, these schemes are conditional and do not correspond to the exact maneuvering of ships, but still give a rough idea of ​​what is happening.

Let us consider the place where the battle took place. As we have said, the Russian ships during the 4 battle of October maneuvered in the Bolshoi Zund strait, which separates the island of Muon from the island of Werder and the mainland. This strait was defended by two minefields: one set in 1916 directly at the entrance to the Bolshoi Zund from the Gulf of Riga, and the second set in 1917 a little to the south of the first.

But there was also a third. The fact is that the Germans, wanting to block the exit to the Gulf of Riga, put a few mine cans from an underwater minelayer (their approximate location is highlighted in blue in the diagram; unfortunately, the author does not have an exact map of the barrier). In essence, they only hurt themselves: the Russians strayed the fairway in this barrier and calmly used it, while the Germans, in fact, only strengthened the mine position of the Russians at the Great Zund. But then the Germans had an idea about the location of the Russian minefields.



The German commander (Vice-Admiral Behnke) led his ships from the south (blue solid arrow) and did not have the slightest desire to storm the 1917 barrage of the year head-on. He intended to bypass it from the west or east (blue dotted line) and bring its battleships to the southern edge of the 1916 minefield. From there, König and Kronprinz could fire Russian ships right up to Schildau Island (the trajectory is red dotted line). By the way, just near this island the battleships “Glory” and “Citizen” (red circle) settled down for the night.

The choice between the western and eastern aisle was very difficult. In the west, as mentioned above, there was a German minefield, which should now be forced. In the east, there was less mine danger, but the movement of ships made it difficult for shallow water areas — the banks of Afanasyev and Larin. As a result, the German vice-admiral did not choose, but decided to trawle up both aisles, and then how it will turn out.

Interestingly, the Russian naval destroyers "Active" and "Deliverable" found the enemy before dawn. The ships Benke dismantled at dawn and in 08.10 began to move towards the Russian minefields, but even before 08.00, that is, before the Germans went ahead, the commander of the naval forces of the Gulf of Riga (MSRZ) M.K. Bakhirev received a message from “Active”: “I see 28 fumes on SW” and soon after that: “The enemy forces are going to Kuivast”.

In response, M.K. Bakhirev ordered the "Active" to continue monitoring and find out which ships are part of the German squadron, and immediately ordered the "Citizen" and "Glory" to go to the Kuivast raid. Around 09.00, the battleships came, and on the "Glory" they were in such a hurry to fulfill the order of the vice-admiral that they did not choose anchors, but riveted anchor chains. At the same time, M.K. Bakhirev gave the command to the other ships (barriers, destroyers, transports), standing on the Kuivast roadstead, to go north. This was absolutely the right decision, because there was no point in exposing them to the blow of the German dreadnoughts.

The question arises: why M.K. Bakhirev did not attempt to use the armored cruiser “Admiral Makarov”, the armored cruiser “Diana” and the newest destroyers “noviki” in the battle against the squadron breaking through from the south? The answer lies in the fact that on the day of 4 October, the naval forces of the Gulf of Riga were, in fact, two separate battles: from the very morning the enemy became more active in the Kassar Reach. "Diana" was sent to the Moonsund Strait, "Admiral Makarov", taking the water into their compartments and, in the image and likeness of "Glory" in 1915, created a list in 5 degrees, had to support the destroyers with fire. In no case could it be possible to ignore the enemy forces in the Kassar Reach: this not only put the land defenders of the island of Muon in danger, but also provided a theoretical opportunity for the Germans to cut off the retreat path of the Russian ships, at least sketching mines in the Strait of Moonsund.

Almost simultaneously with the approach of the Russian battleships to Kuivast, the German squadron of Vice-Admiral Behnke "stumbled" into the south-western edge of the Russian 1917 minefield in

In other words, everything was ready for battle for 09.00: both the Germans and the Russians concentrated their forces. The Germans began trawling the 1917 barrage, the Russians concentrated a detachment of ships, which they gathered to confront the Germans as part of Glory, Grazhdanin, and the armored cruiser Bayan under the flag of the MRPD commander and the destroyers covering them.

Visibility was excellent; in general, 4 October Day 1917 g was characterized as “beautiful, clear”.

Period 09.00-10.05



Having entered the minefield, the Germans immediately proceeded to the trawling, their other ships stopped. In the interim, 09.15-09.23 “König” fired on the patrol destroyers “Active” and “Efficient” (direction of movement - red dotted arrow), using 14 projectiles from the 86-97 cable, but did not achieve hits. For nearly an hour, Beckers minesweepers worked implacably, and then, in 09.55, the German squadron split into two parts. Six minesweepers and nine minesweeper boats under the cover of the light cruisers “Kolberg” and “Strasbourg” (in the diagram - the western group) went through the Russian and German minefields to the Malaya Zund to support the ground forces' breakthrough to Mawn. At the same time, the main forces (eastern group), including both dreadnought of the Germans, went along the minefield to the east in order to try to pave the way around the barrier from the east.

In Russian, everything was much "more fun." Approximately in 09.12, the enemy was seen and identified (most likely from “Active” and “Deliverable”, since at that time only they could see the enemy well). In his "Report" M.K. Bakhirev indicated such a composition of forces:

“In the sea ... two battleships of the Koenig type were visible, several cruisers, among them one of the Roon type, destroyers and two large transports, probably, hydroplaned queens ... Further, more smoke was visible.”


As we know, the German forces consisted of only two dreadnoughts and two light cruisers, but when identifying a group of ships from a long distance, such errors are more than excusable, especially since the main enemy (dreadnoughts) were identified correctly.

On the "Citizen", "Glory" and "Bayan" they declared a battle alarm and raised flag flags. But at that moment the Germans launched the bombardment of the artillery batteries of Mon. This is how M.K. Bakhirev:

“In 9 hours 30 minutes was raided by four large enemy hydroplanes on the Kuivast raid, which bombed mainly the jetty and the Mone batteries. The explosions of bombs were very large, gave a lot of black smoke and had, apparently, a great destructive force. ”


Here you should pay attention to the time difference between German and domestic sources. In continuation of the quoted passage by M.K. Bakhirev writes:

"At the same time, the enemy, who was marching into the W-th passage, opened fire on our patrol destroyers."


It turns out that the Germans opened fire after 09.30. While according to German data, shelling was carried out in 09.12-09.23. In general, one can only say for sure that at first our ships detected the enemy and prepared for battle, and then German seaplanes appeared. Despite the presence of anti-aircraft guns on our ships, the seaplanes didn’t fire, because these guns didn’t have their own calculations, they were manned from other ship guns and it was decided not to distract them.

Further M.K. Bakhirev ordered the nomination for a combat position. And what happened next causes admiration, shame and laughter at the same time. S.N. Timirev, the commander of the Bayan cruiser, describes the incident as follows:

“Simultaneously with the signal, the Bayan withdrew from the anchor and raised the balls to stop. According to a predetermined plan, it was assumed that by a signal "beeches", "Glory" and "Citizen" are in full swing on the position; “Bayan”, following them, was supposed to fit slightly behind, at a distance of 1,5 kb from the position. It should be noted that the role of the “Bayan” was purely moral, because the range of its guns was less on 10-12 KB than on the battleships. A few painful minutes passed after the descent of the signal: “Glory” and “Citizen” raised their anchors, lowered the balls to the “middle turn”, but ... did not move: not even the slightest breaker was noticeable under their nose. Is it again the “moral element”? Awful moment! And the enemy was getting closer, and from minute to minute one could expect him to open fire from his 12-dm towers; it was clear to us that by then no forces could pull the ships into position. Bakhirev came up to me and said through clenched teeth: “They don’t want to go! What should we do?". It occurred to me that if we go forward, the ships will follow us: partly because of the habit of “following the movement of the admiral,” and partly out of a sense of shame that the weakest ship is “leading”. So did. We lowered the balls and gave full speed, turning to the position. The trick was a success: the big ships also lowered the balls and began to boil under their noses. Bakhirev and I were relieved from my heart ... "


What is a könig dreadnought?



This is a sea fortress, armed with ten magnificent 305-mm Krupp cannons, with which our latest 305-mm Tserel battery cannons could have fought. Developed back in the 19 century, the 305-mm cannon "Citizen" and "Glory" were much weaker. At the same time, “Koenig” is perfectly protected: it is capable of destroying any armadillos of the world, while remaining lowly vulnerable to their projectiles. Perhaps four battleships in their combat power and could equal one dreadnought of this type. Perhaps four Bayan-type cruisers had any chance of success, having fought with one battleship. But what should the officers of “Bayan” feel when they went to meet two dreadnoughts like “König”? Recall that the British admiral Trubridge, having four armored cruisers, each of which was larger and stronger than the Bayan, did not dare to block the road to a single Geben single battle cruiser, and the Goben was weaker than the Koenig.

And it would be okay if the risk was only in danger of being substituted for the Germans 305-mm guns. But neither S.N. Timirev, no M.K. Bakhirev could not be sure of the crew of his cruiser: what could the "activists" of the shipboard committee make of it when the risk of the planned enterprise became clear to them? Nevertheless, the officers remained in their places and did their duty.

The movement of “Bayan”, obviously, shamed the team “Glory” and “Citizen” and they seemed to have gone to the position. Why "like"? Let's remember what S.N. Timirev:

“On the signal“ beeches ”,“ Glory ”and“ Citizen ”are in full swing to the position; "Bayan", following them, was supposed to fit slightly behind, at a distance of 1,5 kb from the position. "


That is, after taking the position, the battleships were supposed to be between the "Bayan" and the German ships. And what happened in practice?

"Bayan" went to the position, which was supposed to be at the boom (highlighted in the diagram bold), but without reaching it, turned to the left (green arrow) and missed the battleships ahead. It was assumed that "Glory" and "Citizen" will take the fight, turning astern to the enemy. The fact is that it was practically impossible to maneuver on the “open spaces” of the Big Zund, and if the ship, being under enemy fire or damaged, would start a turn, he would risk being in the shallows. Therefore, it was better to immediately turn around so that, if necessary, there was a possibility of retreat. At the same time, "Glory" was to be located further, and "Citizen", due to the fact that his tools were less long-range - closer to the enemy.

Armadillos and turned around. But so, that after their turn (red arrow), instead of standing in front of the “Bayan” at the booms, they were far to the north, which is why the flagship M.K. Bakhireva was the closest ship to the Germans!

Interestingly, this moment is absolutely not advertised anywhere. M.K. Bakhirev noted only:

"Since the ships stretched along the S – N line (that is, from south to north. - Approx. Aut.), At 10 hours a signal ordered them to stay closer to the admiral."


Mikhail Koronatovich did not begin to dramatize the actions of his ships. Suffice it to say that he did not mention the delay of the “Citizen” and “Glory” and their unwillingness to go to the position at all.

In 09.50, the Mone Island battery fired at the minesweepers who bypassed the 1917 minefield from the west, but quickly fell silent, most likely due to undershoes, because the distance to the enemy was still too far. Approximately to 10.00, the ships took up positions, and the battleships began to turn, leading the enemy to the course angle 135 degrees on the port side. The 10.05 fired the Citizen, but its projectiles lay down in great gaps, and the fire was stopped. Half a minute later, “Glory” entered the battle, firing at the minesweepers of the western group (red arrows on the diagram).

Period 10.05-11.10

So, the Russian battleships struck the minesweepers, rushing towards the Small Sound, but only Glory “reached” them. The distance was 112,5 cable. Interestingly, the Slava was armed with the very “9-foot” range finders, the low quality of which, according to some researchers, sharply reduced the accuracy of the British battle cruisers in the Jutland battle. But on Slava, they showed themselves very well: the first volley of the battleship gave a flight, the second - a shortage, and the third - a covering, after which the German minesweepers put a smoke screen.

The light cruisers of the group, bursting from the west, of course, could not compete with the guns of the Russian battleship, so the dreadnoughts of Benke tried to support their fire. In 10.15, Koenig fired at the Bayan cruiser, and the Kronprinz fired five five-armored volleys at the Citizen. But the distance to the “Citizen” was too great, and the “Kronprinz” stopped shooting, and the “Bayan”, apparently within the reach of the “Koenig” (the first volley went very close to the stern of the cruiser), moved away to the east and also turned out to be beyond the range of German heavy guns.

Up to this point, the description of the battle does not contain anything contradictory, but further certain difficulties begin. It is very likely that this was the case.

The minesweepers of the detachment that came under fire went in two groups. Ahead of 8-th semi-flotilla, behind - 3-y division. Most likely, "Glory" fired at the head of the 8 th semi-flotilla and forced her to hide behind a smoke screen, during which time the 3 Division approached closer and fired at "Citizen", as a result of which these minesweepers also had to retreat . Both Kosinsky and Vinogradov claim that at the same time the “Citizen” tried to fire at the eastern group of minesweepers from 152-mm guns, but it should be noted that these minesweepers were too far away to be able to shoot from such guns. Maybe they just gave a couple of volleys for the excitement? Unfortunately, the author is unknown.

The Russian battleships fought, remaining motionless, although they did not anchor: they were kept in one place, working as machines. In 10.30 M.K. Bakhirev ordered to fire "at the nearest enemy."

Around 10.50, the smoke screen set by the western group was finally dispelled. It turned out that the retreating minesweepers had previously regrouped and started the trawling again, and now they were much closer than before. Glory opened fire on them with 98,25 KBT. She was immediately supported by the "Citizen" and "Bayan", as well as the battery of Món. It was at that moment, according to Russian observers, that one enemy minesweeper was sunk and the second one was damaged, but the German reports do not confirm this. However, the minesweepers for the second time were forced to hide behind a smoke screen and retreat. Judging by the fact that the minimum distance between Slava and minesweepers was 96 cable, it can be assumed that the German trawling caravan failed to pass under concentrated Russian fire for half a mile. Then the Russian ships transferred fire to the cruisers and destroyers that followed the minesweepers, and also forced them to retreat.

The breakthrough of “Kolberg” and “Strasbourg” in the direction of the Small Sound was broken. Official german история It says this:

"Thus, the attempt to break through the barriers ... and the mines supplied by the German submarines failed, which had to be completely abandoned."


But the following description puzzles the author. The fact is that after the appearance of the minesweepers of the western group “Glory” in 10.50, the fire was distributed. The nose tower fired at the minesweepers, and the stern began to fire at Koenig and Kronprinz. At the same time, according to the German official history:

“Russian battleships transferred their fire to the 3 squadron (to the dreadnoughts. - Note. Auth) and very quickly shot at it. They held very skillfully on the border of the range of our heavy ship artillery (20,4 km 115 KBT). The position of the squadron was extremely unfortunate: she could neither approach the enemy, nor, standing still, avoid her fire. ”


How could this be?

Kosinsky and Vinogradov write that during this period of the battle the German battleships could not “reach out” to the Russian ships: their volleys, although they lay near the “Bayan” and the “Citizen”, but still with undershoots. The result is a physically impossible construction:

1. The firing range of the Glory was 115 KB.

2. The firing range of "Koenig" and "Kronprinz" was the same 115 KBT.

3. "Citizen" was between the "Glory" and the German battleships.

4. "Koenig" and "Kronprinz" could not throw their shells to the "Citizen".

5. But “Glory,” it turns out, was easily covered by Germanic dreadnoughts ?!

And then one of two things. Or, nevertheless, the real firing range of the German dreadnoughts was somewhat less than the 115 cable, which would be extremely strange. Or it is necessary to state that two German Dreadnought fled as soon as they opened fire, despite the fact that the volleys lay down under fair spells!

Although we can not reliably determine the causes of the retreat, but there are two absolutely reliable facts. “To prevent Russians from gaining easy success”:

1. Vice Admiral Behnke ordered his dreadnoughts to retreat.

2. Forced them to this shooting only one, aft, the tower of the battleship "Glory".

In 11.10, the battle ended, the Germans retreated to regroup, and the battle ended. Their attempt to go west of the 1917 barrier turned out to be a complete failure.

In 11.20, a signal was hoisted on the Bayan's falfs: "The admiral expresses his pleasure for excellent shooting." According to the author of this article - absolutely deserved.

German minesweepers twice, and the cruisers and destroyers once came under fire from Russian ships, and in all cases were forced to immediately put smoke screens or retreat, but the shooting was conducted at the 96-112 cable distances, which were extreme for Russian guns. In this case, one should not think at all that the artillerymen of the Glory bombarded the enemy with shells. We reliably know the consumption of projectiles, the nose of the Glory tower, before its failure (which happened at the very end of the first phase of the battle): the right gun managed to expend four shells, the left one - seven. Thus, it can be assumed that the stern tower made hardly more than 8-9 gunfire shots, and in all, in the first phase of the battle, the battleship spent about 29 shells. And these shells fired at least four different targets (two groups of minesweepers, destroyers, and battleships). This indicates that the German ships were forced to either put smoke screens, or run literally after the first or second salvo of "Glory"! And this is at the 96-115 cable distance! And this is when firing long-range projectiles with increased dispersion!

In the first phase of the battle, the Russians succeeded, but the Germans, moving away on the 160 cable, were preparing for a second attempt.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Four "Glory" battles or the effectiveness of mine-artillery positions (part of 3)
Four "Glory" battles or the effectiveness of mine-artillery positions (part of 2)
Four "Glory" battles or the effectiveness of mine-artillery positions (part of 1)
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 11 December 2017 16: 19 New
    +3
    Suuupeeeeer !!!!

    Thanks to the Author !!!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2017 16: 39 New
      +3
      And thank you :))) Now I’m just doing a sequel, it’s even more fun there than it turns out :)
  2. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 11 December 2017 16: 35 New
    +2
    Or, nevertheless, the real firing range of the German dreadnoughts was slightly less than 115 cable ones, which would be extremely strange.

    I came across data on a German gun 12 "/ 50 - elevation 16 °, firing range 20400m (112kab.)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2017 16: 41 New
      +3
      Maybe ... but the question is that Glory was clearly not in the 3 cable rooms from the Citizen, but further, to the “Tsesarevich” of the former, it’s like they should have finished off anyway
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 December 2017 17: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: BORMAN82
      I came across data on a German gun 12 "/ 50 - elevation 16 °, firing range 20400m (112kab.)

      The same data is given on navweaps for 30.5 cm / 50 (12 ") SK L / 50 in the Range section. And they are given for 16 degree UVN.
      And in the Mount / Turret Data section there is a footnote that some sources claim an increase in UVR to 16,5 degrees.
      A few sources claim that the maximum elevation was increased on all ships to 16.5 degrees rather than to 16.0 degrees.
  3. Conductor
    Conductor 11 December 2017 16: 58 New
    +3
    Thanks to Andrey for the articles, as always interesting and informative. But I don’t agree with the statement of the question on Geben, it seems that there is not so much a military issue as a political one.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2017 17: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Conductor
      But I don’t agree with the question on Goeben, it seems like there is not so much a military issue as a political one

      Well, Trubridge was judged by an adult, and after this trial his career was over.
      Quote: Conductor
      Thanks to Andrey for the articles, as always interesting and informative.

      Always welcome, come again :)
      1. Conductor
        Conductor 11 December 2017 18: 26 New
        +2
        It's easy to judge on the shore, in a warm courthouse, but no one was convicted of PQ 17. Neither Pound to Hamilton nor Churchill. So, Trubridge - They threw a bone. . Always happy with your articles.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 11 December 2017 19: 16 New
          +2
          Quote: Conductor
          Neither Pound to Hamilton nor Churchill.

          After all, “Tirpitz” was so powerful (remember the epic from the sinking of “Bismarck”) fellow that judging the "flight" of two battleships from one does not seem logical wassat laughing
          For me, the whole situation with PQ-17 is so absurd as ridiculous request
          1. Nehist
            Nehist 13 December 2017 13: 28 New
            +1
            And why do not you like the epic with the sinking of Bismarck? The British suffered a serious loss in linear forces, plus involved a thuja heap of the formations of warships that were needed on other theater. And yes, the main defilement of the British was neither Tirpitz, but the fact that they would have to be in the Luftwaffe aviation coverage area. What would entail simply huge losses in warships. And the British knew about the effectiveness of aviation against large ships by the example of the same Bismarck or a raid on Taranto where the flies disabled almost a third of the Italian linear fleet
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 13 December 2017 23: 07 New
              +1
              Dear Alexander, do you know a word like sarcasm?
              Quote: Nehist
              And why do not you like the epic with the sinking of Bismarck?
  4. 27091965
    27091965 11 December 2017 17: 58 New
    +3
    And here is one of two things. Or, nevertheless, the real firing range of the German dreadnoughts was slightly less than 115 cable ones, which would be extremely strange.


    " Glory covered the head enemy dreadnought. Following this, the entire German squadron turned to the south, ceasing fire from a distance of 128 cable."

    In different publications, different distances.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2017 18: 21 New
      +6
      Quote: 27091965i
      Glory covered the head enemy dreadnought. Following this, the entire German squadron turned to the south, ceasing fire from a distance of 128 cable

      Just this moment is quite explainable :))) The fact is that this phrase belongs to the commander of the Glory, and he was farthest from the Germans. Those. it is easy to interpret so that the Germans stopped shooting when there was 128 kb between them and Slava, but at that moment between the Cesarevich and the Germans there were less than a mile and a half or two.
      1. 27091965
        27091965 11 December 2017 21: 16 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Those. it’s easy to interpret so that the Germans stopped shooting when there was 128 kb between them and Glory,


        " Simultaneously with the beginning of our shooting (minesweepers), two enemy battleships, from a distance of 130 cable ships, opened fire on our ships."

        "Glory" shot from a distance of 112,5 cable, from which ship was the distance measured?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 December 2017 21: 46 New
          +2
          again, nothing strange - Glory shot at minesweepers bypassing the minefields from the west, before them it was 112 kbt. But the battleships fired at the Citizen and the Bayan, and they could not shoot at them, the volleys fell short-lived, which is not surprising for 130 kbt.
          Although my personal opinion is that the Bayan made a mistake with the distance, there were probably 120 cables rather than 130
          1. 27091965
            27091965 11 December 2017 22: 18 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But the battleships fired at the Citizen and the Bayan, and they could not shoot at them, the volleys fell short-lived, which is not surprising for 130 kbt.


            " The first volley of the lead ship, which consisted of three bursts, lay down at a distance of a few fathoms from the stern of the Bayan, which was south of all. The terminal enemy ship fired at the Citizen, its volley, like the subsequent ones, lay down with a small shortage. "

            For this reason, I write that the data are different. You understand that the battle is being monitored from two sides. Therefore, there will always be a difference in results.
    2. Conductor
      Conductor 11 December 2017 18: 29 New
      +1
      Sorry, but about 128 cables for the first time I hear, All the same, to control the fire at that time, an extraordinary distance.
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 11 December 2017 17: 59 New
    +3
    Greetings, Andrey Nikolaevich! drinks hi
    The beginning of the battle is read interesting and easy! For what the fattest plus! good
    Ship classifications. Squadron battleships instantly became battleships. It is understandable that both they and the ships of the dreadnought era are the main combat units of the line, but still, for me, the EDB is an EDB ... For an ignorant beginner, such a comparison between an outdated battleship and battleship specific. So personally, I would still use the old classification scale for armadillos. And then the battleship “Glory” or “Citizen” really does not go in any comparison with the data of the real battleship “Koenig”. Because if they were in open sea conditions without mines, the Glory would turn into a shield shield for the Koenig guns ...
    This is so, personal opinion and in no way refers to criticism of the article. Equating the EDB with battleships in the era of real battleships has always been hindered repeat Personally, it seems to me that the EDB should remain the EDB - then the real state of affairs becomes clearer
    And so to the material itself no complaints winked repeat hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2017 18: 29 New
      +5
      Greetings, dear Rurikovich!
      It was nice not to disappoint :)
      Quote: Rurikovich
      For an ignorant beginner, it may seem strange to see such a comparison between an outdated battleship and a specific battleship.

      Absolutely agree. Himself in a light stupor from such classifications. As Patients remarkably said (exemplary quote): "How do you imagine the duel between the battleship Torgut Reis and the battleship Queen Elizabeth?
      But here everything is complicated, strictly speaking, Slava was exactly a battleship according to the classification of the time, I’ll write - the EDB will be reproached for inaccuracy ... One hope is probably for someone who is not lazy to wade through my schemes than the Borodino-type battleship differs from the dreadnought type "Koenig" drinks
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And so to the material itself no complaints

      Thank you!
    2. Conductor
      Conductor 11 December 2017 18: 36 New
      +1
      So there are no others and the EDB will pass for battleships, especially the caliber 305 is quite such a battleship. Remember our cruisers Gorky, Kirov, sort of light, but the caliber 180, not at all easy. I will not even remind the Washington Accords to which class such a cruiser belongs. Let me remind you that with such a caliber there were no ships at all, 127 mm air defense cruisers, 152 light, 203 heavy. The Germans had one linear cruiser there, the British had another, the Amers generally had 3, jap 4. In Amer’s battleships of the Alaskan-Oban type, they outperform the old battleships of the Sevastopol type.
      1. Conductor
        Conductor 11 December 2017 18: 40 New
        +2
        I’ll fix myself on the German Panzerschiffe cruisers, sort of, because they generally held the battleships. The German destroyers were those of the last series (the class book remained in a different life) they carried 5 mm of military equipment, the French Mossaks were also quite so armed.
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 11 December 2017 18: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: Conductor
        I will not even remind the Washington Accords to which class such a cruiser belongs.

        It was the Washington Accords that put an end to the progressive development of the classes of ships, each individually! yes
        The ship itself is a compromise of performance within the allotted displacement to perform certain functions.
        If at the beginning of the century the same armored cruiser was such precisely because of the presence of belt armor. Because different countries had different armored cruisers to carry out the Wishlist of their admirals, depending on the economy of these countries. The versatility of the performance characteristics of armored cruisers of that period is striking. Take Sweden’s armored cruiser Fulgia at 4000t. and 8-152mm guns and the same "Rurik" in 17000t. and 4-254mm and 8-203mm guns But Washington introduced restrictions, because of this there was dullness and monotony with small variations in the class of heavy cruisers.
        Were it not for these restrictions, all classes of ships would continue to develop in a natural way, and the same Alaska were essentially ordinary heavy cruisers. Like the designed Kronstadts.
        So it is with the lungs, so it is with the battleships.
        It makes no sense to tell me about the paradoxes of classifications - I already know everything wink hi
        1. Conductor
          Conductor 11 December 2017 19: 36 New
          +1
          Here Rurik 2 generally surprised, a pilot project or something.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 11 December 2017 20: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Conductor
            Here Rurik 2 generally surprised, a pilot project or something.

            An ordinary project for that time as part of the development of the class of armored cruisers and the changing views on the conduct of battle and the functions of these ships themselves request
            Such (and similar) everywhere riveted in different countries ... Each with its own national highlights repeat
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 December 2017 19: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Conductor
        So there are no others and the EDB will pass for battleships, especially the caliber 305 is quite such a battleship.

        For the EDB to go behind the LC, there must be a situation of “an EDB squadron against one LC”. Otherwise, at least twice the superiority of the LK in the GK guns (on board) does not leave the EDB a chance.
        And I still don’t remember that the battleships 12 "/ 50 are not armored 12" / 40 at all.
        Quote: Conductor
        Remember our cruisers Gorky, Kirov, sort of light, but the caliber 180, not at all easy. I will not even remind the Washington Accords to which class such a cruiser belongs.

        According to genealogy of pr. 26 - the same KRL. For grown from the Italian KRL.
        But the Argentinean "Almirante Brown" with their 3 * 2-190 mm - this is the SRT. For in their ancestors they have Trento.
        Quote: Conductor
        127 mm - air defense cruiser

        This is a need that has been passed off as virtue. Initially, the Atlanteans were EM leaders and counter-destroyers. Hence the TA (absolutely unnecessary and even harmful to the Kyrgyz Republic air defense), and the insufficient number of universal caliber POISOs (for 8 towers - only 2 pieces).
        In general, Atlanta is the result of the failure of work on the 152-mm universal AU. For the fleet wanted a single universal KRL - and counter-EM, and air defense missile and squadron. And with 6 "GK. Yes, the lip of the fleet was not a fool. smile
        1. Conductor
          Conductor 11 December 2017 19: 38 New
          +1
          Oh, thanks, and I didn’t know that the args (no offense to them, respectful country, and respect for the Russians, somewhat overshadowed by the MSG and EBN) had such cruisers, with this caliber, I read, thank you again.
  6. prodi
    prodi 11 December 2017 18: 24 New
    +1
    Well, what to be surprised if long-range shells of that time had increased dispersion along the horizon, then they could have such in range
  7. ICT
    ICT 11 December 2017 18: 33 New
    +4
    picture for the townsfolk
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 December 2017 18: 51 New
      +4
      Thank you!
      But this is a map of the second part of the battle :)
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 11 December 2017 19: 02 New
      0
      laughing good
      I propose introducing footnotes from the description of various events in which to remind what is for "those who are in the subject" and what is for "everyone else" wassat
      And then Nikolayevich in his articles is already forced to give all sorts of comparisons, so that everyone can read it, which increases the volume and distracts from the main topic, although he succeeds in it almost bloodlessly good
      But the whole point is that sometimes the details make it clear why this happened and give answers to questions, but simplified comparisons for ordinary people do not carry the necessary information request
  8. Conductor
    Conductor 11 December 2017 19: 52 New
    +1
    Yes, and there were such oddities, English monitors, I do not remember the name, but the caliber is beyond the limit. Two of Thailand, I don’t even know how to say, are the cannons, perhaps, sunk by a phrase-cruiser armed with 152 mm. All sorts of strange crafts Japanese caliber 320 mm. 2 shots per hour. Surkuf is a song. , crawl out from under the water and give a volley. Because of the difference in environments, his trunks will not break. Rodney, who, when shooting the GK, gave a tear. And For a snack 1942, the breakthrough of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Eugen, and against them 8 avosek, and a division of torpedo boats. In contrast, a shot from Worspite in the Mediterranean. 23 km.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 12 December 2017 00: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Conductor
      Yes, and there were such oddities, English monitors, I do not remember the name, but the caliber is beyond the limit.

      See the link: "The latest marine monitors." http://www.warships.ru/MK-3/MK-11/MK-11-1.htm
      And the names of the monitors: Terror and Erebus. In this picture, Erebus
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 12 December 2017 00: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: Amurets
        In this picture, Erebus

        And on this Terror.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 December 2017 11: 09 New
        +2
        The “extraordinary caliber” is, rather, “General Wolf”, on which the BS GK with 18 “guns intended for the turret“ A ”of the LKR“ Furyes ”was installed.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 12 December 2017 13: 02 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The “extraordinary caliber” is, rather, “General Wolf”, on which the BS GK with 18 “guns intended for the turret“ A ”of the LKR“ Furyes ”was installed.

          Perhaps these monitors simply served little. "In 1918, on three monitors (" General Wolfe "," Lord Clive "." Prince Eugene "), instead of two 305-mm guns, one 456-mm gun appeared. These guns, the most powerful in the British fleet, were intended for battlecruisers of the type “Furious.” They were installed in the aft deck flooring, with a 10-degree firing range on the starboard side. Even later, the Lord Clive received instead an experimental three-gun tower installation of 381 mm caliber. "All monitors in this series, except for the Lord Clive, were written off in 1921. http://www.korabli.eu/blogs/bronenoscy/velikobrit
          aniya / monitory / lord-clive / istoriya
        2. Kibb
          Kibb 12 December 2017 18: 53 New
          0
          Damn, where you take these pictures, tried to find when I heard about the prohibitive caliber on monitors, but figs there. And this fool shot only on board. But italian monitors generally surpassed all
  9. Curious
    Curious 11 December 2017 20: 38 New
    +3
    “The German minesweepers twice, and the cruisers and destroyers once fell under the shelling of Russian ships, and in all cases they were forced to immediately put smoke curtains or retreat, but the shooting was carried out at the distance of 96-112 cable distances for the Russian guns. to think that the Glory gunners bombarded the enemy with shells. "
    By the beginning of World War I, the German trawl forces did not have ships of special construction.
    There were three flotillas of old destroyers of the T-11 type (85 t, speed with a trawl of 15 knots) and T-43 (125 t, 18 knots), armed with one 50-mm cannon. At the head of the flotillas were the 330-ton destroyers D-3, D-4, D-7, D-8 and D-9, which had a slightly longer course and were armed with three guns of the same caliber.
    In 1914, a mine-seeker projection manifested itself - 450-tonne ships of the M-1 series.
    What should ships of such dimensions and displacement, located in the minefield, when 305 mm shell drops are observed in the trawling area? Leave shelling immediately. So there is no need for direct hits. Enough of that.
  10. Olegi1
    Olegi1 11 December 2017 21: 30 New
    +1
    The entire series of articles is super. Thank you Andrey! I was thinking about re-reading Monsund Pikul, but after your articles, I think it will be irrelevant. Although he wrote well.
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 11 December 2017 23: 08 New
      +1
      Andrei, once again respect for the article, And here V.S. Pikulya, doubts, then he has destroyers 7 and 7 of a cruiser right there, then he will plant a torpedo under the midshipmen at the Cruisers.
  11. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 11 December 2017 21: 58 New
    +2
    Very interesting.
    Again, recalling Pikul - according to him, “Glory” fired from the aft tower for the reason that the VN bow tower mechanisms failed. Interestingly, in real life it was like that?
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 11 December 2017 23: 09 New
      0
      Glory, that shot stern?
    2. Conductor
      Conductor 11 December 2017 23: 13 New
      0
      Maybe, of course, shoot the stern tower, but, it seems like exactly the EDB, that series was distinguished by strong bow fire.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 December 2017 11: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      Again, recalling Pikul - according to him, “Glory” fired from the aft tower for the reason that the VN bow tower mechanisms failed. Interestingly, in real life it was like that?

      At 11 hours 45 minutes, “Glory” semaphore informed me about the failure of the bow 305-mm tower. The damage consisted in the fact that the locks of both guns could not be closed due to the sagging of the frame, and also due to the fact that the gear gears did not move the locks, since their shafts were skewed. This happened after 4 shots during the battle of the right gun and 7 - left. Both 305 mm guns were delivered to the ship in November 1916 and gave (including the battle) 34 practical and 45 combat shots. Despite the intensive work of the tower servants and ship locksmiths, nothing was done. According to the Slava experts, all the blame lies with the plant, which cashed out casually and out of bad metal.
      © Bahirev M.K.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 13 December 2017 03: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Despite the intensive work of the tower servants and ship locksmiths, nothing was done. According to the Slava experts, all the blame lies with the plant, which cashed out casually and out of bad metal.

        The history of the RYAV 1904-1905 was repeated. Then on the 6 "Kane guns the same malfunctions occurred.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 13 December 2017 11: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: Amurets
          The history of the RYAV 1904-1905 was repeated. Then on the 6 "Kane guns the same malfunctions occurred.

          With ship "kane" the story is confusing. There, it was not only the lifting mechanisms themselves, but also the reinforcements for the guns. When working from a solid base, at the 6 "range, it quietly fired for a long time with high IOC. And on ships, when working in the same mode, mass outages began. Most likely the ship’s designs were to blame: reinforcements for guns not designed for this mode of firing, they began to "play", which led to additional dynamic loads on the design of the HV drive, for which it was not designed.
          Moreover, the problem with prolonged firing at large air-guns was not only in 6 ", but also in domestic systems - in the same" Peresvetycha "when firing from BShGK with air-guns of over 25 degrees.
          In general, the roots of the problem of “Kane” and other systems are no longer in the technical, but in the tactical plane. For during the design of the ships of the future REV it was believed that the SK would not have long-range firing - it was simply throwing shells into the wind. Accordingly, no one was counting on the design for a long fire with large UVN.
          The second reason is financial. The fleet did not even have money to test fuses for shells: the offer of test firing was rejected due to the fact that the firing would cause unnecessary expenses - the fuses were designed by specialists and did not need to be checked. What can we say about the testing of the ship’s guns on board the ship with prolonged firing at high UVN ...
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 13 December 2017 12: 14 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The second reason is financial. The fleet did not even have money to test fuses for shells: the offer of test firing was rejected due to the fact that the firing would cause unnecessary expenses - the fuses were designed by specialists and did not need to be checked.

            I agree completely with your opinion. Elastic deformations in ship structures at that time were difficult to calculate, it all depended on the qualifications of the shipbuilder. This is one thing.
            And the second: how many books on the history of domestic steam shipbuilding, of that time, I read the Veda, there were petty savings and an irrational waste of money on alterations. This was written in their books about the ship Melnikov, Stepanov, Tsvetkov, Kostenko. Moreover, Kostenko’s opinion is especially valuable because he himself participated in the battle of Tsushima and wrote an interesting book “On the Eagle in Tsushima.”
  12. Comrade
    Comrade 12 December 2017 03: 05 New
    +5
    Dear Andrey, thanks for continuing the cycle +!
    Therefore, the author took the liberty of portraying the movement of the ships by superimposing them on a diagram from Kosinsky's book. Of course, these schemes are conditional and do not correspond to the exact maneuvering of the ships, but nevertheless give an approximate idea of ​​what is happening.

    Great idea, it was very clear.
    And then one of two things. Or, nevertheless, the real firing range of the German dreadnoughts was somewhat less than the 115 cable, which would be extremely strange. Or it is necessary to state that two German Dreadnought fled as soon as they opened fire, despite the fact that the volleys lay down under fair spells!

    It will be appropriate to look at the situation from the opposite side.
    In 08: 12 (time from German sources) "Glory" opened fire on German dreadnoughts. Both dreadnought immediately responded, however, shells, flying 204 hectometer, fell, not reaching the target. At the same time, Russian shells went down well, some fell about fifty meters from the "König". The firing range of the Glory guns was up to 240 hectometers (109.36 cabin), and German dreadnoughts to 224 hectometer (102.07 cabin). The situation was aggravated by the fact that both dreadnought were constrained by a narrow channel, which made it impossible to maneuver X. 08 Admiral Benke (Behncke) gave the order to lie on a western course, in order to get out of the fire of "Glory".
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 13: 07 New
      +4
      Greetings, dear Valientin!
      Quote: Comrade
      Great idea, it was very clear.

      Thank you, try :)!
      Quote: Comrade
      It will be appropriate to look at the situation from the opposite side.

      Absolutely.
      Quote: Comrade
      The firing range of the Glory guns was up to 240 hectometers (109.36 cab.), And the German dreadnought up to 224 hectometers (102.07 cab.).

      So, nevertheless, the Husbands are right, giving the Koenig at 16 degrees of elevation 110 kb! The real range is always slightly lower than the tabular one, so it turns out for Glory ok 110 kb instead of tabular 115 and for Koenig a little more than 100 kb at 110 kb tabular
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. Comrade
    Comrade 12 December 2017 03: 48 New
    +5
    Russian battleships hit minesweepers breaking through in the direction of the Small Zund, but only the Glory "reached" them.

    In the picture, the crew members of one of the German minesweepers watching the fall of the shell from the "Glory". Photo from the collection of G. Staff.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 13: 07 New
      +3
      What are their ... tense backs laughing
      Thank you so much, photography is super!
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 12 December 2017 14: 11 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What are their ... tense backs laughing
        Thank you so much, photography is super!

        I think their backs were not only strained))) I wonder what are the chances of surviving such a trawl in the event of a direct hit by a Russian projectile 305mm?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 15: 15 New
          +3
          Quote: Trapper7
          I wonder what are the chances of surviving such a trawl in the event of a direct hit by a Russian 305mm shell?

          None. But death will be instant! laughing
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 December 2017 18: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            None. But death will be instant!

            This is if a land mine. And if BB - that is, there are great chances to get off with only a through hole in superstructures / body of caliber 304,8 mm. smile
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 18: 55 New
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              This is if a land mine

              Nuuu, the poles were turned on land mines :) drinks
            2. Comrade
              Comrade 13 December 2017 02: 59 New
              +1
              if BB - that is, there are great chances to get off with only a through hole in the add-ons / casing of the 304,8 mm caliber.

              There is a photograph of a fragment of the superstructure of an English light ship, there is a through hit from a 305 mm German shell, probably armor-piercing. Interestingly, this hit by Puzyrevsky is not mentioned.
            3. Comrade
              Comrade 13 December 2017 04: 06 New
              +2
              This is if a land mine.

              The minesweepers were just hit with high explosives, the calculation was simple - to create an extensive focus of high-explosive fragmentation among fragile little ships. And having melted them, having dispersed them, we are making the attempt to force the minefields by the Germans more than risky.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                13 December 2017 23: 15 New
                +3
                Oh, I just laid out a sequel. Next week they’ll lay it out, I think so :)))) I didn’t think that I would have to kill him so much time, but it turns out that even Vinogradov, whom I really respect, has a million contradictions in the description
                Quote: Comrade
                And having melted them, having dispersed them, we make an attempt to force minefields

                absolutely impossible, because there is no clever man who would have a bare heel on a bare mine ....
                1. Comrade
                  Comrade 14 December 2017 02: 57 New
                  0
                  it turns out that even Vinogradov, whom I really respect, has a million contradictions in the description

                  Maybe this is because he did not "dig" properly? Or because the fighting is secondary to him, he would have to imagine the materiel in all its glory.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    14 December 2017 13: 21 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Comrade
                    Or because the fighting is secondary to him, he would have to present the materiel in all its glory

                    Well, strictly speaking, his armadillo’s “biography” turned out to be good, but specifically this battle ... Again, it seems that there is no way to get a normal description, Kosinsky, Timirev, Bakhirev - everyone writes very lanely or with errors. We have to sit down, roll up our sleeves ... But he seemed to be going to do it. However ... something did not work out
      2. Comrade
        Comrade 13 December 2017 02: 55 New
        +1
        photography is super!

        The most interesting part was reserved for the last article of the cycle. By the way, the photo shows that the weather was really good.
  15. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 12 December 2017 09: 05 New
    +1
    Damn Andrey, this is how vodka ended, in full swing, why are you torturing so crying
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 13: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: kapitan281271
      Damn Andrey, this is how vodka ended, in full swing, why are you torturing so

      The request of the site administration is not to write articles of too large a volume hi
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 December 2017 18: 57 New
      +3
      Quote: kapitan281271
      Damn Andrey, this is how vodka ended, in full swing, why are you torturing so

      The volume is just normal. If there is more, comments in the style will go niasilil, mnabukffff.
      An article on possible ways to use AB USN in a hypothetical war with the Russian Federation is a living example. sad
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        12 December 2017 19: 08 New
        +3
        The funny thing is the size is almost equal :)))))
  16. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 12 December 2017 12: 57 New
    +2
    Quote: Rurikovich
    For me, the whole situation with PQ-17 is so absurd as ridiculous

    And tragic
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 13 December 2017 23: 05 New
      +1
      I agree. With what and "congratulations" to the British ...
      "Fear has big eyes .... Let it be, if only the brains do not become smaller" wink
  17. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 14 December 2017 10: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    for there is no clever man who would have a bare heel on a bare mine ....

    Why not? I know one such thing - a whole crowd of destroyers sent Russian battleships to look for))))
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 December 2017 14: 49 New
      +2
      Eeee ... You are right :)))) There were such :)))))