Military Review

Four battles of "Glory", or Efficiency of mine-artillery positions (part 5)

101
So, the first German attempt to break through was not crowned with success, the squadron Behnke was forced to retreat to regroup. But it was in this unsuccessful phase of the battle for the Germans that the two most important factors determined their future victory.


First and most important: in connection with the presence of the Russians only one battleship with long-range guns (“Glory”), the head of the Naval Forces of the Gulf of Riga, M.K. Bakhirev did not have the opportunity to interfere with the work of two groups of minesweepers simultaneously. By concentrating fire on the minesweepers, who were breaking through the 1917 minefield from the west, he was forced to leave the ships that had bypassed this minefield from the east to be unshot. And for the most part they have done their work.

In fact, this work was greatly facilitated by two circumstances. The Germans had a map of minefields, taken by them on the destroyer “Thunder” (yes, the one who “heroically blew up” sailor Samonchuk. However, there can be no complaints about him himself - this history He did not invent it). And - the carelessness of the remaining unknown persons who have forgotten to remove the buoys that marked the edge of the minefield.

Secondly, the nasal 305-mm installation failed on the "Glory". The reason is the marriage of the Obukhov plant, which “casually made teeth out of bad metal,” as a result of which the locks of the guns were not closed. They tried to repair the damage, but “despite the intensive work of the tower servants and mechanics from the ship’s workshop, nothing was done.” Thus, by the decisive moment of the battle, the Russians had two long-range guns against twenty Germans.

Ships M.K. Bakhirev before the battle began as follows.



“Citizen” was the porcelainiest of all, “Bayan” to the north by two cables to the north, “Glory”, even to the north, almost on the Kuivast road. On "Glory" they decided to take a position closer to the enemy and made a move by stern (it was not safe to turn around at the narrows of the Big Sound) going down to Werder’s Island (dotted arrow).

In 11.30 M.K. Bakhirev ordered the ships to anchor. This was done only by the “Citizen” and “Bayan”, and the “Glory”, with riveted anchor chains, could not fulfill the order of the Vice-Admiral. At the same time, the Germans were preparing for a breakthrough. They strengthened the group of minesweepers to 19 ships, and now everything depended on their crews - if they could withstand Russian fire enough time to clear the fairway for their battleships.

Fight 11.50 - 12.40

The classic description of the beginning of the battle looks like this. In 11.50, on the Russian ships, the minesweepers noticed, and M.K. Bakhirev ordered to be removed from the anchor, which was done, however, they delayed a bit on the “Bayan”. From the flagship cruiser semaphore reported:

"If the minesweepers approach, open fire."


However, the distance for the guns of the “Citizen” was still too great, and he was forced to descend to the south, towards the enemy. Then the battleship turned left side to the enemy and opened fire. "Glory" was still completing its maneuver, moving back to Werder Island, and was able to join the battle, firing minesweepers from a distance close to the limit (112 KBT) only in 12.10

But it was too late. In 12.10, German battleships entered the trodden, buoyed, fairway and, adding speed up to 18 nodes, rushed forward. In 12.13, the leading Koenig, having reduced the course to 17 nodes, opened fire when opponents were separated by 90 cables.

Everything seems to be simple and clear ... until you pick up a map and start counting.

It would be logical to assume that the “Citizen” opened fire on the minesweepers with 88 cable for themselves, perhaps a little earlier or later, for the calculation we will accept 85 KBT. It is unlikely that German minesweepers were slower than 7 nodes or faster than 12 nodes. In this case, in the 6 minutes elapsed since the first shot of the “Citizen” (12.04) and before the opening of the fire with the “Glory” (12.10), they passed the 7-12 cable and were located from the “Citizen” approximately in 73-78 KBT. If we take for granted that Glory opened fire while being on 112 cable from minesweepers, it is easy to calculate that at that moment it was separated from the order of 34-39 kbt from the former Tsesarevich.

Alas, it is impossible geographically. In order to move away at such a distance, the “Citizen” had to descend very strongly to the south, having gone beyond the line of booms, which he obviously did not do. But even if you ignore the geography and take the statements of the sources for granted, it turns out that “Koenig” opened fire on the “Glory” with 90 KBT, when it was separated from the “Citizen” by some pathetic 51-56 cables! Is it possible to imagine that the Germans let the Russian battleship so close to themselves without opening fire on it?

Again, if Glory opened fire on the minesweepers in 12.10 with 112 KBT, and König in 12.13 (well, or in 12.15 according to Russian data) - in Glory with 90 KBT, then there is one of two things: or “König” overtook the minesweepers, which is absolutely impossible, or these very minesweepers in order to stay ahead of the “König”, suddenly grew wings (underwater?) And overcame 3 cable for 5-22 minutes, that is, developed 26,5-44 nodes!

Suppose the Koenig opened fire not when the distance to the Glory was 90 KBT, but when the 90 cable was to the nearest Russian ship, that is, to the Citizen. But then it turns out that “Koenig” shot at “Glory” with 124-129 cable (90 kb from “König” to “Citizen” plus 34-39 kbt from “Citizen” to “Glory”)! Of course, such exploits of the König gun, which most likely had a real range of no more than 110 kbt, were obviously incapable.


"Citizen" (left) and "Glory"


In order to understand all these intricacies, we need to work in the archives and need documents from the German side, but, alas, the author of this article does not have anything to do with it. It remains only to build all sorts of hypotheses: one of them, in no way pretending to be the ultimate truth, is offered to your attention. It is based on the following data.

The first. Vinogradov, giving perhaps the most detailed description of the October 4 battle, writes about "Citizen":

“Turning to the left side of the enemy, he began to fire at 12.04 with 12-dm and 6-dm caliber minesweepers.”


If the “Citizen” had opened fire at the maximum distance for him (88 kb), then there would be no point in firing at 6-dm guns - their range hardly exceeded 60 kb. This means that, most likely, the “Citizen” opened fire from a much smaller distance, from which 152-mm artillery could hit the enemy.

The second. We also read from Vinogradov, who was studying the magazine of the flagship German battleship, that the shooting of “Glory” was conducted between 12.12 (typo? In other places, Vinogradov gives 12.13) to 12.39, while the distance at that time changed from 109 to 89 cable. That is, “Koenig” opened fire, when before “Glory” it was 109, not 90 KBT.

Based on the above, the author assumes that on the ships of M.K. It was too late for the German minesweepers to find Bakhirev when they were close enough to the Russian ships. The “citizen” descended to the south not in order to shoot 305-mm cannons, but in order to be able to put 152-mm artillery into action. As for “Glory,” she opened fire on the minesweepers not from 112 cables, but from a smaller distance. The battleship entered the battle only after it reached the position near Werder Island (12.08) and led the enemy to the heading angle 135 degrees (which could take 2 minutes).

If the author is right in his assumptions, the beginning of the battle looked like this.

Enemy minesweepers were spotted at 11.50, and the ships began to be removed from the anchor, and the “Bayan” was delayed, and the “Citizen” went down a little to the south to bring into action not only the main, but also the medium caliber.

In the 12.04, “Citizen” from a distance of the order of the 70 cable opened fire with 305-mm guns and soon the field put into operation its six-inch gun. In 12.10, they were joined by "Glory", located about two miles from "Citizen" to the north. At this point, the minesweepers were tentatively in the 65 cable from Grazhdanin and in the 85 cable from Glory. After the Glory, the Bayan and the destroyers opened fire at the minesweepers. Vinogradov describes this moment of the battle as follows:

“Following the battleships, the rest of the ships — the Bayan cruiser and the patrol destroyers Turkmen Stavropol and Don Cossack — which opened at the Bon, opened fire, and the distance from them to minesweepers did not exceed 65-70 KBT.”


At this time (12.10) "Koenig" and "Kronprinz" just entered the fairway and began their "dash to the north." The 12.13 "König" opened fire on the "Glory" with the 110 cable distance limit for its guns. Accordingly, between "Koenig" and "Citizen" at this moment was 90 cable. At the same time, the German minesweepers were already approximately in the 60 cable from the Citizen. Accordingly, in 12.13, the German battleships lagged behind their minesweepers by about 30 cable, which allowed them to move forward with the 17-node speed without fear of “stepping on their heels” to their trawling caravan.



It is not known exactly when “Glory” transferred the fire to the “Koenig”. The sources indicate that she opened fire with 112 KBT, so it can not be excluded that "Glory" fired on the Germans flagship even before it came under fire. It can only be said that Slava almost did not shoot at the minesweepers, because almost immediately the fire was transferred to the leading Koenig. Probably, it was for “Koenig” that “Glory” shot the entire battle before its completion.

At the same time, according to the logs of the battleships Kronprinz and König, which Vinogradov brings, it is absolutely impossible to figure out who shot at whom. Before joining the battle, at 11.55, Kronprinz received orders from König:

"I intend to attack Glory." Take a little to the side, too, to be able to fire. "


In 12.15, already after “Koenig” fought 2 minutes, the “Open fire” signal was raised on it, and in a minute, in 12.16, “Move fire to the right”. It can be assumed that Beenke wanted to destroy the Glory with the concentrated fire of his two dreadnoughts, the only Russian ship with long-range artillery. But the instruction given to them in 11.55 allows for a double interpretation: “to be able to fire too” does not concretize the target, but only speaks about the very possibility of shooting. Probably, in 12.15, the Kronprinz still attacked the Citizen, but in 12.16, he received instructions from the flagship to carry the fire to the right: according to Vinogradov, from the German position, Slava was just to the right of the Citizen.

One can only guess what happened next. On the one hand, in Hohzeeflot, the orders of the senior in rank were usually carried out, and therefore one would have expected the transfer of Kronprinz’s fire to Glory. But on the other hand, not a single source mentions that at the beginning of the battle, the “Citizen” remained unstressed. It turns out that the “Kronprinz” shot at the same time “Glory” and “Citizen”? This is possible: the "Kronprinz" could spread the fire in the event that part of his guns could not shoot at "Glory" due to restrictions on the angles of fire. The battle was fought on sharp course corners and it can be assumed that the Kronprinz stern towers couldn’t shoot at Glory, so why would they not attack another target?

Battle of battleships began in 12.13 duel of "Glory" and "Koenig." In 12.15, the Kronprinz attacked the Citizen, and in 12.16 it spread out the fire between the Citizen and the Glory, and from that time on the Glory the Dreadnought 2 was fired. From the very beginning, the Germans demonstrated excellent shooting. In order to avoid coverings, “Glory” made a small move, in 12.18 it increased it to medium. "Citizen" remained in place.

German dreadnoughts, on the contrary, in 12.22 slowed down to low. It can be assumed that they approached the boundaries of the 1916 barrier and, besides, following the speed of 17 nodes within 12 minutes, the minesweepers began to slowly overtake.

In 12.25, three shells severely damaged the Glory and almost simultaneously two shells hit the Citizen. The latter, however, did not receive critical damage, but “Glory” was doomed: two of the three shells caused severe flooding in the nose, so that the battleship could no longer return to the Gulf of Finland by the Morzund Strait.

I must say that such a large-scale flooding should not have happened if the team had managed to batten the doors in the bulkhead of the turret section of the nasal 305-mm installation. But people had to act very professionally and quickly, and in total darkness (the electricity in the bow disconnected) and in rooms where water was flowing rapidly. Unfortunately, professional sailors were absolutely lacking in professionalism and composure.

As, in fact, and discipline. Indeed, according to the charter of the Russian imperial fleet, the ship had to go into battle with shut up waterproof hatches and doors, which was not done. If the door to the turret compartment had been closed, as prescribed by the charter, then Glory would have taken in only 200-300 tons of water. In this case, even if there was counter-flooding to straighten the bank, the Glory would still retain the ability to go to the Gulf of Finland, and there would be no need to destroy the battleship that had become famous.

But what happened happened, and as a result of the received hits, Slava accepted tons of water into the 1130 nasal spaces. Taking into account counter-flooding (to straighten the list) and subsequent filtration, the total amount of water entering the ship's hull reached 2500 tons. In such a state, Slava could not return to the Gulf of Finland by the Strait of Finland and was doomed.

Having received hits, "Glory" turned to the north, so that the dreadnoughts of Behnke were right on her stern. The “citizen”, fulfilling the order of the commander of the MSRP, still remained in position, being under fire from the enemy.

And here came probably the most heroic and at the same time tragicomic episode of Moonsund’s defense.

Mikhail Koronatovich Bakhirev perfectly understood that the battle was lost. Retain enemy battleships behind a minefield failed, "Glory" was hit and there was not the slightest hope that the "Citizen", squadron battleship of dotsusimskoy built, can repel the attack of two first-class dreadnoughts, each of which surpassed him almost fourfold. Therefore, M.K. Bakhirev ordered to raise signals to the “Citizen” to go to the channel and right there for “Glory”: “Skip the“ Citizen ”forward” - so that the “Glory” did not accidentally block the passage. The “citizen” moved in a zigzag way, knocking the tip off to the “Kronprinz”, as far as the width of the Big Sound allowed him.

But Bakhirev himself at the Bayan remained to cover the retreating battleships with fire. Here is how the commander of “Bayan” describes this moment:

“By this time, wanting to divert the enemy’s fire from the defeated“ Citizen ”until he leaves the sphere of fire, Bakhirev suggested that I remain in position. The distance to large enemy ships at that time was reduced to 90-95 cable, so that the "Bayan" was able to open fire from its 8-inch artillery. "



"Bayan" on running trials


S.N. Timirev claims that “Bayan” for some time managed to divert the fire of the dreadnoughts towards himself, so no one else fired at the “Citizen”. Below we will try to figure out whether this is so.

Closer to the 12.30, Koenig and Kronprinz reached the northeast corner of the 1916 minefield and stopped there, turning around to the Russian ships. From this place, they could fire at Kuivast’s raid and parking near Schildau - the Russians, in general, had no places to hide. Now only a general retreat could save the Sea Forces of the Gulf of Riga, so near 12.30 (probably in 12.27-12.28) Mikhail Koronatovich raised the signal “B”, having duplicated it by radio: “MSRZ depart”. Almost immediately, in 12.29, the German dreadnoughts achieve two hits in the "Glory".

But the flagship cruiser "Bayan" continued to divert the German dreadnoughts towards themselves, "spinning round" in front of them to prevent them from hitting the ship. S.N. Timirev writes:

"Fortunately, the machines worked without failure, and the big cruiser was spinning like a loach, completely preventing the enemy from targeting."


According to S.N. Timireva, M.K. Bakhirev allowed the cruiser to retreat only after the “Citizen” left for Schildau Island, but this is an obvious mistake - the ships reached Schildau much later. But at the moment of retreat the cruiser became especially vulnerable for the enemy:

“The fairway in the north very quickly narrowed, and you had to immediately go on a permanent course, which gave the enemy the simplest case of zeroing. I ordered to develop the most complete course in the shortest possible time ... The enemy made fire and then, finally, he was lucky. "


Unfortunately, according to the data available to the author, it is impossible to accurately reconstruct this moment of the battle. The magazine of the battleship "Koenig" contains information that in the period from 12.12 to 12.39 the ship used 60 shells for "Glory" and 20 shells for "Bayan". It is quite acceptable to assume that the Bayan was shot at precisely the time when he, trying to cover the departure of other ships, kept closer to the German dreadnoughts. As for the Kronprinz, in his journal 4 noted hits on Russian ships, but ... for some reason, giving a brief description of each hit, the Germans did not specify exactly which ship hit one or another shell. One of these hits according to the description is quite similar to the hit in “Bayan”: “in 10.34 to the bow in front of the front tower” (German time was separated from ours on 2 hours). Kosinsky describes this episode of the battle:

“The enemy intensified the fire on the Bayan, for a time interval in 13 seconds making at least eight volleys of three and four projectiles in the salvo; At first there were two flights, after which the shells began to fall on the very side and under the stern. At first, the cruiser went at the slowest speed, maneuvering so as not to interfere with our battleships going to the north, and only with the last volleys increased the speed to 15 nodes, as a result of which shortcuts began to turn out. ”


Without any doubt, the description suffers from inaccuracies: both Germanic battleships could not give 8 volleys in 13 seconds, but still, according to Kosinsky, it turns out that “Bayan” for some time held on to the position and was under fire when “Citizen” and “ Glory "already retreating.

In general, all this suggests that after 12.25, both König and Kaiser were really shooting Bayan. On the other hand, getting into the "Glory" in 12.29 says that it was not only the cruiser that was fired: it is likely that the dreadnoughts distributed fire, firing both "Glory" and "Bayan" at the same time.

In any case, the actions of “Bayan”, who tried to cover the retreat of the battleships and fought with the dreadnoughts with two of their eight-inch guns (the third one stood openly and did not send any calculations to it), are worthy of the highest rating. Those who fought on this cruiser, without exaggeration, should be called heroes. But, as you know, from the great to the ridiculous one step ...

According to the reviews of the commander of "Bayan" S.N. Timirev, the team at the beginning of the battle seemed to come to its senses and acted as if there was no revolution at all:

"From the moment the enemy appeared on the horizon, she remembered the old regime discipline and looked guiltily into the eyes of Bakhirev and me."


Obviously, such a change in mood could not please the ship’s committee, and with the start of the battle, instead of fulfilling his duties on the combat schedule, he retired to the meeting. Of course, the six members of the shipboard committee and his like-minded people “quite by chance” chose for their meeting perhaps the most well-protected room on the cruiser — the bow turret section. S.N. Timirev wrote:

“According to the team, which reacted to this rally, it was definitely negative, the subject of discussion was the“ criminal ”behavior of Bakhirev and mine, who had engaged in a battle with the strongest opponent especially in order to“ execute ”, i.e. the shooting of the enemy artillery of several hundred "best conscious comrades - revolutionaries".


And it was necessary for such a thing to happen that a single projectile, which fell into the “Bayan”, hit it in a handful of protesters, killing and mortally wounding all of them!

“This incident made a strong, stunning impression on the team, speaking in one voice, that“ God found the guilty ”.


But back to the battle. All three large Russian ships retreated, and the “Bayan”, speeding up during the retreat to 20 nodes, overtook the “Tsesarevich” and approached the “Glory”. Unfortunately, the behavior of the Slava crew became for Mikhail Koronatovich Bakhirev a fair problem: despite the order to skip the Citizen ahead, the Slava continued to move towards the Strait of First and did not react to the flagship signals.

It should be noted here that the commander of "Glory" did the right thing: he took the ship beyond the range of German artillery fire, and led it to the canal in the Gulf of Finland, but did not go to the canal itself, waiting for all the other ships to pass. But M.K. Bakhirev could not have known about this in advance, he saw only one thing - that a battered battleship quickly went in the direction of the channel and could block it. Understanding what ship committees are actually worth, M.K. Bakhirev could not be sure that the crew of "Glory" will act as it should. Therefore, having overtaken the “Citizen” and having approached the “Glory” on the “Bayan”, they raised the signal “C” (stop machine).

In 12.39, "Glory" got the last hits (either two, or three shells), and this was the end of the battle between the ships. Koenig and Kronprinz stopped shooting Glory at the latest in 12.40.



At the same time, M.K. Bakhirev notes that near 12.40, the Maughon Island battery has entered the battle. “Koenig”, having stopped shooting at the ships, transferred fire first to the battery on the island of Werder, then to the Moon battery and suppressed both of them.

The commander of the "Glory" V.G. Antonov finally requested permission from the flagship "in view of the fact that the ship sat up heavily on its nose, and the Grand Canal became impassable for the ship, take off people and blow up the ship."

In 12.43 (according to other data, in 12.50) six German hydroplanes made a raid on the retreating ships MSRZ. To no avail.

On this description of the battle 4 October can be completed. The damage to "Glory" and the events after the battle are described in detail in the sources, and the author has nothing to add to them.

Consider the effectiveness of the fire sides.

Unfortunately, there is no way to accurately assess the effectiveness of the German ships. The problem is that the consumption of projectiles "Kronprinz" is unknown. According to König, there is such data, but here the difficulty lies in the fact that we cannot reliably assert that it was Kronprinz that came to Bayan, not König, and we do not know how many of 7 (or same 8) hits in the "Glory" made gunners "Koenig." Of course, at the Kronprinz, they took into account their hits, and Vinogradov, analyzing their description, makes an assumption that of the four hits recorded by the observers of the Kronprinz, three hits occurred in the Glory. According to the author of this article, this is a mistake, because the Kronprinz magazine recorded only one hit, the time and description of which roughly correspond to the hit in the “Bayan”. In the three remaining cases, the hit time (12.20, 12.35 and 12.36) does not match the actual one. According to Russian data, the shells in the "Citizen" and "Glory" fell into 12.25, 12.29 and 12.40. It is likely that observers of the “Kronprinz” “saw” the hits, which actually were not. This is normal in combat. On the other hand, two projectiles trapped in the “Citizen” near 12.25 could only be from the “Kronprinz”, because “Koenig” did not shoot at all on this Russian battleship.

But to assert that all the shells that fell into the "Glory" were just "Koenig", we also can not. Some of them could well be from the "Kronprinz", and that they were not recorded in the journal - so what? "Seeing" hits, which in fact was not, the observers of the "Kronprinz" could easily miss the hits that were. It should be remembered that the battle took place at a distance of 9-10 miles, at such a distance it is generally very difficult to see anything.

But in general, the accuracy of the German dreadnought should be assessed as extremely high. A total of 10 or 11 hits were reached: 7 or 8 - in “Glory”, 2 - in “Citizen”, 1 - in “Bayan”. If we assume that in the second phase of the battle, "Kronprinz" for "Citizen", "Glory" and "Bayan" spent the same amount of shells as König (80, including 60 in "Glory", 20 in "Bayan" ) then we get the flow rate in 160 shells on 10 or 11 hits, which gives the total percentage of hits in the amount of 6,25-6,88%! But most likely it will be even higher, because Kronprinz opened fire at least slightly, but still later than König, and therefore it can be assumed that he consumed fewer projectiles than we used in the calculation.

As for the accuracy of Russian ships, everything seems to be clear with it - not a single hit. But if we look a little closer, then ... Consider the shooting of "Glory".

In this battle, absolutely all the advantages were on the side of the German Dreadnought. The quantitative superiority of the material part: ten König guns and, probably, six Kronprinz versus only two Glory cannons. Qualitative superiority: the latest 305-mm Krupp SC L / 50 guns, developed in 1908, fired 405,5 kg with projectiles with an initial speed of 855 m / s, while the 305-mm "obukhovki" 1895 model of the year, which was armed with "Glory »Shot 331,7 kg with shells with an initial speed of only 792 m / s.

As practice has shown, for effective shooting it was necessary to fire volleys from at least four barrels, and König, who focused on Slava, fired mainly five-gun salvos. "Glory", whose nose tower never became operational, could respond at best with two-guns.

German artillerymen had excellent optics at their disposal. The "Glory" - two "9-foot" rangefinder, analogs of those who were on the battlecruisers of the British in Jutland. Those are the most rangefinders, which are usually scolded for the inability to accurately determine the distance over long distances.

The Germans had very advanced fire control systems. Unfortunately, the author of this article could not figure out what kind of OMS stood on Slava, but at best, it was the Geisler OMA of 1910 sample. Even in this case, it was still inferior to German in functionality.

The quality of the shells. There is nothing to talk about. If the German shells were quite ordinary, giving regular dispersion, the "long-range" shells of "Glory" with ballistic tips were intended for firing at areal targets, they could get into the enemy ship, and even at a distance close to the limit, by chance.

Training and teamwork. On the German Dreadnoughts, this was a complete order, but on the "Glory" ... Report of the senior artillery officer, Senior Lieutenant Rybaltovsky 3 from October 8:

"In battle, the entire old team behaved perfectly, but some of the young ones ran around with belts and screamed something; there were such people before 100."


But the most important thing was not even that. German dreadnoughts practiced shooting Russian ships for nearly half an hour (12.13-12.40), while the Glory could shoot efficiently in any way for only 12 minutes.

Recall the beginning of the battle of battleships. Koenig opened fire on the Glory at 12.13, Slava responded at about the same time. It took twelve minutes for the Koenig gunners to achieve the first hit - three shells hit the Glory at the same time in 12.25. Can we expect better accuracy from “Glory” than from “König”, despite the fact that its material part was inferior to the German ship in almost everything? Hardly.

But immediately after receiving the hits, "Glory" lay down on the 330 course and turned astern to the enemy. This was not a reaction to the German shooting, just the battleship entered the channel of the Bolshoi Zunda, but Slava, of course, could not move sideways on it. But now the "Koenig" was right on the stern and ... in the 45-degree "dead zone" of the Slava rangefinders. In the last article, we mentioned that out of the three range-finders of the battleship, one standing at the stern was removed for the Tserel battery and, of course, did not return to Glory. In other words, starting with 12.25, the battleship lost the ability to measure the distance using range finders, and here, obviously, it was impossible to expect any accurate shooting from it. And in 12.29, after another 4 minutes, the enemy shell destroyed the central post, so the centralized fire control of the Glory ceased to exist, the control was transferred to plutonga (that is, to the gunners of the aft tower). From now on, the guns of "Glory" could only shoot "somewhere in that direction." Decades later, the excellently trained gunners of the Bismarck in his last battle, having a far better materiel and with far shorter distances, could not hit Rodney or Prince of Wells.

It is also worth noting that, given the firing rate of the guns of “Glory,” her stern tower in 12 firing minutes could hardly have fired more 10-12 shells — even a single hit would have given 8,33-10% of the total number of shells fired.

But for all that, several covers were fixed on the “König” when the Glory salvos fell no further than 50 meters from the battleship. It should be understood that the skill of the naval artilleryman is to choose a sight, at which the enemy ship will be in the "epicenter" of the ellipse of dispersal of shells. This is called a covering, and for everything else - the will of probability theory. The artilleryman can aim correctly, but the scattering scatters shells around the target. And the next volley with an equally accurate sight can give one, or even more hits. The smaller the dispersion, the greater the likelihood that at least one projectile in the salvo will hit the target.

If the "Glory" were tower installations with an angle of vertical guidance 35 degrees, providing the range to 115 cable when firing conventional shells, then the case could turn differently. Of course, under any circumstances, the October 4 battle could not be won by the Russians, but our gunners could easily have slapped one or two shells into Koenig, without letting the Germans win dry.

The ending should ...
Author:
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andy
    Andy 15 December 2017 16: 03 New
    +3
    "At the same time, MK Bakhirev noted that at about 12.40 the battery of the island of Moon entered the battle." Koenig, having stopped shooting at the ships, transferred the fire first to the battery on the island of Werder, then to the Moonian battery and suppressed both of them. "

    Andrei, somewhere (like Melkonov’s) met that the 10-dm battery was not suppressed by the fire, but simply fell apart on temporary grounds from its own shots. but even if so, the details of the essence do not change: the result is disappointing
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 20: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Andy
      Andrei, somewhere (like Melkonov’s) met that the 10-dm battery was not suppressed by the fire, but simply fell apart on temporary grounds from its own shots

      Dear Andy, with batteries - it's a dark thing, I did not figure it out to the end. I suppose (but I’m definitely not sure) that it was like that - a battery of 10 dm guns could well fall apart on its own, but there was another 152 mm battery (No. 32) on Moone. So I can assume that Koenig crushed her. But, I repeat, I don’t know for sure, these are guesses
  2. bionik
    bionik 15 December 2017 16: 28 New
    +5
    The commander of the "Glory" V.G. Antonov finally asked the flagship for permission “in view of the fact that the ship sank strongly, and the Grand Canal became impassable for the ship, remove people and blow up the ship”
    .Linkor "Glory" flooded in the Moonsund Canal
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 20: 35 New
      +2
      By the way, upstairs is a pretty rare photo, thanks!
      1. bionik
        bionik 15 December 2017 21: 05 New
        +2
        while the 305-mm “butts” of the 1895 model, with which the Glory was armed, fired 331,7 kg of shells with an initial speed of only 792 m / s.
        1. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 16 December 2017 10: 17 New
          0
          The towers in the pictures from "St. Andrew the First-Called" ... And he already "knew how" to shoot 471-kg shells
          1. bionik
            bionik 17 December 2017 08: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Grafova Irina
            The towers in the pictures from "St. Andrew the First-Called" ...

            Wrong woman !!!!!! This is "Glory", in my first photo carefully look at the bottom in the left corner of the characteristic so-called square windows inherent in the "Glory" !!!!!!!
            1. Grafova Irina
              Grafova Irina 17 December 2017 08: 34 New
              +1
              Okay, convinced, take it back. But not because of the windows, which can hardly serve as a fundamental factor in determining the type of ship
      2. bionik
        bionik 15 December 2017 21: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thank you!

        It's my pleasure!!!
      3. avt
        avt 15 December 2017 23: 32 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        By the way, at the top - a rather rare photo, thanks!

        Which
        Quote: bionik
        The battleship "Glory" flooded in the Moonsund Canal

        what I generally remember him back from ... Soviet transparencies! Young people probably don’t know what it is and how to look bully I remember there was emphasis on the heroic and ... revolutionary feat of Samonchuk on ,, Thunder ", well, how he and his comrades .... did not let the Germans tear, the cradle of revolution" on the American flag.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          16 December 2017 00: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: avt
          Which

          Which over the roof :)))
          Quote: avt
          I generally remember him back from ... Soviet transparencies!

          Lower? It’s as if yes, well-known
          1. avt
            avt 16 December 2017 10: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Lower? It’s as if yes, well-known

            No. No. It’s the top one that was removed from the board. It was hard to remember when the filmstrip was turned on the projector.
    2. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 15 December 2017 20: 55 New
      0
      The battleship "Glory" flooded in the Moonsund Canal

      more correctly all the same battleship "Glory"
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        15 December 2017 21: 11 New
        +7
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        more correctly all the same battleship "Glory"

        Listen, maybe you won’t even get here with your illiterate comments?
        In 1907, the classification was changed in the Russian imperial year, all squadron battleships became battleships.
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 15 December 2017 23: 52 New
          0
          In 1907, the classification was changed in the Russian imperial year, all squadron battleships became battleships.

          I did not know it. but that does not change what Glory is a typical battleship (!)
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            16 December 2017 00: 18 New
            +3
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            I did not know it

            Not surprised. I would be surprised if they knew
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            but this does not change the fact that "Glory" is a typical battleship (!)

            Do you seriously think that at least one of those who do not know this managed to read the article to the end? :))))))
      2. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 15 December 2017 21: 25 New
        +4
        According to the qualifications of the time of the Russian fleet, since 1907 - a battleship
  3. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 15 December 2017 16: 56 New
    +1
    I am very glad that this article was posted so quickly by the moderators.
    Many thanks to the author!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 20: 36 New
      +2
      And thank you very much!
  4. Taoist
    Taoist 15 December 2017 17: 04 New
    +2
    Here I read ... very interesting. But still, what side is the "effectiveness of mine-artillery positions" here?
    1. 27091965
      27091965 15 December 2017 19: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      . But still, what side is the "effectiveness of mine-artillery positions" here?


      “Since a minefield, in positional combat, has as its purpose to delay, as far as possible, breaking through the enemy’s position. To create an unfavorable battle environment for him, then undoubtedly such a barrier should be so thick that any possibility of passing between mines is excluded. Since otherwise, if the enemy is not delayed at the first moments of his movement along the fence, it may happen that the weak defending fleet suffers so much that it will no longer be able to maintain its position. ”1911


      Only the supporting position was supposed to be 60 cables from the edge of the minefield. But the war changed plans.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 15 December 2017 20: 19 New
        +1
        So this is understandable ... another thing is not clear - de facto there was no longer a position. How can we talk about its effectiveness or inefficiency?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 December 2017 20: 38 New
          +2
          Quote: Taoist
          another thing is not clear - de facto there was no longer a position

          Why? In all cases - there was, in this one - this is a fence of the 17th year, and also - German mine additives, and the fact that the fence of the 16th year was almost cut by us, the Germans didn’t seem to know
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 15 December 2017 21: 16 New
            +1
            I'm generally not about the presence of mines, guns and even ships ... I'm about the state of management and morale l / s. De facto, a unified defense system which actually was supposed to represent the MAP did not exist anymore.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              15 December 2017 21: 20 New
              +2
              Quote: Taoist
              De facto, a unified defense system which actually was supposed to represent the MAP did not exist anymore.

              Nuuu ... yes, it didn’t exist, but there were fights, and some conclusions (it’s clear that they are indisputable) can be made :)
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 20: 37 New
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      But still, what side is the "effectiveness of mine-artillery positions" here?

      Here in the end, and consider their effectiveness :))) Agree, first you need to give material, and only then - based on non-conclusions hi
      1. 27091965
        27091965 15 December 2017 21: 14 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Here in the end and consider their effectiveness


        In the final part, it will be interesting to know what conclusion you came to, General Bobrikov G.I. or Obruchev N.N.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 December 2017 21: 21 New
          +4
          :))))) I will allow myself a little intrigue :)))
  5. avt
    avt 15 December 2017 17: 21 New
    +4
    Andrey gives a good series good Tightly packs the facts of the topic. There is a truth minus - it’s hard to read clippy-minded rifles! bully Here it is necessary to unwind the whole ball slowly, assiduously. Better yet, then immediately refresh again. It’s hard adnaka - the brain should work, not haw pictures wassat
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 15 December 2017 20: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: avt
      Here it is necessary to unwind the whole tangle slowly, assiduously

      Now, if the article were pictures, what a comic book winked then the victims of the exam would have mastered it with great pleasure what
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 20: 44 New
      +4
      Quote: avt
      Andrey gives a good series

      Glad I did not disappoint!
      Quote: avt
      There is a truth minus - it’s hard to read clippy-minded rifles!

      Well yes laughing But this is not for them, but for the soul, for the "Old Guard", "dinosaurs", in the best sense of the word. Only now we are left ... few. soldier
  6. Kibb
    Kibb 15 December 2017 17: 40 New
    +2
    Andrei, despite your political preferences, which I do not share, you have long been my favorite author.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 20: 45 New
      +2
      Many thanks! You have no idea how nice it is to hear hi drinks
  7. ICT
    ICT 15 December 2017 18: 07 New
    +1
    If there were tower installations with a vertical guidance angle of 35 degrees at the Glory, which would provide a range of up to 115 cable when firing with conventional shells,

  8. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 15 December 2017 19: 30 New
    +2
    Greetings. Andrew! hi
    Naturally, immediately a huge plus good
    A small amendment that is irrelevant - in the last Bismarck battle, the goal for his gunners was not the Prince of Wales, but King George V.
    Well, there’s practically nothing to comment on. It is a successful attempt, based on the available material, to logically understand the issues of the last battle of Glory.
    Respect from me personally drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 20: 46 New
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Greetings. Andrew!

      And good evening to you!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      A small amendment that is irrelevant - in the last Bismarck battle, the goal for his gunners was not the Prince of Wales, but King George V.

      Yes ... crying And the old woman is a bummer, thanks! drinks
      Quote: Rurikovich
      It is a successful attempt, based on the available material, to logically understand the issues of the last battle of Glory.

      Iehhh, I would be in the archives .... Dreams, dreams.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 15 December 2017 22: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And the old woman is a bummer, thanks!

        Well, it’s more likely I spoke for the NEXT generation, so that a typo excusable for you would not be the last truth for lazy people to think repeat
  9. rumpeljschtizhen
    rumpeljschtizhen 15 December 2017 19: 49 New
    +2
    I was always interested in the question to which I could not find an answer on the Internet yet .... why during this operation we essentially have one battleship (this is not a battleship by and large) where are the rest of the latest battleships (which also did not seem to reach the battleships but German level) were?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 15 December 2017 20: 08 New
      +2
      If you carefully read not only this article, but also the previous ones, it will become clear why in the Gulf of Riga there were only the oldest battleships, and not the latest battleships. But in order not to bother you with such searches I will explain in two words:
      Battleships of the Sevastopol type, together with the last two EDBs of the Amperatar Pavel I type, kept the central mine-artillery position (TsMAP). And since the Moonsund straits were too shallow for them (officialdom), they almost scratched the bottoms (officialdom) there "Glory" was sent with the "Tsesarevich" ("Citizen"), for the breakthrough of German battleships to the capital through the Gulf of Riga was not expected. hi
      1. rumpeljschtizhen
        rumpeljschtizhen 15 December 2017 20: 31 New
        +1
        Thank you for explaining and not bothering (although it was embarrassing and I will read the entire series of articles) why I did not promptly transfer them to this area, as if they were created for the Baltic Sea and I won’t just have shallow sitting battleships
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 20: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: rumpeljschtizhen
      where are the rest of the latest battleships

      As they told you quite rightly, no other battleships could pass through the Moonsund Canal from the Finnish to Riga. They could be transported by sea, through the Irbensky Strait, but then these battleships would be trapped, unable to retreat. At the same time, it was believed that it was pointless to risk it, because they are needed to protect the Gulf of Finland, this was considered a top priority.
      1. rumpeljschtizhen
        rumpeljschtizhen 15 December 2017 21: 02 New
        +1
        Sorry of course I'm asking trivial questions .... but the battleships seemed to be with a detachment of cruisers .. and other forces. were our afraid of the repetition of tsushima? Or it really didn’t make sense to risk such a transfer by sea and engage in open naval battle (I understand the general decay of the army and navy) but still
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 December 2017 21: 18 New
          +3
          Quote: rumpeljschtizhen
          Or really there was no sense in taking such a risk to transfer by sea and engage in open naval battle

          Well, let's think together - against the 4 Sevastopol Germans involved in the operation of Albion 10 dreadnought and 1 battlecruiser. With this balance of power ... I think the comments are superfluous
          1. rumpeljschtizhen
            rumpeljschtizhen 15 December 2017 21: 37 New
            +2
            It’s logical .. in the open sea it’s impossible, but they didn’t climb into the canal. Thanks
    3. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 15 December 2017 21: 34 New
      +4
      In the imperial fleet (ours) since 1907, the EDB began to be called battleships. And the “Königs” were the penultimate floating German battleships (dreadnoughts), so they can’t be called outdated ...
      Our other LCs were “heavier” and “Citizen” and “Glory” and simply could not get through this strait. And even such a task was not even theoretically posed ...
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 15 December 2017 22: 00 New
        0
        Quote: Irina Grafova
        In the imperial fleet (ours) since 1907, the EDB began to be called battleships

        We recently grind this topic what
        Hello Irina smile Long time not been with us repeat A fresh professional female look is not enough in the debate yes
        Quote: Irina Grafova
        Our other LCs were “heavier” and “Citizen” and “Glory” and simply could not get through this strait.

        Well, I personally think that this was not a problem - WOULD LIKE, they would have dragged Andryushenka and Pavlik wink Well, if somehow you don’t really want to, then you don’t need to - there are plenty of reasons request
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 December 2017 22: 03 New
          +3
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Well, I personally think that this was not a problem - WOULD LIKE, they would have dragged Andryushenka and Pavlik

          Yes, it is quite. Well, they would not have left Riga, such is la la va, Sevastopol is enough for Finnish. It was possible to take a chance. But there the sailors were so ... revolutionary ....
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 15 December 2017 22: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, they would not have left Riga

            This is another question. The fact is that they didn’t really want to stick them there wink
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But there the sailors were so ... revolutionary ....

            They are from idleness yes On battleships (on real ones), too, discipline was not so hot. After all, in the army it’s like - so that the soldier doesn’t get into the head’s bad thoughts, you need to provide him with any work laughing
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              15 December 2017 22: 32 New
              +5
              And again I can’t help but recall Radzievsky
              A frightened sailor is disposed to outrages, this is a potential criminal, future killer and rapist
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 16 December 2017 07: 56 New
                +7
                hi Welcome Andrew!
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And again I can’t help but recall Radzievsky

                what Well, you understand that, according to the law of any Pascal, different forces in different directions! wink
                drinks
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 16 December 2017 07: 48 New
              +6
              hi Good day!
              Quote: Rurikovich
              so that the soldier doesn’t get into bad thoughts, you need to provide him with any work

              laughing That is why the Soviet sailor best friends were scrapbook and brush! And the most popular saying in the Navy was "A sailor with a brush worse than a nuclear explosion" bully
          2. Grafova Irina
            Grafova Irina 16 December 2017 10: 35 New
            +1
            To be completely honest, I don’t really understand why and why so many “copies” are broken around this “puddle” called the Gulf of Riga ... There is no doubt that there is assistance to the coastal flank, it’s necessary, but there are specially “trained” boats which both sides had. But drag through the shallows, narrowness and mines of the LC with a considerable risk of damage, substitute for submarine strikes near their bases (Moltke), etc., etc. - what for? Especially the Germans, who had more problems than ours in the form of the Grand Fleet. But more - because the same Germans, as far as I know, never seriously considered the breakthrough to St. Petersburg by water. And they had something to shoot along the shore. All sorts of "Wittelsbach" and other "Braunschweig" in sufficient quantity ...
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 16 December 2017 16: 01 New
              +1
              Quote: Irina Grafova
              All sorts of "Wittelsbach" and other "Braunschweig" in sufficient quantity ...

              Well, in order to maintain the coastal flank of the army (hypothetically) you must first penetrate the Gulf of Riga. Why do you need to make a passage in minefields. Why, in fact, the author conceived a series of articles on the appropriateness of mine-artillery positions. And if the “Glory” fell into this puddle to counter such creeps (you see, 305mm is a very decent argument, there will be heavier gunboats), then it was not enough to eliminate her pair of “Braunschweig”. So there appeared ships commensurate in range with the "Glory" - dreadnought. Incidentally, the artillery aspects are well described by Andrei.
              So, “Glory” became actually a red rag for the Germans, who really wanted to penetrate into the Gulf of Riga thanks to their pedantry.
              If there weren’t this Russian move with “Glory”, I think that both sides would be limited to lower rank ships — cruisers, destroyers, cannons, etc.
              But the events of the 17th year and the appearance of the Third Hochseefflott squadron near the Moonsund Islands were the result of the psychological problems of the Germans - I really wanted to cheer up this work for the inactive and depressed battleship crews after the disastrous Jutland. And then the operation "Albion" turned up (the name speaks for itself - self-affirmation is evident)
              1. Grafova Irina
                Grafova Irina 17 December 2017 08: 55 New
                +1
                Still, risking dreadnoughts there is an unreasonable move. “Braunschweig” and the like (with the exception of “Pommern” - there were 9 of them, sort of) would have been enough to suppress our two. If not for drowning, then make leave ....
                Yes, and Jutland can be called a failure only in a strategic plan. In terms of points, the Germans clearly won, and tactically turned out to be higher than the Britons, if only because they were in the harbors, and not at the bottom. With a few exceptions.
                And to cheer up - undermining the newest and most powerful ship - is also not the best option ... In my opinion
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 17 December 2017 19: 51 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Irina Grafova
                  Still, risking dreadnoughts there is an unreasonable move. “Braunschweig” and the like (with the exception of “Pommern” - there were 9 of them, sort of) would have been enough to suppress our two. If not for drowning, then make leave ....

                  Irina, I read that, by the 17th year, the battleships of the Second Hochseeflotte squadron, consisting of ships of the "Braunschweig" and "Deutschland" type, began to be withdrawn from the Fleet in connection with the fact that they would replenish their officers with dreadnought crews that suffered losses in the battle of Jutland. Because already in the operation "Albion" the participation of the EDB was not closely considered.
                  And the attraction of the “Posen” and “Nassau” couple in the 15th year seems to me to be that if you try to get the “Glory” out of the game, then it’s better to do it specifically, attracting more powerful ships with good artillery and PUAO than messing with the same EDB. Pedantry.
                  In my opinion, a completely normal solution to the problem request
                  1. Grafova Irina
                    Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 07: 53 New
                    +1
                    By that time, Braunschweig-type ships were partially withdrawn from the existing fleet. The "Deutschland" and the "company" were in service ... And the medium caliber of 170mm guns made them very "unpleasant" rivals for classic EDBs (even if the LC later)
                    The desire to break eggs with a hammer was traced not only in the German navy - that is, to solve the problem with one, but a powerful blow. But the blow, alas, often fell past the target, and, sometimes, hit "on the fingers."
                    And the "PUAO", at that time, despite all the achievements, came down to the big-eyed "gunner" with binoculars on Mars and a smart range finder
        2. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 16 December 2017 10: 48 New
          +1
          But why - (also an interesting question) would they have to be dragged there ..? Well, LK was not intended (even let the EBR in the past) act in such conditions ... It's like to breed crocodiles in a bathtub ...
          If you do not take into account the constantly postponed Bosphorus expedition, or the very, very hypothetical possibility (which was rather easily countered) of the appearance of the Angles in a puddle called the Black Sea, then a linear fleet of such strength there simply was not needed. And there are a lot of funds that could be used for more pressing problems ...
          Maybe I'm exaggerating, but certain parallels are visible
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 16 December 2017 16: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: Irina Grafova
            But why - (also an interesting question) would they have to be dragged there ..? Well, LK was not intended (even let the EDB in the past) to act in such conditions ..

            If you can’t, but really want to, then you can wink History knows a lot of examples of the use of ships for their intended purpose repeat
            1. Grafova Irina
              Grafova Irina 17 December 2017 09: 06 New
              0
              He knows. Only here many of these uses ended rather poorly sad At least the same Dardanelles ...
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 17 December 2017 19: 58 New
                +1
                Quote: Irina Grafova
                Only here many of these uses ended rather poorly

                But do not forget about the positive aspects wink The same Japanese BrKr of the Asama family were put in line against the battleships not from a good life, but impromptu turned out to be quite successful. request
                Like the death of Sydney from Cormoran, essentially an armed steamboat, which is also a necessary measure in the war, albeit effective. Yes, such a successful impromptu in history at least a dime a dozen
                1. Grafova Irina
                  Grafova Irina 17 December 2017 22: 26 New
                  0
                  Exceptions to the rule confirm ...
                  But the “Asam family” didn’t come to a line from a good life. The same Hovgard (“ancestor of the battle cruiser”) pointed to this ...
                  1. Rurikovich
                    Rurikovich 17 December 2017 22: 42 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Irina Grafova
                    And the Asam family didn’t come in line from a good life

                    But "slipped" wink
                    The same Dardanelles ... The Allied armadillos were dying from mines and torpedoes of the submarine, and not from the return artillery fire, because their use against the coast is quite justified, because what else can destroy coastal batteries if not with the weapons of those against whom they were built? Another thing is that they could not ensure the safety of ships from the effects of other types of weapons.
                    Quote: Irina Grafova
                    The same Hovgard ("progenitor of the battle cruiser") pointed to this ...

                    If the Asamians with their 178mm belt were still tolerantly opposed to the guns of the Russian battleships, the appearance of the British battlecruisers with 152 mm armor in front of an adequate opponent speaks more about the crisis of this genre than about some exceptions. Indefatigable and Invincible will confirm this. hi
                  2. 27091965
                    27091965 18 December 2017 06: 45 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Irina Grafova
                    But the “Asam family” didn’t come in line from a good life. The same Hovgard (“progenitor of the battle cruiser”) pointed to this.


                    The risk of line-up was based on the theoretical calculation of the battle between the battleship Royal Sovereign and the battleship Asama, made in England in 1901.
                    1. Grafova Irina
                      Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 09: 24 New
                      +1
                      The "risk of their line-up" was made only because the Yapes simply did not have to put anything in line, except for 4 EDBs.
                      If not difficult, give this theoretical calculation ...
                      As I recall, this "Asama" was the first and was "knocked out" of the line ...
                      1. 27091965
                        27091965 18 December 2017 10: 13 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Irina Grafova
                        If not difficult, give this theoretical calculation ...


                        I can throw you a scan from the original for 1901 in English, so as not to think that this is my invention, indicate where.

                        As I recall, this "Asama" was the first and was "knocked out" of the line ...


                        By the way, “Asama” received one of the hits indicated in this calculation.
  10. belost79
    belost79 15 December 2017 20: 08 New
    +2
    Thank you to the author.
    Regarding the failure of the bow 12 "installation - but is it the result of those same alterations by the crew for firing heavier shells? Knowing our military, dumping everything at the manufacturer is a sweet deal
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 December 2017 21: 05 New
      +4
      Quote: belost79
      Thank you to the author.

      You're welcome!
      Quote: belost79
      Regarding the failure of the bow 12 "installation - but is it the result of those same alterations by the crew for firing heavier shells? Knowing our military, dumping everything at the manufacturer is a sweet deal

      A very interesting question, it is such a pleasure to answer.
      Of course, I can’t know exactly, but I suppose that the alterations had nothing to do with the breakdown. Judge for yourself - a shell with a screwed cap had a weight of 355 kg, which is only 23,3 kg more than a conventional shell. Alterations were required not for weight compensation, but for the length of the projectile, which increased from 3,2 to almost 4 calibers, and the feed mechanisms needed to be "taught" to work with such "yards". Well, the nature of the damage itself seems to indicate problems with locks, and not with feed mechanisms that underwent alteration, but there is a nuance - nevertheless, I am not an artilleryman and my opinion is not the ultimate truth
      1. belost79
        belost79 15 December 2017 21: 32 New
        +2
        Thank. My question arose because I didn’t see any amateur performances in the sun - the hair on my head on end))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 December 2017 21: 39 New
          +3
          Quote: belost79
          My question arose because I didn’t see any amateur performances in the sun - the hair on my head on end))

          I can imagine :))))
        2. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 15 December 2017 21: 54 New
          +3
          Quote: belost79
          what only amateur performances in the sun I have not seen - the hair on his head on end))

          When I served on the contract, I was asked for very prosaic reasons such as a lack of personnel, I was asked to insure on a fire engine on duty in the park for a couple of days off. I COULD NOT START an ordinary ZIL-131 !!! request Due to the fact that conscripts were serving on it and everyone introduced their improvements to the ignition system in addition to the previous ones! As a result, in order to start the usual ZIL-131 it was necessary, as in a helicopter, to include another dozen toggle switches scattered in different places around the cockpit laughing
          I don’t know, maybe it hiccuped with that “Kulibin” after my recollections of them in various forms wassat
      2. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 19 December 2017 08: 27 New
        0
        The increase in projectile weight by such a value very unlikely required changes in the feed system, since there was probably a margin of safety. And the change in the length of the projectile itself is much more serious and entailed the alteration of the entire chain, starting with cellars
  11. Comrade
    Comrade 16 December 2017 05: 31 New
    +1
    Dear Andrey, I am happy to follow your thoughts. Alas, by virtue of employment I can post a comment on the topic only tomorrow. Until you forget, you seem to have written in one of the articles that the German submarine barrage put up a fence there?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 December 2017 11: 11 New
      +1
      Greetings, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      Until you forget, you seem to have written in one of the articles that the German submarine barrage put up a fence there?

      Quite right, Vinogradov mentioned this, and the Germans, trying to get around the 17 fence from the west, were forced to trawl it
  12. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 16 December 2017 14: 44 New
    +3
    7-8 hits in the Glory, 2 hits in the Citizen, 1 hit in the Bayan. I counted on a calculator. It turns out a total of 10-11 hits in our ships, and not 11-12.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 December 2017 15: 00 New
      +3
      Thank! Very stupid mistake, corrected
  13. Wildfox
    Wildfox 16 December 2017 16: 26 New
    +1
    Great article loop. I look forward to graduation. Many thanks to the author hi
  14. Comrade
    Comrade 17 December 2017 20: 43 New
    +3
    Dear Andrey, indeed, some episodes of Vinogradov are not sufficiently covered. Previously, until you paid attention to it, I didn’t even think about it. I think the point here is the presentation of material by the aforementioned author, and not the scarcity of information from German sources. Like you, I don’t have the necessary documents at hand, but I have a book, the author of which at one time kindly shared information with Vinogradov.
    [Quote]according to the information of the battleship magazines Kronprinz and Koenig that Vinogradov leads, it’s completely impossible to figure out who shot whom and by whom. [/ Quote]
    "Kronprinz" opened fire on "Glory" in 10: 13 according to German time, in 10: 17 "König" opened fire on "Citizen".
    [Quote]The Kronprinz could distribute the fire if part of its guns could not fire at the Glory due to restrictions on the angles of fire. The battle was fought at sharp heading angles and it can be assumed that the Kronprinz’s stern towers could not be fired at the Glory, so why shouldn’t they attack another target? [/ Quote]
    Before us is an authentic photo of a Kronprinz firing at Citizen.

    The fire on the port side is led by the bow towers, the others are deployed in the same direction, but do not shoot. It turns out that the "Glory" was fired by only one dreadnought?
    [Quote]According to the charter of the Russian imperial fleet, the ship was supposed to go into battle with shut up waterproof hatches and doors, which was not done. If the door to the turret compartment had been closed, as prescribed by the charter, then Glory would have taken in all 200-300 tons of water. [Quote]
    Very interesting, did not know. On the other hand, the sailors became “free”, are there now hatches to the doors? :-)
    [Quote]"Fortunately, the machines worked without failure, and the big cruiser was spinning like a loach, completely preventing the enemy from targeting."[Quote]
    In fact, only “König” shot at Bayan, who managed to achieve five percent of hits.
    The shell on the deck of the cruiser.

    [Quote]Quite right, Vinogradov mentioned this, and the Germans, trying to get around the 17 fence from the west, were forced to trawl it. [/ Quote]
    Found something, two lines of mines were exposed. If necessary, I can lay out the scheme with the location.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 17 December 2017 21: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Comrade
      Before us is an authentic photo of a Kronprinz firing at Citizen.

      The fire on the port side is led by the bow towers, the others are deployed in the same direction, but do not shoot. It turns out that the "Glory" was fired by only one dreadnought?

      Hello Valentine hi
      It is from the photographs that it is very difficult to conclude that only two bow towers are firing. Most likely, the third tower is also involved in the shooting. But shooting fodder two is almost impossible to identify
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 18 December 2017 00: 06 New
        +1
        Hello, dear colleague.
        from the photograph, it is very difficult to conclude that only two bow towers are firing. Most likely, the third tower is also involved in the shooting.

        Perhaps this is so, but still the fire is being fired in the same direction as the two bow towers have now fired.

        But shooting fodder two is almost impossible to identify

        But we can do this on the basis of indirect data. We know the time that Glory was under fire, we know how many shells were fired during that time. We also see that at one time the dreadnought fired four shells. My assumption is that, due to all this, only two towers fired at the Glory, because they needed to shoot, see the results of the shells fall and, if necessary, adjust the data for firing. And if all the towers begin to do this, then the projectile consumption will be different, significantly greater.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 18 December 2017 06: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: Comrade
          Perhaps this is so, but still the fire is being fired in the same direction as the two bow towers have now fired.

          You're right yes I apologize ... hi Shoot two towers
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 19 December 2017 05: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Rurikovich
            Shoot two towers

            So it turns out that there would be two armadillos instead of two dreadnoughts, all the same, then only two towers fired.
        2. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 09: 16 New
          0
          Full volleys were fired only if the target was confidently covered. Half - for the fastest cover ... This I refer to Haase ...
          And firing in full salvos did harm to the ship itself, who made the salvo, and not one, moreover ... In this case, a very large load fell on the ship’s set ... But, in war, everything is justified
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 December 2017 23: 39 New
      +3
      Greetings, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      I think the point here is the presentation of material by the aforementioned author, and not the scarcity of information from German sources.

      It may very well be :)))
      Quote: Comrade
      Like you, I don’t have the necessary documents at hand, but I have a book, the author of which at one time kindly shared information with Vinogradov.

      By the way, I got the impression that Vinogradov did not read the documents in the original, but used Staff
      Quote: Comrade
      "Kronprinz" opened fire on "Glory" in 10: 13 according to German time, in 10: 17 "König" opened fire on "Citizen".

      Great! Although at the beginning of the battle, something is clear :)))
      Quote: Comrade
      The fire on the port side is led by the bow towers, the others are deployed in the same direction, but do not shoot. It turns out that the "Glory" was fired by only one dreadnought?

      Dear colleague, most likely exactly the opposite. All towers would shoot at the Citizen, but the fact that part of the towers do not shoot, just leads to the idea that they are now aiming at another target. Otherwise, it will have to be assumed that the Kronprinz could not shoot at the Citizen for the most part of its towers, but how then did Koenig land five-round salvos at the Glory, which, in theory, was on a sharper nose angle?
      Quote: Comrade
      Very interesting, did not know. On the other hand, the sailors became “free”, are there now hatches to the doors? :-)

      Of course. That the charter is written in blood, they are already indifferent.
      Quote: Comrade
      In fact, only “König” shot at Bayan, who managed to achieve five percent of hits.

      Well done, of course. But somehow, against the background of “Koenig”, “Kronprinz” looks sadly. If we assume that he shot only at the Citizen (and that he still shot at Glory is an unconfirmed guess), then Koenig has 80 shells of 8-9 hits.
      Quote: Comrade
      Found something, two lines of mines were exposed. If necessary, I can lay out the scheme with the location

      Thank you very much, it would be very interesting! hi
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 18 December 2017 00: 30 New
        +2
        Greetings, dear Valentine!

        My respect, dear Andrew!
        By the way, I got the impression that Vinogradov did not read the documents in the original, but used Staff

        Most likely, this is the case, Staff bought copies of documents in the archive, translated into English, and later shared with Vinogradov. Moreover, the historical magazine was conducted by hand, and you won’t understand it without a thorough knowledge of German. Not only are the terms specific, but also the handwriting needs to be understood. But to Staff and the cards in his hands, he has become proficient in this matter. He has such a book on battlecruisers that you gasp, and everything is based on German documents.
        All towers would shoot at Citizen

        Then the consumption of shells would be different.
        but how then did Koenig land with five-round salvos on the Glory, which, in theory, was on a sharper nasal corner?

        And how is it known that the volleys were five-round? Staff does not say anything about this.
        But somehow, against the background of “Koenig”, “Kronprinz” looks sadly. If we assume that he shot only at the Citizen (and that he still shot at Glory is an unconfirmed guess), then Koenig has 80-8 hits on 9 shells.

        The "Black Sea" from the battle at Cape Sarych immediately came to mind. They learned to shoot everything together, they also shot together, and only one was destined to get into it.
        Thank you very much, it would be very interesting!

        Let's do it!
        In the meantime, the photo, the German dreadnought under the fire of "Glory". "Kronprinz" on the left, not far from it, the fall of the Russian shell is visible, on the right, a fragment of "Konig" is visible.
        1. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 09: 18 New
          0
          About Cape Sarych - incorrect
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 December 2017 09: 16 New
          +2
          Hello, dear Valentine!
          Quote: Comrade
          Then the consumption of shells would be different.

          Do you know the consumption of Kronprinz shells? Vinogradov claims that he is not contained in German documents
          Quote: Comrade
          And how is it known that the volleys were five-round?

          Report of Antonov, commander of the Glory
          "In the enemy salvo five shells, rarely four"

          Quote: Comrade
          The "Black Sea" from the battle at Cape Sarych immediately came to mind. They learned to shoot everything together, they also shot together, and only one was destined to get into it.

          Only Eustathius normally saw Geben at Sarych, and he got there, and Three Saints most likely shot at the incorrect Chrysostom data. I don’t know what Chrysostom saw, but he used up only 6 shells
          Quote: Comrade
          Let's do it!
          In the meantime, the photo, the German dreadnought under the fire of "Glory".

          Thank you!
          1. Comrade
            Comrade 22 December 2017 05: 39 New
            +1
            Dear Andrew,
            I apologize, I will answer you later, then I will lay out the minefield diagram. The work last week is so exhausting that if only to get to the bed :-)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              22 December 2017 09: 46 New
              +2
              Dear Valentine, but where to rush? :))) By the way, the ending was posted by https://topwar.ru/132363-chetyre-boya-slavy-ili-e
              ffektivnost-minno-artilleriyskih-poziciy-okonchan
              ie.html
              I will be glad to your comments when there is time, of course hi
  15. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 09: 26 New
    0
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    And the Asam family didn’t come in line from a good life

    But "slipped" wink
    The same Dardanelles ... The Allied armadillos were dying from mines and torpedoes of the submarine, and not from the return artillery fire, because their use against the coast is quite justified, because what else can destroy coastal batteries if not with the weapons of those against whom they were built? Another thing is that they could not ensure the safety of ships from the effects of other types of weapons.
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    The same Hovgard ("progenitor of the battle cruiser") pointed to this ...

    If the Asamians with their 178mm belt were still tolerantly opposed to the guns of the Russian battleships, the appearance of the British battlecruisers with 152 mm armor in front of an adequate opponent speaks more about the crisis of this genre than about some exceptions. Indefatigable and Invincible will confirm this. hi

    Quote: Rurikovich
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    And the Asam family didn’t come in line from a good life

    But "slipped" wink
    The same Dardanelles ... The Allied armadillos were dying from mines and torpedoes of the submarine, and not from the return artillery fire, because their use against the coast is quite justified, because what else can destroy coastal batteries if not with the weapons of those against whom they were built? Another thing is that they could not ensure the safety of ships from the effects of other types of weapons.
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    The same Hovgard ("progenitor of the battle cruiser") pointed to this ...

    If the Asamians with their 178mm belt were still tolerantly opposed to the guns of the Russian battleships, the appearance of the British battlecruisers with 152 mm armor in front of an adequate opponent speaks more about the crisis of this genre than about some exceptions. Indefatigable and Invincible will confirm this. hi
    1. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 09: 33 New
      0
      The Dardanelles problem is not ship-to-shore competition ...
      Against the coastal forts, the boats proved to be quite good (despite the statement of one famous figure about ten guns on the ship and one on the shore), the Agamemnon managed to “catch” a stone shell already, but when they climbed into the strait itself, they got it. There is no space, no maneuver - mines and "mounted" artillery (read-howitzers) in the folds of the terrain - whales in shallow water. The results are known ...
      By the way, ours were much better prepared for the Bosphorus expedition ...
    2. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 10: 15 New
      +1
      Big "cats" had 229mm ... That's not the problem ...
      The problem is in the system. Booking system, for example ...
      "Asama" with the company (and the "company" was built in several states, like the "Nissin" with "Kasuga") were classic armored cruisers (in the understanding of the time). Their analogue is only "Roon" among the Germans. Or "Bayan" (half of the same "Asama"). So ... At that time, no one thought to keep such "products" in a linear battle - the Yapi did this from hopelessness. Yes - well, no doubt. That gave rise to monsters - battlecruisers. Now, the very Germans were able to more tightly connect the unconnectable (at that time)
      And now the Gulf of Riga ... Banks, land mines, the very size of the theater of war - what is there to do LC? Quickly and immediately defeat everyone? Yes, the Germans were already on their heels at that time, But, anyway, I don’t understand very well, in order to sink (or drive away) two antediluvian EDBs (albeit LC) and then shoot along the shore - risk your best ships (who was blown up there? “Bayern” or “Baden”?) - what’s called, “the game is not worth the candle” ... In my opinion ...
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 19 December 2017 00: 40 New
        +2
        I don’t really understand, in order to sink (or drive away) two antediluvian EDBs (albeit LC) and then shoot along the coast - risk your best ships (who was blown up there? Bayern or Baden?) - what called, "the game is not worth the candle"

        It depends on which side to look. In fact, they were tactical maneuvers for German dreadnoughts, which is both useful and necessary. A depressed coastal battery and severely damaged "Glory" - bonuses.
        1. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 20 December 2017 03: 40 New
          +1
          Sorry, I warn you right away. I do not use ANY reference books or other sources that may influence the course of the discussion ... Just what I remember ...
          Strange ... "tactical maneuvers" in minefields, in narrow spaces, with coastal batteries and at least some boats of the opposite side with heavy artillery - is this useful? Then Jutland could be considered like that ... Joint maneuvers of Hipper and Scheer, which led to an "accidental" meeting with HMS ...
          You can’t put all the eggs in one basket and hit it with a hammer, right? Although history knows opposite examples, alas ...
          Of course, the High Seas Fleet (they called themselves loudly, however) could “break through” into this unfortunate and godforsaken bay ... WHY? Moreover, with such power ...
          I, now, at hand (I am in the country) do not have comparative tables of combat coefficients of the ships of that time. I can publish it for NG - everything is very simple there - the Dreadnought is taken as a unit - everything else is derivative. How this is done - separately. So, in total, “Koenig” with the “company” does not lose much to the later HMS with 343mm guns - that is, to the four “Iron Duke”. This is me to the fact that all the calculations of a respected author are worthy of all respect and are of very great interest, BUT! The result was predetermined, alas ... Shooting at the declared distances (which are indicated in the article) is throwing metal to nothing. If my memory serves me right, then Worthspite was able to get to Cesar from a distance of 125kb - so what year was it, gentlemen?
          And to shoot along the shore is a sweet thing ... Everyone liked to have fun with it ... From Flanders to the Aegean and Adriatic seas, and even in Hellenspont they noted, not forgetting the east of England. There is no need to make corrections for moving the target, its (possible) response and other difficulties.
          It’s me, Mr. Comrade, that “the sheepskin, nevertheless, wasn’t worth the candle” ... The Germans were in time trouble - worse, in a state of "zugzwang" - they had to do something. But to shoot at the trenches from 380 (and not 381) mm guns is redneck ... Moreover, they were not lane, sort of
  16. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 10: 57 New
    +1
    Quote: 27091965i
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    If not difficult, give this theoretical calculation ...


    I can throw you a scan from the original for 1901 in English, so as not to think that this is my invention, indicate where.

    As I recall, this "Asama" was the first and was "knocked out" of the line ...


    By the way, “Asama” received one of the hits indicated in this calculation.

    Quote: 27091965i
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    If not difficult, give this theoretical calculation ...


    I can throw you a scan from the original for 1901 in English, so as not to think that this is my invention, indicate where.

    As I recall, this "Asama" was the first and was "knocked out" of the line ...


    By the way, “Asama” received one of the hits indicated in this calculation.
    1. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 10: 59 New
      +1
      If it’s not difficult, then I will be very grateful for the calculation ... I’m doing it myself a little ...
  17. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 18 December 2017 11: 39 New
    +1
    Thanks for the good analysis. Now I understand even better how the Soviet cruisers of Project 26 exceeded the old battleship for such a task as the defense of a mine-artillery position.
    1. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 23: 07 New
      0
      The 26th project was not created for this ... And suitable for the task that you have in mind, even less than a barge with a pair of guns of ridiculous caliber ...
  18. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 18 December 2017 12: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Irina Grafova
    If it’s not difficult, then I will be very grateful for the calculation ... I’m doing it myself a little ...

    yes, and then in the translation and article for general familiarization)))))
    I think here the grateful readers will gather a big circle
    1. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 18 December 2017 23: 08 New
      +1
      I dare to hope ...
  19. Mika_blin
    Mika_blin 19 December 2017 12: 45 New
    +1
    Many thanks to the author, a very interesting cycle. Finally, it became clear to me that there, in Moonsund, in the 17th, in fact, what was happening. Everything that I read before, rather created confusion.
    Thanks again, I will wait for the end and your new work!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 22: 39 New
      +1
      And thank you for your kind words!
      Quote: Mika_BLIN
      Everything that I read before, rather created confusion.

      So I have the same situation, and then there was time to sit down and sort it all out ... True, again, according to Russian-language sources, but they oh-oh-so-incomplete ..