Military Review

Errors of the German shipbuilding. The armored cruiser "Blucher". H.3

84
The combat path of the “big” cruiser “Blucher” was very short - the shells of the British battle cruisers quickly put an end to his not too bright career. A small episode in the Baltic Sea, when “Blucher” managed to make several volleys at “Bayan” and “Pallada”, return to Wilhelmshaven, shelling of Yarmouth, raid on Whitby, Hartpool and Skarbrough and, finally, foray into Dogger Bank, which became fatal for German cruiser.


Let's start with the Baltic, or rather, with the unsuccessful attempt by Blucher to intercept two Russian armored cruisers, held on 24 in August, 1914 of Bayan and Pallas were on watch at Dagerort, finding there the German light cruiser Augsburg, which traditionally tried to carry on for a Russian ships in the trap. However, the Bayan and Pallas did not accept such a kind "invitation", and, as it soon turned out, they did quite right, because at 16.30 Kabeltov the German detachment, led by the Blucher cruiser, was revealed at a distance of 220 cables. I must say that the Russian signalmen took him for Molka, which is not surprising due to the well-known similarity of their silhouettes, but there was no difference for Bayan and Pallas.


Battle cruiser "Moltke"



"Big" cruiser "Blucher"


With eight 210-mm guns in the side salvo, the Blucher at a great distance twice exceeded both Russian cruisers together (four 203-mm guns), especially since it is easier to control the fire of one ship than by a combination of two ships. Of course, having a very solid booking, “Pallas” and “Bayan” could hold on to the “Blucher” for some time, but could not win it, and there was no point in getting involved with him in a fight for Russian cruisers.

Therefore, "Bayan" and "Pallas" turned to the throat of the Gulf of Finland, and "Blucher" rushed in pursuit. All sources noted the high speed of "Blucher", which he demonstrated not only on the measured mile, but also in everyday use, and this Baltic episode is a good confirmation of this. Judging by the descriptions, it was like this - In 16.30, the Russians, following the speed of 15 nodes, saw the Germans. For some time, the ships continued to converge, and then, when they identified the enemy in Pallas and Bayan, the Russian detachment turned around for retreat. At the same time, “Blucher” developed a full swing (it is indicated that this happened to 16.45) and turned it over to the Russians. The distance between the opponents was quickly reduced, and after 15 minutes (to 17.00) the distance between the ships was 115 cable. Understanding the danger of further rapprochement, the Russian cruisers increased the speed to the 19 catch, but in the 17.22 the Blucher nevertheless became close to them on the 95 kb and opened fire.

Blucher acted very close to the Russian bases fleet, which could well go to sea, and his commander, in any case, expected to meet Russian sentinel cruisers. This suggests that the "Blucher" followed in full readiness to give full speed, which, however, on a steam ship still takes some time. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Blucher, according to Russian observers, went full speed 15 minutes after visual contact, although it cannot be ruled out that it took him a little longer. But in any case, in 22 minutes (from 17.00 p.m. to 17.22 p.m.) he got closer to the Russian cruisers traveling at 19 knots for about 2 miles, which required the Blucher speed of 24 or even more knots (in order to accurately calculate the speed of the Blucher ", Required laying of ship courses during this episode).

However, the high speed of the "Blucher" did not help - the Russian cruisers managed to retreat.

The raids on Yarmouth and Hartlepool are of little interest for the simple reason that some serious clashes did not occur during these operations. The exception is the episode of the coastal battery Hartlepool, which was armed with as many as three 152-mm guns. When fighting with Moltke, Seidlitz, and Blucher, the battery used up the 123 projectile, achieving 8 hits, which was 6,5% of the total amount of projectiles consumed! Of course, this brilliant result had no practical significance, since the six-inch ones could have been scratched by the German cruisers, but still they did. Six of the eight hits fell on the Blucher, killing nine people and wounding three.

And then the battle took place at Dogger Bank.

In principle, if we briefly summarize the bulk of domestic publications, this collision of battle cruisers in Germany and England is as follows. The Germans after Yarmouth and Hartlepool were planning a raid on the Feard of Fort (Scotland), but canceled it due to bad weather. Because of this, the German fleet on the North Sea was greatly weakened, because “Von der Tann”, taking this opportunity, put it in the dock for repairs, which it needed, and the main power of Hohzeeflotte was the 3-th linear squadron, consisting of the newest The dreadnoughts of the "Koenig" and "Kaiser" types were sent to undergo a combat training course in the Baltic.

But it unexpectedly cleared up, and the command of Hohzeeflotte nevertheless ventured to make a raid on Dogger Bank. It was dangerous, because against the five battlecruisers of the British, the presence of which the Germans knew, Rear Admiral Hipper's 1 reconnaissance group had only three, and also Blücher, who was completely unsuitable for battle with the battlecruisers of the British. Nevertheless, the commander of the German open-sea fleet, Rear Admiral Ingenol, considered the attack possible because he knew that the British fleet was on the eve of the German raid and was now in need of bunkering, i.e. replenishment of fuel. Ingenol did not consider it necessary to withdraw the main forces of the fleet for the implementation of long-range cover of his battlecruisers, since he believed that the large-scale exit of the fleet would not go unnoticed and would alert the British.

The German plan became known in England through the work of the 40 room, which was a British radio intelligence service. It was so simple that the British, at the beginning of the war, received from the Russian copies of the cipher tables, codes and signal books from the cruiser Magdeburg, which had crashed on the rocks near the island of Odenholm. But in any case, the British knew about the German intentions and prepared a trap - at Dogger Banks, the squadron of Rear Admiral Hipper was waited by those five battlecruisers, whom he feared to meet, but so far successfully avoided.

Hipper did not accept the battle - having found the enemy, he began to retreat, recklessly putting the most weakly protected "Blucher" to close the column of German battle cruisers. Here, as a rule, the Japanese are remembered, who knew that in battle both the head and end battleships or cruisers of the column always have good chances to get under strong enemy fire, and therefore in the battles of the Russian-Japanese war they tried to put quite powerful and good protected ships. Rear Admiral Hipper did not do this, and therefore made a big and difficult to explain error.

As a result, the fire of British ships focused on the "Blucher", he received a fatal hit, fell behind and was doomed to death. However, Beatty’s flagship, battle cruiser Lion received damage and left the battlefield. Because of the misunderstood signal of the flagship, the British battlecruisers, instead of pursuing the retreating Derflinger, Seidlits and Moltke, hit the outdated Blucher with all their might, and received 70-100 projectile hits and 7 torpedoes, went to the bottom without lowering the flag. As a result, the last battle of “Blucher” became evidence not only of the heroism of the German sailors, which is completely undeniable, because the cruiser, left alone, fought to the last opportunity and died without lowering the flag in front of the enemy, but also of the highest professionalism of the German shipbuilders who designed and built so tenacious ship.

It seems that everything is simple and logical, but in fact the Dogger-banks battle is replete with many questions that can hardly be expected to be answered, including in this article. To begin with, we will consider the decision of Rear Admiral Hipper to put the "Blucher" as the closing one, i.e. at the end of the system. On the one hand, it seems to be nonsense, but on the other ...

The fact is that "Blucher", wherever you put it, but it didn’t work out well from the word "absolutely." In a naval battle, both the British and the Germans did not seek to focus the fire of all ships on one goal, but preferred to fight "one on one", i.e. their head ship fought the enemy head, the next one was to fight the second ship in enemy order, etc. The concentration of the fire of two or more ships was usually carried out when the enemy was inferior in number or in case of poor visibility. The British had four battlecruisers with 343-mm artillery, and in the case of the “correct” battle, “Blucher” was to fight against one of the “Layons”, which was to end for him in the most pitiable manner.

In other words, the only role that “Blucher” could play in the lineup of the battlecruisers was to delay the fire of one of them for a while, thus facilitating the battle for the rest of the German ships. On the other hand, ships sometimes need to be repaired, the author of this article does not know if the Germans knew that Queen Mary could not participate in the battle, but if suddenly there were not four but only three British 343-mm against the Hipper squad ”Linear cruisers, the“ Blucher ”will have to“ duel ”with a ship with 305-mm artillery, which may allow him to live a little longer. But the most important thing is that it’s important not a place in the ranks, but a position regarding the enemy, and in this respect Rear-Admiral Hipper’s actions are very interesting.

To conduct a decisive battle with three battlecruisers against five commanders of the 1 th reconnaissance group was completely out of hand. This is all the more true because Hipper could not know who was going behind the Beatty ships, while he knew for sure that Ingenol’s battleships didn’t cover him. On the other hand, it made sense to retreat precisely in the direction from which the alarm dreadnoughts of the open sea could come, which, in general, predetermined Hipper’s tactics. Finding the enemy, he turned away, seemingly putting the "Blucher" under fire by the British cruisers, but ... without going into details of the maneuvering, let us pay attention to what configuration the teams of Beatty and Hipper entered the battle.



Well, yes, Hipper turned home, but, having done that, he turned around bearing system. As a result of this, indeed, in the outset of the battle, the fire of the leading British ships was to concentrate on the “Blucher”. However, the fact is that with the reduction of the distance (and the fact that British cruisers are faster, Hipper hardly doubted), the most dangerous “343-mm” cruisers Beatty would carry the fire to Derflinger, Moltke and Seidlitz. In other words, Hipper did put the "Blucher" under the focus of enemy fire, but not for long and from extreme distances, then the fire of the most terrible British "Lion", "Tiger" and "Princess Royal" should have focused on its battlecruisers. In addition, there was some hope that the smoke of the leading ships of Hipper, as the 1 th battleship of the battle cruisers Beatty approached, would cover Blyukher from the annoying attention of the British gunners a little.

And now let's remember the actions of the British in that battle. In 07.30, the Beatty battlecruisers discovered the main forces of Hipper, while they were on the port side of the British. Theoretically, nothing prevented the British admiral "cut the afterburner" and get close to the German end "Blucher", after which the latter would not save any build of the ledge, performed by Hipper. But the British did not. Instead, they, in fact, laid down a course parallel to the Germans and added speed, as if accepting the rules of the game proposed by the German Rear Admiral. Why is that? Did the English commander, Rear Admiral David Beatty, be struck by a sudden clouding of reason?

Not at all, Beatty did everything perfectly right. Following the parallel course of the German detachment and realizing his superiority in speed, Beatty had hope to cut off Hipper from his base, and in addition, the direction of the wind with such a maneuver would provide the best firing conditions for the battlecruisers of the British - all these considerations were much more weighty than the possibility "Roll out" the German terminal. Therefore, having approached the German detachment on the 100 cable, in 08.52, Beatty also rebuilt his cruisers with an escarpment - thus the smoke of his ships was carried to a place where he could not interfere with the next British ship.

And the result - in 09.05, the British flagship Lion began firing at Blucher, but after a quarter of an hour (at 09.20), when the distance was reduced to 90 cables, he moved the fire to the next Derflinger. According to the "Blucher", the next-ranked second in the British formation, the Tiger, began shooting, and shortly afterwards the Princess Royal joined him. However, after only a few minutes (the exact time is unknown to the author, but the distance was reduced to 87 cab, which probably corresponds to 5-7, but no more than 10 minutes), Beatty gave the order to “take fire on the corresponding ships of the enemy column” that is, now Lyon was shooting at the flagship of Rear Admiral Hipper Zeidlits, Tiger was supposed to shoot at Moltke, and Princess Royal focused on Derflinger. According to Blucher, New Zealand was supposed to shoot, but he and Indomiteble lagged behind the more high-speed Admiral Fisher cats, and besides, their guns and rangefinders did not allow them to fight effectively over long distances. As a result, the Germans' end ship was in the best position of all four of the “big cruisers” of Rear Admiral Hipper.

The fact is that under the intense fire of the British "Blucher" was only a short period of time, from 09.05 and up to about 09.25-09.27, after which the "343-mm" Beatty cruisers transferred the fire to other German ships, and lagging behind "Indomitebl "And" New Zealand "to" Blucher "did not reach. Thus, in the course of the battle, “Blucher”, despite the fact that he had closed the line, remained perhaps the most unfired German ship — he was “paid attention” only if some German battleship was hiding in the smoke that it was impossible to direct on him. And, of course, as soon as the opportunity arose, the fire was again transferred to Derflinger or Seidlitz. The only ship that was even more advantageous was the Moltke, but this was not Hipper’s merit, but a consequence of the English mistake — when Beatty ordered to “take the appropriate ships under fire”, he meant that the bill came from the lead ship: “ Lion should shoot at Seidlits, Tiger - at Moltke, etc., but Tiger decided that the score came from the end of the column, i.e. the closing Indomiteble should focus on Blucher, New Zealand on Dreflinger, and so on, and Tiger and Lyon concentrate fire on Zeidlitsa. But the "Seidlits" from the "Tiger" was poorly visible, so the newest English battleship did not fire at him for long, transferring fire to either the "Derflinger" or the "Blucher".


The battle cruiser "Tiger"


Judging by the descriptions of the battle, until the three “343-mm” battlecruisers of the British concentrated their fire on the Derflinger and Seidlitz, the Blucher received only one hit - in the stern, probably from the Lion. Some sources indicate that this hit did not cause significant damage, but others (such as von Haase) write that “Blucher” then sank noticeably - apparently the rupture of an 343-mm projectile caused flooding. But in any case, the ship kept the course and combat capability, so that the hit did not solve anything.

It is absolutely impossible to say whether the German commander was guided by the above considerations, or whether this happened by itself, but as a result of his chosen tactics, starting around 09.27 and up to 10.48, i.e. For nearly an hour and a half, the Blucher was not in the focus of British fire. As you can see, Tiger and Princess Royal were periodically shot at him, while the Princess probably made one hit. Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that Hipper’s decision to put the “Blucher” at the tail of the column was wrong.

However, the battle is a battle, and sometimes in the "Blucher" still came under fire. As a result, in the 10.48 ship the third hit, which became fatal for him. A heavy 343-mm projectile pierced the armored deck in the center of the ship, and perhaps (very much like this) exploded at the moment of armor passage. And here is the result - as a result of one single hit in the “miracle of German technology” on the “Blucher”:

1) There was a strong fire, the personnel of the two front side towers died (similar to the damage of the “Seidlitz” stern towers in the same battle;

2) Steering, engine telegraph, fire control system disabled;

3) The main steam pipe of the boiler room No. 3 was damaged, causing the cruiser speed to drop to 17 nodes.

Why did this happen? In order for the cruiser to develop 25 units, it was necessary to install a super-powerful steam engine on it, but it took up a large amount, leaving too little space for other spaceships. As a result, "Blucher" received a highly original placement of the cellars of the towers of the main caliber, located along the sides.

Usually, the ammunition cellars are located directly at the supply pipes (barbets) of the tower, deep inside the ship's hull and below the waterline. However, such an arrangement on the “Blucher” could not be realized; as a result, of the four towers placed in the middle of the hull, two nasal towers did not have artillery cellars, and the shells and charges to them were fed from the cellars of the stern towers through a special corridor located directly below the armor deck. According to sources, at the time the English projectile hit the corridor, there was a fire from 35 to 40 charges, which caused a severe fire spreading into the nose towers and destroying their personnel.

And why did the machine telegraph, steering and SLA fail? Yes, for the simple reason that they were all laid along the same corridor along which the delivery of ammunition to the two "side-nose" towers was organized. In other words, the designers of “Blucher” managed to create an extremely vulnerable spot, hit which led to the immediate failure of the main systems of the ship and the Germans paid for it in the Battle of Dogger Bank. A single British projectile lowered the combat capability of the Blucher 70 percent, if not more, and in fact doomed him to death, because with the loss of speed the ship was doomed. He fell out of order and went north - the lack of travel and the broken steering interfered with the return to the ship.

So, in the 10.48, the British knocked out of the German line "Blucher", but after some four minutes another hit in the flagship "Lion" brought it down - its speed dropped to the 15 nodes. And here a number of events occurred that are important for understanding what happened to Blucher afterwards.

Two minutes after hitting the Lion, which was out of order, Rear Admiral Beatty personally “saw” the submarine's periscope to the right of the flagship, although, of course, there was no submarine. But, in order to avoid her torpedoes, Beatty ordered to raise the signal "turning 8 points (90 degrees - approx. auth.) to the left. Following the new course, the Beatty ships would pass under the stern of the Hipper column, while the German battleships would be removed from the British. However, on the "Tiger" and other British ships, this signal was not seen, and they continued to move forward, catching up with Hipper's battle cruisers.

At this point, the German rear admiral made an attempt to save the "Blucher", and perhaps, noticing damage to the leading British ship, found this moment suitable for a torpedo attack. He turns a few points to the side of the British battle cruisers who are catching up with him, and gives the appropriate order to his destroyers.

The British admiral is completely satisfied with this behavior of the Germans. By 11.03, Beatty already knows that the damage to his flagship cannot be repaired quickly, and he should transfer to another ship. Therefore, he manages to raise the flag signals (the radio had already failed): “attacking the enemy’s tail” and “getting close to the enemy”, and then, in order to avoid misunderstanding, a third signal specifying the course of the British battle cruisers East). Thus, Beatty orders his squadron to go straight to the Hipper battleships that cruise through its course.

Well, then begins an oxymoron. Before picking up new signals, Beatty’s flagship signalman had to pull the previous one out (“turn on 8 points to the left”), but he forgot to do so. As a result, on the "Tiger" and other battlecruisers, the British saw the signals: "Turn left 8 points", "Attack the enemy's tail" and "Approach the enemy", but the order for a new course to the northeast (towards Hipper) have seen. The first order separates the British ships from the Hipper battleships, but brings them closer to the Blucher, who by this time could somehow cope with steering problems and tried to follow the rest of the German ships. How else could the battlecruisers and Admiral Moore interpret the Beat’s order? Probably nothing. Although ... there are still nuances, but it makes sense to sort them out in a separate series of articles devoted to the Battle of Dogger-banks, and here we still consider the combat stability of "Blucher".

And so, misinterpreting the intentions of their flagship, the four English battlecruisers go to finish off the Blucher - this happens already at the beginning of the twelfth hour. The new British course removes them from the main forces of Hipper and makes a senseless attempt at a torpedo attack, so Hipper, seeing that he can no longer help Blucher, falls back and goes out of battle.

The fire of the British ships concentrates on the "Blucher" with some 11.10, and in the 12.13 the "Blucher" goes to the bottom. In fact, it is doubtful that the British continued to fire at the already overturned ship, so we can say that the intense fire of British ships continued, probably from 11.10 to 12.05 or about an hour. At the same time, the British caught up with “Blucher” - in 11.10, the distance to it was 80 of cables, as it was before the death of “Blucher”, unfortunately, is unknown.

And here it turns out quite interesting. For more than an hour and a half, three British battlecruisers fired mostly at “Seidlits” and “Derflinger” and at the same time achieved three hits in each, besides “Princess Royal” hit the “Blücher” twice. And then, four British cruisers, shooting at the same target, for 55 minutes they get 67-97 hits ?!

In the battle of Dogger Bank, the two battlecruisers of the British armed with 305-mm guns practically did not participate, because they could not keep the speed available to the Lion, Tiger and Princess Royal, and fell behind. In essence, they entered the battle only when the Blucher had already received his fatal hit and fell behind, that is, shortly before all the British battlecruisers rushed to the Blucher. At the same time, “New Zealand” spent 147 305-mm shells, and “Indomiteble” - 134 projectile. How many spent between 11.10 and 12.05 "Princess Royal" and "Tiger" is not known for certain, but for the entire three-hour battle "Princess Royal" spent 271 projectile, and "Tiger" - 355 shells, but all, it turns out, 628 shells. Assuming that in the period from 11.10 to 12.05, i.e. for 55 minutes, they spent the maximum 40% of the total consumption of shells, we get about 125 shells for each ship.

Then it turns out that during the concentration of fire on the "Blucher" four British battlecruisers spent an 531 projectile. We are more or less reliably aware of the three hits at Blucher made before 11.10, given the real effectiveness of shooting British ships at Derflinger and Zeidlitz, this number looks realistic — the German battle cruisers got the same amount. It is possible, of course, that another two or three English projectiles fell into the "Blucher", but this is doubtful. Accordingly, in order to provide those same 70-100 hits, wandering from source to source, in the period from 11.10 to 12.05, it was necessary to get to Blucher at least 65-95 times. The percentage of hits in this case should have been completely unrealistic 12,24 - 17,89%! Need I remind you that the Royal Navy has never demonstrated similar results in combat?

In battle with the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the British battlecruisers spent 1 174 305-mm projectile and achieved, perhaps, 64-69 hits (yet to the cores of the German armored cruisers no one dived and did not recount them)) Even if we assume that all these hits were exactly 305-mm, and given that at the very beginning of the battle, the battlecruisers fired at Leipzig, the percentage of hits does not exceed 5,5-6%. But after all, there, in the end, the situation was the same as with the “Blucher” - the British shot the helpless Gneisenau from short distances. In the battle of Jutland, the best "team" result was demonstrated by the British 3-I squadron of battle cruisers - 4,56%. In the "individual standings", perhaps, the British battleship "Royal Oak" is leading with 7,89% hits, but here you need to understand that this result may be incorrect, because it is very difficult to guess from which battleship the heavy "gift" came It may be that some of the hits belong not to Royal Oak, but to other British battleships.

But in any case, no British battleship or cruiser in battle achieved a percentage of hits in 12-18%.

Now, remember that there is no consensus in foreign sources on this issue, and along with “70-100 hits + 7 torpedoes” there are much more weighted estimates - for example, Conway writes about 50 hits and two torpedoes. Let's check these figures using our method - if we assume that “Blyukher” before 11.10 received only 3 projectile, it turns out that in the next 55 minutes he received 47 hits, which is 8,85% of the 531 projectile we calculated. In other words, even this number sets an absolute record for the accuracy of the Royal Navy’s firing, despite the fact that it was Beatty's cruisers in all other cases (Jutland, shooting Dogger-banks at Derflinger and Zeidlitz) that showed many times worse results.

The personal opinion of the author of this article (which, naturally, he does not impose on anyone) - most likely, the British got into the “Blucher” three times before 11.10, and later, when the cruiser was finished, they achieved the accuracy of 5-6%, which also gives 27-32 hits, i.e. the total number of projectiles hit by Blucher does not exceed 30-35. He rolled over from the effects of flooding caused by the first 343-mm projectile that landed him in the stern (after which the ship sat down astern) and hit two torpedoes. But even if we take an intermediate assessment of 50 hits (Conway), the reconstruction of the last battle of Blucher still looks like this - in the first 20-25 minutes of the battle, he was fired at by all three 343-mm British cruisers, having achieved one hit, then for one and a half hours, the cruiser was not a priority target for the British, and only one shell hit it. By the way, it will be said, shortly before the decisive, third hit, from “Blucher” they reported on “Seydlitz” about the problems in the car. Is this a second hit result? In 10.48, “Blucher” strikes the shell with the “Princess Royal”, which disables everything that is possible (machine telegraph, FCM, steering wheels, two towers of the main caliber) and reduces its speed to 17 nodes. In 11.10, the attack on the "Blucher" of four English battlecruisers from a distance of approximately 80 cable runs, which lasts approximately 55 minutes, while not less than half of this time, while the distance has not decreased, the number of hits in "Blucher" is hardly amazing. But then the enemies still get closer and in the last 20-25 minutes of battle from short distances literally stuff the German cruiser with shells, as a result of which he dies.


Probably the most famous photo "Blucher"


And if the author is right in his assumptions, then we have to admit that the German “big” cruiser “Blucher” did not demonstrate any amazing “super-survivability” in his last battle - he fought and died as it should have been expected from a large armored cruiser in 15 000 t displacement. British cruisers certainly had enough of the smaller one, but they were let down by a British cord, prone to detonation if ignited, and besides, one should never forget that the Germans had excellent armor-piercing shells, but the British did not.

List of used literature
1. Vinogradov S. Fedechkin A. "The armored cruiser Bayan and its descendants"
2. Muzhenikov V.B. Armored cruisers "Scharnhorst", "Gneisenau" and "Blucher"
3. Muzhenikov V.B. The battlecruisers of England. Part of 1-2.
4. Parks O. The British Empire's Battleships Part of 5. At the turn of the century.
5. Pakhomov N.A. Armored cruisers Germany. Part of 1.
6. Fetter A.Yu. Linear cruisers such as "Invincible".
Author:
Articles from this series:
Errors of the German shipbuilding. Big cruiser "Blucher"
Errors of the German shipbuilding. The armored cruiser "Blucher". H.2
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NF68
    NF68 14 March 2018 16: 03
    +3
    + + + + + + + + + +
  2. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 14 March 2018 17: 00
    +5
    Always doubted the claimed number of hits in the “Blucher”. And not because surviving them on a ship of this size is difficult, but precisely because of the painfully steep accuracy of shooting, according to the office. statistics. Most likely, the hits were counted in the heat of the battle, taking every flash on board the Blucher for it, and the myth of the "super-survivability" of the armored cruiser was invented to somehow cover its own shells - well, everything cannot be so bad in Royal Navy ! It turns out maybe ...
    By the way, the history of Blucher is somewhat similar to the history of Scharnhorst, which is from WWII. The fight on the way out, everything seems to be fine - but then there is a “lacquer” in a weak spot (glacis), and that’s all, game over ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 March 2018 17: 54
      +5
      Quote: arturpraetor
      Always doubted the claimed number of hits in the “Blucher”. And not because surviving them on a ship of this size is difficult, but precisely because of the painfully steep accuracy of shooting, according to the office. statistician

      Quite right :) And well, it would have been really shot for 3 hours, it could have been understood, but the British paid little attention to Blucher during almost the whole battle - they took it seriously only at the very end hi
    2. saigon
      saigon 14 March 2018 18: 00
      0
      Beatty's battlecruisers fired worse than the British battleships. Regarding the maneuver to evade the submarine, there is a version about the loss of control of the flagship above the named Beatty.
      And in general, when shooting at more than a hundred cable only battleships, Cunningham put a shell into the Italian 2MV
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 March 2018 18: 57
        +4
        Quote: saigon
        And in general, when shooting at more than a hundred cable only battleships, Cunningham put a shell into the Italian 2MV

        And Panteleimon in Yavuz Sultan Selim. smile
      2. NF68
        NF68 14 March 2018 20: 53
        0
        Quote: saigon
        And in general, when shooting at more than a hundred cable only battleships, Cunningham put a shell into the Italian 2MV


        In the 1940 year, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau opened fire on the Glories from a distance of approximately 25 km. Already in the WWI, when firing a main gun of caliber 12 "and more, with good visibility, it was possible to conduct at distances of large 100 cable.
    3. Scaffold
      Scaffold 15 March 2018 08: 15
      +2
      This is the strength of the English fleet - he never "pissed", excuse me for vulgarism. Even if the ratio was strongly not in favor, the British boldly aimed their guns and went at the enemy. It happened that it ended tragically - the Coronel, the Danish Strait ... But how many times it brought, it would seem, impossible success. The same battle at La Plata: well, what were the chances of cardboard English cruisers? But they went into battle and in the end everything turned out in their favor. From this series, and all sorts of successful hits (the same Scharnhorst, or a torpedo in Bismarck with stupid Swordfish). How can one not recall that "fortune smiles bold"?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 March 2018 09: 55
        +2
        Quote: Scaffold
        This is the strength of the English fleet - he never "pissed", excuse me for vulgarism. Even if the ratio was strongly not in favor, the British boldly aimed their guns and went at the enemy.

        Admiral Trubridge looks at this statement in bewilderment. smile
        1. Rakovor
          Rakovor 15 March 2018 13: 50
          +1
          Admiral Trubridge is the exception that exists in any rule.
      2. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 15 March 2018 11: 58
        +1
        Quote: Scaffold
        This is the strength of the English fleet - he never "pissed", excuse me for vulgarism.

        Personally, I know this, I rate British sailors quite high (unlike the ships - there are a couple of really failing ones and a dozen solid middle peasants that are really epic). although we like to belittle in every possible way the fighting qualities of both the British specifically, and the Anglo-Saxons and representatives of the West in general, making the exception, perhaps, only for Germany and Italy - in the case of the latter, achievements are already there ... Well, not so much to belittle nothing much request
      3. saigon
        saigon 15 March 2018 15: 15
        +1
        Well, the German type seems to be like the battleship (pocket) made its way through the same British cruisers.
  3. Monarchist
    Monarchist 14 March 2018 17: 07
    +2
    The author did an excellent job, but I would have called the article differently, for example: "The reasons for the death of Blucher, and that would be the very goal. After all, a whole chain of errors led to the death of the ship.
    1) Hipper miscalculated in his plans twice: when he planned his operation and choosing a position for Blucher
    2) the English captains did not correctly understand their flagship, maybe they understood everything correctly, but they preferred not to take risks with a tight one, otherwise Seidlitz or Molteke could put on a “plbkh”
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 March 2018 17: 47
      +5
      Quote: Monarchist
      The author did an excellent job, but I would have called the article differently

      This is still a series of articles :)
      Quote: Monarchist
      Hipper miscalculated his plans twice: when he planned his operation and the choice of position for Blucher

      Not once - firstly, he didn’t plan the operation, and secondly, the choice of position for Blucher was optimal.
      Quote: Monarchist
      English captains did not correctly understand their flagship, maybe they understood everything correctly, but chose not to take risks with a dense

      It did not play any role - at a speed in 17, Blucher was doomed anyway. The mistake of the captains and Admiral Moore only led to the fact that the German battlecruisers survived, although ... in general, write a separate series of articles on Dogger Bank :)))
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 14 March 2018 18: 07
        +1
        Unfortunately, the series of articles on Dogger Bank will inevitably run into the notorious “if” :-)
  4. Dashing
    Dashing 14 March 2018 17: 18
    +3
    It should be noted the stamina and heroism of the personnel of the cruiser, who fought to the end. And once again complain that fate and people managed to make us Germans enemies and not allies. I think that such an alliance would be invincible.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 March 2018 17: 49
      +7
      Quote: DARK
      I think that such an alliance would be invincible.

      Exactly as long as Germany, bending Europe under itself, would not have turned its victorious gaze to Russia.
      But this is the fault of politicians (who in the 20 century in Germany were distinguished by an extreme degree of adventurism) and not soldiers. As for the armies, yes, in fact only the Germans could stop the Germans, and the Germans could stop us. Two such armies would be invincible
      1. Dashing
        Dashing 14 March 2018 18: 56
        +1
        It is nice to come to a consensus with a respected countryman.
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 14 March 2018 20: 43
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Exactly as long as Germany, bending Europe under itself, would not have turned its victorious gaze to Russia.

        Andrei, so that Germany would turn its eyes to Russia, the very same British tried very hard. hi
        1. Scaffold
          Scaffold 15 March 2018 08: 17
          +1
          Now there is no exact quote at hand (a paper book, it’s not easy to find), but Kaiser Wilhelm even before the war spoke out about the inferiority of the Slavs. This is the family of the Germans. Did the British tell them this too?
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 15 March 2018 08: 20
            +1
            Quote: Scaffold
            Did the British tell them this too?

            And you carefully study the history of the issue — even the British indirectly stood behind Napoleon’s attack.
            1. Scaffold
              Scaffold 15 March 2018 08: 32
              0
              I do not advise studying history based on the current political situation.
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 15 March 2018 09: 11
                +1
                The same Starikov is far from wrong in everything. An economic example of British policy is that Ivan tea was shipped to England in thousands of pounds, but the East India Company set up a fake company that claimed that Ivan tea was dangerous to health. Deliveries decreased several times.
                A lot is known about the British influence on the Russian-Turkish wars.
                1. Scaffold
                  Scaffold 15 March 2018 12: 15
                  +1
                  I suggest reading my first post again. The Germans considered the Russians below themselves long before Hitler. Do not blame everything on the British.
                  1. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 15 March 2018 13: 46
                    +2
                    Quote: Scaffold
                    Do not blame everything on the British.

                    It is worth exploring the reasons for the unification of Germany since the Kaiser and Bismarck. There, the ears of London can be seen a mile away, just as they are seen in the formation of Hitler. hi
                    1. Scaffold
                      Scaffold 15 March 2018 15: 25
                      0
                      Mmm ... That is, Britain was profitable the emergence of a strong united Germany? To such an extent that they have already discovered Bismarck to unite her? Did I understand correctly?
                      1. Ingvar 72
                        Ingvar 72 15 March 2018 16: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Scaffold
                        Britain was profitable the emergence of a strong united Germany?

                        Yes exactly. All this was part of the global plan to prepare for the first world war.
                2. Scaffold
                  Scaffold 15 March 2018 12: 19
                  +2
                  Here, I found it! wink

                  "A war is inevitable in which the German peoples must bring down the powerful impulse of Slavism. The Slavs were born to serve, not to rule, and this should be explained to them." Kaiser Wilhelm II at a meeting with the Austro-Vegers Ambassador Count Berktold on October 26, 1913.

                  Source: Robert Massie, "Dreadnought"

                  As I said, the Germans have a family. He is numb from the presence of Russia.
    2. nemoXX
      nemoXX 15 March 2018 10: 11
      +1
      Your thought is not only true, but also extremely rare in a Russian-speaking environment.
      But stupid hatred of the imposed stamp on the country and people is a bad adviser.
      1. Scaffold
        Scaffold 15 March 2018 12: 19
        +1
        "A war is inevitable in which the German peoples must bring down the powerful impulse of Slavism. The Slavs were born to serve, not to rule, and this should be explained to them." Kaiser Wilhelm II at a meeting with the Austro-Vegers Ambassador Count Berktold on October 26, 1913.

        Source: Robert Massie, "Dreadnought"
  5. DimanC
    DimanC 14 March 2018 18: 04
    0
    In any case, it "sounds" logical. This is due to hits. By the way, it seems to me that the German LKR are unnecessarily extolled for survivability in front of their English counterparts, despite some obvious advantages in layout and positions
  6. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 14 March 2018 18: 58
    +6
    Summing up the comparison of "errors" wink
    One "mistake" went to the bottom after several salvos of a more protected opponent, but still equal in caliber, taking to the bottom of the whole admiral with the whole team, only confirming that the ship should be balanced. "Invincible" was more like an armored cruiser and it was worth using in accordance with the objectives of the cruisers rather than battleships. However, the oblique views on this GK instance, in my opinion, played a cruel joke, sending it and the other 5 sisterships to a higher rank, thereby showing the human factor in the mismatch of the characteristics of these ships for squadron combat with adult peers.
    The second "mistake" went to the bottom under heavier shells than the first, which took much more time and effort than in the first case. That speaks of a whiter or less combat stability of the ship, balanced for battle with their own kind. Meet the peers from the Foggy Albion with the HA in 234 mm, the results were completely opposite. I am personally sure of this. But only a technical error in the design and construction ruined it, because they decided that a decent speed would outweigh the weaknesses. Alas, not outweighed. According to the laws of the genre, the fatal shell hit the fateful place. And a shell of this caliber, against which this ship was not designed. Here, too, one of the factors was the human factor, which stuck Blucher to where it should not be ...
    Two errors lying relatively close to each other revealed Neptune in human stupidity ....
    I am grateful for the interesting cycle, Andrey, for your opinion is quite interesting good
    Bravo hi
    We are waiting for more materials on the era of the end of the XIX century - 20 years of the XX century repeat
    Sincerely, also Andrew drinks
  7. sevtrash
    sevtrash 14 March 2018 19: 38
    +5
    I doubt very much that any other armored cruiser of those times would last longer than Blucher, for almost an hour under the fire of 4 (four!) Battle cruisers, and even get 30-40 shells, even according to the author’s calculations. For example, the heavily damaged battlecruisers Deflinger and Seydlitz were hit by 21 and 22 shells of 305-381 mm, the first took 3500 tons of water, and Seydlitz 5000. And they did not fight like Blucher, one against 4, moreover, against more powerful opponents .
    Such is the "mistake". Maybe a masterpiece? Well, no luck with some hits. Well, not him alone. Invincible, Indefatigable too. What about Queen Mary? And Scharnhorst did not get the best hit in the same battle, where Hood was unlucky.
  8. 27091965
    27091965 14 March 2018 19: 47
    +5
    Very interesting analysis.
    I will not supplement your article much, I hope you do not mind.

    The battle cruiser "New Zealand" developed 27 nodes, so there was not much lag.

    "09.09 hit from the battlecruiser. "Lion" in the "Blücher".
    09.20 battle cruiser "Tiger" opened fire on the cruiser "Blücher".
    09.35 battle cruiser "New Zealand" opened fire on the cruiser "Blücher".
    09.45 ship number 4 has serious damage. No. 1 and No. 3 fire. "Lion" fires at No. 1, "Tiger" at No. 4, "Princess Royal" No. 3, "New Zealand" No. 4
    ."

    D. Beatty's report was edited twice before being published. In its original form, the battle cruiser "Tiger" did not correctly recognize the signal of a change in target and continued to fire at the cruiser "Blücher".
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 March 2018 08: 56
      +1
      Greetings, dear 27091965i!
      Quote: 27091965i
      The battle cruiser "New Zealand" developed 27 nodes, so there was not much lag.

      At our disposal there is such a wonderful "speed meter" as the consumption of shells :)))) Agree that if Zealand had not lagged behind, then the consumption of shells would approximately coincide with those of the 343-mm Beatty cruisers. Meanwhile, the picture is completely different and I see only one explanation for this - Zealand lagged behind
      1. 27091965
        27091965 15 March 2018 09: 54
        +2
        We have at our disposal such a wonderful "speed meter" as the consumption of shells:


        Good morning.

        " Five battle cruisers used 1154 heavy shells, of which 708 were armor-piercing and 365 high-explosive (liddit), and the rest - CPC and fragmentation (shrapnel)".

        Now I’m not busy much later. I will write a more complete commentary on D. Beatty's report. hi
        1. 27091965
          27091965 15 March 2018 13: 20
          0
          Quote: 27091965i
          Now I’m not busy much later. I will write a more complete commentary on D. Beatty's report.


          " 8.10. Battle cruisers increased speed to 24 knots.
          8.23. "Lion" to battle cruisers: "Speed ​​26 knots"
          8.34. "Lion" to battle cruisers: "Speed ​​27 knots."
          8.48. "Lion" to the battle cruisers "Speed ​​28 knots"
          8.52 Range 22000 yards. The opening of fire at number 4. sighting shot for verification
          distance. Undershoot.
          8.55 "New Zealand" and "Indomitable." “Excellent result”, these vessels significantly exceeded their normal speed and actually reached 27 and 26 knots respectively. Speed. "Lion", "Tiger" and "Princess Royal" 28,5 knots.
          9.09 getting into number 4
          9.14 the enemy opened fire.
          9.20 "Tiger" opened fire on number 4
          9.28 hit in "Lion", "Princess Royal" opened fire on number 4
          9.35 "New Zealand" opened fire on number 4, the signal "shooting at the respective ships"
          9.45 ship number 4 has serious damage. No. 1 and No. 3 fire. "Lion" fires at No. 1, "Tiger" at No. 4, "Princess Royal" No. 3, "New Zealand" No. 4
          ."

          When comparing the report by D. Beatty and the one printed by the Admiralty, it was indicated that out of 30 points, only 4 were not changed, this was published in 1922 in the book “Battle Cruisers” by Filson Young. The author was with D. Beatty at the Battle of Dogger Bank and took part in the compilation of the first report.
  9. Potter
    Potter 14 March 2018 19: 57
    +3
    Quote: sevtrash
    I doubt very much that any other armored cruiser of those times would last longer than Blucher, for almost an hour under the fire of 4 (four!) Battle cruisers, and even get 30-40 shells, even according to the author’s calculations. For example, the heavily damaged battlecruisers Deflinger and Seydlitz were hit by 21 and 22 shells of 305-381 mm, the first took 3500 tons of water, and Seydlitz 5000. And they did not fight like Blucher, one against 4, moreover, against more powerful opponents .
    Such is the "mistake". Maybe a masterpiece? Well, no luck with some hits. Well, not him alone. Invincible, Indefatigable too. What about Queen Mary? And Scharnhorst did not get the best hit in the same battle, where Hood was unlucky.

    A good example is almost the same age as Blucher Defense in the Jutland battle. A worthy opponent for Blucher. Having fallen under the concentrated fire of the German fleet, he went to the bottom practically without delay.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 March 2018 23: 52
      +1
      Quote: Potter
      Having fallen under the concentrated fire of the German fleet, he went to the bottom practically without delay.

      The problem is not in the ship, but in gunpowder - Defense exploded. If Blucher had the same gunpowder, he would have exploded on the third hit when the charges ignited and the two towers burned out
      1. Potter
        Potter 15 March 2018 18: 48
        0
        Not only in gunpowder. I will not be able to develop this topic conclusively - but I will try.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 March 2018 22: 23
          0
          Quote: Potter
          Not only in gunpowder.

          Not only - but also in the design of the towers. But where the Germans turned out to be a pillar of fire and burnt calculation, the British perished ship
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 15 March 2018 22: 13
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The problem is not in the ship, but in gunpowder

        As far as I remember, the British kept the same cord during WWII. But the ships stopped exploding after falling into the towers.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 March 2018 22: 23
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          As far as I remember, the British kept the same cord during WWII

          Not the one
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 15 March 2018 23: 02
            0
            Do you think that "cordit SC" is the "wrong" cord but the "other" cord? :)
            Okay, okay, let another. Actually, only phrases about "low-flammable gunpowder" plunge me into thought. Does anyone think that this “other” cord will not catch fire if a shell hits it? :)
  10. faiver
    faiver 14 March 2018 20: 59
    +1
    the author is happy as always good
  11. Vedzmin
    Vedzmin 14 March 2018 21: 04
    +1
    Many thanks to Andrei for an interesting series of publications devoted to Blucher! For me, all this is a good educational program and the disclosure of many details of artillery battles is of the time. I did not think before that small factors (I didn’t understand the flagship team correctly, didn’t notice the signal, the signal was not sent again, something seemed to someone) has such a significance for the course of the battle.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 14 March 2018 21: 13
      +1
      Read the series of articles by the author about the battle in the Yellow Sea on July 28, 1904. wink There, too, all the nuances are pretty interesting to understand by minute (of course, from the point of view of the author)
      1. Vedzmin
        Vedzmin April 7 2018 14: 06
        0
        Thank you, I read this series of articles with great interest. He brought out a lot of new things for himself, which enriched the idea of ​​the course of battles at that time. Then there was no registration, did not comment on the materials.
  12. Comrade
    Comrade 15 March 2018 03: 54
    +2
    Very interesting analysis, dear Andrey, thanks +!
    I especially liked the way you painted and interpreted the actions of Hipper. Unexpectedly, unusual, but convincing and logical.

    However, there are some controversial points :-)

    they and the Indomiteble lagged behind the faster fleet of “Admiral Fisher's cats,” and besides this, their guns and rangefinders did not allow effective combat over long distances.

    Dear colleague, you offend the “oldies”, you offend :-) Nine-foot rangefinders were on all, without exception, the English battlecruisers.
    But in any case, no British battleship or cruiser in battle achieved a percentage of hits in 12-18%.

    There is evidence that the first shell hit "Blücher" in 10: 30. And in the period from 10: 35 to 10: 41, that is, in six minutes, the cruiser received three more hits.
    Who exactly shot him this time is an open question, but it is impossible to deny that accuracy was demonstrated to be very decent. It’s easy to figure out how much one cruiser could fire shells in six minutes.

    Germans had excellent armor-piercing shells, but the British did not.

    Nevertheless, they pierced the armor on German ships.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 March 2018 09: 06
      0
      Quote: Comrade
      Very interesting analysis, dear Andrey, thanks +!

      And thank you, dear Valentine!
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear colleague, you offend the “oldies”, you offend :-) Nine-foot rangefinders were on all, without exception, the English battlecruisers.

      Exactly! But the fact is that the British themselves did not consider them sufficient for long distances, especially after Jutland. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for the good shooting of the Queens in Jutland is twenty-foot rangefinders. Therefore, after Jutland, the British showed a cookie to our World Cup (there they greatly hoped to get British rangefinders with a large base, there weren’t enough dreadnought) and rushed to equip their fleet with “twenty”.
      Quote: Comrade
      There is evidence that the first shell hit "Blücher" in 10: 30. And in the period from 10: 35 to 10: 41, that is, in six minutes, the cruiser received three more hits.

      German time? And where does this information come from? Very interesting!
      Quote: Comrade
      Nevertheless, they pierced the armor on German ships.

      Yes, not really :))) That is, they pierced the punch, but exploded at the moment of passing the armor, which significantly reduced possible damage.
  13. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 15 March 2018 10: 59
    0
    Typo you have Andrew
    I must say that the Russian signalmen took him for the "Molke" ...

    Moltke (SMS Moltke)
  14. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 15 March 2018 11: 31
    0
    Of course, this brilliant result did not have any practical value, since six-inches could only scratch the German cruisers, but still they did. Six of the eight hits fell on the Blucher, killing nine people and injuring three.

    Scratch?

    I think this photo should be familiar to you? Armored cruiser Blucher. Damage to the deck during the Battle of Hartlepool on December 14, 1914
    It does not look like a “scratch”, although of course such damage did not have a noticeable effect on the reduction of the ship’s combat effectiveness. Be careful with the terms - "scratch" ... 6 "shell however.
    https://military.wikireading.ru/20399
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 March 2018 11: 39
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Not like a scratch

      :))))) For all the terrible look, this is exactly a scratch, you write
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      and a decrease in the combat effectiveness of the ship, such damage did not have a noticeable effect.

      And I will notice that it had no effect whatsoever. By the way, pay attention - this is a VERY close-up
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 15 March 2018 12: 12
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And I will notice that it had no effect whatsoever. By the way, pay attention - this is a VERY close-up


        I did not argue with the fact that there was no noticeable impact on combat effectiveness - just the term “scratching” many inexperienced readers can be misleading.
        Even 152 mm shells destroy non-armored parts of the ship, killing and quality melt composition. In this case, a “scratch” is the penetration through the deck and the rupture of the projectile in the below-deck room, which caused the destruction of an area of ​​about 4 m square deck and side-deck space.
        The term "scratch", belittles the heroism of sailors involved in artillery combat.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 15 March 2018 13: 32
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        :))))) For all the terrible look, this is exactly a scratch,


        And here is how the commander of the battle cruisers R. Scheer characterizes this hit
        "First of all, the Blucher fell under the fire of the coastal battery; as a result of one heavy hit it was 9 dead and 3 wounded. 15-cm howitzers and light artillery were fired from the shore. The Blucher received a total of 6 hits."
        .
        It’s a pity Andrei, that for you a scratch is something for Sheer — heavy injuries and loss of people.

        This very well describes how distant the views of modern lovers of naval history and real events and their assessment by contemporaries.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 March 2018 15: 21
          +2
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          It’s a pity Andrei, that for you a scratch is something for Sheer — heavy injuries and loss of people.

          For me, hitting a six-inch shell is not a scratch, it will kill me. This is a scratch for Blucher laughing
          The fact that people perish in a war is, as it were, well-known and it is not entirely clear why it provokes such a reaction in you. Of course, the untimely death of even one person is a tragedy. But this fact does not in any way refute the fact that the 152-mm battery did not have the slightest opportunity to inflict damage on German ships, which would not only hinder, but at least impede their task.
          It always seemed to me that heroism is to join the battle when you have not the slightest chance of victory, but when you simply cannot stay away. When you decided for yourself that you have no moral right to sit out in a secluded corner while the enemy kills women and children of your people. And you enter the battle, although you cannot protect them, but you can only die with them. You fight without hope of victory, you fight only because you do not want to look in the eyes of those close and dear to those who died and see in them a rebuke about why you, a young and strong man are alive, and their relatives are not. Heroism is to engage in battle with only one goal - to die, because "the dead do not have shame."
          I'm talking about the fighters of the English battery, if that
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          This very well describes how distant the views of modern lovers of naval history and real events and their assessment by contemporaries.

          For God's sake. If you want to see heroism in the actions of sailors who, sitting under the guise of good armor and having multiple superiority in forces, were engaged in the killing of civilians, but suddenly were answered by a lone battery - I dare not interfere. We have a free country
          1. Scaffold
            Scaffold 15 March 2018 15: 28
            +2
            Reading the comments of some history buffs, it sometimes seems to me that in both world wars Germany fought on the side of Russia / USSR against Great Britain. wink To such an extent they vilify and hate the British and admire the Germans. DimerVladimer is a typical case.
            1. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 15 March 2018 16: 11
              +1
              Quote: Scaffold
              Reading the comments of some history buffs, it sometimes seems to me that in both world wars Germany fought on the side of Russia / USSR against Great Britain. To such an extent they vilify and hate the British and admire the Germans. DimerVladimer is a typical case.


              That is absolutely violet.
              History is a science that does not tolerate concessions on the basis of the historian's belonging to a particular nation.

              Who "blasphemed" the British? - an example in the studio.
              Admire the German fleet? Yes - when there is a reason ... as well as British and Soviet / Russian - when there is a reason.

              Is there anything to note the commander and crew of the cruiser Blucher? Yes - went down without lowering the flag - their last battle and the enemy admired.

              A typical case is ignorance in the assessment of events and praise on a national basis.
          2. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 15 March 2018 16: 44
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            It always seemed to me that heroism is to join the battle when you have not the slightest chance of victory, but when you simply cannot stay away. When you decided for yourself that you have no moral right to sit out in a secluded corner while the enemy kills women and children of your people. And you enter the battle, although you cannot protect them, but you can only die with them. You fight without hope of victory, you fight only because you do not want to look in the eyes of those close and dear to those who died and see in them a rebuke about why you, a young and strong man are alive, and their relatives are not. Heroism is to engage in battle with only one goal - to die, because "the dead do not have shame."
            I'm talking about the fighters of the English battery, if that


            No doubt, the British gunners heroically fulfilled their duty.
            Our commander-in-chief recently said that "they" have such people by definition.

            The commander and crew of the Blucher cruiser did not have a chance to win the last battle, what prevented them from lowering the flag, leaving the ship with Kingston open?
            What couldn’t stop the British sailors from saving the German crew,
            who stained himself with shelling of a peaceful city - the "killers of children"?
            He is multifaceted heroism, to fulfill his duty contrary to circumstances, contrary to his opinion or public opinion.
  15. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 15 March 2018 11: 50
    +1
    The article is as always correct and, deservedly, gets a "+". On my own I’ll add that the Blucher for the entire battle hit the enemy’s ships at least 4 times. On one 210 mm hit received “Lion”, “Tiger”, “Indomiteable” and the destroyer “Meteor”. At the last from the hit of the shell 4 people were killed.
  16. SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD 15 March 2018 14: 52
    +1
    This I understand the debriefing, I love this series of articles, Andrew from Chelyabinsk, thank you!
  17. NF68
    NF68 15 March 2018 16: 12
    0
    Quote: Scaffold
    Reading the comments of some history buffs, it sometimes seems to me that in both world wars Germany fought on the side of Russia / USSR against Great Britain. wink To such an extent they vilify and hate the British and admire the Germans. DimerVladimer is a typical case.


    Having such "friends" as the BI or the USA and enemies is not necessary. Such friends can be, at least, no worse than enemies.
    1. Scaffold
      Scaffold 15 March 2018 18: 18
      +1
      I am not saying that the United States and Britain are friends to us. I say that the Germans are also not friends with us.
      1. NF68
        NF68 16 March 2018 15: 40
        0
        Quote: Scaffold
        I am not saying that the United States and Britain are friends to us. I say that the Germans are also not friends with us.


        Germans and French are very afraid of Americans. They are also difficult to call friends of Americans. Do you really think that what the United States has been doing over the past 2 decades around the world often affects the direct interests of the leading EU countries? Openly, Germany and France will not contradict the United States, but if someone at the beginning of hotch does not push the United States away from the “feeder” a lot, then the same Germany, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea will not miss theirs.
  18. Kibb
    Kibb 15 March 2018 16: 21
    +1
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    Of course, this brilliant result did not have any practical value, since six-inches could only scratch the German cruisers, but still they did. Six of the eight hits fell on the Blucher, killing nine people and injuring three.

    Scratch?

    I think this photo should be familiar to you? Armored cruiser Blucher. Damage to the deck during the Battle of Hartlepool on December 14, 1914
    It does not look like a “scratch”, although of course such damage did not have a noticeable effect on the reduction of the ship’s combat effectiveness. Be careful with the terms - "scratch" ... 6 "shell however.
    https://military.wikireading.ru/20399

    Well, actually it’s Derflinger, and after Jutland and obviously not 6 "
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 15 March 2018 16: 50
      +1
      Quote: Kibb
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Of course, this brilliant result did not have any practical value, since six-inches could only scratch the German cruisers, but still they did. Six of the eight hits fell on the Blucher, killing nine people and injuring three.

      Scratch?

      I think this photo should be familiar to you? Armored cruiser Blucher. Damage to the deck during the Battle of Hartlepool on December 14, 1914
      It does not look like a “scratch”, although of course such damage did not have a noticeable effect on the reduction of the ship’s combat effectiveness. Be careful with the terms - "scratch" ... 6 "shell however.
      https://military.wikireading.ru/20399

      Well, actually it’s Derflinger, and after Jutland and obviously not 6 "


      You see the tower - almost dense to the side (hexagonal arrangement of towers GK)?
      Find one on Derflinger (linearly elevated arrangement of towers GK)?
      And on Blucher there.
      1. Scaffold
        Scaffold 15 March 2018 18: 20
        0
        In general, a search in the picture says that it is Seydlditz.
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 15 March 2018 22: 23
          0
          "Most likely in the sms blücher picture" (c) Google
          1. Scaffold
            Scaffold 15 March 2018 23: 19
            0
            And I have SMS Seydlitz battle damage. But I cut off the bottom where it says that this is Derfflinger. wassat
            1. arturpraetor
              arturpraetor 16 March 2018 00: 49
              +1
              I looked at the photo - it is EXACTLY not the “Blucher”, because over the side of the tower which we can clearly see, the trunks of the tower located above are sticking out. And now we look at the stern of “Derflinger” after Jutland:

              Doesn’t resemble anything? The perspective of setting the near tower and the farthest trunks, damage to the deck - everything coincides. This is the same Derflinger.
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 16 March 2018 09: 12
                +1
                Quote: arturpraetor
                Doesn’t resemble anything? The perspective of setting the near tower and the farthest trunks, damage to the deck - everything coincides. This is the same Derflinger.


                It's hard to say with 100% certainty - but it looks like you're right - a lot of the details in the photo match perfectly: from turning the guns to a bulged sheet of metal in the hole.
                I admit that you are right.
              2. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 16 March 2018 22: 36
                0
                But surely ..
  19. Scaffold
    Scaffold 15 March 2018 16: 25
    +1
    Ingvar 72,
    That is, the British already in 1871 began to plan the First World War, and at the same time they determined their opponent in advance - a strong united Germany, so that it would be more interesting to fight? I have no more questions.
  20. Potter
    Potter 15 March 2018 18: 55
    +1
    Thanks again for the cycle, and forum users for comments. I’ll go and see the das bot to compensate for the mood.
    1. Vedzmin
      Vedzmin April 7 2018 14: 16
      0
      You must also download and review. The first time I watched about 25 years ago ... The film left a strong impression.
  21. Kibb
    Kibb 15 March 2018 21: 33
    0
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    You see the tower - almost dense to the side (hexagonal arrangement of towers GK)?

    I see the tower and this is Blucher, but I don’t see why, if this photo is walking on the network under completely different signatures, then it should be 6 ".
  22. Comrade
    Comrade 16 March 2018 03: 59
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    after Jutland, the British showed a cookie to our World Cup (there they strongly hoped to get British rangefinders with a large base, there weren’t enough dreadnought) and rushed to equip their fleet with “twenty”.

    They probably started with 381-mm battleships. Because if we look at the battlecruisers of the "Lion" type, for example, then all the 9-foot range finders are left in place. And only in 1917 or later was an open-standing 15 foot installed, and even that was intended for torpedoes.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Where did this information come from?

    Subtracted from Puzyrevsky, and he, in turn, from Wilson or Corbett.
  23. Comrade
    Comrade 16 March 2018 04: 09
    +1
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    You see the tower - almost dense to the side (hexagonal arrangement of towers GK)?
    Find one on Derflinger (linearly elevated arrangement of towers GK)? And on Blucher there.

    Dear colleague, the issue here is not even the location of the towers, but that the nature of the damage from the photo (hole in the deck) does not correspond to the Blucher damage resulting from the hit of four 152 mm shells. Judge for yourself.


    If we “dig” a photograph by comparing it with a diagram (top view), then we will also conclude that this is not Blucher.
    1. Kibb
      Kibb 16 March 2018 14: 25
      0
      This is Blucher, the tower as a colleague pointed out, not to be confused. The question is different - if this hit is 6 ", then in general it’s impressive, but for an armored ship it’s really a scratch. But if the GK shell there can be a lot of questions. The photo clearly shows that the shell exploded somewhere under the deck
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 16 March 2018 14: 42
        +1
        I sprinkle my head with ashes ... I came looking from the laptop, it’s Derflinger, it’s just the angle (I can’t stand it from the phone. wink with a laptop in a chair is easier) laughing
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 19 March 2018 09: 19
      +1
      Quote: Comrade
      If we “dig” a photograph by comparing it with a diagram (top view), then we will also conclude that this is not Blucher.


      Yes - a colleague arturpraetor brought a photo from a different angle, which shows the same damage and the ship is identified as Derflinger with damage after the Jutland battle. Understood.
  24. Comrade
    Comrade 16 March 2018 05: 23
    0
    Quote: Scaffold
    the British already in the 1871 year began to plan the First World War, and at the same time they determined their opponent in advance - a strong united Germany, so that it would be more interesting to fight? I have no more questions.

    Then you have a couple of questions.
    But how to persuade a bunch of small states to set up a united army, so that later they can fight with it with the wrong hands?
    And how to convince all these German duchies, principalities and kingdoms to fold into a common cauldron so that a fleet and an army can be created and then maintained?
    There will be no single country - there will be no single regular army. There will be no such army - there will be no one to fight with in a world war.
    1. Scaffold
      Scaffold 16 March 2018 10: 00
      0
      This is not for me, this is for doctors. In our reality, the policy of Great Britain has always been reduced to ensuring that no continental power is excessively strengthened.
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 16 March 2018 10: 56
        0
        Actually, this policy fit perfectly in support of the unification of Germany, because Great Britain after the Crimean War already needed a serious counterweight to France, which tore and threw (in shipbuilding, for example, the French were not behind the British at that time), and as we all remember, the union turned out to be closely connected with the defeat of the French in Franco-Prussian. However, it is one thing to support existing processes in their current favor with a very unpleasant result in the future, and another to plan a world war through 50-70 years, while almost forcibly combining a handful of small and not very small German states ... How says dear Andrey - these are three big differences! Of course, the British played their role in the unification of Germany, but by no means leading it — it was to their advantage, but it was definitely not in their power to create such a process from scratch.
  25. bone1
    bone1 April 7 2018 23: 22
    0
    The development of the German fleet before WWI is already a complete mistake (we will leave shipbuilders on the sidelines) - not even a mistake, but a madhouse. So, why bother with one Blucher.