Military Review

Gotland bout 19 June 1915 g. Part of 7. "Rurik" enters the fight

32
So, in past articles we reviewed the actions of Rear Admiral M.K. Bakhirev and 1-th brigade of cruisers in a fight with a detachment of I. Karth and "Roon". And what was the rest of the Russian ships doing at this time?


In the evening of June 18, when the detachment, being in a band of strong fog, tried to reach Memel, the Novik went into the wake of the Rurik and in 23.00 lost sight of the cruiser ahead. According to G.K. Earl, Rurik was to blame for this:

“It was extremely difficult for Novik to hold on to Rurik, since he completely disregarded him and, changing his courses and courses, did not even warn about it; so we risked all the time. On the bridge, everyone was in a tense state and made incredible efforts to notice the change in the course of their matelot in time. ”


Within an hour, the commander of the destroyer MA. Behrens tried to find the ships of the special purpose detachment, but he failed. Then he decided to return, and in 09.30 19 June anchored at Tserel. In 10.10, Novik received a radiogram given by M.K. Bakhirev for “Rurik” with an indication of the course of the 1 th cruiser brigade (during an exchange of fire with the “Roon”) and “Novik” went to meet, but then, around 12.00, received an order to return and turned to Kuivast. On this, the participation of "Novik" in the operation ended.

As for the "Rurik", then it turned out more interesting. He was "lost" even earlier than the Novik and could not find the 1 cruiser brigade, but did not go to the "winter quarters", remaining in the area of ​​operation. It was, no doubt, the right decision.
As we said earlier, MK Bakhirev, having lost Rurik and Novik in the fog, searched for them for a while and then turned to Gotland in order to at least determine his place (for a long time the detachment went imputation). Most likely, “Rurik” did not do this, with the result that by the beginning of the battle with “Augsbug” and “Albatross” it turned out to be southeast of the 1 cruisers brigade. In 08.48, i.e. approximately 13 minutes after the Admiral Makarov fired the first shot at Augsburg, received a radiogram of M.K. on Rurik. Bakhireva: "Fight the enemy, square 400".

Commander "Rurik" A.M. Pyshnov immediately ordered to increase the speed to 20 nodes, and led the cruiser to the area indicated to him, where he arrived at 09.45, but, of course, he did not find anyone in the “400 square”, and by that time the first episode of the battle was over. Nevertheless, A.M. Pyshnov was able to make the right conclusions about the location of the main forces of the special purpose detachment, suggesting that "the brigade is driving the enemy to the north" and went after the ships of M.K. Bakhireva.



In 10.10, Rurik receives a new radiogram showing the course of the 1 th cruiser brigade (40 degrees). It did not contain any instructions for “Rurik”, therefore A.M. Pyshnov suggested that the enemy is located east of the cruisers M.K. Bakhirev (which was perfectly correct - the “Roon” was catching up on Russian cruisers from the southeast) and took the course of 20 degrees in order to be between the enemy ships and the coast of Kurland, that is, to take the enemy in two fires, cutting off his escape route. Then, on 10.20, there is a radiogram order: "Engage in battle with the Roon cruiser in the 408 square." A.M. Pyshnov, ordering to give a radiogram to the "Admiral Makarov" ("I go to you") ordered to turn on the 8 points to the left and led "Rurik" directly to the center of the square 408.

As we said earlier, approximately in 10.22-10.25 (the time in Russian and German sources is different) “Roon” left the battlefield with “Admiral Makarov”, turning south. But already in 10.30, following with Roon, “Lübeck” saw smoke in the east and turned “for clarification”. At that very moment, Roon and Augsburg finally found each other. The fact is that Commodore I. Karf, having heard the shooting at 10.00, went north, and now he met up with the detachment “Roona”. And the "Roon" and "Augsburg" turned to "Rurik", while the destroyers went with the "Augsburg", lined up at the side of a light cruiser, opposite the enemy.

At the same time, literally a few minutes after its turn, “Lübeck” considered a single silhouette, but it was impossible to understand what the ship was in front of him. "Lübeck" gave the searchlight an identification signal - "Rurik" answered him (naturally - incorrectly). And here “Lübeck” would be worth retreating, but he, deceived by the thin masts of the ship, believed that he saw the Novik in front of him, and the German light cruiser could easily cope with it, so Lübeck continued to advance. And only in 10.45 on the German cruiser, finally, they made out with whom they were dealing, and laid down the opposite course.

As for the "Rurik", then the situation looked like this. Around 10.28, on the cruiser, smoke was found to the right of its course, and after a short time, they saw three silhouettes heading towards the ship, one of which showed something with a searchlight. Apparently, A.M. Pyshnov immediately ordered to answer abracadabra. In 10.35, the Rurik was struck with a combat alarm, in 10.44 the ship’s control was transferred to the conning tower, and in 10.45, Rurik launched a sighting barrage for Lübeck from the forward 254-mm turret, to which the 203-front turrets soon joined, after a few minutes, the 120-mm guns entered the scene. The distance at the time of the opening of fire, according to domestic data, was 66 cables, at Lübeck it was considered that the distance at the time of opening fire was 60,2-65,6 cables. The German cruiser immediately went zigzagging, knocking down the sight to the gunners of Rurik and opened intensive fire from its guns. The Lübeck gunners demonstrated excellent training - one of the first volleys lay right under the Rurik’s nose, flooding the water and temporarily disabling its open-range range finders, and almost immediately the 105-mm projectile landed on the forecastle deck, pierced it and exploded into laundry room. In fact, “Lübeck” was able to shoot at literally some minutes after the opening of the fire, because Rurik received the first hit even before it transferred the fire to the “Roon”.


One type "Lübeck" light cruiser "Bremen"


At the same time, the Rurik's salvos were not accurate, giving only short shots, and there were only a few of them - the nasal 254-mm tower managed to fire two volleys, after which the second silhouette of the three could be identified in 10.50 - it turned out to be Roon . A.M. Pyshnov immediately ordered to turn, leading the enemy to the course angle 60 hail, in order to fight all overboard, and concentrated the fire on Roon. The German armored cruiser responded. At this time, Augsburg and Roon were still moving closer to Rurik, and this continued until 11.00, the distance between them was reduced from 82 to 76 KBT. By this time, "Lubeck" retreated from the Russian cruiser far enough so that it was transmitted by a searchlight (obviously, from the "Augsburg", although direct sources do not contain this) the order to go to Estergarnu, so that "Lubeck" went to the coast of Gotland and further, along it, to the base. Further rapprochement with the powerful Russian ship was clearly not in the interests of the Germans, so the "Augsburg" and the "Roon" lay down on a course parallel to "Rurik". From 11.00 until about 11.17, the skirmish continued without any maneuvers, but then Roon and Augsburg abruptly turned away from Rurik and headed south. Because of the large distances, this maneuver was not immediately noticed on the Rurik, but as soon as it became clear that the Germans were retreating, A.M. Pyshnov immediately ordered to turn directly on the enemy and in 11.20 "Rurik" went for "Roon".

However, it was at this moment that the report of the senior officer of the cruiser about the periscope periscope submarine entered the conning tower. In accordance with current regulations, A.M. Pyshnov immediately ordered to turn away to the left in order to turn around to the submarine astern. On board the "Rurik" they even observed the trail of a torpedo passing through the stern of the cruiser - in fact, the Germans did not have any submarine in that area. However, as a result of the reversal, the courses of the Russian and the German ships dispersed under 90 hail: "Rurik" went almost to the east, while the "Roon" and "Augsburg" with the destroyers - to the south. The Germans claim that the fire stopped even before the “Rurik” reversal, while according to their data, at the time of the “Rurik” ceasefire, 87,5 cables separated the Roon.

But then came, probably the most interesting moment of this episode. A.M. Petrov in the book “Two fights” writes:

"Dodging Ost from the attack of the boat, the cruiser lost sight of the enemy, and then lay down on N to go to the Gulf of Finland."


That is, it turns out that the cruiser, turning away from the submarine, in the future did not make any maneuver to get closer to the enemy and left the battlefield without brains. Without a doubt, such an act characterizes the commander of the "Rurik" is far from the best way. But if we open the work of S.E. Vinogradov and A. D. Fedechkin "" Rurik - the flagship of the Baltic fleet", Then we read a different description of this episode:

“Evading a possible attack, Rurik stopped firing for a while, and the enemy immediately took advantage of it, hiding in a shroud of fog. The unsuccessful pursuit followed him until almost noon, when the radio received an order from Rear Admiral MK Bakhirev to return to the base and join the squad, after which Rurik turned to the North.


In other words, it turns out that A.M. Pyshnov, having made a maneuver of evasion, then turned and rushed in pursuit, and left the battle later, having received the direct order of M.K. Bakhireva. Who is right after all?

To do this, let's try to decide when "Rurik" turned north. V.Yu. Gribovsky writes about it this way:

“Shy, Rurik abruptly turned left and stopped firing. The anxiety was false, but allowed the enemy to withdraw from the battlefield. In 10 h 40 mines on a hazy horizon could only see clouds of smoke from the German cruisers. The commander of "Rurik" turned north. "


Other researchers, for example, D.Yu. Kozlov. And this is how the German historian G. Rollman describes this episode:

"Rurik seemed to turn, then walked for some time beyond the range of fire, and finally disappeared completely from 10.45."


In other words, according to the Germans, the chase was all the same, since “Rurik” was “following”, but the Russian cruiser did not get close to the distance of fire and eventually turned away and left the battlefield.

We make a simple calculation. We know that after the “Rurik” cuff of a non-existent submarine (11.20) and before its turn to the north (11.40), 20 minutes passed. At the time of the lapel, the ships went south (Germans) and east (Russians) at an angle of almost 90 degrees. It is also known that “Rurik”, having entered the battle on 20 nodes during the chase, did not reduce speed. The Germans have developed no less speed, because after approaching the 76 KBT. they managed to break the distance to kbt 87,5.

So, let us imagine a giant triangle in which the Russian and German cruisers move along its legs, and the distance between them is a hypotenuse. If we assume that from 11.20 to 11.40 the Rurik did not catch up with the German squadron, but left it to the east, then both legs during this time “lengthened” by 6 miles each (this is how many 20 ships will pass through. 20 minutes in progress) . And this means that the distance between Rurik and Roon to 11.40 should have been no less than 171 cable. Of course, visibility to 11.40 improved a lot, but not as much. And given the fact that the Germans had lost their “Rurik” sight in 11.45, the distance between the opponents at the time of the loss of visibility should have made absolutely unbelievable 204 cable!

These are, of course, impossible figures, and therefore we state: having executed the evasion maneuver from submarines, A.M. Pyshnov turned his ship back on track and went to catch up with the Roon and its squad. Why not caught up? Say hard enough. Theoretically, Rurik should have had such an opportunity, because the ship had to develop its 21 hubs from с boilers, respectively, when all boilers were put into operation, the cruiser’s speed should have been even higher. But on the other hand, it is a theory, and the real maximum speed of “Rurik” in 1915, unfortunately, is unknown to the author. At the same time, the most slow-moving ship of the German detachment was the Roon, but even in tests it showed the 21,143 node. That is, we absolutely cannot rule out that the speed of Roon and Rurik in 1915 was comparable. Perhaps, "Rurik" and was a little faster, but he strongly broke the distance, performing a maneuver of evading from a submarine. When the German ships left for the south, and the Rurik - to the east, the distance between them increased by about 4,7 cables per minute. That is, even if we assume that “Rurik” went to the east for the entire 3-4 minute, and then turned back, then the distance between the enemies should have been 101-106 cables. That is, even if Rurik had a slight superiority in speed, it took time (and significant!) To get closer to the Germans at a distance sufficient to resume the fight. Recall that the "Rurik" ceased firing at the "Roon" immediately after its turnout from the submarine. Yes, "Rurik", of course, lay down a divergent course, but this could not prevent him from continuing to shoot at the "Roon"! However, he stopped, and this means that the distance was too great for aimed fire. Recall that in 11.50 on Rurik, Roon could only be identified when it was in 82 KB. from the Russian cruiser.

Therefore, assuming that the marginal visibility for actual artillery fire at that moment was about 90 cabels, and at the end of the submarine evasion maneuver, the distance between Roon and Rurik was 101-106 kbt., We come to the conclusion that if "Rurik" would have surpassed the German detachment in speed by a whole knot, then even then he needed from an hour to one and a half hours only to resume the fight! But not the fact that "Rurik" had a similar superiority.

It is not entirely clear what kind of radiogram M.K. Bakhirev on "Rurik." Some sources claim that this was a direct order from A.M. Pyshnov to get out of the battle and join the 1 th brigade, but the text of the radiogram itself is not given. Other sources mention the radiogram "Fear the approach of the enemy from the south", which was given by "Admiral Makarov" as soon as he heard the sounds of battle. As a matter of fact, the presence of this radio telegram does not refute and does not confirm the existence of an order to leave the battlefield. But even if there was no direct order - with what we can reproach the commander of "Rurik" A.M. Pyshnova?

As soon as he discovered the enemy (moreover, he was outnumbered) and even before he was able to determine the composition of the opposing detachment A.M. Pyshnov, however, goes to a rapprochement. As soon as the main opponent, “Roon” - “Rurik”, was identified, he leads him to the 60 course angle in order to be able to fight the whole board, while the Germans themselves were going to meet him. When "Lubeck" retired sufficiently from "Rurik", the Germans lay down on a parallel course, and A.M. Pyshnov did not interfere with this, but as soon as he noticed that the Germans were trying to get out of the battle, he immediately turned and went straight at them. Having found the periscope, he executed an evasion maneuver, and then continued the pursuit of the retreating enemy. None of these actions of the commander of the Russian ship deserves the slightest reproach - he fought, and in a very aggressive manner.

However, shortly after the resumption of persecution, it became clear that:

1. To resume artillery combat in the shortest possible time will not succeed;

2. German ships flee south;

3. M.K. At the very beginning of the battle, Bakhirev warned that the approach of enemy forces from the south should be feared.

So, for about an hour, the 11.40 "Rurik" was going exactly where from (according to MK Bakhirev) the enemy forces could approach. The further pursuit of “Roona” in such conditions simply lost its meaning - we said that for the renewal of the battle, and provided that “Rurik” was faster than one Roon node (which is far from a fact) A.M. It took Pyshnov an hour or one and a half only to resume the fight, but in order to get close to a distance, which allowed him to inflict decisive damage on Roon, in this case it was not the hour that was needed, but the watch. Given the threat of the appearance of enemy forces, this chase completely lost its meaning, and "Rurik" turned north.

I must say that M.K. Bakhirev, acted in a similar way. When shots were heard on “Admiral Makarov” and they understood that “Rurik” had joined the battle, Mikhail Koronatovich deployed his brigade and led it to the south. However, soon his cruisers lay back. Why?

On the one hand, having no advantage in speed over “Roon” to catch up with him, after the latter had disappeared from view, it was completely pointless. But the Russian commander could not know the circumstances of the beginning of the “Roon” battle with “Rurik”. It was possible that the “Roon” retreating to the south would be between the “Rurik” (if he were moving from the south) and the 1 th brigade of cruisers M.K. Bakhireva. Having an enemy in the north and in the south, the Roon squad only had to retreat to the coast of Gotland, that is, to the west, or to Kurland, that is, to the east. And in this case, a quick turnaround of the brigade of cruisers to the south, gave some hope to put the “Roon” in two flames and quickly destroy it.



The game was obviously worth the candle, and Mikhail Koronatovich turned his cruisers to the south. But time passed, but the German ships were not there, and this meant that the “Roon” still broke through the “Rurik” to the south (which actually happened in reality), and the “ticks” did not work. In this case, the prosecution of the Germans for the cruisers of the 1 th brigade lost its meaning, and M.K. Bakhirev turns his cruisers north. He is still threatened by an unknown squadron near Göstka-Sanden (which actually did not exist, but the Russian commander, of course, could not know this) and did not have time to waste him looking for a needle in a haystack - you need to connect with the “Tsarevich” and "Glory" and be ready for a big battle with armored German ships. That is why M.K. Bakhirev didn’t want the Rurik too shy towards the south - in this case it would be difficult to assist him with the combined forces of cruisers and battleships of cover.

Thus, the maneuvering of the Russian ships in the third (and last) episode of the battle in Gotland should be considered reasonable and sufficiently aggressive. And what about shooting accuracy? Unlike other episodes, we definitely know the consumption of Rurik projectiles: 46 254-mm, 102 203-mm and 163 120 mm high-explosive projectile. The first five minutes of the battle (10.45-10.50) “Rurik” fired at “Lübeck”, the next half hour - at “Roon”, in 11.20 the battle stopped and was no longer resumed. The Russian sailors believed that they had hit the Roon, but in fact not a single Rurik projectile hit the German ships.

Why did this happen?

Sources, alas, do not give an answer to this question - usually only a statement of fact follows, without explaining the reasons. In some cases, a description is given of the reasons that made shooting “Rurik” difficult, such as the water from the Lübeck salvo, which filled the rangefinders, which caused them to break down for some time, as well as the temporary ceasefire of the nasal 254-mm tower, due to the fact that the right gun failed the system of blowing the barrel. The tower was filled with gases at each attempt to blow the barrel, several people were poisoned. Generally speaking, these reasons are quite weighty and could explain the low percentage of hits - but not their complete absence.

As a result, the only reason for the disgusting shooting of "Rurik" has to be considered as poor training of its gunners. Since (again, according to most sources), the 1 th brigade of cruisers didn’t play off the Albatross (we already know that this is not the case), the opinion of the bad training of naval gunners of the Baltic Fleet in general took root. Meanwhile, there is a reason that explains very well the failure of Rurik in the battle of Gotland and it is extremely strange that she is not mentioned in any of the studies and monographs known to the author on this issue.

As we have said many times in the articles devoted to the actions of the Russian fleet in the Russian-Japanese war, artillery skills must be maintained with regular training sessions - if there are none, then the accuracy of ship-gun fire “slides” down. Examples include history with the reserve, in which in the 1911 g on 3 weeks the ships of the Black Sea fleet were withdrawn due to lack of funds for their combat training. After that, the accuracy of the shooting of the armored cruiser Memory of Mercury fell almost 1,6 times, and on the other ships of the squadron "almost doubled." The example of the Port-Arthur squadron, which, having just left the 2,5 monthly reserve in the 27 battle of January 1904 in January, showed far from the best result is indicative in this respect - the accuracy of firing large caliber guns was 1,1 times lower than that of the Japanese, medium caliber (152-203-mm) - respectively 1,5 times. However, at that time it was still possible to talk about some kind of comparability of the training of the Russian and Japanese commanders. However, the subsequent six-month stay on the roads of Port Arthur (only when S. Makarov fleet went to sea for training) led to the fact that in a battle in the Yellow Sea there were four Japanese in one Russian hit.

So, for some reason, domestic sources in the description of the results of the shooting of “Rurik” in Gotland miss the following fact. As you know, 1 February 1915, the strongest armored cruiser of the Baltic Fleet, was put forward to cover the mine, which the command was going to carry out in order to:

“To create difficulties for him in bringing up troops and equipment through the ports of Danzig Bay”.


Moving in conditions of near-zero visibility (fog and a strong snowstorm) due to the northern tip of the island of Gotland, the cruiser "rammed" the bottom of a stone jar, not marked on the maps. Other cruisers of the 1 Brigade, which also participated in that march, had a smaller draft and passed over it. As a result, “Rurik” was heavily damaged, taking 2 700 tons of water. The ship managed to drag Revel with great difficulty, but its draft was too large to enter the raid, so the cruiser was again aground (this time sandy). Subsequently, it had to be unloaded on 1 108 t, and the roofs of the towers and trunks were removed. 254-mm and 203-mm guns, in this form the cruiser was taken to Kronstadt.

"Rurik" was docked, but repair work on it was completed only by the end of April 1915 g. Then the ship was taken out of the dock, but work continued on it, and only 10 on May cruiser left Kronstadt to Revel "for additional equipment and equipment" (not for the installation of the guns removed from it?). As a result, "Rurik" was commissioned ... in the middle of June 1915, that is, just a few days before the raid on Memel.

Thus, the armored cruiser "Rurik" before the battle of Gotland did not have artillery practice for at least six months. While the remaining ships of the Baltic Fleet were actively recovering their skills after the winter, the Rurik was repaired in Kronstadt and "re-armed" in Reval. That, in the opinion of the author of this article, in combination with the above-mentioned factors (temporary failure of rangefinders, the nose tower of the main caliber) and predetermined the failure of his gunners. By the way, remembering that the Rurik was under repair for half a year before the operation, we can completely differently assess the position of the commander of the Baltic Fleet V.А. Canina, who did not want to send this cruiser to raid on Memel. It’s one thing to use a ship ready for “marching and fighting” in an operation, and quite another to send a cruiser there after a six-month gap in combat training.

And finally, the last aspect. S.E. Vinogradov and A. D. Fedechkin ““ Rurik - the flagship of the Baltic Fleet ”on the pages dedicated to the repair of the cruiser in 1915, write:

“Along with the repair of the hull and mechanisms, it was decided to simultaneously carry out work on the repair and modernization of cruiser artillery, including the replacement of all 10" and 8 "guns that had reached the full degree of wear, rebuilding Jenny’s speed regulators, rebuilding and cleaning the turning parts and lifting mechanisms of towers "


That is, to cover the mining operation in February 1915, the “Rurik” was going with completely executed guns, and of course, since the cruiser was under repair, it was necessary to correct this deficiency. But there is an interesting nuance: in the source we read about the “made decision”, but alas, there is no information about whether this decision was executed, but it could not be, especially given the fact that the Rurik towers were partially dismantled before his arrival in Kronstadt. Thus, there is a non-zero probability that the 19 June 1915, the cruiser was engaged in the battle of the guns that reached its limit on wear. However, the author of this article does not have sufficient data, and can only state the need for additional study of this issue.

I would like to note one more nuance. Usually, the unsuccessful shooting of “Rurik” is compared with the brilliant result of “Lübeck”, who achieved 10 or 11 (data differs from different sources) of hits. However, it should be noted that the "Lübeck" approached the "Rurik" closer to other German ships, at the time of opening the fire the distance between them was no more than 60-66 KBT. Then the "Lübeck" turned and retreated, continuing to shoot at the Rurik until the latter was within the reach of the X-gun of the German cruiser. At the same time, “Rurik” already after 105 minutes of the battle moved the fire to “Roon”, which was much further than “Lübeck” (the distance 5 kbt is indicated.). At the same time, Roon and Rurik did not converge more than 82 kb, and then the distance between them began to grow again, until it reached 76 kb.

So, the sources usually mention the squall fire of "Lübeck" ("the fourth salvo was fired when the other three were in the air"), but nowhere is it really described the time of hitting the Russian cruiser. It should be noted that "Lübeck", armed with 105-mm / 40 SK L / 40 arr 1898, with very modest characteristics - even at the limiting elevation angle (30 hail) the range of "Lübeck" guns did not exceed 12 200 m or approximately 66 KBT! Accordingly, it can be assumed that this was the case - the senior gunner of Lübeck, having correctly determined the distance, covered the Russian cruiser with the first volleys. Then he brought down a hail of shells on Rurik, having achieved 10 or 11 hits at the very beginning of the battle, while the distance did not exceed those limit 66 KBT., On which his guns could shoot. Then "Lubeck" distanced itself from "Rurik" and did not take any further part in the battle. At the same time, "Roon", leading the battle for at least half an hour at a distance of 76-87,5 KB. hits not achieved. We know that the gunners of the German armored cruiser were not stupid at all, so we can assume that the shooting conditions (first of all - visibility) hampered the German gunners, and therefore their colleagues on the Rurik.

In general, according to the third episode of the Gotland battle, we can state the following - Russian commanders, including the commander of “Rurik” A.M. Pyshnova acted very professionally and aggressively during the battle, and did not deserve any reproach. But ... If we consider the actions of A.M. Pyshnova, then we will see a very clear, but not mindless execution of the received orders. Having received the order of M.K. Bakhirev to join the battle, he arrived at the designated square, but found no one there. Nevertheless, he quite correctly decided that the enemy should be searched north of the square indicated to him - having gone there, he was able to enter the battle literally through some 20 minutes after Roon interrupted the battle with the 1 cruisers of the brigade .

However, the following question arises: the fact is that telegrams of the Baltic Fleet communications service, informing M.K. Bakhirev about the discovery of the group I. Karfa could not be given "targeted", on the flagship of the Russian commander of the special purpose detachment. In other words, all the telegrams that were sent from the coast of M.K. Bakhirev should have been accepted both on Novik and Rurik. In this case, it is rather strange that they were ignored on both Russian ships - the Rurik remained “in the mist” southeast of the interception site, and the Novik went to winter apartments in general. You can, of course, assume that neither Rurik nor Novik received these telegrams - radio communication in those days left much to be desired, and even in the same Jutland battle we see a lot of sent but not received radiograms. It is also possible that radiograms sent to M.K. Bakhirev was coded in a special way, which could not be disassembled on other cruisers of the detachment, but the author does not know anything about it. However, we see that A.M. Pyshnov and M.A. Berens received the radiograms of his immediate commander, M.K. Bakhirev, and immediately proceeded to their implementation, but the radiograms sent to Mikhail Koronatovich passed by them - and this is a mystery of the battle of Gotland 19 June 1915 g. At least for the author of this article.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Gotland bout 19 June 1915 g. Part of 1
Gotland bout 19 June 1915 g. Part of 2
Gotland bout 19 June 1915 g. Part of 3. Cruisers opened fire
Gotland bout 19 June 1915 g. Part of 4. Carfat Retreat
Gotland bout 19 June 1915 g. Part of 5. How to shoot the Russian commanders
Gotland bout 19 June 1915 g. Part of 6. Shooting with Roon
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    Cat 1 May 2018 07: 16
    +6
    Andrew sincerely thanks for the article!
    Sincerely, Kitty!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 May 2018 11: 57
      +3
      You are always welcome, dear Kitty!
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 1 May 2018 08: 05
    +8
    Damn, that's how it is! request The author clearly explains many of the nuances of the actions of each of the participants in the battle, but they are so at odds with the official (and not only) interpretations of the results that nothing can be said except “bravo”. yes
    Moreover, the author is reading in one breath and the feeling of regret causes only the languid expectation of the next article. winked
    The "accuracy" of the "Rurik" shooting is very convincingly explained - I absolutely agree. Any skills are confirmed by practice, and as we see, the Rurik gunners practically didn’t have any time, that's why the results are such. request So the common sense and logical explanations of the author completely explain what is accepted by many of our "historians" and publicists to call shame on Father Gotland.
    Andrei Nikolaevich, bravo for interesting material good drinks hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 May 2018 12: 22
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Moreover, the author is reading in one breath and the feeling of regret causes only the languid expectation of the next article.

      Thank you, dear Andrew!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The author clearly explains many of the nuances of the actions of each of the participants in the battle, but they are so at odds with the official (and not only) interpretations of the results

      Honestly, I just don’t understand how the same Gribovsky could lose sight of Rurik’s repair.
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 1 May 2018 13: 31
        +6
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Honestly, I just don’t understand how the same Gribovsky could lose sight of Rurik’s repair.

        And personally, I understand, although for this you need to compare yourself with the monographers, but somehow this comparison is not entirely in my favor laughing Yes, you yourself, probably, have been in a situation where, it would seem, everyone found, everyone covered, everyone took into account, rummaged through a bunch of information, the picture is formed ... And behind this bunch of information they did not notice an elephant. But when writing a monograph, the volume of work goes off scale, and just missing out on something even quite noticeable is easy.
        No, not even that. It happened to you. that you, before turning blue, are looking for something that lies in the most visible place, but cannot find it? wassat This is about the same. Only the author still does not know what specifically to look for.

        In general, monographers and other “official sources” should always be treated with a certain degree of understanding of the fact that they are people too, and they can also be mistaken, not to mention the fact that due to some personal preferences they can give erroneous assessment. Thank you, of course, to these people for the fact, but it’s better to draw your own conclusions hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 May 2018 15: 26
          +5
          Quote: arturpraetor
          Yes, you yourself, probably, have been in a situation where, it would seem, everyone found, everyone covered, everyone took into account, rummaged through a bunch of information, the picture is formed ... And behind this bunch of information they did not notice an elephant.

          I don’t know, dear colleague. This is usually the case with me - I read this or that monograph, and I see how, through its pages, this or that elephant is greeting me with big ears. Sometimes - pink :))))) Sometimes even a few :))))
          In general, as my colleague Byakin once wrote to me: “I don’t need drugs at all, I see a picturesque life without them”
          And then I take this elephant for the trunk, and .... I take up the article :))))
          Quote: arturpraetor
          In general, monographers and other "official sources" should always be treated with a certain degree of understanding of the fact that they are people too, and they can also be mistaken, not to mention the fact that due to some personal preferences they can give erroneous assessment.

          Without any doubt.
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor 1 May 2018 15: 45
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            This is usually the case with me - I read this or that monograph, and I see how, through its pages, this or that elephant is greeting me with big ears. Sometimes - pink :))))) Sometimes even a few :))))

            Lucky for you with care laughing It often happens to me like that. Most, of course, can be corrected by myself, having noticed in time when re-reading and re-going through the sources, but to take into account everything at once ... This is sooooo rare.
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 1 May 2018 16: 04
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And then I take this elephant for the trunk, and .... I take up the article :)))

            And the articles are very informative wink yes
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 1 May 2018 16: 05
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        how the same Gribovsky could lose sight of Rurik’s repair.

        Maybe it’s just not bogged down in the context of this battle. request Different people look at one problem differently. yes
        You are linked to the low effectiveness of the shooting of "Rurik", Gribovsky did not ...
      3. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 1 May 2018 21: 15
        +5
        I apologize for being absent for a long time.
        The cycle is interesting, set out correctly. In general - BIG AND THICK APPROVES hi drinks
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 1 May 2018 23: 44
          +4
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          I apologize for being absent for a long time.

          Hmm, quite a while ago .... what
          All the same, your female view of a person familiar with the history of the Navy has a rather positive effect on the general atmosphere of discussions. yes hi
          1. Grafova Irina
            Grafova Irina 3 May 2018 15: 59
            +2
            Thank you wink
            I had to leave, but there was no time for serious conversations smile
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 May 2018 12: 56
          +2
          Quote: Irina Grafova
          The cycle is interesting, set out correctly. In general - BIG AND THICK APPROVES

          Thank you, Irina, good to hear! drinks
          1. Grafova Irina
            Grafova Irina 3 May 2018 15: 53
            +3
            So that's what ... Once upon a time, when there were such funny ZX Sinclair computers, a group of enthusiasts tried to make an outdoor-desktop VM game. By analogy with Napoleonics, when armies gathered in 1000–3000 figures and moved according to the most complex rules until someone won or the people themselves fell. Some from vodka, some from lack of sleep. I was more often a mediator, so I got double. Like any judge in any sport ...
            So, I’ve overlooked the scorecards for the assessment of the "capital spike" of the times of 1MB ... If it’s interesting, then for this battle it turns out:
            Roon 0,1
            Admiral Makarov 0,07
            Rurik 0,25.
            As you can see, “Rurik” utterly surpassed its opponent in terms of declared, so to speak, TTX.
            Also, if interested, the later BrKr had such coefficients:
            Warrior 0,2; Minotaur 0,25; Gneisenau 0,15; "Blucher" 0,25 (equal to "Rurik"); "Jules Michelet" and "Waldeck Russo" 0,2; of the Italian “Garibaldi” only 0,1 (in Amalfi, as I recall, the data were not found on the shells, but also about 0,2, probably), Austria-Hungary - a white spot, alas; USA (USA - or rather at that time) "Maryland" 0,15; “Tennis” 0,3 (what a time!); Tsukuba 0,35; “Ibuki” 0,4 (although some “hotheads” like Smirnov’s brothers from MK managed to write down in BrKr and “Aki”).
            Where does this number come from? Very simple. This is the basis for a more thorough study. And the Dreadnought is taken as the unit of measurement. From him and dance ...
            “Moltke” versus “Lyon” in “pure form” - as 1 to 1,25. But Seidlitz is already 1,15 ...
            Here is such arithmetic .... hi
  3. faiver
    faiver 2 May 2018 16: 48
    +1
    as always stop a hundred pluses, with the holidays of all hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 May 2018 17: 13
      +1
      And you, namesake, with the coming!
  4. Alex
    Alex 2 May 2018 17: 25
    +3
    With great pleasure I read the whole cycle. Andrew, as always - respect good ! Thank you so much and look forward to continuing.
  5. Comrade
    Comrade 3 May 2018 02: 50
    +2
    Dear Andrey, sensibly you have put everything on the shelves with the maneuvering of "Rurik", bravo +!
    A few words on the topic :-)
    to cover up the mining operation in February 1915. "Rurik" came with completely shot guns

    This is not entirely true, the 8 guns in May 1915 were exchanged for seven Russian and one English Vickers firms, so in the battle the medium-caliber guns were, so to speak, from the needle.
    But the 10 "guns were shot, so the absence of hits is quite understandable. By the summer of 1914, 353 combat shots and 738 training were made of them. If you count the training in combat, you will get 371 combat, and all 724 combat. We can say that the guns were shot twice, based on the criteria of the American Navy ..
    At the same time, “Rurik”, after 5 minutes of battle, transferred fire to the “Roon”

    Staff writes that the duel between Lübeck and Rurik lasted fifteen minutes.
    At the same time, "Roon", leading the battle for at least half an hour at a distance of 76-87,5 kbt. hits did not reach.

    According to the report of the cruiser commander, the fire was fired for twenty minutes, while the distance (140-160 hectometers, that is, 75.59-86.39) was "too big."
    To be continued.

    We look forward to promising to be interesting :-)
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 8 May 2018 23: 13
      0
      Quote: Comrade
      But 10 "guns were shot, so the absence of hits is quite understandable. By the summer of 1914, 353 combat shots and 738 training shots were fired from them. If you convert the training to combat, you get 371 combat, and only 724 combat.

      An interesting nuance by the way. Rurik’s guns were shot in the trash even before the outbreak of war on continuous training firing, but Rurik’s persistently continue to explain poor firing with insufficient artillery practice. :)
  6. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 7 May 2018 20: 43
    0
    Amazingly true. The article allegedly released on May 1, 2018, was first seen only now and then by reference from another article! This is despite the fact that on holidays, in view of the sudden weekend, purely from boredom, I carefully looked through all the sites I was interested in every day. It is interesting that the previous articles are series from April 17, for example, I have not seen either. Topvar seems to have a very peculiar idea of ​​the availability of material, not every IP and every day sees what is published there ..

    The article did not like. And I didn’t like it much. The confusion in the description of the battle, I did not understand who was going where and why. "Rurik-2" is the "bastard" of the Russian fleet, obviously useless, and as it turned out immediately after the descent, the helpless cruiser is not even able to shoot its main caliber. If anyone forgot exactly the grand scandal over Rurik-2 in the first Duma caused a shake-up in the Maritime Department of the Republic of Ingushetia and the resignation (finally !!!) of the mediocre Admiral Rozhdestvensky from the main fleet administration.

    Well, the very description of the battle does not shine with clarity, the named distances in 171 cab. this is if someone does not remember 31.6 kilometers, while the visibility of the horizon in the sea from the deck is about 18 kilometers.

    A rare case, but this article did not like.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      8 May 2018 16: 34
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      The confusion in the description of the battle, I did not understand who was going where and why.

      You are the first to reproach me with this. Honestly, I can’t imagine how to explain in even more detail. What exactly is not clear to you?
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Well, the very description of the battle does not shine with clarity, the named distances in 171 cab. this is if someone does not remember 31.6 kilometers, while the visibility of the horizon in the sea from the deck is about 18 kilometers.

      Sorry, but it feels like you read the article completely on the run. 171 kb are given exactly as an impossible distance
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 8 May 2018 20: 15
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You are the first to reproach me with this. Honestly, I can’t imagine how to explain in even more detail. What exactly is not clear to you?

        Sorry got excited. Probably the blame should be given to the commanders of Russian ships and detachments. This "Rurik-2" wandered around the sea like a hedgehog in the fog, the motives or reasons for the maneuvers being performed are very difficult to recognize. And you can’t even say that they tried to escape, but what they were doing was also not clear. The episode with "Nuremberg" sprinkled with water for our heroes at all looks humiliating.
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 8 May 2018 20: 53
          0
          Sorry, “Lubeck” of course :) Alas, Bahirev is not a drop or von Spee.
    2. Alex
      Alex 11 May 2018 22: 18
      +2
      Quote: Saxahorse
      untalented admiral RozhДostvensky
      Rozhdestvensky, with your permission ...
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 11 May 2018 23: 15
        0
        You are absolutely right. Sorry if you touched you personally. I hope you are not his close relative.
        1. Alex
          Alex 15 May 2018 17: 05
          +1
          Everything is in order, not touched and not a relative. Just, first, the teacher's habit winked and secondly, the site is quite popular and authoritative, beginners can misprints and take it at face value ...
    3. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 14 May 2018 06: 44
      0
      I agree with you. Article by nothing. The commander of the ship had their own cockroaches in our heads, and we are discussing artillery men. Look at how many mediocre commanders there were about the Tsushima battle. Take at least Christmas. Shameful surrender of ships, not their explosion and sinking. We see such a school as a commander’s ball, not counting Stepan Osipovich Makarov. The commander is guilty rather than the guns and gunners. It’s silly to write about it without knowing the commander’s thoughts. Andrey, as always, wrote a blunder and an incident.
  7. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 8 May 2018 13: 33
    +1
    "Rurik" came with completely shot guns, and of course, since the cruiser was under repair, this defect should be corrected. But there is an interesting nuance: in the source we read about the “decision made”, but alas, there is no information about whether this decision was executed, but it could not have been, especially since the Rurik towers were partially understaffed before his arrival in Kronstadt. Thus, there is a non-zero probability that on June 19, 1915, the cruiser fought from guns that reached their wear limit.


    To remove the roofs of the towers, to remove the guns, so that after repair they could be installed again with the shot barrels? This is unlikely - usually such orders are executed ahead of time. Most likely, since it was decided to disarm - that means the trunks were on the way - it should be in the archive.
    By the way, replacing the trunks also affects accuracy very much, you need to make a sighting, make corrections for each gun - this requires more than one exit to the sea for firing.

    I would like to note one more nuance. Usually, the unsuccessful shooting of Rurik is compared with the brilliant result of Lübeck, who achieved 10 or 11 hits (different sources differ). However, it should be noted that the Lubeck approached the Rurik closer than other German ships, at the time of the opening of the fire, the distance between them was no more than 60-66 kbt. Then the Lubeck turned and retreated, continuing to shoot at the Rurik until the latter was within the reach of the 105-mm guns of the German cruiser. At the same time, “Rurik” after 5 minutes of the battle transferred the fire to the “Roon”, which was much further “Lubeck” (indicated distance 82 kbt.).


    Nothing prevented the Russian gunners from achieving at least one hit in the Lübeck at such a distance in 5 minutes, having the ability to deploy 4 pieces 254/50 mm, 4 pieces 203/45 mm and 10 pieces 120/50 from the side
    Although at a rate of fire of 105 mm / 40 SK.
    I doubt that firing at the Roon from 203 mm and 254 mm guns, 120 mm did not fire at the Lubeck
    This is a clear debacle.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      8 May 2018 16: 31
      +2
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      To remove the roofs of the towers, to remove the guns, so that after repair they could be installed again with the shot barrels?

      The problem is that they were removed in Revel, and apparently, nobody brought them to Kronstadt from there (once the ship went back) - but in Revel they could not have been repaired.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Nothing prevented the Russian gunners from achieving at least one hit in the Lübeck at such a distance in 5 minutes, having the ability to deploy 4 pieces 254/50 mm from the side

      Rurik shot his nose, and in order to achieve a hit in 5 minutes, you need a very good preparation, and not six months of standing for repair.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 8 May 2018 20: 21
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Rurik shot his nose, and in order to achieve a hit in 5 minutes, you need a very good preparation, and not six months of standing for repair.

        It is unclear what RMS of Rurik-2 was at that time and whether it was at all. How they were going to shoot three calibers at the same time is a mystery. 66 cab. this is a decent distance, you can’t get into my eyes, but I didn’t get any descriptions of how they got out. There is a suspicion that the whole war Rurik-2 shot exclusively "towards the enemy."
  8. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 10 May 2018 10: 48
    +1
    Oops ... how did I miss such an article. sad
    The Lübeck gunners demonstrated excellent training - one of the first salvos lay right under the Rurik’s nose, flooding with water and temporarily disabling its open-standing rangefinders

    That's interesting - but what happened to the bow rangefinder, standing in the rangefinder cabin?
    The range to the target was measured by two horizontal-base combining range finders “Barr and Strud” (base 2743 mm) installed in the bow and stern rangefindings.
    In the main reserved volume of felling, baffles for rangefinder posts were distinguished, the upper part of which rose above the roof of the felling itself. The thickness of the walls of the felling itself was 203 mm (the plates were fastened with vertical dowels), and the roofs were 51 mm. The wall thickness of the rangefinder partitions was 152 mm, the roof 38 mm.
    © S.E. Vinogradov, A.D. Fedechkin. Rurik is the flagship of the Baltic Fleet.
    In longitudinal sections, the nose rangefinder is clearly visible - it rises above the conning tower.
  9. 7gor
    7gor 18 May 2018 00: 31
    0
    Thanks for the hard work.