British Tsushima

79
British Tsushima

On July 28, 1914, La Grande guerre began, or the First World War, or the Second Patriotic War, or the German War. More precisely, for Russia it began on August 1, when Germany declared war on Russia, but not the essence, we are not interested in Europe, but quite Asia. Just like Russia, and France, and all other Powers, Germany, owning the port and naval base of Qingdao in China, kept the German East Asian squadron there. The squadron is a loud word for two armored cruisers, three light cruisers, four gunboats and other trifles of outdated types, and the 4000 soldiers of the Qingdao garrison are not the support that this squadron could rely on.

As a result, the squadron of Maximilian von Spee left, leaving in the base completely ancient junk like the Austrian cruiser Kaiserin Elizabeth. And she left without a clear plan, not to count as such a breakthrough into Germany besieged from the sea across two oceans with accompanying cruising operations? However, there was no choice - Qingdao held out against the Japanese for seven days and surrendered due to the exhaustion of ammunition, and Spee had no other German or friendly ports. There were islands in the Pacific Ocean, but these are not bases, not ports, and in general - solid "not".




In the process, the commander of the cruiser "Emden" persuaded Spee to separate his ship for cruising operations in the Indian Ocean and notably "had fun" there. Among the victims were Russian ships - the ship Volunteer fleet "Ryazan", turned by the commander of "Emden" into an auxiliary cruiser, fortunately even reinforcements for the guns were present, and the cruiser "Pearls" in Penang, whose commander once again proved that it was not admirals who were destroying ships, but slovens with officer's epaulets. However, the way the fleets of four powers at once caught "Emden" and still caught, story the other, Spee himself moved to the Atlantic, to the shores of Chile, which was considered friendly to the German Empire. Why was the city of Papeete in Tahiti bombarded on the way, God knows, without coal from local warehouses it was possible to do without. But it was this appearance of a previously carefully hidden squadron that forced the British to send their ships to the coast of South America.

And then a story begins, somewhat similar to the history of the bad memory of the Second Pacific Squadron. Fleet - he, of course, was a Grand, but he was physically lacking in all directions. As a result, what was sent to the raid across the ocean was the Canopus EBR, built in 1899, withdrawn from the reserve and hastily manned with a crew of reservists, two armored cruisers Monmouth and Good Hope, both from the reserve and manned similarly, the light cruiser "Glasgow" of the "Bristol" class, the ship is new and with a regular crew. Christopher Cradock, an honored 52-year-old admiral with combat experience - the occupation of Cyprus in 1878 and the suppression of the boxing uprising in 1900 - was put in command of this unit.

Formally, if you count by pieces of iron, the British were much stronger. One "Canopus" is four 305-mm guns, 12 152-mm guns, 152 mm Krupp armor in the form of a belt and 18 full-speed knots. "Good Hope" is two 234-mm guns, 16 152-mm guns, 51-152 mm Krupp belt armor and 23 full-speed knots. "Monmouth" - 14 152-mm guns, 51-102 mm belts and 23 full-speed knots. All this was opposed by "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisnau" - twin brothers of the gloomy Teutonic genius, carrying for two 16 guns of 210 mm caliber and 12 - 150 mm, with a speed of 23 knots and a belt of 150 mm. Even without the battleship, formally, the British are stronger. 2 234 mm and 30 152 mm versus 28 guns from the Germans, the armor is comparable, the speed is also.

It's time to accuse Cradock of stupidity, indecision, tyranny, lack of a battle plan and inept maneuvering, but ... First, the Canopus did not have time, because the paper speed and the real speed turned out to be, as it were, slightly different ... Secondly, the regular crews of the Germans, undergoing constant training and shooting, turned out to be an order of magnitude better in the accuracy of fire, and in speed, and in the correctness of the execution of orders, and in general - simply better, from the last stoker to the Spee himself, who had served for a long time these ships and with these people. The technical condition is also - a ship from a reserve and an operating ship are different ships.

As a result, we have two squadrons - one has just been withdrawn from the reserve, manned with crews from a pine forest and has no combat experience. The second is a personnel one and has already managed to shoot, at least along the coast. And two admirals - one led the welded crews of his people, who were also trained by him, the second - a team of spare on ships that they themselves had not mastered. Further developments have two methods of study. It can be analyzed that there on November 1, 1914, Coronel had in detail, who maneuvered how, fired, what orders he gave, and the like. You can build a hundred versions according to maneuvering schemes, or you can study shells and gun ballistics. But there is a simpler way - to admit that the German regular artillerymen with well-aimed fire disorganized the British fire, turning it into firing somewhere in the direction of the enemy from the surviving guns, and the inept work of the survivability parties did not allow timely liquidation of the damage.

As a result, the accumulation of these two factors led to what led to - both British armored cruisers were killed, no one escaped. They tried (the tradition of looking for scapegoats is strong not only in Russia) to turn Cradock into an extreme for everything. More precisely, for two ships, 1654 British sailors, and this despite the fact that the Germans lost 2 people wounded and received a total of seven hits. But strictly speaking - Cradock was ordered to kill himself against the wall, in the sense of intercepting the enemy, he did it. He could not drag the Canopus with him, at its speed it was unrealistic to catch up with anyone, and in battle, a speed of 12 knots and lack of training of the crew would have led to an increase in the number of victims. Sir Christopher politely hinted to the leadership that his forces were incapable of fighting, in response they also politely hinted at Sir Christopher's cowardice, and he went. For me, there is such a complete analogy with Zinovy ​​- to seize the sea so to seize the sea, he went. The whole difference - the British could send the latest ships to the Focklands, and the British Tsushima ended with the German Tsushima, and we had no one to send.

And so - the British implemented the only reasonable plan - to damage the raiders and cover the export of saltpeter from Chile, disrupting the cruising operations of the Germans in this way. Unlucky, fresh weather and undeveloped materiel did not allow this. In theory, you could get lucky - a couple of serious hits and Spee's internment was guaranteed. Ten years earlier, it could have been lucky for us too - knock out, apart from Asama, Mikasa and Fuji, for which there were prerequisites, the Balts would have come to Vladivostok with part of their forces, and the peace treaty would have become more interesting for Russia. And so it happened that it happened, both with them, and with us. And it could not be otherwise, if only because how far in the capitals they often consider iron, and not the real picture, and the admirals on the bridges in those days still understood the word honor correctly, and acted according to this honor, not being able to refuse the authorities with his bad innuendo, and giving retired interviews about dumb bosses years later.

In this context, Sir Christopher Cradock is a man of duty, and his squadron is an example of the British spirit and the principle "I die, but I do not give up." By the way, like in our squadron, the British had Glasgow and the auxiliary cruiser Otranto left, abandoning their comrades from the armored cruisers in a lofty manner, and rescuing their ships in a normal way. Unlike Enquist, no one condemned them. Why give the enemy extra victories. A little later, at the Focklands, when the British would finish off Spee, German light cruisers would rush to break through. Why lose everything in a lost battle.
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +29
    3 August 2021 04: 06
    Good morning everyone and have a nice day!

    Well, "British Tsushima" - it is too loudly said, the losses are incommensurable, and the defeat of the British at Coronel did not affect the course and outcome of the war. The Germans, of course, slapped the "mistress of the seas", but that was all. Actually, this is not even an article, but some kind of brief reviewer about the fact that once there was something, it looks like something, but it doesn’t seem to be the same. And for some reason a photo of "Emden" was inserted, which did not take part in this battle.
    In general, it's boring, brothers and sisters.
    I'll try to color it a little. smile


    1. +9
      3 August 2021 04: 47
      Quote: Sea Cat
      And for some reason a photo of "Emden" was inserted, which did not take part in this battle.
      [/ thumb]
      [/ Center]

      so do you have Falklands in the photo)) The article, I agree, is for a small children's encyclopedia
      1. +8
        3 August 2021 05: 02
        I believed that the three-pipe Monmouth was sinking, the signature was "The Battle of the Coronel". Why did you decide that this is the Falklands?

        Good Hope carried four trumpets.
        1. +10
          3 August 2021 05: 12
          this is a famous painting. Actually, the signature on it can be seen
          1. +11
            3 August 2021 05: 26
            You are absolutely right, Ivan. good And I, for the umpteenth time, reproach myself for haste.
            Let's be healthy regardless of any covid! drinks
            1. +7
              3 August 2021 05: 48
              drinks mutually! "And, however, no cholera will take me until my death" (c)
              1. +7
                3 August 2021 06: 05
                However, anything can happen in life, here is a vivid example from "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller. laughing

                What am I talking about? Continued the warrant officer, the painter. - Why did this happen to him? I don't see any logic in the divine system of rewards and punishments. Look at what happened to me. Had I picked up syphilis or gonorrhea for five minutes of bliss on the beach instead of the damned mosquito bite, then I might have said that there is justice in the world. But malaria! Malaria! Why, pray tell, should a man pay for his fornication with malaria?

                The Warrant Officer shook his head in disbelief.

                “Take me, for example,” said Yossarian. “One evening in Marrakech, I went out of the tent to get a bar of chocolate, and I got a gonorrhea meant for you. A girl from the women's auxiliary corps, whom I had never seen before, lured me into the bushes.

                “Yes, it looks like you really got my gonorrhea,” the warrant officer agreed. - And I caught someone's malaria. - I would like everything to fall into place once and for all: let everyone get what they deserve. Then I, perhaps, will still believe that the world is arranged justly.


                Favorite book, even though I'm not a pacifist.
      2. +14
        3 August 2021 05: 06
        These ships
        Admiral von Spee and his ships "Südsee-Geschwader" - cruisers "Scharnhorst", "Gneisenau", "Nuremberg", "Leipzig" and "Dresden"
        1. +15
          3 August 2021 05: 08
          Sank these ships
          Good Hope
          "Monmouth"
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +15
            3 August 2021 05: 18
            Hello Serge! hi
            Well, then the portrait of Cradock too

            And the escaped "Glasgow", led by the "firm hand" of his "heroic" commander Luce. laughing
            1. +12
              3 August 2021 05: 24
              It seems that the British (as far as I remember) didn’t escape from both ships, and the Germans didn’t die, is that so or not? Well, but Glasgow ... I don’t know ... the British themselves argued for a long time - they did the right thing, they did the wrong thing - God will judge them ...
              1. +13
                3 August 2021 05: 32
                Meanwhile, the darkness deepened. The Scharnhorst rangefinders used the Monmouth fires to measure the distance, but all attempts to measure the distance, aiming and adjustments became so inaccurate that at 19.26 the fire was stopped.
                At 19.23:19.20 pm, a column of fire was seen from an explosion between the pipes of the Good Hope. Monmouth stopped firing at 19.20. Small cruisers, including "Nuremberg", at 20.58 received an order by radio to pursue the enemy and attack his ships with torpedoes. Visibility has deteriorated due to a storm of rain. The light cruisers could not find the Good Hope, but the Nuremberg met the Monmouth and at XNUMX managed to force it to roll over with point-blank shots. Not a single shot was fired in response. It was impossible to even think about rescue work in such a strong excitement, especially because the "Nuremberg" decided that she was seeing the smoke of another ship, and prepared for a new attack.
                Small cruisers had neither losses nor damage during the battle. At the Gneisenau, 2 people were lightly wounded. The crews of the ships fought with enthusiasm, all did their duty and played their part in achieving victory.

                http://wunderwafe.ru/HistoryBook/BattleofGigants/Coronel.htm
                http://militera.lib.ru/h/corbett/25.html


                Yes, Luce and subsequently did not differ in particular courage, A. Sick in his book preached him well. Luce was a hero only when nothing threatened him, so under Coronel he, under a plausible pretext, most likely saved not the ship, but his precious ass.
              2. +13
                3 August 2021 05: 36
                And who definitely shouldn't be blamed for the flight is Otranto. Where is he with such wolves ...
    2. +6
      3 August 2021 10: 23
      "Even without an armadillo, the British are formally stronger ..." is how you need to count (or understand the subject) so that the British are "stronger" ???? (Even if formally)
      1. 0
        7 August 2021 23: 08
        The English are weaker without the battleship.
        Drake-class cruisers have been optimized to deal with French and Russian armored cruisers.
        And cruisers of the "Kent" type are used to combat armored cruisers.
    3. 0
      8 September 2021 11: 13
      It is entirely possible that in the photo there is Emden's sister ship, Dresden, which participated in the battle.
  2. +8
    3 August 2021 06: 09
    Gallop across Europe, and you add in the comments
  3. kig
    +6
    3 August 2021 06: 16
    What is this all about? What would it be for?
  4. +5
    3 August 2021 06: 29
    Russia was indirectly related to the events: on October 4, a British radio station on about. Suva (Fiji Islands) intercepted a German semi-coded radio message to the Admiral Headquarters and decoded it only because the British received German codes from "Magdeburg" from Russia.

    So the German squadron was discovered.
    Why on the way, the city of Papeete in Tahiti was bombarded, God knows, it was quite possible to do without coal from local warehouses. But it was this appearance of a previously carefully hidden squadron that forced the British to send their ships to the coast of South America.
    Then, that the Germans were in dire need of provisions and coal and they went to the French colonies.

    On September 21, the cruisers anchored in Tavanui Bay on about. Bora Bora is 160 miles from Tahiti. The French flag was raised on the Scharnhorst, and the local authorities mistook the Germans for their own. The local chief, the gendarme brigadier, not only gave a warm welcome to the squadron officers who spoke French, but also paid a visit to Spee on the Scharnhorst. The admiral, in whose salon the portrait of Kaiser Wilhelm II was replaced by the portrait of the English king, freely communicated with this brigadier in his language. the brigadier, not noticing the catch, rendered every possible assistance to replenish the stocks of provisions, being in full confidence that the squadron was French.

    However, Bora Bora was too small an island to actually replenish food supplies for the nearly two thousand men of the squadron. But the gendarme reported, among other things, that in Papete, the main city of Tahiti, there are 20 gendarmes and about 25 soldiers with their lieutenant, while in the harbor there is a French gunboat (motor-sailing schooner) "Zele" (crew of 98 sailors) and captured by her in as a prize rThe German steamship "Valkyrie" with 3000 tons of coal..(from)

    these 3000 tons of coal and a coal warehouse were the target.

    But, to the credit of the French, they found the enemy in time, fired at him and burned down the warehouse and drowned the coal miner.
  5. +7
    3 August 2021 06: 44
    There was no Triple Alliance, maybe already it will be enough to write in Russian textbooks about the alleged alliance of Russia, France and Britain before the First World War? A defensive alliance was only between France and Russia, concluded in 1893, while Britain was not in any alliance with either Russia or France. That is why the Kaiser decided to start a war with France and Russia, since he and his entourage believed that Britain would remain neutral, especially since the British Foreign Minister Sir Alexander Gray confirmed the neutral status of Britain in the future war of Germany against France and Russia. The reason for Britain's entry into the war was the German invasion of Belgium, but not Britain's allied commitment to France or Russia.
    1. 0
      12 September 2021 11: 18
      As far as I remember, the Triple Alliance is an alliance of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Italy. To Russia, France and Britain, respectively, has nothing to do.
  6. +10
    3 August 2021 06: 47
    Author, you need to agree on all the nuances! At the disposal of Cradock there was also an armored cruiser "Defense" with 4-324mm and 10-190mm guns. And the Admiralty recommended that Cradock first gather his forces together. But these are his problems, that he left the Canopus in Port Stanley (with his speed, help in the ocean would be questionable), but the Defense was also redirected to Montevideo by the Admiralty, although Cradock was counting on him very much. As a result, if the Russian General Music School shoved all the rubbish to help Rozhdestvensky, the Admiralty managed to scatter even what could be scraped up in different theaters. The result is known. Cradock went into battle with what he had request
    1. +5
      3 August 2021 10: 52
      Quote: Rurikovich
      At the disposal of Cradock there was also an armored cruiser "Defense" with 4-324mm and 10-190mm guns. And the Admiralty recommended that Cradock first gather his forces together.

      "Defense" Cradock was promised. And then they gave Stoddart to the second group:
      “Your concentration of Good Hope, Canopus, Monmouth, Glasgow and Otranto for joint operations coincides with our opinion. Stoddart is ordered to go to Montevideo at Carnavon. Defense has been ordered to join Carnavon. It will also have Cornwall, Bristol, Macedonia and Orama at its disposal. Essex will stay in the West Indies. "

      That is, the Admiralty considered Cradock's forces already sufficient.
      Moreover, Stoddart's group was separate from Cradock's group - Stoddart's task was to intercept Spee if Cradock missed him.
      “Follow the trade route from Sierra Leone to Montevideo, calling for Pernambuco. The Defense will follow you from Gibraltar. You will be subordinate to Cornwall, Bristol, Macedonia and Orama. Keep sufficient forces ready in case the German squadron escapes from Cradock, which is near the Falkland Islands. "

      And when Cradock tried to join the Defense to his group, the Admiralty canceled this order:
      Defense will remain on the east coast under Stoddart's command. This will leave sufficient strength on both sides. The Japanese battleship Hizen is expected soon off the coast of North America to link up with the Izumo and Newcastle and sail south to the Galapagos Islands. "

      And only on November 3, when everything was already over, the Admiralty decided to strengthen Cradock's group:
      "Defense" is ordered to go to you with all haste. Glasgow must maintain contact with the enemy. You must keep in touch with Glasgow, focusing your entire squadron, including Canopus. It is very important that you link up with Defense as early as possible, keeping in touch with the enemy. "
    2. +6
      3 August 2021 11: 02
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But it is his problem that he left Canopus in Port Stanley (with his speed, help in the ocean would be questionable)

      The Canopus followed Cradock's main forces, escorting the coal miners.
      Good Hope leaves Port Stanley around Cape Horn. "Canopus" with 3 coal miners on October 23 will go through the Strait of Magellan to the western coast of South America. "

      “Given the orders to find the enemy and our great desire for early victories, I find it impractical to bind myself to the Canopus with its slow speed in finding and destroying the enemy. So I ordered Defense to join me, asking Montevideo for orders. The Canopus will be used to escort coal miners. From the experience of August 6, I respectfully suggest not to oppose the Karlsruhe raids. They will continue until he meets the ship with superior speed. "

      At the start of the battle, he was 250 miles from Cradock's cruisers. EBR first tried to connect with Cradock - but did not have time and, having received information from "Glasgow" about the defeat, retreated back to the coal miners and went to the Falklands.
      1. 0
        7 August 2021 23: 15
        The battleship had to be dragged along.
        Yes, then the meeting with the Germans would have taken place later and to the south.
        But it was worth it.
        The actual speed reached by the large German cruisers at the Falklands did not exceed 18 knots, while the actual maximum speed of the Canopus was 16,5 knots.
        Is there a 1,5 knot difference in rough seas?
        But, 12 "guns with a projectile weight of 385 kg.
        1. 0
          8 August 2021 12: 00
          Quote: ignoto
          The battleship had to be dragged along.
          Yes, then the meeting with the Germans would have taken place later and to the south.
          But it was worth it.

          Would Spee go into battle if Cradock had EBR?
          He could have just dodged the fight. And Cradock could not have done anything to him, having already two weights on his feet - "Canopus" with its 12-15 knots and "Otranto" with its 15 knots. And it is impossible to divide the squadron: the EBR is the main firepower, and the lone VSKR will quickly become prey for the KRL Spee.
          Quote: ignoto
          The actual speed reached by the large German cruisers at the Falklands did not exceed 18 knots, while the actual maximum speed of the Canopus was 16,5 knots.

          There are big doubts about the 16,5 knots of the Canopus.
          “There is no information about Karlsruhe since 12 September. I consider it possible that he moved west of Cape Horn and joined von Spee's squadron. I am afraid that my connection speed will not exceed 12 knots because of the Canopus. But other circumstances allow me to impose a fight on the enemy. "

          And during the retreat to the Falklands, the EBR could not give more than 15 knots.
          We could only give 15 knots, and the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau 22 knots, so they could easily intercept us. We made our way through narrow straits between the islands off the Chilean coast and safely reached the Strait of Magellan. At the entrance to the strait, we expected a meeting with the enemy, but he was not there. Shortly thereafter, we contacted Glasgow and learned of what had happened. Literally everyone became silent and depressed.
          1. 0
            14 August 2021 07: 38
            Large Germans could not give more than 18 knots, with a passport speed of 23,5 knots.
            Overestimation of the enemy's capabilities.
            The situation is similar in Tsushima.
            Among the four battleships of Togo, one is outdated, which is stubbornly called modern.
            Its speed in the RYAV years is no more than 15 knots, and in Tsushima, with a huge fuel overload, no more than 14 knots.
            Japanese armored cruisers, which are called the best, are actually flawed ships, which are weak in the line against battleships, and as cruisers with their real 15-17 knots are slow-moving.
    3. +4
      3 August 2021 11: 33
      Quote: Rurikovich
      armored cruiser "Defense" with 4-324mm

      Wow, what guns did he have))) Almost a battleship wink
      1. +5
        3 August 2021 13: 13
        Still 2 x 2 x 234 mm. Roughly speaking, the development of Good Hope. Sunk in the Battle of Jutland.
        1. +2
          3 August 2021 18: 27
          Quote: Lynnot
          Roughly speaking, the development of Good Hope.

          To be more precise, the development of the "Duke of Edinburgh" and "Warrior" type ballistic missiles.
          Good Hope was a trade advocate, after all. And the last three types of British ballistic missiles were sharpened for service with the squadron.
          1. 0
            3 August 2021 19: 35
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Good Hope was a trade advocate, after all. And the last three types of British ballistic missiles were sharpened for service with the squadron.


            Starting with the armored cruiser "Cressy" and the further development of this class, originally designed for service with squadrons and interaction with battleships, the protection of trade for these ships was "the tenth thing."

            “But it is equally true that, within a size and cost that is not overwhelming, it is now possible to build first-class cruisers at high speed, well armed and well stocked with coal, which must have vertical armor of sufficient thickness to provide buoyancy protection. , resistance against armor-piercing shells from the largest calibers of rapid-fire guns., and against shells with large explosive charges from guns of a larger caliber. The main idea underlying the design of these cruisers was that they should participate in the actions of the fleet, and it was important that they maneuver with the battleships, so that they do not greatly exceed the last in length. "W. White." ARMAMENT OF THE CRESSY CLASS "
            Scan from this work;
      2. +4
        3 August 2021 17: 46
        Quote: Trapper7
        Wow, what guns did he have?

        An ordinary mistake! It was written in a hurry in the morning, so anything is possible. But anyone in the know understands that the Defense was carrying 234mm guns, standard for British armored cruisers.
        For this I apologize smile
        1. +1
          4 August 2021 07: 32
          Quote: Rurikovich
          An ordinary mistake! It was written in a hurry in the morning, so anything is possible. But anyone in the know understands that the Defense was carrying 234mm guns, standard for British armored cruisers.

          I just poked a little)
          I always read your comments with pleasure, as one of the most informative good
          1. +1
            4 August 2021 20: 15
            Thank you drinks But there are more more informative commentators on VO. wink hi
  7. +11
    3 August 2021 07: 14
    Yes, only a person completely far from the topic can call this battle "British Tsushima". Unfortunately on TopWar there are such authors - the majority ...
  8. +6
    3 August 2021 07: 47
    The examples of the battles at Coronel and the Falklands show how quickly military equipment and tactics become obsolete. What was considered a force yesterday, tomorrow becomes useless rubbish. For some 10 years, three generations of cruisers have changed, and there is a chasm between them
    1. +6
      3 August 2021 12: 17
      Quote: Tlauicol
      For some 10 years, three generations of cruisers have changed, and there is a chasm between them

      I'll be annoying: if you take the ships of Spee and Cradock, then there are less than 10 years between them. Good Hope entered the fleet in 1902 and Scharnhorst in 1907.
    2. 0
      7 August 2021 18: 59
      and what crazy money it cost ...
    3. 0
      7 August 2021 23: 19
      There is no gap between the British and German armored cruisers.
      The difference in the bookmark is 6 years. And outdated ships were used effectively.
      The whole difference is in the tactics of use. Literate or illiterate.
  9. +5
    3 August 2021 08: 42
    British Tsushima
    With figs, something is not justified somehow from the word at all.
  10. +6
    3 August 2021 10: 30
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    There was no Triple Alliance, maybe already it will be enough to write in Russian textbooks about the alleged alliance of Russia, France and Britain before the First World War? A defensive alliance was only between France and Russia, concluded in 1893, while Britain was not in any alliance with either Russia or France. That is why the Kaiser decided to start a war with France and Russia, since he and his entourage believed that Britain would remain neutral, especially since the British Foreign Minister Sir Alexander Gray confirmed the neutral status of Britain in the future war of Germany against France and Russia. The reason for Britain's entry into the war was the German invasion of Belgium, but not Britain's allied commitment to France or Russia.

    Before exposing, read: the concept of "triple alliance" did not apply to the countries of "ANTANTA" - OPPOSE THIS WAS THEIR Opponents wassat
    1. -4
      3 August 2021 11: 26
      The Entente (cordial agreement) was signed only between France and Russia; Britain had nothing to do with this military alliance. And it’s completely incomprehensible to me why they still write in Russian textbooks that Britain was in the Entente and was an ally of Russia and France. It’s not true.
      1. +5
        3 August 2021 12: 09
        Everything is exactly the opposite, the Entente is an alliance between Britain and France, which existed in parallel with the Russian-French alliance.
        1. -1
          3 August 2021 12: 34
          Quote: Cartalon
          Everything is exactly the opposite, the Entente is an alliance between Britain and France

          Tell me, what kind of "union" agreement was between Britain and France? Just don't cite here the Anglo-French agreement of 1904, in which France and Britain agree on the boundaries of their colonies in Africa. This agreement has nothing to do with the union treaty.
          1. +4
            3 August 2021 12: 54
            But it was precisely this that was called Hearty Consent.
        2. 0
          3 August 2021 12: 38
          Quote: Cartalon
          Everything is exactly the opposite, the Entente is an alliance between Britain and France, which existed in parallel with the Russian-French alliance.

          At least take a look at Wikipedia before writing (apparently there is no hope for more) laughing
          1. +1
            3 August 2021 12: 55
            The first step towards the creation of Armenia was the signing of the Anglo-French agreement of 1904, which received the name. "Hearty consent" (Entente cordiale)
            In Wikipedia, you can learn a lot of interesting things, especially for those who have not read a single book on diplomacy of the 19th century.
            And I did not know what the Anglo-French agreements were called since Talleyrand times
            1. -1
              3 August 2021 13: 26
              Quote: Cartalon
              The first step towards the creation of Armenia was the signing of the Anglo-French agreement of 1904, which received the name. "Hearty consent" (Entente cordiale)

              For those in the tank:
              The Anglo-French agreement (fr. Entente cordiale - literally "cordial agreement" - a series of agreements on colonial issues between the British Empire and France, signed on April 8, 1904. They drew a line under a century of colonial rivalry between the powers ("fight for Africa") and, along with the Franco-Russian alliance, led to the creation of the Entente.

              Signed documents
              Joint Declaration on Egypt and Morocco. It was accompanied by secret articles.
              Agreement on Newfoundland and Borders in Africa. France renounced claims to the coast of Newfoundland. In exchange, Britain transferred certain territories in Africa to France.
              Declaration on Siam, Madagascar and the New Hebrides.

              This is an AGREEMENT on the boundaries of the colonies, not a military alliance. Britain was not an ally of France and was not obliged to provide military assistance to France.
              1. +2
                3 August 2021 13: 31
                I do not know who is in the tank and who is in the bunker, but you were pleased to assert that the Entente is an alliance between Russia and France, which is absolutely not true, because this term refers to agreements between Britain and France.
                1. -1
                  3 August 2021 13: 39
                  Because both Soviet historians and Russian historians still call the Franco-Russian UNION the "Entente", in the same way the Anglo-French AGREEMENT is called the "Entente", moreover, the "Entente" is called the Anglo-Russian AGREEMENT of 1907 Persia, although what does the word "Entente" have to do with it, if this is a French word? And on the basis of this juggling of terms, a "brilliant" conclusion is made that according to the Entente of 1904 and 1907, Britain became an ally of France and Russia.
    2. +5
      3 August 2021 12: 31
      Quote: Niko
      Before exposing, read: the concept of "triple alliance" did not apply to the countries of "ANTANTA" - OPPOSE THIS WAS THEIR Opponents

      The funny thing is that at the beginning of the article there is a map on which the countries included in the Triple Alliance are named and highlighted in color. smile
      1. +5
        3 August 2021 13: 29
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote: Niko
        Before exposing, read: the concept of "triple alliance" did not apply to the countries of "ANTANTA" - OPPOSE THIS WAS THEIR Opponents

        The funny thing is that at the beginning of the article there is a map on which the countries included in the Triple Alliance are named and highlighted in color. smile

        On VO, it has become a good form not to read, and in this case not even look at the pictures, but quickly write a more critical comment
    3. +3
      3 August 2021 14: 13
      Quote: Niko
      Before exposing, read: the concept of "triple alliance" did not apply to the countries of "ANTANTA" - OPPOSE THIS WAS THEIR Opponents

      Everyone can decide for himself what kind of union it was. There are a lot of documents in the public domain. Below is one for example;
  11. +9
    3 August 2021 10: 41
    Comrades, I didn't get enough sleep and I'm dull.
    As I understand it, the author: Spee has 2 cruisers, the Brita has 2 cruisers and an EBR. He kept counting the number of guns, so I decided so.
    It turned out that the Brita have 4 pennants, but how many does Spee have? Apparently not less.
    Once in my childhood I had a book: "coloring books". The author's article reminded me of this little book: "coloring pages": I learned more from comrades than from Ivanov!
    Once I.A.Krylov said:
    The trouble is, if the shoemaker starts to bake the pies.
    And the boots are for the cake-maker.
    I don't know where I remembered Ivan Andreyevich or not?
  12. +2
    3 August 2021 11: 00
    Can someone explain the motivation for installing 234-mm guns on a cruiser, instead of completely unifying the artillery?
    1. +6
      3 August 2021 11: 34
      Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
      Can someone explain the motivation for installing 234-mm guns on a cruiser, instead of completely unifying the artillery?

      This is lime. Why do they need motivation if there is a tradition)
    2. +6
      3 August 2021 12: 27
      Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
      Can someone explain the motivation for installing 234-mm guns on a cruiser, instead of completely unifying the artillery?

      EMNIP, British BRKRs prior to Duke of Edinburgh were supposed to be "trade advocates." And among their opponents - the raiders - there were also BRKR (the same three "Rurik" - "Russia" - "Thunderbolt"), which was unrealistic to cope with only 6 ".
      You will also ask why it was impossible to use the lower casemates of the SC in the oceanic surface-to-air missile system. smile
    3. 0
      3 August 2021 16: 22
      Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
      Can someone explain the motivation for installing 234-mm guns on a cruiser, instead of completely unifying the artillery?

      Well, this should start with an ABC book. Excuse me. Just look at what year we are talking about, and then look in the net in which year the concept of "complete unification of artillery" appeared for cruisers
      1. +1
        3 August 2021 18: 23
        Quote: Niko
        Just look at what year we are talking about, and then look in net in what year the concept of "complete unification of artillery" appeared for cruisers

        Formally, BRKR with unified artillery the RN did have - type "Kent" with their 14 x 152-mm. One of them - "Monmouth" - was just in the battle at Coronel.
        1. -1
          3 August 2021 19: 32
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: Niko
          Just look at what year we are talking about, and then look in net in what year the concept of "complete unification of artillery" appeared for cruisers

          Formally, BRKR with unified artillery the RN did have - type "Kent" with their 14 x 152-mm. One of them - "Monmouth" - was just in the battle at Coronel.

          It's true. There were such cruisers, but there was no such concept, or rather an understanding of the need for one caliber for cruisers.
    4. 0
      7 August 2021 23: 28
      This gun was considered very successful in the English navy.
      Drake-class cruisers carried two 234mm guns with a projectile mass of 172 kg, as they were designed to combat French armored cruisers, which carried two 194mm guns with a projectile mass of 88 kg, and to combat Russian armored cruisers of the Rurik-Russian types. "-" Thunderbolt ", which had two 203 mm guns with a projectile mass of 87,8 kg in an onboard salvo.
  13. +17
    3 August 2021 12: 47
    Formally, if you count by pieces of iron - the British were much stronger

    It seems that Kharaluzhny did not go anywhere from the site, he simply changed his creative avatar to Ivanov. The author - there is such a device - a calculator that allows you to add numbers. If you apply it, we end up with the following picture, diametrically opposite to your statements.

    They tried (the tradition of looking for scapegoats is strong not only in Russia) to turn Cradock into an extreme for everything.

    The source of this information is obviously the author's finger.
    The responsibility was placed on the First Sea Lord von Battenberg, pushing back on his Germanic roots.
    And a monument was erected to Cradock in York Cathedral.

    “For the glory of God and in memory of Rear Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of the Honorary Order of the Bath.” Who bravely upheld the high traditions of the British navy, led his squadron against superior enemy forces off Coronel on the Chilean coast and fell gloriously in battle on All Saints Day 1914. This monument was erected by his grateful compatriots. "
    1. +1
      7 August 2021 23: 41
      Formally, "Good Hope" is not very much inferior to the "big Germans".
      But, his salvo consists mostly of 6 "guns, and the Germans have six 215 mm guns with a projectile mass of 108 kg. Versus two 234 mm guns with a projectile mass of 172 kg. From an Englishman.
      “Monmouth” is generally out. It was designed against armored cruisers. But here, too, a failure.
      Formally, nine 6 "guns in a salvo. But, four guns in two towers. And the towers turned out to be very unsuccessful. Constant problems with the electric drive, induced by jerks. loading the guns is inconvenient, the actual rate of fire of two turret guns is equal to the rate of fire of one casemate. "shells.
      A battleship, even a little outdated like the Canopus, would definitely do the trick.
  14. +3
    3 August 2021 14: 12
    Actually, even Churchill did not consider Cradock's squadron stronger than the Germans (even with the Canopus.
    "I understand that you are proposing such a disposition ... Cradock focuses on the Falklands of Canopus, Monmouth, Good Hope and Otranto ...
    I believe that Cradock is aware of the presence of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau not far from him on 17 October. Not strong enough to attack, he will do everything to keep an eye on them, waiting for the arrival of reinforcements. "

    And Cradock did not even take Canopus with him (which is understandable - he is slow-moving, and the Germans are not fools to substitute themselves in vain under 12 inches.
    Plus Monmouth - a ship without any main battery, only six-inches, half of which could not be used during the excitement. Monmouth was generally going to write off, but then the war happened, the cruiser was poorly brought to a state of combat readiness, but the crew was not properly trained.
    In favor of the Germans there was the same type of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. 5 years difference in date of construction with the strongest Good Hope. All guns could fire in any weather
    Plus the Kaiser's Prize to the gunners for marksmanship.
    Cradock did not want to be disgraced by the retreat (as Trubridge had previously) and he didn’t have to drown the Germans - it was enough to seriously damage them. There was no place for Spee's ships to be repaired.
    1. +1
      3 August 2021 16: 21
      Quote: ecolog
      And Cradock didn't even take Canopus with him

      I took it. But the old EBR could develop 16,5 knots of maximum and 12 knots of economic progress, so it was left to cover the coal miners. At the start of the battle, the Canopus was 250 miles behind Cradock's cruisers.
      Quote: ecolog
      Plus Monmouth - a ship without any main battery, only six-inches, half of which could not be used during the excitement.

      This was done on the assumption that the enemy would be BKR-raiders. And not the BRKR, besides the next generation.
      1. 0
        3 August 2021 17: 46
        Left to cover - count not took. The Admiralty thought that he was with Canopus mallets and everything was more or less normal.
        And how and why Monmouth was designed is the tenth thing. The main thing is that it was placed in the battle line, although in terms of armament it is more of a light cruiser, but with some armor.
        In general, when our would-be admirals are scolded (they are rightly scolded in the main), it is worth paying attention to the highest command staff of the mistress of the seas. There are a lot of fools there (as in the land army, however). Technology management has not kept pace at all.
        For example, when I listened to the conversation between Yakovlev and Kopylov about the "Dardanelles operation" I did not have time to wipe the sweat with a hat with earflaps, as the British had everything sadly with the commanders
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QL1KaWnAbs
        1. +2
          3 August 2021 19: 03
          Quote: ecolog
          Left to cover - count not took.

          If he had not taken it, the "Canopus" would have stood in the Falklands until the arrival of Spee.
          And Cradock managed to take the EBR with him, and to break away from him so that at the right moment there was no one to cover his CD. The same compromise that is the worst of all alternatives.
          Quote: ecolog
          And how and why Monmouth was designed is the tenth thing. The main thing is that it was placed in the battle line, although in terms of armament it is more of a light cruiser, but with some armor.

          So the Spee squadron had targets for Monmouth. And, as subsequent events showed, the Kent-type ballistic missiles could overtake and sink these targets.
          And with the armor of the "Kents" for the "defenders of trade" everything was fine - a belt 2 "-4" thick from the CC NC. He was counted against the "Elsweek" KR and French BKR and small BRKR.
          Quote: ecolog
          In general, when our would-be admirals are scolded (they are rightly scolded in the main), it is worth paying attention to the highest command staff of the mistress of the seas. There are a lot of fools there (as in the land army, however). Technology management has not kept pace at all.

          Oh yes ... I remember the analysis of the Patients of this topic. And also in the 40th issues of "Gangut" in an article devoted to the squadron of von Spee, the bickering of the groups of Fischer and Beresford before WWI was well described, which continued, EMNIP, for a quarter of a century.
      2. 0
        8 August 2021 07: 11
        In an onboard salvo, Kent-class cruisers had nine 6 "guns. Four in two towers of a very unfortunate design. Guns in a tower in one cradle. The towers are so cramped that the rate of fire of the two turret guns is actually equal to the rate of fire of one casemate.
        Russian cruisers of the first rank had an onboard salvo: "Goddesses" - 5, "Varyag" - 6, "Askold" - 7, "Bogatyr" - 8 guns of caliber 6 ". That is," Askold "was not inferior in fire performance to" Kents "And this is on calm water. And on rough seas, it will be difficult for the British to use part of the casemate guns, plus a strong pitching motion. Reservation of the British is weak: an incomplete belt of uncemented Krupp steel 102 mm thick. 6" guns pierced such a belt. In addition, the British, who were built for service at distant stations, could well have encountered such an exclusive as the French armored cruiser D, Antrecasto.
        And in an onboard salvo, he could respond not only with ten 138,6mm guns, but also with two 240mm guns.
        1. 0
          8 August 2021 07: 12
          Error, six 138,6 mm guns.
    2. +1
      7 August 2021 23: 45
      The maximum speed of the big Germans at the Falklands is 18 knots, despite the passport 23,5 knots. "Kanopus" could run a maximum of 16,5 knots, with a passport -19 knots.
      On excitement, 1,5 knots are not much of a difference. But 12 "guns.
  15. +1
    3 August 2021 20: 50
    Quote: Sea Cat
    Luce was a hero only when he was not in danger,

    Well yes. Under the Falklands, Sturdy sent him to catch up with Dresden (the rest of the light British did not have comparable speed), but Luce did not chase Dresden. He took part in the beating of Leipzig, although there was enough without him. Subsequently, Fischer did not forgive Sturdy for fleeing Dresden. And what could Sturdy ?? With such a "hero"?
    1. 0
      7 August 2021 23: 50
      But, "Kent", which was considered the slowest in the series, clocked up to 25 knots.
      1. 0
        9 August 2021 22: 09
        Well, it was Wilson who got excited. The British really squeezed everything out of Kent! But I think it was just that at Nuremberg the cars were not in the best condition. Of course, Leipzig was very bad, but a long crossing across the Pacific Ocean. Without repair ..... Has done its job ....
        1. 0
          14 August 2021 07: 32
          I do not argue that this option is also possible.
          Large Germans also could not squeeze more than 18 knots.
          And according to the passport -23,5 knots.
          But, and the British tried.
          And ours could have tried so hard in Tsushima, if not for the clinical underestimation of speed as a tactical element.
  16. 0
    4 August 2021 19: 04
    After the ships "taken from the reserve", you can no longer read ... The level of the author is quite clear.
    1. 0
      7 August 2021 09: 19
      "taken from the reserve"
      ---------
      The MILITARY and the campaigners of the rear say so.
      Put on reserve. Remove from reserve
      Not all primary school teachers and speech therapists in the children's kindergarten work. Or are you from Ukraine?
  17. 0
    7 August 2021 09: 13
    and 2 people wounded
    --------
    FIX.
    No body part - no nH
  18. 0
    14 August 2021 17: 34
    Quote: ignoto
    And ours could have tried so hard in Tsushima, if not for the clinical underestimation of speed as a tactical element.

    Well, it’s unlikely .. The ships were overloaded with supplies, coal and other crap. Even the newest ones. And then, the passage from Libawa to Tsushima is no shorter than from Qingdao to the Falklands. And many more did not develop the passport speed due to marriages, breakdowns, etc.
  19. 0
    8 September 2021 11: 24
    In Tsushima, the Russian fleet was completely destroyed and Russia could no longer wage a naval war at sea in all theaters except the closed Black Sea. England, at Coronel, lost 2 obsolete ships, the loss of which did not affect the power of its fleet in any way. By the way, the main inspirer of Kredok for the battle, the chief of the naval headquarters, Admiral Sturdy, was removed from his post and sent to atone for the guilt of the Flocklands on the Invincible and Inflexible
  20. The comment was deleted.