Russian gunboats are our answer to Charles Napier

21 913 45
Russian gunboats are our answer to Charles Napier

The Emperor sat at the table in the Marine Cabinet of the Peterhof Cottage Palace. He loved this place: with telescopes, a compass, surveying instruments and a silver megaphone on the table, an optical telegraph on the balcony, paintings on the walls, among which stood out "Sea View" by the young but talented graduate of the Academy of Arts Ivan Aivazovsky.


"Naval Cabinet" of Nicholas I.

True, today the Emperor did not get any pleasure from observing the sea: "I see the enemy from my window on the northern fairway," he wrote to the commander of the Crimean army, Prince Menshikov. In the spring of 1854, an Anglo-French squadron was making its evolutions in front of the windows of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich...




Assault on Bomarsund

The Crimean War in the Baltic began with the capture of Bomarsund by the allies, an unfinished Russian fortress on the Aland Islands. The Sveaborg fortress could cover Helsingfors, but not St. Petersburg. Hope was in the forts of Kronstadt, minefields (the emperor was a good engineer and was able to assess the prospects weapon) and... On the flotilla of gunboats, which was hastily built by the talented engineer Nikolai Putilov.


Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich

Nicholas I entrusted the defense of the capital to his son Konstantin. The Grand Duke was recommended the collegiate assessor Nikolai Putilov, a graduate of the Naval Cadet Corps who had exchanged the quiet life of a mathematics teacher for the position of an official for special assignments of the Shipbuilding Department of the Naval Ministry. "Can you do the impossible: build a flotilla of screw gunboats to defend Kronstadt by the end of navigation? There is no money in the treasury, but here are my personal 200 thousand," he asked the elderly official. And, as it turned out, Konstantin Nikolaevich was not mistaken in this personnel issue!


Nikolai Ivanovich Putilov

Nikolay Ivanovich Putilov was born... God knows when! Either May 14, or May 21, or 1816, or 1820. Possibly. What is certain is that he was born in the village of Kolomenka, Borovichsky district, Novgorod province. His father was a titular councilor, assistant police chief of the water police for the Mstinsky part of the Vyshnevolotsky department. At the age of 10, the future engineer and industrialist joined the naval company of the Alexander Cadet Corps, and two years later he was transferred to the Naval Cadet Corps, which was commanded by Vice-Admiral Ivan Fyodorovich Kruzenshtern (a man and a steamship).


Academician Mikhail Vasilyevich Ostrogradsky

During his training, Cadet Putilov demonstrated remarkable mathematical abilities and, after being promoted to officer, was retained in the Corps as a mathematics teacher. He was hired as an assistant by Academician Mikhail Ostrogradsky, researched the features of external ballistics, discovered an error in the calculations of the outstanding mathematician Augustin Cauchy in his course on integral calculus, and wrote scientific papers. In 1843, due to health reasons, he left military service, exchanging the shoulder straps of a naval lieutenant for the uniform of a titular adviser, and went south - for the Black Sea fleet Several steamships were purchased, with foreigners (mostly Englishmen) serving as mechanics. Putilov was tasked with organizing the repair and maintenance of the new ships. He most likely coped with the task successfully, since already in 1847 Nikolai Ivanovich was an official for special assignments of the Shipbuilding Department of the Naval Ministry. And here was a new task: to do the impossible...

Putilov had no doubts that the state shipyards with their sluggish bureaucracy would not be able to complete the task on time (in addition, they were overloaded with larger orders). And he began what is called "network planning" today. To begin with, he made a list of all the mechanical workshops in St. Petersburg, to which he distributed assignments for the manufacture of parts for steam engines, boilers, and other high-tech items of the time. Not enough workers? No problem! Putilov hired spinners from Rzhev who had been left without work because of the war (the export of yarn abroad had ceased).

"We brought the spinners, assigned them to factories and workshops. We assigned: who of them would be a foundryman, who would be a fitter, a turner, a boilermaker. And for each team of several people we assigned one old craftsman. A week later, everyone set to work... All January, February and March, in all corners of the capital, where there was anything for mechanical work, they worked with tireless activity - in two shifts... Crowds of novice craftsmen boldly went to work solely in the conviction that ignorance can be replaced by ingenuity. Two or three days after the opening of work, a thousand craftsmen under the guidance of a dozen teachers began to carry out the work"
, Nikolai Ivanovich wrote later.


Gunboat "Burya"

The results of Putilov's work were not slow in coming - the first 32 gunboats were launched in May 1855. So, when the allied squadron of 67 steamships appeared again near Kronstadt, they left empty-handed: the English and French captains understood perfectly well that in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Finland, gunboats had an advantage over ocean-going ships. And for those who did not understand... They explained: in the very first battle, the gunboat "Shalun" inflicted serious damage on one of the screw frigates with its 68-pound cannonballs. Over the next 8 months, 35 more gunboats, 14 corvettes and clippers, 3 floating docks and a repair shop at the Kronstadt steamship plant were built.

What were Putilov's gunboats like? They were ships with a displacement of 173 tons. The length of the gunboat was 33,9 meters, the width was 6,1 meters, and the draft was 1,8 meters. The boats were driven by steam engines with a capacity of 70-80 horsepower, which allowed them to reach a speed of 7-9 knots, which was quite enough to perform the tasks assigned to them. The armament of Putilov's gunboats often varied, but most often consisted of 2x68-pounder guns No. 2, 1x36-pounder gun No. 1. The underwater part of the hull in the area of the engine and the powder chamber was protected by iron shields, and the corridor of the propeller shaft was also protected by an iron casing.

Drawbacks? There couldn't be any, given the hasty construction! The hastily built hulls were so bad that most of the gunboats didn't last even 10 years. The habitability of the gunboats also... Left much to be desired: there was no galley, no skylights, and the water and food supply was meager. The engine was a modified locomotive engine with a small water supply. Seaworthiness... And what is that?


Rear Admiral Ivan Ivanovich von Schantz

It is worth noting that the name "Putilov's gunboat" is not entirely correct: Nikolai Ivanovich was responsible for the production of the most complex part - the machines, but the design for the screw gunboats was prepared by Captain 2nd Rank A. Shestakov, and the hulls were built by the Peterhof merchant S. Kudryavtsev (a well-known hack, but all other enterprises were busy with larger orders).

However, the story even more complicated: in 1853, the commander of the skerry flotilla, Rear Admiral I. I. von Schantz, designed a rowing gunboat. Rowing gunboats were even built in the amount of 40 pieces, but in the era of steam, their value was low. Moreover, back in 1824, after the famous flood, Captain 1st Rank P. Chistyakov proposed using the hull parts of damaged ships to build low-draft steamboats armed with large-caliber guns, but at that time the Navy Department was not interested in the project. In 1854, according to the design of von Schantz, the steam gunboat "Sterlet" was built, in the image and likeness of which Shestakov designed his "Osetr" - the prototype of all "Putilov gunboats".


Gunboat "Sterlyad" - a source of inspiration

Initially, the gunboats were supposed to have steam engines designed by Nepir, but the engines ordered from Great Britain before the war were confiscated by the British government. Which, as it turned out later, was for the best: Nepir's engines were unreliable, especially those made by the Nobel plant, and were also very expensive. Therefore, Putilov focused on the production of less powerful, but significantly simpler and more reliable steam engines of the Penn system. It was their production that Nikolai Ivanovich managed to establish at small enterprises in St. Petersburg using spinning craftsmen. However, part of the order was also fulfilled by large enterprises: the Alexandrovsky Plant, the Thompson, Isherwood, Fricke, Bird, Semenov plants, the Izhora State Plant, and the Ashworth and Stevens company.

How good were the machines supplied by Putilov? The engineer himself spoke about them as follows:

"The machines were made so satisfactorily that on many gunboats the pairs were set up while still on the slipways so that after launching they could go straight to testing, and after the war the corvettes and clippers went to the Pacific Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. On many of these ships former spinners became senior machinists... Our assembly of machines was similar to the assembly of watches in Geneva: from one workshop - the dial, from another - the hands, from a third - the case, etc."


Russian gunboats on the attack

Today it is known that the British and French had no intention of storming the Kronstadt forts. But at that time the Russian Navy Department had no such information, and besides... The construction of 32 gunboats in three months was an unpleasant surprise for the allies. The French Admiral Peno wrote: "We are facing an active enemy, who knows how to strengthen his resources and harm us... The steam gunboats, so quickly built by the Russians, and the number of which can still increase, have completely changed our position in relation to the enemy. Now we must not only think about attack, but also take care of our own defense, because the Russians have more gunboats than the British."


"Gunboats "Burun" and "Vikhr" by artist Alekseev from the collection of the Central Museum of Modern Art.

The construction of gunboats during the Crimean War became a milestone in the history of domestic shipbuilding. And it is not only about the experience of network planning of production. Putilov clearly demonstrated to the Naval Ministry the need for import substitution. After the Crimean War, Russia purchased only one engine abroad, with the expectation of organizing the production of a series at its own enterprises. It was domestic machines that were used to equip post-war screw corvettes and clippers. But that is another story!
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    26 July 2025 04: 46
    Well, there really is no thunder, and neither the peasant nor the tsar will cross themselves. In general, the allies were not able to have much fun in the Baltic, unlike, say, the same Black Sea.
  2. +3
    26 July 2025 08: 11
    Exactly domestic The machines were used to equip post-war screw corvettes and clippers

    They were also used to equip domestic civilian vessels: Russia had the largest river fleet in the world at the beginning of the 20th century. By the way, it is also a world leader in the design and construction of steam locomotives.
    1. +1
      26 July 2025 09: 23
      Well, yes, and logistics in the empire died in 16, by itself.
      1. +5
        26 July 2025 11: 04
        The First World War was on a scale that no one could have imagined before the war. The same rifle crisis in 1914 was observed everywhere...
        1. +4
          26 July 2025 12: 27
          Quote: Flying_Dutchman
          The same rifle crisis was observed everywhere in 1914...

          It could have been observed everywhere, but only in the Russian Empire before the war, old rifle stocks were destroyed. And Mosin rifles were given away and sold. In general, this had to be thought of, to order rifles exactly according to the number of regular soldiers, losses were apparently not expected by the imperial headquarters and the stock was not provided for.
          1. +4
            26 July 2025 13: 27
            Before the war, Russia produced more rifles annually than anyone else, but the standards were cleared based on the experience of the Russo-Japanese War, and the First World War was an order of magnitude more intense...
            1. +2
              26 July 2025 17: 43
              Before the war, Russia produced more rifles annually than anyone else,

              Here this... it wasn't production that was important, but acceptance.
              1. 100 rifles were taken from the batch and completely disassembled.
              2. The parts were mixed and assembled into 10 rifles.
              3. These 10 rifles at 180 paces had to put all 5 bullets into a playing card.
              4. If not, then the entire batch was rejected.
              Well then! Colleagues, who will answer?
              1. +2
                26 July 2025 21: 59
                Before the war, such super-perfectionism was perhaps acceptable: quality had to be ensured in conditions when every contractor was trying to cheat the state in every possible way. But during the war... I doubt that the military acceptance rules weren't greatly relaxed during the war.
                1. -2
                  27 July 2025 06: 22
                  quality must be ensured in conditions when every contractor tries to cheat the state in every possible way. And during war...

                  To ensure quality during war, it is necessary to have contractors BEFORE the war by all available means.
                  Of course, during the war, "defective" lots were reviewed, changes were made to the design of new lots, with the aim of simplifying production. The same octagonal (not without reason) barrel was replaced with a round one.
                  Here is another example:
                  Before Talvisota our commission touched the Suomi PP. And we agreed that this is a purely police weapon - it cannot be given to a soldier - there are not enough cartridges.
                  Then they simplified Suomi, removed all the threaded connections. SEVEN machine-hours for the machine (on broken machine tools by teenagers) and out came the PPSh. A SYMBOL OF WWII!!!
                  True, the magazines were manually adjusted and were not interchangeable, but who remembers that now?!
                  1. 0
                    22 August 2025 22: 20
                    What did I just read, the myths of the 90s have come out again? What, that throughout the 30s submachine guns were intensively developed here, the PPD was adopted into service. In the Kalashnikov magazine there is a detailed series of articles on the history of the development of submachine guns in the 30s, from Suomi we only have a magazine, nothing else.
            2. +9
              26 July 2025 19: 41
              Quote: Flying_Dutchman
              Before the war, Russia produced more rifles annually than anyone else,

              Maybe it did, but after fulfilling the order for 4.6 million rifles, production was effectively curtailed. The workforce was reduced, and the capacity was effectively reduced as well. After the war began, they hastily recruited from the peasants. I don’t know what standards you are referring to, but no weapons were planned at all for the reserve and training regiments envisaged by the mobilization plan. In the end, tens of millions were called up, and they had to be armed with sticks. Buskokhrusty like to talk about Red Army soldiers attacking with shovel handles, but in reality, this is what the Tsarist army looked like.

              The problem, by the way, did not appear in WWI, we can recall the modern rifles with which the guards were armed in the Crimean War, and they were sent into battle for Sevastopol with old smoothbore guns. And in the next Russian-Turkish war of 1878, exactly the same thing, modern Berdankas for the capital regiments, and into battle again with all sorts of converted junk. Untrainable.
              1. +1
                26 July 2025 22: 03
                Unteachable - yes, the English - that's what they are! For the Enfield rifles of the 1847 model, round bullets were cast so that they would not fit into the rifling - this makes loading easier. You can also remember the steamship with boots, which were all on the right foot. Definitely unteachable!
              2. 0
                27 July 2025 06: 29
                but for the reserve and training regiments provided for by the mobilization plan, no weapons were planned at all.

                Because the warehouses were bursting with purchased Berdan No. 2 rifles. And where to put them, they were brand new!
                1. +1
                  27 July 2025 22: 40
                  Quote: Kerensky
                  And where to put them, they are completely new!

                  That is probably why they were destroyed or converted into hunting rifles. Before the war, 400 thousand Berdan rifles out of the 810 thousand available (and 275 million cartridges) were destroyed, another 205 thousand Mosin rifles were given to the Bulgarian, Mongolian and Serbian governments. There were 4.652 million Mosin rifles left. At the same time, they intended to call up 4.9 million people by the beginning of the war, and another 5.432 million people were planned to be called up in the first year of the war. There were no weapons for them at all. How they planned it that way - we can only guess.
        2. +4
          26 July 2025 12: 42
          What do rifles have to do with this?
          Here they noted Russia's leading role in steam locomotive construction, and the empire collapsed precisely because of the lack of steam locomotives.
          1. +7
            26 July 2025 13: 28
            Well, to say that the empire collapsed because of the lack of steam locomotives... That's bold! It always seemed to me that there were an order of magnitude more factors, and the lack of steam locomotives was far from the most important...
            1. +2
              26 July 2025 17: 03
              Well, the February revolution happened for a very specific reason.
            2. +1
              26 July 2025 20: 13
              How much rolling stock was in working order by February 1917?
            3. +2
              27 July 2025 06: 40
              Well, to say that the empire collapsed due to the lack of steam locomotives... That's bold! It always seemed to me that there were an order of magnitude more factors,

              This product was in great demand in the Empire. As were steamships.
              The lack of communication turned everything beyond the Urals into semi-independent feudal principalities. Only the "princes" were appointed from St. Petersburg.
              Even now, the Darkest One keeps asking the heads of regions: what's going on with his "May decrees"?
              - Yes, they are being carried out, Vladimir Vladimirovich! And the percentage of fulfillment is steadily growing! (And what was there, in those decrees?)
              And then?!
      2. -3
        26 July 2025 11: 25
        Quote: Cartalon
        yes, and logistics in the empire in 16 is on its own.

        Well, yes, don't read newspapers and textbooks:

        Russia - the only one of the countries, who succeeded during the war (in 1916) to increase in absolute terms the amount of transported goods compared to peacetime.

        By 1917, the rolling stock fleet in Russia wasall the time it increased, and its condition was at the peacetime level.

        During the war, the volume of transportation on the railways of Germany, France, England collapsed compared to pre-war levels by one and a half to two times, then in Russia – the only one of the warring countries – cargo transportation exceeded the level of 1913 (c)
        1. +5
          26 July 2025 17: 05
          Yes, yes, the article on LiveJournal, clearly by a biased author, of course gives absolutely correct information.
          The empire fell completely by accident, without any particular reason.
          1. -1
            30 July 2025 14: 13
            Quote: Cartalon
            Yes, yes, an article in LiveJournal, clearly by a biased author

            you with the facts argue, with statistical collections and monographs.

            Doesn't work? No.
            1. +1
              30 July 2025 14: 40
              There are no factors there, the data is taken out of thin air, lightning transportation grew, the economy grew.
              Troops are receiving reduced supply rations, food taxation is being introduced, etc.
              The empire fell because, the USSR for the same reason, everything is fine and kaput, don’t imitate your opponents.
              1. -1
                31 July 2025 13: 40
                Quote: Cartalon
                the data is taken out of thin air, lightning transportation grew, the economy grew.

                what is the point of your lie?

                Refute this:
                Statistical Digest for 1913–1917 (Second Issue). Proceedings of the Central Statistical Administration, Volume VII, Issue 2, Moscow, 1922.
                [3] Submission of the Railway Administration to the Provisional Government regarding the unsatisfactory performance of railway transport due to a shortage of fuel and rolling stock.
                [4] A.L. Sidorov. The economic situation of Russia during the First World War. Moscow, 1973.
                [5] History of railway transport in Russia and the Soviet Union. Volume 2. 1917 – 1945. St. Petersburg, Moscow, 1997.
                [6] Marcel Peschaud. Les Chemins de fer allemands et la Guerre. P., 1927.
                [7] BRMitchell. International Historical Statistics. Europe 1750 – 1993. Fourth Edition, 1998.
                [8] The Great Patriotic War. Jubilee statistical collection. Moscow, 2020.
                [9] A. Markevich, M. Harrison. The First World War, Civil War and Reconstruction: Russia’s National Income in 1913–1928. Moscow, 2013.
                [10] USSR and capitalist countries. Moscow, 1939.
                [11] Rastyannikov V.G., Deryugina I.V. Grain yield in Russia. Moscow, 2009.
                [12] N. Vasiliev. Transport of Russia in the war of 1914 – 1918. M., 1939.
                Quote: Cartalon
                Lightning transportation grew, the economy grew.
                Troops are receiving reduced supply rations, food taxation is being introduced, etc.

                etc. - bread coupons in Petrograd-s April 1917, for cereals - even later
                Quote: Cartalon
                The empire fell because, the USSR for the same reason, everything was fine and then it was over

                It was not good in Russia World War, which was not even a hint of in the USSR.
                And it was not good in Russia precisely with order- there was no sign of famine on the level of Germany.

                Don't be like your opponents
        2. +7
          26 July 2025 20: 12
          Why then did no one bring bread to St. Petersburg?
          Why didn’t shells and cartridges reach the front?
          Probably the horses died and the carts fell apart...
          1. -1
            30 July 2025 14: 17
            Quote: hohol95
            Why then did no one bring bread to St. Petersburg?
            Why didn’t shells and cartridges reach the front?

            And Peter lived - in 1916 there were not even bread cards, and the front. With the thieves came the end
            1. 0
              30 July 2025 14: 41
              The country's insufficient provision with railways resulted in extremely dangerous consequences - due to the impossibility of timely removal of coal from some mines (especially the Donets Basin), it was necessary to reduce production, which immediately led to the import of such a strategic material as coal from abroad. Moreover, in 1913, 100 million poods of Silesian and English coal were delivered to those provinces that until that time had always fully covered their needs with Donets coal{290}.


              Starostenkov N.V.
              Railway troops of Russia.
              1. -1
                31 July 2025 13: 59
                Quote: hohol95
                — due to the impossibility of timely removal of coal from some mines (especially the Donetsk basin), it was necessary reduce production

                From 1910 to 1914, coal production in the Donets Basin continuously GROWED at a tremendous rate.from 16 to 26 million tons
                https://mining-media.ru/ru/article/newtech/15280-ugolnaya-promyshlennost-rossii-do-revolyutsii-1917-goda
  3. +1
    26 July 2025 09: 44
    These were ships with a displacement of 173 tons.
    Gunboat... Speedboat, my God! How did it not fall apart and capsize from the shooting...
    1. +8
      26 July 2025 11: 02
      For the Gulf of Finland, boats were just right, and gunboats didn't need to go to the ocean. And - wartime construction is always... not the best quality. I had a chance to compare dug-up German rifles of pre-war and wartime production - there was a striking difference in both the wooden parts and the metal ones...
      1. +1
        26 July 2025 17: 51
        I had a chance to compare dug German rifles of pre-war and war production

        I had a chance to compare with storage:
        Mauser 98K
        Arisaka
        Mosin-Nagant with an octagonal barrel
        Mosin - Nagant 1931
        Berdan No. 2
        I won't say who won, because I don't know the price of the item...
        1. +1
          28 July 2025 09: 30
          From storage - not the same! When the rifle has been lying in the ground, you can see what the metal is worth, and the quality of the wood too - completely rotted, or just a little eaten away. According to my observations, the worst quality is that of the German "Sturmgewehrs" of 1944-45: the metal of the case is ordinary tin, which rusts until holes. Pre-war "Mausers" found nearby are preserved perfectly!
  4. +4
    26 July 2025 13: 38
    Nikolay Ivanovich Putilov was born... God knows when! Either May 14, or May 21, or 1816, or 1820. Possibly. What is certain is that he was born in the village of Kolomenka, Borovichsky district, Novgorod province. His father was a titular councilor, assistant police chief of the water police for the Mstinsky part of the Vyshnevolotsky department. At the age of 10, the future engineer and industrialist joined the naval company of the Alexander Cadet Corps.

    He could not have been born in 1816, because then at the age of ten he would have had nowhere to go - the Alexander Cadet Corps was established in 1829 and opened in 1830.
  5. +8
    26 July 2025 18: 01
    In the spring of 1854, an Anglo-French squadron was making its evolutions in front of the windows of Emperor Nicholas Pavlovich...
    This phrase somewhat distorts the situation. It creates the impression that the English ships are in close proximity to the Emperor's location. But this is not so.
    The Cottage Palace is the central architectural structure of the Alexandria palace and park ensemble, built using elements of the neo-Gothic style in 1826-1829 for the family of Emperor Nicholas Pavlovich according to the design of the architect A. A. Menelas. The low three-story building is located 700 meters from the coast of the Gulf of Finland. The northern fairway to St. Petersburg (about 5.5 km) is indeed visible from the windows. However, this is not the place where the English ships were located.
    The northern fairway goes from St. Petersburg to the west past "Kotetzh", past Peterhof, Oranienbaum, leaving Kotlin Island to the north and goes further into the Gulf of Finland.
    The English ships were west of Kotlin with the Kronstadt fortress behind minefields. (See the diagram). If directly from Kotetzh it would be about 25 kilometers, not quite in front of the windows. Frankly speaking, I am not entirely sure that this place is visible from the palace even with a telescope.
    They write that the enemy fleet was observed from the heights of Bolshaya Izhora.
    1. +2
      26 July 2025 19: 52
      Quote: balabol
      If directly from Kotetzh it will be about 25 kilometers, not exactly in front of the windows. To be honest, I am not entirely sure that this place is visible from the palace even with a telescope.

      If it really is 25 km then it is already beyond the horizon.
  6. +4
    26 July 2025 19: 20
    "The Emperor was a good engineer and was able to appreciate the promising weapons"
    And what did his "good engineering" consist of?
    From the memoirs of Nicholas I: “Military sciences alone occupied me passionately; in them alone I found consolation and a pleasant occupation.”
    True, as soon as the Russian army of Nikolai Palkin’s time met a worthy opponent, an unpleasant embarrassment occurred.
    1. +5
      26 July 2025 19: 54
      Quote: belost79
      True, as soon as the Russian army of Nikolai Palkin’s time met a worthy opponent, an unpleasant embarrassment occurred.

      Well... but we can remember the assessment given to him by his contemporaries, those who had the misfortune of working with him.
      "petty and narrow-minded! (c)
      1. +3
        26 July 2025 21: 50
        There are also slightly different assessments. As for criticism, you can dig up such things about Stalin from the reviews of his contemporaries! And about Napoleon too. Contemporaries can be offended, feel hostility, etc., etc. Meanwhile, the modern center of St. Petersburg is, in many ways, precisely Nikolaevskaya buildings. Classical literature of the 19th century? "We are all Vyshe from Gogol's overcoat." Painting? Bryukov, Aivazovsky, Seminary... We can go on for a long time.
    2. +4
      26 July 2025 21: 45
      Hmm... In the Crimean War, Russia failed to defeat the coalition of three "great powers" and the Kingdom of Sardinia. But it brought the war to peace with quite acceptable conditions, without territorial losses. I repeat: three great powers: England (with the most powerful fleet in the world), France, with an army under Napoleon that was raging all over Europe, Turkey... At least the Turkish army was numerous, and Sardinia - the Bersaglieri fired a certain number of bullets at Russian soldiers, and they were good shots. The result... A limitation on the ability to maintain a fleet in the Black Sea, the rest - in small things. Is this serious?
      1. +2
        26 July 2025 22: 31
        Well, how can I say it? When the war began in 53, Nicholas I had Napoleonic plans for Turkey. Let me remind you about the "Sick Man of Europe". But then a screw fleet arrived, from which our Black Sea Fleet hid and partially drowned itself, landed troops, and in a year this landing force took the main fortress in the south of Russia (which, of course, for some reason was not ready for a siege). All this happened thousands of kilometers from England and France, let me remind you. Having taken the fortress, the allies simply said - that's it, Russians, we forbid you to have fortresses and a fleet on the Black Sea. And they had to accept these conditions. Indeed, this is not serious.
        1. +1
          27 July 2025 03: 44
          Well, what were the plans of the allies in the Baltic or in our North? And yes, the allies started all this mess in order to deprive Russia of its fleet and fortresses in the Black Sea. No one argues about the shortcomings in the leadership and equipment of the Russian army and navy, but you went too far with the "embarrassment", read what the English press of that time wrote about the actions of their fleet in the Baltic, and this was much closer to their native shores. Your definition is more suitable for the Russo-Japanese War, that was an embarrassment in full! At the same time, it seems that they also got off with South Sakhalin, but the course of military actions both on land and at sea was a real nightmare for the army and navy.
        2. +1
          28 July 2025 09: 38
          "Napoleonic plans" for Turkey were realized in about 20 years, they still had a fleet in the Black Sea (new screw corvettes with animal names arrived from St. Petersburg in 1857 and took part in the final chords of the Caucasian War), so the mountain (the allied coalition) gave birth to a mouse. And, yes, the Caucasus, because of which it all began (Sinop - an event to blockade the Caucasian coast) Russia took!
  7. 0
    28 July 2025 19: 50
    Quote: Cartalon
    Well, the February revolution happened for a very specific reason.

    The reason was specific, but the reasons that led to the reason becoming significant were many and varied.
  8. 0
    28 July 2025 19: 56
    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
    Hmm... In the Crimean War, Russia failed to defeat the coalition of three "great powers" and the Kingdom of Sardinia. But it brought the war to peace with quite acceptable conditions, without territorial losses. I repeat: three great powers: England (with the most powerful fleet in the world), France, with an army under Napoleon that was raging all over Europe, Turkey... At least the Turkish army was numerous, and Sardinia - the Bersaglieri fired a certain number of bullets at Russian soldiers, and they were good shots. The result... A limitation on the ability to maintain a fleet in the Black Sea, the rest - in small things. Is this serious?

    Here we must also add about the position of Austria, which threatened to start military actions if.... The demands changed. This forced us to keep significant forces on the border with Austria.
  9. 0
    29 July 2025 23: 16
    I remember reading a story about these events in the almanac "Ocean" as a child. The main character, a young student, signed up for the hussars when the war began, but was sent (or asked to be sent) to the navy. He participated in the construction of these gunboats, and then fought on them. Unfortunately, I can't remember the title of the story now. Maybe someone can remind me?