Duties of officers and lower ranks of the artillery specialty on ships of the Russian Imperial Navy in 1903–1907.

39 857 32
Duties of officers and lower ranks of the artillery specialty on ships of the Russian Imperial Navy in 1903–1907.

In the previous cycle dedicated to artillery teachings of the Russian Imperial fleet In 1903 and 1907, I covered in great detail the issues of artillery fire and the means of communication between command posts and the plutongs. However, the question of the duties of officers and enlisted men was left out, and I only touched on it briefly.

Well, that's worth fixing.

The materials for this article were taken primarily from the "Instructions for the commanders of batteries, groups, and plutongs of the squadron battleship Peresvet" (hereinafter referred to as the "Instructions"), published in 1903 and representing the rules of artillery service of the Pacific Ocean Squadron, as well as the "Rules of artillery service on ships of the fleet of 1907" (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), which were compiled based on the results of experimental artillery firing and other measures designed to radically improve the effectiveness of domestic naval artillery, including when firing at long distances.

It's worth noting that the 1907 "Rules" clearly outlined the hierarchy of artillery responsibilities, while the 1903 "Instructions" only outlined the duties of plutong commanders, and perhaps even then, incompletely. One suspects that the "Rules" only listed the duties of these commanders in combat and during exercises, but not in peacetime. Nevertheless, even in this form, the duties of plutong commanders, who occupied an intermediate position between gun crews and the senior artillery officer, provide some insight into the activities of both the crews and the senior artillery officer. However, of course, not in as much detail as one would like.

Senior artillery officer


In 1907, the artillery of a squadron battleship was headed by its commander. The "Rules" were written specifically for the most powerful battleships of the Russian Imperial Navy; other ships were required to apply them in accordance with their crew and equipment. The senior artillery officer was considered the ship's commander's closest assistant in artillery, combat training of artillery personnel, and the maintenance of the artillery's equipment.

During combat alerts, the senior artillery officer was required to be in the forward conning tower. He was forbidden from being distracted by damage control; he was to focus exclusively on firing. In 1907, the senior artillery officer was required to:

1. Before shooting:

1.1 Check the installation and adjustment of rangefinders and micrometers;

1.2 Ensure that artillery fire control devices, including electrical signaling, telephones, and speaking tubes, are functioning properly;

1.3 Check that the rangefinder and observation posts have a table for determining the deviations of projectiles in range and to the side, as well as the lead in setting the sight and rear sight, if they are assigned to determine such;

1.4 Obtain the air density from the senior navigation officer and select the firing table most suitable for the given atmospheric conditions;

1.5 Find out the temperature of the charges;

1.6 Check the degree of wear of the tools;

1.7 Prepare tables that should be used as a guide when switching from the installation of sights on a gun of a given caliber to other guns, taking into account paragraphs 1.4–1.6

1.8 Clarify the tactical situation with the commander: at what speed to fire and from which side, the expected maneuvering at the start of the battle and the distance from which to begin firing;

1.9 Based on the data received from the commander in accordance with paragraph 1.8, determine, using tactical tables, whether your ship will approach or move away from the target and the amount of its movement to the side relative to the firing plane.

1.10 Determine the sight and rear sight windage adjustment. The senior artillery officer may do this personally or assign it to one of his subordinates.

2. During shooting:

2.1 Determine the frequency of distance measurements using rangefinders;

2.2 Determine the lead in range in the following order:

2.2.1 Determine the relative movement of the target in range (the amount of change in the distance between your ship and the target);

2.2.2 Determine the true movement of the target in range by adding to the relative movement the movement of your own ship over the same time - with the appropriate sign;

2.2.3 Determine the change in the sight's table height at a given distance (personally or by assigning this to a subordinate).

2.3 Determine the lead to the side (that is, on the rear sight) in the following order:

2.3.1 Based on the accuracy of the lateral lead device readings, the methods of observing the circulation, and the distance to the target, indicate the time interval required to determine the relative angular movement of the target to the side according to the device and the circulation elements;

2.3.3 Find the magnitude of the relative movement of the target to the side;

2.3.4 Find the value of the true displacement to the side by adding the displacement of your ship to the side with the corresponding sign to the relative displacement of the target.

2.3 Select the time for the next determination of the lead times in range and in the direction - as necessary;

2.4 Determine the sight and rear sight adjustments for wind if, as a result of weather changes or maneuvering, the adjustments calculated before the start of the battle have become outdated;

2.5 Supervise sighting and firing to kill, determining and making the necessary adjustments to the sight and rear sight;

2.6. Observe the fall of shells personally, and if this is not possible, use the data transmitted to him by the observation post;

2.7 Periodically check the operability of artillery fire control devices.

Unfortunately, since the 1903 "Instructions" did not regulate the duties of a senior artillery officer, it is impossible to compare his duties with those of 1907. However, it can be assumed that there were no fundamental differences, except perhaps that in 1903 the processes for determining the magnitude of changes in range and bearing to a target ship may have been simplified.


Deputy Senior Artillery Officers


In 1907, the senior gunnery officer had three assistants: the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gunnery officers. In combat, the 2nd gunnery officer was required to be in the aft deckhouse. If the enemy was positioned astern in such a way that the senior gunnery officer could not direct fire at him, or if such control was so difficult that it was impractical, the 2nd gunnery officer assumed control of fire, even if his superior was alive and capable. If the ship was forced to fire on both sides, the senior and 2nd gunnery officers also exercised control of fire, with the senior officer directing fire at the priority target, except in cases where the target was astern, as described above. In this case, the senior gunnery officer assumed control of the guns on the other side.

The 3rd Artillery Officer was stationed in the forward control room during combat, ensuring the accurate and timely transmission of orders from the conning tower to the plutongs. If the senior artillery officer was wounded or killed, the 3rd Artillery Officer would replace him.

The 4th artillery officer was also the commander of the plutong (12-inch turret), which housed the reserve command post.

In 1903, such a hierarchy did not exist. There was a shortage of officers, so the senior artillery officer had no deputies, and if he was killed or seriously wounded, one of the plutong commanders would take his place.

Above, I described the duties of the "first after God" of artillery and his deputies. To give the esteemed reader a complete picture of artillery fire control, I will now describe the duties of officers and enlisted personnel as they relate to the service they perform.

Personnel for rangefinding work


Rangefinder officer. In 1907, he headed the ship's rangefinding department and simultaneously served as the head of the observation post. In rangefinding matters, he served as deputy to the senior artillery officer. His responsibilities included:

1. Ensuring the full serviceability of the ship’s rangefinders and their periodic adjustment;

2. Training of personnel in rangefinding;

3. Before the start of the battle - observation - monitoring the appearance of the enemy and the maneuvers of his ships;

4. During the battle, observe the fall of shells and transmit data to the senior artillery officer.

The 1907 "Regulations" stipulated that if it was impossible to observe the enemy from the conning tower, the ship's fire control could be transferred to the observation post. However, this clearly did not imply transferring such authority to the rangefinder officer, but rather transferring it to the senior gunnery officer's observation post.

Rangefinder quartermasters. Assigned to each combat tower and observation posts. Outside of combat:

1. In terms of rangefinding, they were assistants to the rangefinder officer in terms of maintaining the equipment in order and training rangefinders;

2. Other duties - stood watch as signal quartermasters.

In combat, they measured distances to targets and transmitted them to the artillery fire director. They could also, at the director's direction, determine and report changes in distance.

Rangefinders. They were assigned to each gun pit of 75 mm caliber and above, as well as to the conning towers, reserve command post and observation post.

Although the "Rules" don't explicitly state this, the context suggests that rangefinder quartermasters measured distances using rangefinders, while rangefinder officers used micrometers. Unfortunately, I don't know whether these were Luzhol-Myakishev micrometers or whether they were replaced by a more advanced model.

The problem was that the Luzhol-Myakishev micrometer could only provide reasonable accuracy in determining distances if the ship's height from the waterline to the masthead was precisely known. At the same time, the "Rules" stipulated that during periods of centralized fire control, rangefinders were not supposed to measure and transmit distances. Instead, they were to measure the height of enemy ships using distances transmitted from the command post.

This would have been pointless if the rangefinders had used Barr and Stroud-type rangefinders. The latter had no need for this altitude to determine distances. But if we assume that the rangefinders used micrometers, everything falls into place. It should be noted that having a reference altitude of the target ship is completely insufficient: during combat, it may sustain damage that increases its draft, topmasts or even entire masts may be knocked off, etc. At the same time, measuring the ship's current altitude given a known distance presents no particular difficulty and, in the event of damage to the rangefinders or loss of central fire control, will allow for more accurate determination of the target's distance.

Rangefinders stationed in plutongs were supposed to measure distances only when switching to plutong fire. Outside of combat, rangefinders served as signalmen.

It should be said that the observation post, in addition to the above-mentioned persons, also included a signalman and a galvanizer, but their duties were not directly related to the artillery service and therefore will not be discussed here.

As for 1903, the “Instructions” in force did not regulate the rangefinding business at all.

Продолжение следует ...
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    April 14 2026 06: 52
    Super! Plus! drinks
    I'm more than sure that the vast majority of people aren't even remotely familiar with how gunfire was organized on a single ship during the Russian Revolution. And lying on the couch with a computer on your back, you could, in theory, smash the Japs to smithereens in a couple of minutes. lol It's a must-read, just like studying the material. Because getting from a moving ship to another moving one at a distance visible through binoculars is a real challenge. Yes At the same time, somewhere nearby something explodes, shrapnel whistles, the ship rocks, visibility may deteriorate, or time is running out.
    So, to claim that the Russians' clumsy hands were the reason they lost, you need to know ALL the nuances of artillery organization, both on each individual ship and across the fleet as a whole. Then it will become clear whether it was the gunners who were clumsy or the hardware that failed.
    We are waiting for the continuation. hi
  2. +3
    April 14 2026 08: 58
    An interesting instruction for artillery officers. If the shells were not filled with pyroxylin, but with melinite (shimosa), it would be even more interesting.
  3. +7
    April 14 2026 09: 01
    Excellent article. I served my enlistment as a computer operator in a self-propelled gun battalion, but on the ground. And all those correction tables, weather data, and other data adjustments for the guns were handled by a single person. Although something tells me the battalion chief of staff (a captain) should have calculated all of it himself, but apparently he felt more comfortable entrusting it to me, or maybe he wanted to teach me properly; the guy was a master of his craft. Basically, he rose from the ranks of the privates to sergeant fairly quickly after a couple of field trips in the fall and spring.
  4. +3
    April 14 2026 09: 02
    Thank you for another interesting article. At Tsushima, junior gunnery officers on the Orel commanded the 6-inch turrets, not the main-caliber turrets. Was this due to sighting practice, or were there other considerations?
    1. +3
      April 14 2026 09: 16
      Quote: Alexander Morozov
      At Tsushima, the junior artillery officers of the Orel commanded the 6-inch turrets, not the main caliber turrets.

      Well, why not? The main battery turrets were also commanded by officers, with Warrant Officer Shcherbachev IV being a prime example. Generally, officers were supposed to command the main guns of the 6-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch guns, although there was an exception—the main gun of the Peresvet-class battleships.
      1. +1
        April 14 2026 09: 20
        Yes, officers, Shcherbachev and Pavlinov, if I'm not mistaken, but they were not listed as artillery officers but as watch officers.
        1. +4
          April 14 2026 09: 29
          That's true, but it was the norm—watch officers were also artillery officers. Interestingly, this continued later, as late as 1907. In fact, as one can judge, artillery was their priority, and watch duty was an add-on to their primary duties. Incidentally, this applied not only to officers.
          1. +2
            April 15 2026 14: 20
            Just like in the army. Platoon commander: when they go on guard duty, they become guard commander; when they go on patrol, they become patrol commander. The company commander is the unit duty officer.
        2. +4
          April 14 2026 21: 24
          Quote: Alexander Morozov
          were not listed as artillery officers but as watch officers

          According to the ship's roster, they were watch officers and watch commanders, and according to the combat roster, they were junior artillery officers, group commanders, and plutong commanders.
    2. +4
      April 14 2026 11: 56
      Quote: Alexander Morozov
      At Tsushima, junior gunnery officers on the Orel commanded the 6-inch turrets, not the main-caliber turrets. This was due to sighting practice.

      Most likely. The main battery turrets were supposed to fire after the secondary battery turrets had zeroed in. Therefore, the most competent officers were assigned to the forward secondary battery turrets. The main battery turrets were a lower priority in this regard.
      For example, one of the turrets of the Poltava main battery during the battle in ZhM was commanded by a non-commissioned officer. And the forward turret of the Adm. Senyavin air defense ship in Tsushima was commanded by Roshchakovsky, who was actually a miner.
    3. +2
      April 14 2026 21: 22
      Quote: Alexander Morozov
      Was this related to sighting practice or were there any other considerations?

      The Orel had four gun groups, the commanders of which were located in the "corner" 6-inch turrets. Depending on the battlefield circumstances, a group could include 12-inch guns and "medium" 6-inch guns. The choice of the 6-inch turrets was deliberate; they performed gunnery. Typically, the commanders of the 1st (starboard bow) and 4th (portionboard aft) groups were junior artillery officers.
      1. +1
        April 14 2026 21: 42
        Thanks everyone for the clarifications.
  5. 0
    April 14 2026 20: 10
    Looking again at photos of RIF officers during the reign of Nicholas II, I'm amazed at how poorly their uniforms fit. And these were custom-made uniforms, not factory-made ready-to-wear.
    1. +1
      April 15 2026 13: 01
      This isn't a uniform, but a ship's tunic, and it might be wrinkled. It was used exclusively on board ship. Dress uniforms fit much better. But you're right, there are indeed many photos like this.
      1. 0
        April 15 2026 14: 03
        Quote: denplot
        This is not a uniform, but a ship's jacket, it is permissible that it is wrinkled.

        https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ogegova/111386
        UNIFORM, -a, male. Military or civilian uniform. Officer's m.

        The problem isn't even that the jackets and trousers are wrinkled, but that the jackets don't fit, they're not tailored. The one on the left is too short, not the right fit.

        A frankly "shabby" look.

        "A thin figure in a baggy white tunic with lieutenant's shoulder straps was descending the ladder from the wheelhouse. His cap was pulled low. Some new officer, hanging around here visiting, God forgive me, take them all!"

        He drank tea, and his wrinkled jacket gathered into its usual folds over his stomach. He made a raunchy joke about some of the valve's conveniences and laughed contentedly and sincerely at it. Yuri Levitin smiled the way a senior officer on the Aurora does.

        L.S. Sobolev "Major Repairs"

        These baggy, wrinkled jackets "with the usual folds" of the RIF officers were very accurately noted by a participant in the Battle of Moonzund and the Ice Campaign of the Baltic Fleet, already under Soviet rule the navigator of the battleship "Andrey Pervozvanny" and the destroyer "Orfey", the flagship navigator of the patrol ship detachment of the OGPU Marine Border Guard, and later the Soviet writer L.S. Sobolev.
        1. +2
          April 15 2026 14: 28
          In the first case, the clothes were ill-fitting—"off the cuff." If my memory serves me right (it's been over 40 years since I read this book), the midshipman had to don the uniform of his older lieutenant brother to go through the upper deck to the latrine at night.
        2. +3
          April 15 2026 15: 11
          Quote: AlexanderA
          These baggy, wrinkled jackets

          They are quite comfortable in everyday life on a ship, which, generally speaking, is not a catwalk
          1. -1
            April 16 2026 10: 28
            At that time, officers in the British, Japanese, and, if I remember correctly, US navies, in addition to the tunic, had a coat, the one pictured on the right, which, in my opinion, was much more comfortable for everyday life on board ship. Even in this regard, the RIF lagged behind.
            1. +1
              April 16 2026 10: 53
              Quote: AlexanderA
              The one in the picture on the right, which in my opinion is much more convenient for everyday life on a ship

              Despite the fact that it's practically a carbon copy of what our officers wear. Admittedly, it's slightly less well-made, as the chest pockets are arguably more convenient.
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Even in this, RIF lagged behind.

              Well, yes... Since the clothes are the same, it means RIF was lagging behind, how could it be otherwise? laughing
              1. 0
                April 16 2026 12: 08
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Despite the fact that it is practically a carbon copy of what our officers are wearing.

                Can you provide a photo of Russian Imperial Navy officers wearing what are essentially carbon copies of the Japanese/British uniform? Meanwhile, I'll provide a photo of US Navy officers wearing what are essentially carbon copies of the Japanese/British uniform.

                Group of officers of the American torpedo boat destroyer USS Nicholson.
                1. +1
                  April 16 2026 12: 23
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  Can you provide a photo of RIF officers dressed in "practically carbon copy"?

                  The article provides
                  1. -1
                    April 16 2026 12: 45
                    What does the article cite? Do you realize that a soft jacket with a stand-up collar, no shoulder straps, and hidden buttons is much more comfortable on a ship than a tunic with shoulder straps, patch pockets, and buttons that catch on everything? Well, here's a photo of a Russian Imperial Navy officer wearing such a jacket. In the meantime, I'll show you a photo of a US Navy officer directing a 6-inch gun crew. USS Charleston, 1898.
                    1. +3
                      April 16 2026 14: 07
                      Quote: AlexanderA
                      Do you understand that a soft jacket with a stand-up collar without shoulder straps and hidden buttons is much more comfortable in shipboard conditions than a tunic with shoulder straps, patch pockets, and buttons that catch on everything?

                      Yes, I understand. As usual, you don't.
                      We're not talking about mechanics, who have to crawl around in machinery, and for whom everything you've mentioned is critical. We're talking about all the other officers—watch officers, artillery officers, and minelayers. They didn't have to climb waist-deep into machinery, meaning the risk of catching a button was minimal. But patch pockets were more convenient than inside ones for storing small items needed on the job. Therefore, the truly important requirement was that the tunic not restrict movement—and it didn't; it's not a jacket, after all. In this regard, the jackets you mentioned had no advantage over the tunic, and patch pockets are a plus, not a minus, in this case.
                      1. +1
                        April 16 2026 15: 54
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yes, I understand. As usual, you don't.

                        Never worn a military uniform?
                        We're not talking about mechanics, who have to crawl around in machinery and for whom everything you've mentioned is critical. We're talking about all the other officers—watch officers, artillery officers, and minelayers. They didn't have to climb waist-deep into the machinery, meaning the risk of catching a button was minimal.

                        As I understand it, you understand that at that time, only "butter-bellied" sailors served on the ships of the British, Japanese, and US navies, who, even with the rank of admiral, were allowed to "show off" in more comfortable uniforms than the gentlemen officers of the Russian Navy? wink
                        But patch pockets were more convenient than internal ones for storing small items needed on the job. Therefore, it was truly important that the jacket not restrict movement.

                        "By Order No. 150 of April 21, 1917, certain changes were made to some items of uniform: The buttonholes had to be ripped off the jacket, and gold or silver sleeve stripes of the established pattern were allowed to be sewn only on the outer half of the sleeve. The buttons on the blue jacket also had to be ripped off (and their loops sewn up), the outer edge of the jacket was trimmed with black braid, under which hooks for fastening were attached; the collar also had to be trimmed with black braid, but narrower, and the standing collar of the tunic could be replaced with a closed turn-down black cloth collar, also trimmed with black braid, but even narrower; The shaped flaps of the four pockets were unstitched, and the pocket slits on all sides were also trimmed with very narrow black tapeSleeve insignia on the blue tunic were to be made of black braid. The naval jacket and coat underwent similar modifications, with only the trousers and shoes remaining unchanged. The so-called "American" type cap was introducedThe band was covered with a black ribbon, the peak became almost flat and straight, the leather chin strap was replaced with a gold braided cord, and the crown was to be of black cloth. The white piping that had been present on the old-style caps was completely abolished. In summer, the black crown was covered with a white cover. In place of the previous cockade, a new one was installed – stamped metal or sewn (depending on the owner's preference). It was in the color of the device: if the sleeve stripes were gold, then the cockade should be the same color, and the anchor silver. With silver stripes, the cockade was the same, and the anchor gold; the anchor was surrounded by leaves, and above the circle was a five-pointed star (it was almost the same as later in the Soviet Navy). In addition, the same order allowed the old caps to be worn, but then the black on the inside of the cockade was replaced with red. On May 1, 1917, a new order was issued regarding the rules for wearing uniforms. It stated that all the new regulations also applied to retirees, but to distinguish them from active duty ranks, the upper braid on coats, frock coats, and double-breasted jackets, and the upper black braid on tunics, were sewn on in a wave-like pattern and without curls. Beginning May 30, 1917, strips of 7-cm-wide ribbon were permitted to be worn on the left chest instead of orders. The monarchical emblems on chest badges for graduation from military educational institutions, as well as on orders, were removed.

                        The bourgeois revolution freed the gentlemen naval officers from shoulder straps, extra buttonholes, external buttons, pocket flaps on their jackets, and other shiny uniform tinsel that the tsarist regime loved so much, thus bringing the uniform of the gentlemen naval officers closer to the most comfortable examples of uniforms of the best foreign military fleets of that time. wink

                        As usual, you won't understand why. Why did the victorious bourgeois revolution do all this to the uniforms of the officers of the Russian Navy? laughing
                      2. +1
                        April 16 2026 20: 40
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        As I understand it, you understand that only "oil-bellies" served on the ships of the British, Japanese and US navies at that time.

                        No, but the buttons weren't a critical flaw, and the pockets were actually an advantage.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        By order No. 150 of April 21, 1917, certain changes were made to some items of uniform.

                        Yeah. And here's the RKKF, everyday uniform No. 3.
                        https://rkka.ru/uniform/files/vmf33.htm
                        Suddenly, a tracing from the photo in the article:)))
                      3. 0
                        April 16 2026 23: 19
                        The tricky part is that naval uniform fashion was set by... the British. It was the British Navy that, in 1891, established the blazer as the standard everyday uniform for officers. The Royal Navy borrowed the blazer from the sports clubs of the British aristocracy. Rowing and sailing, cricket, all that stuff. Turn-down collars with lapels, shiny buttons, patch pockets... After the end of World War I, in 1919, this everyday uniform for naval officers was copied from the British and the US Navy.

                        The US Navy could well afford this "British aristocracy." After all, for service on board "when civilians aren't looking," in 1913 they officially approved the use of a denim uniform (classic denim)—a separate set of jacket and trousers—for both sailors and officers.

                        And the Soviet Navy, with its jackets with stand-up collars until the 1960s and the absence of denim work uniforms, a tradition that had historically persisted since Tsarist times, once again lagged behind the world's most advanced navies for many decades. Tradition.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
        3. +2
          April 15 2026 15: 28
          Sobolev was right. But a work jacket, if fitted, isn't very comfortable on a ship. Back then, officers didn't wear work clothes like they do now. The exception was engineers. They wore what's called a burnout dress.
          Artenyev in Moonzund apologizes to von Dehn's wife for meeting her in a work jacket.
          1. 0
            April 16 2026 12: 24
            Quote: denplot
            Sobolev was right. But a work jacket, if it's too fitted, isn't very comfortable on a ship.

            How does this compare to a tunic for wear on a ship? Group photo of USS Charleston's officers at Mare Island in 1898.
  6. +1
    April 15 2026 16: 16
    Thanks for the interesting stuff.
    I'm currently reading Georg Haase's "Zwei weisse Völker" (The Two White People). A heavily abridged version of this book is known to Russian-speaking readers as "Aboard the Derfflinger in the Battle of Jutland."
    There is an entire chapter devoted to the organization of an artillery combat unit.
    Comrade Kolobov, could you answer a couple of questions about this?
    1. The list of those who are in command posts includes the following: a senior artillery officer and a third artillery officer (for medium caliber), one midshipman, two rangefinders, three artillery officers at the central aiming devices and five sailors of the communications service...
    In the original, these "communication service sailors" are called Befelsübermittler (order transmitters). Who are they? Orderlies? Messengers?
    2. The photo shows the observation post of the Derfflinger.
    It's clear that this birdhouse is very small. According to the description, it contained: one main artillery observer, one auxiliary artillery observer, a non-commissioned officer observer, and two communications sailors with telephones, transmitting information about the impact of shells, which he observed using optical telescopes.
    How could they fit there?
    1. +2
      April 16 2026 11: 12
      I don't know about this, I haven't studied the German fleet that deeply.
      Quote: Slug_BDMP
      The list of those who are in command posts includes the following: a senior artillery officer and a third artillery officer (for medium caliber), one midshipman, two rangefinders, three artillery wighter officers at the central aiming devices and five sailors of the communications service...

      It's not entirely clear here - there was clearly more than one command post on Derflinger, so how many senior artillery officers did they have back then?
      Quote: Slug_BDMP
      In the original, these "communication service sailors" are called Befelsübermittler (order transmitters). Who are they? Orderlies? Messengers?

      I can only guess. But here's my guess. We were supposed to have three enlisted men in the forward conning tower, manning the speaking tubes and telephones; there were four in the aft conning tower. There were also two galvanizers per conning tower, but there were no orderlies in the forward conning tower, and there was one in the aft conning tower.
      From this, I'd venture to guess that the five Befelsübermittler were enlisted personnel assigned to telephones and speaking tubes, plus one or two orderlies. It's also possible that there was also a galvanizer assigned to repair combat damage to the telephone line. But none of this is certain, of course.
      Quote: Slug_BDMP
      How could they fit there?

      If you look at various drawings of the Derflinger-class light cruiser, you'll see that the nest, the photo of which you provided, has been replaced with a much more voluminous structure. It's probably the same design.
      1. +1
        April 16 2026 20: 18
        The nest, the photo of which you provided, was replaced with a much more voluminous structure. Probably, the staff was designed for it.

        Probably. In Muzhenikov's book "Battlecruisers Derfflinger, Lützow, Hindenburg, and Mackensen," it says:
        Derfflinger was originally equipped with two hollow tubular masts, slightly inclined. After the Battle of Jutland, the lightweight foremast was replaced with a tripod with widely spaced stanchions.

        There are also pictures of the Derfflinger with a thin mast and a small nest—see attachment. Perhaps Haase "posted a photo" in his book before the modernization, and described the standard equipment later.
        1. +2
          April 16 2026 20: 27
          Quote: Slug_BDMP
          And there are also pictures of the Derfflinger with a thin mast and a small nest

          I completely agree. And yes, I wouldn't be so categorical in my assertion based solely on pictures, because pictures can sometimes be confusing. But the photo of the drowning Derflinger shouldn't be confusing, and in it... You can see for yourself.