Military Review

David and the Three Goliath

32
22 September 1914, a truly sensational event occurred in stories First World War. The German U-9 submarine with a displacement of 490 tons and with a crew of just 28 people in less than an hour sank three British armored cruisers - Hog, Cressi and Abukir with a displacement of 12 thousand tons each. Of the 2300 crew members of the dead cruisers, only 837 survived. It was one of the most weighty slaps received by the former "mistress of the seas" since the Middle Ages.
Although this episode did not have a serious impact on the balance of power, since for the huge British fleet even such losses were far from catastrophic, in my opinion, it fits well with the line of evidence of the assumption, which I have already expressed more than once: Russia in the First World War fought on the wrong side.




Germanic submarines in the Kiel Bay in summer 1914 of the year. The UK was not ready to counter this new threat.



Drawing of the submarine U-9. This submarine, built in 1910 year, was armed with two bow and two stern torpedo tubes.



The Hog heavy armored cruiser armed with two nine-inch, twelve six-inch and fourteen 76-mm guns. .



Same type with "Hog" cruiser "Cressi".



The death of the cruiser "Abukir" and the explosion of the second German torpedo at the side of the "Hoga".



Team "Cress" trying to escape from a sinking ship.



The triumphant return of U-9 to Kiel.



Officers and sailors of the U-9, awarded for the destruction of the three British cruisers Iron Crosses. The second from the left in the first row is the captain of the submarine Otto Weddigen.
Author:
Originator:
http://vikond65.livejournal.com/392054.html
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. crazyrom
    crazyrom 27 September 2015 06: 33 New
    +8
    Well done, the Germans, wiped the nose of the Englishwoman.
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 27 September 2015 07: 35 New
      +42
      Well, yes, of course they were. Especially if you do not know how Wedingen won this brilliant victory.
      Photos are of course cool. But the article does not say a word about how Weddingen actually drowned British cruisers. But this is all.
      First of all, the infantile naivete of the British who surprises the already outdated armored cruisers of Rear Admiral Henry Campbell’s 7th cruiser squadron patrols the “wide fourteenths” - an area in the southern part of the North Sea between the coast of Norfolk and Holland. As a result, these very cruisers turned into a "living bait" for the German Reconnaissance detachment, which included incomparably more powerful and, moreover, much faster fleet battlecruisers, against which the British from the 7th squadron had no chance - not successfully resist, nor could they escape. Moreover, during the patrol, on September 22, 1914, in order to save coal, the cruiser “Hog”, “Abukir” and “Kressi” were moving along the front line with a distance of 2 nautical miles between ships, at a constant heading and speed of 10 knots. Those. constituted an ideal target for a determined submarine commander. The first lieutenant commander, Otto Veddigen, sunk the cruiser "Abukir", which only had one torpedo fired from a distance of just over 400 m. Having failed to straighten the ship, he called two other cruisers to rescue the team and thereby put them under attack. Wedingen was not slow to take advantage of the gift of fate, and with just 1 meters he planted 200 torpedoes on the left side of the cruiser Hog, which had just begun to gain momentum. The cruiser sank after 2 minutes aft forward. After that, Wedingen lifted his U-10 to the surface to see where the third cruiser was. “Cressi” peacefully stood without a move at the site of the death of “Abukir”. Wedingen sequentially threw three torpedoes into the cruiser, two of which hit. Cressy sank. Of the 9 crew members of the three cruisers, 2296 officers and 62 sailors were killed.
      A month later, on October 15, 1914, Otto Wedingen sank the fourth British cruiser - this time also the outdated large armored deck crater ser Hawk, which also moved at a constant rate at a constant speed of 12 knots and again during patrolling.
      By the way, Wedingen himself died on March 18.03.1915, 29, commanding another U submarine. The first-ever battleship of a new type, the Dreadnought, the founder of the class of warships named after himself, drowned her with a ramming blow. At the same time, the Dreadnought became the only battleship to sink a submarine during both world wars.
      Judge for yourself: who is more "guilty" of the sinking of the British cruisers by Wedgen 3:
      - the obvious and criminal stupidity of the British command, which sent the cruiser without any anti-submarine protection, which at that time was in its infancy, to a dangerous area where even the primitive German submarines of that time could easily get to?
      - The "skill" of Weding himself, drowning the British cruisers one after the other under ideal conditions, with the two cruisers being virtually idle, engaged in rescue operations?
      - unprofessional actions of the commander of the British cruising detachment (he is the commander of the Abukir) and the commanders of two other cruisers, who, knowing the possible danger of enemy submarine attacks, themselves consistently set their ships under the Wedding torpedoes, especially since the British noticed the periscope of the submarine, but did nothing.
      I have the honor.
      1. dudinets
        dudinets 27 September 2015 07: 46 New
        +51
        the commander’s skill is to use the enemy’s mistake 100 percent.
        nobody really knew how to deal with submarines then. charters are written in blood.
      2. Olezhek
        Olezhek 27 September 2015 11: 24 New
        +16
        Especially since the British noticed the submarine periscope, but did nothing.


        This is not exactly the Olympic Games - it is a war at sea

        Agree that the German commander of the submarine acted competently and strictly according to the laws of wartime - he destroyed STRICTLY military facilities during the officially declared war.

        The fact that the Britons screwed up - this is their problem ..
      3. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 27 September 2015 21: 54 New
        +6
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        Judge for yourself: who is more "guilty" of the sinking of the British cruisers by Wedgen 3:
        - the obvious and criminal stupidity of the British command, which sent the cruiser without any anti-submarine protection, which at that time was in its infancy, to a dangerous area where even the primitive German submarines of that time could easily get to?
        - The "skill" of Weding himself, drowning the British cruisers one after the other under ideal conditions, with the two cruisers being virtually idle, engaged in rescue operations?
        - unprofessional actions of the commander of the British cruising detachment (he is the commander of the Abukir) and the commanders of two other cruisers, who, knowing the possible danger of enemy submarine attacks, themselves consistently set their ships under the Wedding torpedoes, especially since the British noticed the periscope of the submarine, but did nothing.

        The fact remains that I drowned. Winners, as you know, are not judged. The victory of the German commander became less significant due to the stupidity of the English sailors? The question is rhetorical ...

        For example. In the Tsushima Strait, did the Japanese defeat the Russian fleet or not? The fact remains a crushing defeat. And the fact that it is caused by the incompetence of the capital’s command and criminal sloppiness and the inability to manage the squadron of Vice Admiral Rozhestvensky personally - this will not sweeten the bitterness of defeat for us, and will not spoil the Japanese victory.

        To use the stupidity, the arrogance of the adversary, to mislead him about his true plans and forces - this is the supreme art of a military leader. Sun Tzu wrote about this in the 5th century BC. And the justification “wait, I didn’t have time to get ready” rolls at the kid in a street fight (and that’s not always the case), and in war there can be no such excuses.
  2. Klibanophoros
    Klibanophoros 27 September 2015 06: 43 New
    +13
    The accession of the Russian Empire to the Triple Alliance was impossible, given the presence of the Ottoman Empire, but more because of the huge debts of the tsarist government to the Anglo-French banks and other investors.
    1. Kazakh
      Kazakh 27 September 2015 09: 40 New
      +12
      Quote: Klibanophoros
      but more because of the immense debts of the tsarist government to the Anglo-French banks and other investors.

      The war will write everything off. My opinion is that the winner gets everything and the debts remain with the sufferers. So it was possible not only to write off the debts but also to earn. And the straits? That the straits could be negotiated with the Germans more decently than any Angles and Franks could help the Turks persuade.
      1. Klibanophoros
        Klibanophoros 27 September 2015 18: 37 New
        +4
        You forget that the Bosch had their views on the lands of Ukraine. This time.
        The Entente, as a revenge for moving the cannon meat supplier to another camp, could easily have collapsed the Russian economy by financial speculation on the stock exchange, to the great joy of all interested parties, including the Germans. (Which would turn "union" into bondage, having put forward appropriate conditions).
        This whole knot of contradictions could be resolved simply without entering into a pan-European massacre, since the country is not critically ready for war, but no one would let it sit out.
        What happened is what happened. The monarchy itself is to blame for its defeat, being unable to respond to emerging threats.
        1. Olezhek
          Olezhek 27 September 2015 19: 21 New
          +1
          What a harsh you - to blame myself.
          (I almost said, just like you and are to blame for the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia) lol
          However - in that situation Russia could not surrender Serbia and remain a Great Power.
          Knockout from the “club of great powers” ​​carried its own problems ..
  3. bionik
    bionik 27 September 2015 07: 14 New
    +4
    U-boat U9.
    1. bionik
      bionik 27 September 2015 07: 22 New
      +4
      The cruiser "Abukir".
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 27 September 2015 07: 17 New
    +4
    Russia in the First World War fought on the wrong side.... It happened .. in 1907, an English-Russian agreement was signed on the division of spheres of influence in the East, in particular in Persia .. This agreement pushed Russia into the arms of the Entente .. the Germans could not offer anything concrete. .
    1. The centurion
      The centurion 27 September 2015 14: 00 New
      +5
      Quote: parusnik
      Russia in the First World War fought on the wrong side .... So it happened .. in 1907 G .. The Anglo-Russian agreement was signed

      No, it all started even earlier.
      Alexander III's foreign policy was distinguished by the fact that he decisively evaded interference in European affairs. He strictly guarded Russian national interests, and at the same time he discovered an enviable peacefulness, which is why he received the title “Tsar Peacemaker”. He not only did not lead wars, but also avoided a pretext to them in every way. Despite the policy of reckless "pan-Slavism", which was based mainly on the lyrical fantasies of the educated classes, at the first manifestation of dissatisfaction with Russian politics from the southern Slavs freed from Turkish dependence, who started a mutual showdown, he abandoned them, leaving Bulgaria and Serbia their own fate. In this matter, he was absolutely in solidarity with the brilliant Dostoevsky, who wrote back in 1877: “Russia will never have, and never have, haters, envious people, slanderers, and even obvious enemies, like all these Slavic tribes, only Russia will liberate, but Europe will agree to recognize their liberation ... ". In contrast to the created alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary, Alexander III entered into a defensive alliance with France, taking the enemy in ticks. The only military clash during the reign of Alexander III was with the Afghans on the Kushka River, which did not cause any complications with either Afghanistan or the British.
      1. Eugene-Eugene
        Eugene-Eugene 28 September 2015 12: 05 New
        +1
        The main export of Russia went to England, so she entered the Entente
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 September 2015 22: 13 New
      0
      Deserved minus.
      Those. do you think it was necessary to fight on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary, the last of which had great territorial claims against the Russian Empire, and the second - a slightly crazy leader? So, the Great Union of the Three Powers defeats Ffseh ... and after that the Russian Empire is left alone against two - Austria-Hungary and Germany, and neither one is interested in a strong Russia? And Germany, Russia is interested solely as a market for its own manufactured goods? And the Russian army, fighting with the Austrians, could not do anything against the German army, even when most of them were in France?
      After the victory of the “other side”, the Austrian and / or German word became law for Russia, because neither militarily nor economically could Russia compete closely with the alliance of Austria-Hungary and Germany. The existence of the Russian state would be made dependent on a German whim.
      Do you want that?
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. igorra
    igorra 27 September 2015 07: 37 New
    +6
    Quote: Klibanophoros
    The accession of the Russian Empire to the Triple Alliance was impossible, given the presence of the Ottoman Empire, but more because of the huge debts of the tsarist government to the Anglo-French banks and other investors.

    So it was necessary to smash the Anglo-French moneylenders together with the Germans, and even impose a contribution. Why do we always repay our debts and forgive our debtors? What about the Germans? The Germans, like the Poles, cannot understand that they will be great only in alliance with Russia and nothing else!
  7. Alf
    Alf 27 September 2015 08: 30 New
    +2
    Not "Hog", but "Hawk", in Russian transcription - "Hawk".
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 27 September 2015 08: 57 New
      +11
      Not "Hog", but "Hawk", in Russian transcription - "Hawk".

      The name "Hawke" or "Hawk" was the British armored cruiser type "Edgar" ("Edgar"), which entered service in 1895, with a displacement of 7700 tons, a full speed of 20 knots (significantly less at the time of sinking). Sunken by Wedingen on October 15, 1914 - the circumstances of the death of the cruiser are described by me above.
      Armored cruiser "Hog" or, if you like, "Hogue" - a ship of the type "Aboukir" ("Abukir"). Other sisterships: "Bacchante" ("Bashanti"), "Cressy" ("Cressi") - another hero of the article, "Euryalus" ("Yuriales"). All went into operation in 1901-1904, with a displacement of 12 tons and a ceremonial passage of 000 knots (by the beginning of World War I, speed had certainly fallen).
      "Hog" bore its name in honor of the Battle of La Hog, was laid at the Vickers shipyard on July 14, 1898, and launched on August 13, 1900. Sea trials ended on November 19, 1902. The cruiser underwent major repairs at the Chatham Dockyard shipyard in 1912-13 and was assigned to the 7th cruiser squadron shortly after the outbreak of World War I in August 1914. As part of which he died as a result of the Wedingen attack.
      The battle of La Hogue (eng. Battle of La Hogue) - the destruction of French ships under the command of Turville English squadrons of Russell and Delawal, which followed the battle of Barfleur May 23-24, 1692.
      By the way, who cares, here is a link to articles that are excellent in my opinion about this fight: http://nnm.me/blogs/sceptic78/topi-ih-vseh-foto/ and http://warspot.ru/2925-troynoy-udar- po-britanskoy-gordosti.
      By the way, the Germans very actively advertised the victory of Wedingen, using it in propaganda of service in the navy and as an example of the success of German weapons in the war. Here are children's German postcards of that time - an example of patriotic education:
      1. Alf
        Alf 27 September 2015 09: 16 New
        0
        About the name of the carcass.
        1. Aleksandr72
          Aleksandr72 27 September 2015 09: 17 New
          0
          Personally for you drinks hi
  8. moskowit
    moskowit 27 September 2015 09: 24 New
    +1
    The team was awarded the 2 class Iron Crosses. The captain is awarded the 1 class Iron Cross. His 2 class cross is worn for a special event. In ordinary surroundings, only a sash in a buttonhole was worn ...
  9. kvs207
    kvs207 27 September 2015 09: 35 New
    +4
    Quote: Dudinets
    the commander’s skill is to use the enemy’s mistake 100 percent.

    Exactly. Alexander 72 has a great addition goodbut, because the main thing is the result. But he is. I read, in the Model Designer, about this irony of fate, Dreadnought - a ship intended to conduct an artillery duel, sunk the boat with a ramming strike.
    And “Hog”, “Abukir” and “Kressi” are surprisingly similar to our “Bayan”.
    1. askold
      askold 27 September 2015 11: 43 New
      +2
      I agree with you, the main thing is the result. The end justified the means, since they had already been created by that time (submarines). And the methods, well, the methods ... Nothing wrong with sinking three warships (two of which were essentially engaged in rescue operations ) -Some spoiled everything thinking that they were in a minefield, others took advantage of it with purely German pedantry. Later on, the methods of warfare, and underwater in particular, will become even more inhumane, will go not only to naval officers and the navy, but also to the merchant and passenger.
      According to external data, the British cruisers are similar to the Russians, only much larger (displacement like armadillos) and more powerful in terms of armament. By the First World War, our people generally look like an anachronism, it’s not for nothing that contemporaries wrote that when ordering ships of the Bayan type, the Naval Ministry was not preparing for a future war but to the past ... As a result, by World War I, we had three cruisers appropriate for the Russo-Japanese War. "Admiral Makarov" ordered in the homeland of the now infamous "Mistral" (the gunsmiths there gladly performed whether orders of the Russian Empire), and the "Pallas" with "Bayan" postoennye at Admiralty Shipyards, commissioned to the Navy in the period from 1908-1911gg.
      And, by the way, less than a week after the events described in the article, on September 28, another U-26 boat sank our Pallada, out of almost 600 people, no one managed to survive.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. kvs207
    kvs207 27 September 2015 09: 41 New
    +2
    Quote: Alf
    Not Hog, but Hawk,

    Well I do not know.
    Alexander72, gave an exhaustive answer and a small addition. This series, was named, for the most part, in honor of the victories of the British in the Hundred Years War.
  11. Olezhek
    Olezhek 27 September 2015 11: 05 New
    +1
    he fits well into the line of evidence for the assumption, which I have repeatedly expressed: Russia in the First World War fought on the wrong side.


    Sorry - but the Italians could argue this way - who could settle in on one side or on the other.
    with the ridiculous importance of their army and navy - it was not so important.
    By the way, during WWII, many Italians reasoned like that ..

    In World War I, the Germans seemed to have no choice: Russia could not surrender Serbia.
    Even the movement of the German corps to Paris did not mean an affiliated entry into the RI war.
    That's exactly why six shots in Sarajevo ..

    Ultimatum to Belgrade automatically meant the reaction of St. Petersburg.
    Once again, Russia could not surrender Serbia and in Berlin understood this ..
  12. Olezhek
    Olezhek 27 September 2015 11: 31 New
    +2
    Russia in the First World War fought on the wrong side.


    Here is an interesting question. Rather, the Germans fought a very strange war.

    In general, in the conditions of confrontation Russia Britain (the main forces) the Germans had three options (winning)

    1 To unite with Britain against Russia is a great march to the east.
    2 To unite with Russia against Britain is a big war at sea.
    3 (To pretend to be a rag and not to shine) - to reduce the activity in diplomacy not to go anywhere and blow off the Russians and British.
    To enter the war when both Britain and Russia will be exhausted (a la USA in the current version of reality)

    They chose the fourth - the deadly option - to fight And against the Russians And against the British ...
    And the Battle of Jutland and the Battle of East Prussia ...

    (Franks Austro-Hungarians Italians and the Ottoman, I leave behind-the-scenes analysis)

    Badly planned by the Germans First World War .. very bad ....
  13. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 27 September 2015 12: 33 New
    +1
    It would be better if Russia remained on the sidelines, but it's all fantastic ...
  14. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 27 September 2015 13: 20 New
    0
    The British always robbed the Germans of the sea, in WWI - Weddingen, in WWII - Scapa Flow (again, PL), the sinking of the carrier Glories by surface forces of the Kriegsmarine.
    1. pilot8878
      pilot8878 27 September 2015 14: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: ivanovbg
      The British always robbed the Germans of the sea, in WWI - Weddingen, in WWII - Scapa Flow (again, PL), the sinking of the carrier Glories by surface forces of the Kriegsmarine.

      Ivan, let me disagree with you. Listed by you - only episodes, annoying, but not solved. "Slap" if you like. But the results of the war of attrition, even at sea, for the Germans look depressing.
      1. ivanovbg
        ivanovbg 27 September 2015 18: 04 New
        0
        The fact of the matter is that at sea (by the way, and on land too), the British always took Germans by number, not skill. Although the Germans lost two world wars, they fought excellently at sea, one tactic of a “pack of packs” is worth it. For the last 100 years, the "mistress of the seas" lying on old laurels and these "honors" is a vivid confirmation of this. And so, in the ratio 10: 1, with the same technical level, even I will break any fleet of the world, although I was only a couple of times on warships, and even then in the museum.
        1. pilot8878
          pilot8878 28 September 2015 18: 42 New
          0
          Create superiority of forces in this direction. Isn't this the strategic art of the commander? Higher crew tactical skills will win the battle, but not the war.
  15. xomaNN
    xomaNN 27 September 2015 18: 25 New
    +1
    And it is precisely this experience of the German submariners that shows the justice of Suvorovsky "To fight not by numbers, but by reduction!" Russia now cannot win by number, the adversary is many times more, so only by ABILITY!
  16. Tjeck
    Tjeck 29 September 2015 14: 54 New
    0
    looking at the top sailor (second from the left), there was a desire to grow a mustache.