| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > Romanian Navy "Black Sea" Division actions in WW1 |
| Posted by: Agarici March 22, 2006 10:43 pm |
| Were there any combat actions involving the ships of the “Black Sea” Division of the Romanian Royal Navy in 1916-1918? What ships were subordinated to the “Black Sea” division, excepting “Elisabeta” cruiser (if any)? According to the information I have, Romanian navy maritime division around WW 1 included 2-3 torpedo boats (+ possibly a gunboat). |
| Posted by: dragos03 March 22, 2006 11:06 pm |
| As far as i know, the only combat actions of these ships were on the Danube. |
| Posted by: Carol I March 22, 2006 11:25 pm |
| Take a look in the thread: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=825. |
| Posted by: Victor March 23, 2006 06:44 am |
| The Romanian auxiliary cruisers took part in the actions of the Imperial Fleet against the Turkish coast in 1917. |
| Posted by: Iamandi March 23, 2006 06:53 am |
| Some of them (one or two) were transformed as base ship for russian hidroplanes. Iama |
| Posted by: Carol I March 23, 2006 10:47 am | ||
Dead-cat stated that as much as four of them were used for this purpose. Take a look in the thread: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=825. |
| Posted by: Agarici March 23, 2006 12:34 pm |
| A more precise question now: haven’t been stripped of her guns and confined to guard Sulina (and, as a best case scenario, even modernized - refitted with more powerful cannons), how competitive would “Elisabeta” cruiser have been, comparing with possible opponents from the Black Sea? I think an answer should take into consideration its performances (displacements, amour, speed, etc) compared with those of the possible adversaries. My main point is - was she by that time a kind of a “floating coffin” or not…? Thank you. |
| Posted by: Carol I March 26, 2006 06:42 pm |
| At that time Elisabeta was almost 30 years old. |
| Posted by: dragos03 March 26, 2006 07:28 pm |
| It depends what the opponent was. The modest Bulgarian Navy had no chance against Elisabeta and the other ships of the Black Sea Division. In turn, the Romanian ships had no chance against the two modern German ships in the Black Sea (Goeben and Breslau). The only somewhat balanced battle would be between Elisabeta and one of the two obsolete Turkish protected cruisers (Hamidieh and Medjidieh). |
| Posted by: Victorian November 04, 2006 09:03 pm |
| "Elisabeta" was a typical "Elswick cruiser", a concept developed by Armstrongs in the 70-80's of the 19th century, which emphasises on three elements: 1) A rather light build 2) Good speed and sea manoeuvrability 3) Big / quick firing guns Now, some of these qualities were genuine in Elisabeta, the others were not quite true for this ship, especially in the wake of the first World War, when she was already 30 years old. First of all, you have to know that the first purpose of this ship was not to be used as a warship, but moreover as a training ship for for the Romanian fleet, from deck to machinery officers, seamen and stokers. Secondly, Elisabeta was a so-called "protected" cruiser, which is, protected not by heavy vertical armor plate, but instead she had a protective horizontal deck placed almost at the sea level and every vital element of her machinery (rudder, engines, boilers) were placed under that protective deck. So even if her upper parts were pierced repeatedly by guns firing horizontally over water, she could not be sunk! (The same was true about "Bismarck" which could not be sunk by the various British ships firing point blank on her; she was instead scuttled by the remainder of her crew). Thirdly, she was claimed to be a fast ship, but that was not quite true. Her top recorded speed was on trials, 19.049 knots under somewhat more than ideal conditions, on an almost dead flat sea with only a 1263 ton displacement as her armament had yet to be fitted, and with forced draught and possibly with a team of very good stokers and experienced engineers. This was in fact a typical Armstrongs trick: the new ship would look as a "very fast" one, at least on paper. When into Romanian hands, she never did more than 17 knots, which is indeed a "decent" speed for a victorian ship of her dimensions, but hardly something outstanding. Now, regarding her guns; interestingly, even if Armstrongs were famous first of all for their ordnance, the ship was not fitted all-over with Armstrong guns, but instead with a wide array of weapons of various makes. Always the best of the time, back in 1888: 4x Torpedo Tubes, steam impulse made by Canet in France; 2x (5x14mm) machine guns in the military tops and 4x 5.7 quick firing guns by Nordenfeld; 2x (5x3.7) quick firing guns made by Hotchkiss of France; 4x 150 mm Breech Loading guns made by Krupp. She underwent major refits in 1904/1905 when she was reduced to two pole masts. At the same time the old anchors were substituted with more modern ones, the machinery was revised. More important, she received more modern guns: the Krupps were substituted with Saint Chamonds and the Nordenfelds with 5.9in Breech Loading guns. One last point about "Elisabeta": her architect was Philip Watts, then Chief Naval Architect of Armstrongs. It is the same man which, twelwe years later was appointed extra Civil Lord of the Admiralty and was responsible for designing the "Dreadnought"! |
| Posted by: dead-cat November 06, 2006 02:06 pm |
| the only units that could oppose the Goeben in Black Sea, were the russian 12x12" dreadnoughts of the Imperatritsa Mariya class. the deployment of those ships (and the lack of coal) severly hampered the Goeben's freedom of action against russian destroyers intercepting colliers running from Trebizond to Constantiople. unless the romanian navy didn't have anything comparable at least (which means 1-2 battlecruisers and 2-3 cruisers) they would be confined to coastal defence operations. |
| Posted by: dragos03 November 06, 2006 03:33 pm |
| Goeben didn't stand a chance against the new Russian battleships. In fact, Goeben was defeated twice even by the obsolete ships of the Russian pre-dreadnought squadron. |
| Posted by: dead-cat November 06, 2006 03:54 pm | ||
i don't remeber the Goeben being sunk. the only major damage taken was by mines. of course the Goeben couldn't take on by herself the entire squadron. when encountering all six russian predreadnoughts they had the choice to fight it out or retreat. given that the Goeben was the one and only potent capital ship the turkish navy had, there was no point risking her against a doubtful gain of sinking 1-2 predreadnoughts which wern't the problem for the turkish navy, unlike the modern russian destroyers blocading Trebizond, which couldn't be chased away by the Breslau alone. had the turkish navy been backed by 2-3 other capital ships you probably would've seen a more agressive conduct, but the situation given, the Goeben's task was holding the coal supply route open. |
| Posted by: dragos03 November 06, 2006 04:16 pm |
| In her first encounter with the Russian pre-dreadnought squadron (The Battle of Cape Sarych), Goeben faced only one enemy ship, the Russian pre-dreadnought Evstafii (the other ships of the Russian squadron fired at incorrect range and had no role in the battle). It is unclear how many hits Goeben received in this engagement but it was enough to make her run away, after chasing the Russians all the way to Crimea. A secondary battery of the German ship was hit by a 12-inch shell and destroyed. In May 1915, Goeben faced 3 pre-dreadnoughts again, this time near the Bosphorus. She failed to hit the Russian ships but was hit by two 12-inch shells and ran away. As for the new battleship "Imperatritsa Maria", her fire was so accurate that it put Goeben on the run after just a few shots. |
| Posted by: dead-cat November 06, 2006 07:13 pm | ||||||
on Nov. 17, the Goeben sailed out together with the Breslau, to attempt to catch some of the russian ships reported shelling Trebizond that day. 1 day later they met off Cape Sarych under foggy conditions. the "Evstafi" scored a hit with one of her first salvos, while the Goeben scored 4 on her during the 14 mins of combat. the rest of the russian squadron was not, initially, in position to fire.
on May 6. the Goeben interrupted the intended shelling of the Bosporus by 5 russian pre-dreadnoughts. she concentrated her fire on the "Evstafi" but did not score a hit, being hit twice during the engagement with no serious damage. but facing 5 russian pre-dreadnoughts; commander Ackermann broke off. she faced 5, not 3, albeit the torpedo boat Numune initially reported only 2 (which detached themselves from the squadron (Panteleimon and Tri Sviatitelia + 2 seaplane tenders, Almaz and Imperator Alexander I).
on Jan. 8 1916, the Goeben ran into Imperatrisa Mariya". the dreadnought opened fire at 18.500m and fired 96 12" rounds, while the Goeben replied with 5 salvoes during the engagement, which lasted 28 minutes. not a single hit was recoreded on either side. the russian dreadnought saw her rate of fire decline during the engagement, due to mechanical problems in her triple turrets. the Goeben, being 3 knots faster broke off. all the above taken from "A Naval History of World War I" by Paul Halpern. |
| Posted by: dragos03 November 06, 2006 07:41 pm |
| It is not clear how many hits Goeben received at Cape Sarych. In any case, it was unable to sink a single Russian obsolete pre-dreadnought. An account of the battle can be found here: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/csayrch1.htm During the second engagement, it only faced 3 pre-dreadnoughts and broke off the engagement when two additional Russian ships came in range. As for the meetings with the new Russian ships, i've read somewhere that the Russian fire was very accurate from the first salvoes, which made Goeben run away. In any case, even pre-dreadnoughts were a match for the German battlecruiser. If Romania would have built the six coastal battleships envisaged by the 1899 naval program, i wonder if these ships had any chance vs Goeben. |
| Posted by: dead-cat November 06, 2006 08:03 pm | ||||
| the entire fire exchange took 14 mins. you don't expect a battleship, be it a pre-dreadnought, to be destroyed in 14 mins, barring disaster like a ammunition explosion? the Goeben didin't break off because of the 1 12" hit she recived (her sister ship Moltke at Jütland, took damage from 4 15" hits and 1 13.5" near miss while remaining operational. at Moon Sound, the pre-dreadnought Slava recived 7 12" from the german battleship König before being scuttled; the fire exchange lasted 23 mins. Goeben broke off because the other russian pre-dreadnoughts came in range. Souchon was supposed to catch isolated parts of the russian fleet if possible, and sink them, not to have himself pinned against 5x4 12" guns dispersed among 5 diffrent ships with 5 diffrent ranges.
the russians learned, that they had to keep them together to stand against the Goeben. barring a lucky hit, the Goeben would allways manage to break off, having a +10 knots advantage. the designer of the "Dreadnought" said, that 1 dreadnought was worth as many as 3 or maybe 4 pre-dreadnoughts. that goes for a ship-o-line, not a battlecruiser, which job was to sink anything weaker and outrun anything stronger. granted, the Goeben could take on 2 pre-dreadnoughts at the time, but being the only serios capital ship available, was ill advised to do so. even a dreadnought might have not engaged all russian pre-dradnoughts together if she was the only capital ship around available, as there was hardly much to gain. not the predreadnoughts hampered the Goeben's freedom of movement, lack of coal did, coal, being mined in Lazistan and ferried from Trebizond by collers intercepted by 9 modern russian destroyers, which were the actual threat to the turkish ability to wage war, instead a few futile attempts to bombard the Bosporus.
Romania would have needed a crystal ball then, to know the future. because otherwise, they'd had to plan for something countering the Agincourt, which was ordered for the turkish navy, and this dreadnought was supposed to have 14 12" guns. no, it wouldn't have been a good idea to build coastal battleships. they would be limited in seaworthieness and expensive to maintain. the russian didn't build pre-dreadnoughts out of foresight, they ended up with them as legacy and had to use them at best they could, nothing other being available during 1914. |
| Posted by: dragos03 November 06, 2006 08:18 pm |
| At Cape Sarych, the Goeben didn't break off because the other Russian ships came into range. Most of them were in range from the start but fired using wrong fire control information. In my opinion, Goeben broke off the engagement because Souchon realised that the Russians were not the easy prey he expected them to be and that their fire was accurate enough to inflict serious damage on his ship in a long exchange. And, as you said, Goeben was the only capital ship the Central Powers had in the Black Sea (except the Turkish pre-dreadnoughts). I agree with your other points. |
| Posted by: dead-cat November 06, 2006 08:31 pm | ||
as soon the first spotting shells landed the other pre-dreadnoughts would realize they were off range. according to the book i quoted, the russian ship scored a hit in her first salvo, after that no other hit is mentioned. means the pre-dradnought found the range on her first attempt, but unlucky from then on, despite having found the range. the Goeben scored subsequently 4 more hits. the book doesn't mention the degree of damage produced on either ship by the hit. it might as well be possible that Souchon saw her speed being endangered by the hit he recived, although i haven't found anything on that. Souchon had hoped to catch some isolated warships and destroy them. failing that, he had no business getting himself into a fight with 5 pre-dradnoughts. also i doubt Souchon would be so incompetent viewing all enemy capital ships in the black sea as easy prey. in that case, he did what he was supposed to do. the inferiority of a pre-dreadnought is from the concept of 4 main guns only, an out-of-date armor scheme (not the armor itself) and a quite low speed, a tribute to the end-of-life of the triple-expansion engine design. |
| Posted by: dragos03 November 07, 2006 01:25 pm |
| Souchon probably thought the Russians were easy prey because of the poor reputation of the Russian navy after the Russian-Japanese war. Not to mention that some of the Russian ships were of the same type as those defeated by the Japanese at Tsushima in 1905. |
| Posted by: dead-cat November 07, 2006 02:04 pm | ||
by many other ships of a similar class and not a single battlecruiser. i doubt someone would become a senior officer on a capital ship (or any other military craft for that matter) without knowing the limitations and possibilities, of the vessel he would command. other than that, as every numerically (and not only) inferior fleet, capital ships were not to be risked without a pressing need, which explains why so few have been lost in combat during WW1. actually, Souchon found his talents wasted by escorting colliers with a battlecruiser, but given the economical necesities of the turkish military (need for coal) he just had to perform exactly that. there was a period, until the completing of the first russian pre-dreadnoughts, when the Goeben was the strongest single ship on the Black Sea and could operate pretty much at will, only having to avoid an encounter with the entire russian pre-dreadnought squadron, which the russians wisely kept together. more than that, any tactical disadvantage Souchon would put himself in, by chance, bad intel or even incompetence, could be reversed by exploiting the superior speed of the battlecruiser. to counter this, the russians actually needed their new dradnoughts, otherwise the capabilities of the russian navy of operating offensively along the coast of Lazistan would be seriosly hampered, even with the pre-dreadnoughts acting as escort. when they were completed (combined with a mine damage to the Goeben which could not be propperly repaired due to lack of large turkish drydocks) the russians enjoey naval superiority and could disrupt coal transports more or less at will, especially in 1916. |