Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (2) [1] 2 ( Go to first unread post ) |
Agarici |
Posted: March 22, 2006 10:43 pm
|
Maior Group: Members Posts: 745 Member No.: 522 Joined: February 24, 2005 |
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).
|
dragos03 |
Posted: March 22, 2006 11:06 pm
|
Capitan Group: Members Posts: 641 Member No.: 163 Joined: December 13, 2003 |
As far as i know, the only combat actions of these ships were on the Danube.
|
Carol I |
Posted: March 22, 2006 11:25 pm
|
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2250 Member No.: 136 Joined: November 06, 2003 |
Take a look in the thread: Romanian fleet during WWI.
|
Victor |
Posted: March 23, 2006 06:44 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
The Romanian auxiliary cruisers took part in the actions of the Imperial Fleet against the Turkish coast in 1917.
|
Iamandi |
Posted: March 23, 2006 06:53 am
|
General de divizie Group: Members Posts: 1386 Member No.: 319 Joined: August 04, 2004 |
Some of them (one or two) were transformed as base ship for russian hidroplanes.
Iama |
Carol I |
Posted: March 23, 2006 10:47 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2250 Member No.: 136 Joined: November 06, 2003 |
Dead-cat stated that as much as four of them were used for this purpose. Take a look in the thread: Romanian fleet during WWI. |
||
Agarici |
Posted: March 23, 2006 12:34 pm
|
Maior Group: Members Posts: 745 Member No.: 522 Joined: February 24, 2005 |
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. |
Carol I |
Posted: March 26, 2006 06:42 pm
|
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2250 Member No.: 136 Joined: November 06, 2003 |
At that time Elisabeta was almost 30 years old.
|
dragos03 |
Posted: March 26, 2006 07:28 pm
|
Capitan Group: Members Posts: 641 Member No.: 163 Joined: December 13, 2003 |
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). |
Victorian |
Posted: November 04, 2006 09:03 pm
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 23 Member No.: 894 Joined: April 30, 2006 |
"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"! |
dead-cat |
Posted: November 06, 2006 02:06 pm
|
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
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. |
dragos03 |
Posted: November 06, 2006 03:33 pm
|
Capitan Group: Members Posts: 641 Member No.: 163 Joined: December 13, 2003 |
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.
|
dead-cat |
Posted: November 06, 2006 03:54 pm
|
||
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
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. |
||
dragos03 |
Posted: November 06, 2006 04:16 pm
|
Capitan Group: Members Posts: 641 Member No.: 163 Joined: December 13, 2003 |
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. |
dead-cat |
Posted: November 06, 2006 07:13 pm
|
||||||
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
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. |
||||||
Pages: (2) [1] 2 |