Russian navy

[major bill]

I try to set a limit on how many books I purchase per month. Then I usually over buy anyway. I guess I kind of enjoy being a "bad boy"and rule breaker.

 

[Sbc]

They defeated an Anglo-French squadron at Petropavlovsk in 1854; basically with one anchored warship and shore defenses, they frustrated the allies so much the RN admiral shot himself.

The Russians sank or captured at least two British warships during the Crimean War, a paddle wheel sloop - HMS Tiger - that ran aground and was shelled into surrender off Odessa and a gunboat - HMS Jasper - that ran aground and was actually captured by cavalry at Taganrog.

Not Lake Champlain, 2nd Taku Forts, or Coronel, but not nothing, either.

And the above does not include various actions in the world wars, of course.

Best,

Capturing vessels that ran aground really does not qualify as a naval victory

 

[galveston bay]

Well, being Russian...)

This depend. Their standing orders were NOT to engage british ships, unless the war were declared between Russia and Britain. But the Confederate ships weren't specified in orders. In fact, rear admiral Popov (the commander of the Pacific Squadron) issued the order that if any Confederacy raider would appear near San-Francisco, the russian ships must be ready to engage her.

But would the Russian Empire actually intervene if the war were declared by the Britain against USA? Hard to say.



Basically no. Three of eignth (not ten) screw ships-of-the-line were actually rebuild from sail ships, launched in 1837 (!!!). and they were already worn-out and outdated. Of the five specially-build steam ships, only three were first-rate, and they were generally considered unseaworthy.

The frigates, on the other hands, were better. There were 11 screw frigates in Russian Navy, and only one of them was build before 1858. A lot of corvettes and clippers were also either comissioned or under construction on Baltic.

So, the Russian Navy was pretty good prepared for raider war against Britain. We have a lot of good raiders... the problem was, that our harbors could be easily blockaded in case of war. So, the best ships were send in USA, to be able to strike the british trade from the west.



Hm? You forgot the World War I actions?

indeed, the Russian Navy has nothing to be ashamed of for it performance in World War I according to this work

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107036909/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

 

[Dilandu]

indeed, the Russian Navy has nothing to be ashamed of for it performance in World War I according to this work

Thank you. While our fleet did not won particulary large battles during this was, I have all reasons to be proud by the level of crew training and competence. The Russian naval gunnery was on the highest scale in 1914-1917; even Royal Navy noted the highly accurate gunnery of Russian battleships on Black Sea.

 

[georgew]

Thank you. While our fleet did not won particulary large battles during this was, I have all reasons to be proud by the level of crew training and competence. The Russian naval gunnery was on the highest scale in 1914-1917; even Royal Navy noted the highly accurate gunnery of Russian battleships on Black Sea.

Not just naval gunnery. The Russian Army also had extensive and useful protocols for their artillery in the field which proved very effective. One huge surprise for the Germans and Austrians early in WWI was how many of the Russian guns could also be used in an anti-aircraft mode. Apparently a number of the Cossack regiments had guns with a high maximum elevation.

 

[TFSmith121]

Capturing vessels that ran aground really does not qualify as a naval victory

The Russian coast artillery shelled Jasper into submission; the cavalry just took possession of the wreck and what was left of her crew. The fact the action began with an operational maritime casualty by the RN, however, makes clear the realities of littoral operations on an alien shore in an era and region where the aid to navigation were negligible and under the control of the defenders.

The British losses in the Black Sea to the Russians and at the Peiho to the Chinese, and the French losses to the Mexicans, in conflicts where the defenders either did not have any shipping or chose not to put to sea is worth considering; if any of the defenders had used sea power, the casualties suffered by the power with "maritime supremacy" would have been even greater.

Probably much greater...

Best,

 

[major bill]

When we think about the Russian navy it is important to understand the position of Russia. Great Britain built a navy to support a world wide empire. Russia on the other hand built a navy to support a land locked empire. Using the British Navy to judge the Russian Navy is not practical. The question to ask is, did the Russian Navy support the goals of Russia?

 

[Dilandu]

This depend of the definition of "goals". And the historical period, of course. The Russian Navy have a quite long history; it was the empire-building instrument on Baltic (against Sweden) and on Black Sea (against Ottomans). It was used with great effect in Mediterranean against Napoleon.

The Crimean War hit the Navy really hard. The fear of another war against vastly superior enemy led to the shift of efforts from mantaining the battleline toward coastal defense and raider operations on Far East. Only in 1880s Russian Empire started to rebuild the battleline - but the faliure of Russo-Japanese war destroyed all efforts. The next attempt to build balanced fleet was twarted by World War I

 

[Dilandu]

Basically:

- Before Crimean War, the main goals of Russian Imperial Navy were to counter (and evetually to became superior to) Sweden fleet on Baltic and Ottoman fleet on Black Sea. Those were two main routes of Imperial external politics. Also, the Navy was supposed to work as political factor against Britain and France, if needed.

- After Crimean War and up to 1880s, the main goals of navy shifted toward:

A - coastal defense on Baltic (make a lot of sense, because Sankt-Peterburg was a capital and major industrial node!) against possible attack of Royal Navy

B - ocean raiding operations from Far East, as a deterrence to Royal Navy

That's why in 1860-1880 the Russian Navy generally build gunboats, torpedo ships, coastal defense ironclads and large, sea-capable armored cruisers (they were supposed to be used as raiders on the Pacific, superior to any Royal Navy cruiser and with range long enough to be able to operate far from bases)

- In 1880s, the doctrine shifted again. Now the idea was to have battlelines, capable of achieving superiority over Ottoman Navy (on Black Sea) and parity with Japanese Navy (on the Pacific).

That's why more battleships were build for Black Sea than for Baltic, and why most of Baltic-build battleships were deployed constantly on Far East. The old "radiding against Britain" strategy still mantained, but not on the same scale. Eventually, the Russian Navy battleline became the third in the world (after Royal Navy and Marine Nationale) - until disastrous results of the Russo-Japanese War destroyed everything.

- After the Russo-Japanese war, the naval development was shifted toward the two main goals:

A - coastal defense on Baltic, against possible attack by German Navy.

B - naval superiority on Black Sea over the Ottoman Navy (with the eventual goal of taking over the Straits)

The long-term goal was to rebuild the ocean-capable battleline, and creat powerful presence in Mediterranean (after taking the Straits) and on Pacific. The World War I put a halt to everything.

- After the World War I and Civil War the Russian Navy was, frankly, a wreck. Only the Baltic Fleet was more or less intact; the Black Sea fleet was either stolen by Whites, or disabled by Birtish troops of Intervention. A lot of capable naval officers died in fighting (quite a lot of them - on Red side) or emigrated. Moreover, the shipbuilding industry deteriorated during the war, and a lot of engineers were also lost.

The USSR Red Navy lacked the resources to rebuild. So, the idea of coastal defense was adopted once again. Also, the large problem was the fascination of USSR military command of this time (Tukhachevsky and others) over the new technology, like motor torpedo boats, submarines, ect. Eventually, in 1920-1930s large resources were spend on the "small fleet" of torpedo boats and coastal submarines - which proved to be of little military value, eventually. The USSR HAVE the resources to at least complete several capital ships, remained unfinished from the Imperial Navy, and quite probably build a prototype aircraft carrier (this idea was heavily discussed, and even the prototype aircraft were build!) but lacked the understanding.

- In late 1930s, when Stalin came to power, he started to rebuild the Navy. Stalin's goal was to build a strong force of large battleships and battlecruisers, supported by the numerous light cruisers and destroyers, which would be able to dominate Baltic and Black Sea, and capable of deterring the attacks from Royal Navy or Imperial Japanese Navy near the Soviet coastal waters.

This program was initated in 1936, but the World War II once again ruined everything. The USSR fought for survival on the land; the Navy wasn't important for that (and, due to the lack of skilled officers - "thanks" to the supporters of submarine&torpedo boats navy! - generally acted bad)

- After World War II, Stalin still hoped for the large fleet. He REALLY was the admirer of battleships, so he still insisted to build them. The main goals of Soviet Navy in post-war era was:

A - have enough forces on each of four fleets (Baltic, Black Sea, Nothern and Pacific) to be able - with the help of coastal aviation - to deter any attempted amphibious operation on the USSR coastlines, and support the Army operations by providing gunfire and amphibious support. For that, the numerous Project-30K and Project 56 destroyers, "Sverdlov"-class cruisers and (eventually uncompleted) "Stalingrad"-class battlecruisers were designed and build.

B - have large submarine navy to act against NATO forces in Atlantic, delaying the transport of US troops in Europe in case of war.

C - eventually, Stalin wanted to build aircraft carriers and provide the "coastal" fleet with aircraft support for strike operations.

- When Khruchev came to power, he changed the doctrine heavily. The old-fashioned Stalin's doctrine of generally surface torpedo&artillery navy was considered obsolete. New soviet anti-ship missiles could provide destroyers and even fast crafts with enough punch to make cruisers obsolete. Khruchev believed heavily in missiles and nuclear weapon. He was convinced that any possible future conflict would be all-out nuclear war, and believed that in missile era numerous small ships are superior to large warships.

The Soviet Navy of 1960-1970s era was largely build around the idea of total nuclear warfare. The main goals were:

A - to provide nuclear strike capability against oversea targets, by the large fleet of missile-armed submarines. Also to attack NATO convoys in Atlantic.

B - to commence anti-submarine operations against NATO missile armed submarines, destroying them before they could launch their load.

C - to commence long-range missile strikes by the means of Naval Long-Range Missile-Armed Aviation (armed with missile-carrying strategic bombers, after all!) against USN carriers. Thus reducing the advantage of NATO navies in naval aviation.

- In 1970s, the doctrine again started to shift. It became clear, that small, destroyer-size ships are unable to provide all spectre of naval operations. Also it became clear that without the carrier aviation surface ships could not operate far from coastlines, and even the submarines could not be deployed safely against large numbers of ASW aviation.

So, in 1970s the Soviet Navy started to build cruisers again - including "Kirov"-class nuclear battlecruisers - and started to work on carriers. Unfortunately, the Soviet Navy carrier program was born out of the anti-submarine helicopter carriers... and admirals of this era considered VTOL aircrafts as best solution. So, instead of proper carriers, our navy obtained several "Kiev"-class carrier-cruisers with heavy missile armrment, but almost useless Yak-38 VTOL fighter-bombers (which were considered incapable to do anything). The planned more capable Yak-41 supersonic VTOL fighter was never created.

- In 1980s, the USSR Navy finally started to revert to more classical doctrine. Now, the idea was, that the surface action groups, supported with carriers, and armed with long-range anti-ship missiles should operate against NATO anti-submarine forces, thus allowing the large Soviet submarine navy to be deployed. And, the Navy finally started to think outside of "total nuclear warfare" box, and renewed interest in conventional warfare, coastal support and amphibious operation. The "proper" carriers (with ski-jump, because it took a long time to develope the catapults) were launched, and the true nuclear supercarriers, comparable to the USN ships were supposed to be next - but then the problems strike, and the USSR collapsed. Sad.

 

[Sbc]

The Russian coast artillery shelled Jasper into submission; the cavalry just took possession of the wreck and what was left of her crew. The fact the action began with an operational maritime casualty by the RN, however, makes clear the realities of littoral operations on an alien shore in an era and region where the aid to navigation were negligible and under the control of the defenders.

The British losses in the Black Sea to the Russians and at the Peiho to the Chinese, and the French losses to the Mexicans, in conflicts where the defenders either did not have any shipping or chose not to put to sea is worth considering; if any of the defenders had used sea power, the casualties suffered by the power with "maritime supremacy" would have been even greater.

Probably much greater...

Best,

Good point but the OP was about sea power projection by the Russians. This is a feat that really has never been accomplished--the last attempt really being the October 62 missile crisis. They failed to impose their will and likely would
have in 1862 as well. Thus my original comment--cannon fodder

 

[Dilandu]

You clearly forgot about Russian navy in Mediterranean during Napoleon Era, naval demonstration against Prussia in 1852, multiple later actions on Far East and in Mediterranean.

 

[Dilandu]

For example, the presence of Soviet Navy in Indian Ocean effectively "demonstrated the flag" in support of India during the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. The presence of our surface&submarine forces (missile cruisers, several destroyers and anti-submarine cruisers, nuclear submarines, including SSM-armed) helped to deter the US naval forces in Bengal Bay from intimidating the Indian Navy, and provide technical and data support for Indian Navy.

In 1973, the presence of 5th Squadron in Mediterranean was one of the factors that forced Israel eventually to halt the advance - when it became clear, that USSR naval forces are ready to act against Israel military.

 

[BillO]

For example, the presence of Soviet Navy in Indian Ocean effectively "demonstrated the flag" in support of India during the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. The presence of our surface&submarine forces (missile cruisers, several destroyers and anti-submarine cruisers, nuclear submarines, including SSM-armed) helped to deter the US naval forces in Bengal Bay from intimidating the Indian Navy, and provide technical and data support for Indian Navy.

In 1973, the presence of 5th Squadron in Mediterranean was one of the factors that forced Israel eventually to halt the advance - when it became clear, that USSR naval forces are ready to act against Israel military.

Not even close.

 

[Dilandu]

Not even close.

Well, it's a "point of view" thing)

 

[Schwallanscher]

Well, it's a "point of view" thing)

like the french winning ww II?

 

[Dilandu]

like the french winning ww II?

Nah, like "Soviet allied with Hitler to attack poor, helples Poland from behind") Carefully avoiding the facts that Poland do everything she could to destroy French-Soveit mutual support agreement in 1938, because Poland want part of Czechoslovakia too and Hitler was ready to prodive it.

 

[Dilandu]

Ok, this is offtopic, anyway. Maybe let's move toward russian navy in XIX century again?

 

[67th Tigers]

The OP is about the invented story that the two small Russian squadrons that deployed to the US in 1863 were there to show support to the US. They weren't.

The Russian Navy had been effectively destroyed in the 1853-6 war. The allied navies spent 1855 cruising the Sea of Azov destroying every single military facility and burning the food supply for the Russian army at Sebastapol. The newly developed littoral capabilities the RN and MN developed in 1855 were terrifying.

The 1853-6 war had completely destroyed the Black Sea Fleet, and the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris prevented Russian from reestablishing it, or fortifying the Black Sea ports. Russia did not repudiate these clauses until the Franco-Prussian war distracted everyone. The same treaty also forbid the fortification of Åland. The effect was to completely neuter the Russian navy.

In 1863 there was a serious concern by the Russians that the Crimean War was going to reignite. The "three powers" (UK, France and Austria) delivered joint notes to Russia regarding the Polish uprising, but all three had different objectives. The Polish rebels killed any hope of support by declaring that Galicia was to be part of their new state, taken from Austria. This killed Austrian interest in supporting the Poles, and the British thereafter simply noted that Russia should not attempt to alter the Treaty of Vienna (by annexing Poland into Russia proper) and should emancipate the Polish serfs (as the UK had forced Russia to emancipate the Russian serfs). The RN then sent the Channel fleet (including three ironclad frigates; Defence, Resistance and Royal Oak and three steam ships of the line; Revenge, St. George and Trafalgar) to cruise the Baltic and indicated the price for non-compliance was that Britain would carve off a separate Polish Kingdom (not the declared republic).

It was against this background that the Russians sent out a dozen cruisers to go to the US in case the British followed through. Russia indicated compliance with British wishes; they did not formally annex Poland, and emancipated the serfs in January 1864. This ended British interest in intervention, and the French were not powerful enough to intervene without Britain.

Russian histories I've read seem to be different, ignoring the fact that they in fact complied with British demands.

 

[Dilandu]

It was against this background that the Russians sent out a dozen cruisers to go to the US in case the British followed through. Russia indicated compliance with British wishes; they did not formally annex Poland, and emancipated the serfs in January 1864. This ended British interest in intervention, and the French were not powerful enough to intervene without Britain.

Er... I didn't like to call it absolute nonsense, but it is.

The british demands weren't complied with. The Polish Rebellion was crushed. There were no "formal annexation" of Poland, because Poland was already declared organic part of Russian Empire since the Statut of 1832. I hope, you could read Russian?

http://www.pereplet.ru/history/Russia/Imperia/Nicolai_I/man14021832.html

Статья 1. Царство Польское, присоединенное навсегда к Державе Российской, есть нераздельная оной часть. Оно будет иметь особое, сообразное с местными потребностями его управление, свои также особенные Уложения: Гражданское и Уголовное, и все доселе существовавшие в городах и в сельских обществах, дарованные им местные права и установления остаются на прежнем основании и в прежней силе.


If you couldn't, I'll translate:

Article I: The Princedom of Poland, added forever to the Russian Empire, is the inceparable part of said Empire. The Princedom of Poland would have the special governance, in accordance with local population demands and needs, and also their own special Codes; Civil and Criminal, and all pre-existed local rights and establishments, granted for towns and villagers, would stay the same as before.

The serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861, not in 1864, and work ower the emancipation started in 1857, when it became clear that it is the major problem of Russian society, and the land-owners from aristocracy aren't the actual political power anymore. There were zero British role in all this. There were several additional reforms in 1863-1869, but they were additions.

I strongly tecommend you to learn more about Russian history, before making such... proclamations.

 

[Dilandu]

The Russian Navy had been effectively destroyed in the 1853-6 war.

The majority of Baltic Navy was perfectly intact, and the crews of Black Sea Fleet were safe. All that Russian Empire actually lost was a number of more or less outdated sail ship-of-the-line.

The allied navies spent 1855 cruising the Sea of Azov destroying every single military facility and burning the food supply for the Russian army at Sebastapol. The newly developed littoral capabilities the RN and MN developed in 1855 were terrifying.

Yeah, they do a great job burning defensless villages, but when they tried to attack Taganrog the results were a total faliure. Good job, RN. I think, several british officers were also rewarded for sucsessfull taking the candies from babies. Posthumously.

The 1853-6 war had completely destroyed the Black Sea Fleet, and the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris prevented Russian from reestablishing it, or fortifying the Black Sea ports. Russia did not repudiate these clauses until the Franco-Prussian war distracted everyone. The same treaty also forbid the fortification of Åland. The effect was to completely neuter the Russian navy.

And then it took less than 15 years to make Ottoman Empire shiver.

This killed Austrian interest in supporting the Poles, and the British thereafter simply noted that Russia should not attempt to alter the Treaty of Vienna (by annexing Poland into Russia proper)

The Russia didn't even take this into consideration. There were officially no Poland since 1864; it was replaced by the "Vistula Lands".