Russian navy

[67th Tigers]

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

The Russian Empire is not Russia. The UK accepted that Poland was a territory in imperial union with Russia. However, it was not part of Russia proper and maintained at least a puppet government, even if Tsarist supremacy was sealed in 1832.

The situation was that from 1816-1832 Poland was a separate country outside the Russian Empire in personal union with the Russian Tsar. From 1832 it was a separate country within the Russian Empire. That they'd been more fully brought under the heel of the Russians is without question, but the British were not prepared to allow Poland to cease to exist entirely.

 

[67th Tigers]

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 British successfully burnt the storehouses of Taganrog three times. Do you mean the third time when some cossacks fired a few shots at the raiders after they'd completed their raid and were already back on their boats heading away?

The reason the Russians stopped putting up defences is that the first raid on Taganrog did so much damage to the town from the covering fire that the mayors weren't willing to have that happen to their towns as well. The Russians were completely impotent in the face of the allied raiders, who cut off the food supplies to Sebastapol by burning them.

 

[Dilandu]

The Russian Empire is not Russia. The UK accepted that Poland was a territory in imperial union with Russia. However, it was not part of Russia proper and maintained at least a puppet government, even if Tsarist supremacy was sealed in 1832.

The British Empire accepted the situation as Russia represented it, and basically cling on several formalities which allowed Britain to "save face" - when it became clear, that Russian Empire isn't going to back off and fully intended to crush the rebellion.

The situation was that from 1816-1832 Poland was a separate country outside the Russian Empire in personal union with the Russian Tsar. From 1832 it was a separate country within the Russian Empire. That they'd been more fully brought under the heel of the Russians is without question, but the British were not prepared to allow Poland to cease to exist entirely.

After 1832, all this became all but legal nonsence, and Britain wasn't able to do anything about that. After 1863, even said legal fiction was abolished.

The British successfully burnt the storehouses of Taganrog three times. Do you mean the third time when some cossacks fired a few shots at the raiders after they'd completed their raid and were already back on their boats heading away?

I mean the first attack, when british troops were ambushed and repulsed near the Old Stone Step, the second, when the attempt to enter Don was stalled by russian gunboats, and the third, when the fleet wasn't even able to launch amphibious operation at all.

Seriously, from where you took such nonsense? I'm really puzzled.

The reason the Russians stopped putting up defences is that the first raid on Taganrog did so much damage to the town from the covering fire that the mayors weren't willing to have that happen to their towns as well. The Russians were completely impotent in the face of the allied raiders, who cut off the food supplies to Sebastapol by burning them.

Yeah? So the reserve half-battery of Savitsky, which, according to all data, was send to reinforce Taganrog after first attack, and then 2nd Don light batter - they were ghosts? And 70th, 74th and 76th cossack reigments, which relieved the drill Don reigmen weren't existed, too? And eight 24-pdr carronades, send from Rostov, simply disappeared into the thin air?

Please learn ANYTHING about the history of Crimean War. There are quite enough data about the deplyoment of different russian troops of this era.

 

[TFSmith121]

Put it this way - Russian Poland had significantly less in terms of "independence" in the Nineteenth Century than the South African republics did after the British defeat in the 1880-81 South African war.... Yet there are those who argue the British "won" that conflict...

Best,

 

[kevikens]

The new czar, Alexius II, and the whole of the Russian military, had been sobered by the results of the Crimean War and had begun reforms to update the military. I do not know what reforms the Russians intended for their fleet, or if any were in effect circa 1862, but it may be that the Russian warships might have put up more of a fight than first imagined

 

[galveston bay]

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.

what clause in the treaty that ended the Crimean War required Russia to emancipate the Russian serfs or any other serfs for that matter?

How did the Russians indicate their complianc4 during this Polish Revolt of 1864? Is there a record of this?

For that matter, why does wikipedia (drawing from other sources) state that the Crimean War drew to a close when the threat of Austrian and Prussian intervention made the Russians seek a peace settlement ending the Crimean War?

What source are you using for your assertions? (as you haven't provided evidence yet)

 

[TFSmith121]

The new czar, Alexius II, and the whole of the Russian military, had been sobered by the results of the Crimean War and had begun reforms to update the military. I do not know what reforms the Russians intended for their fleet, or if any were in effect circa 1862, but it may be that the Russian warships might have put up more of a fight than first imagined

Simply by dispatching the two squadrons, one to New York and the other to San Francisco, while maintaining the Mediterranean squadron at the ready, means that in the event of war, the British would be facing a much more demanding conflict at sea than they had in 1854-56, which certainly makes it clear the Russians were much more realistic and discerning about a rational strategy.

Likewise, maintaining the Baltic Fleet meant, as it had in 1854-56, the British were unwilling to actually risk an offensive against any significant target like Kronstadt, much less St. Petersburg.

Couple the above with the reality the only Allied "victory" in the Baltic in 1854-56 was the invasion of the Åland Islands, which are basically within spitting distance of the Swedish mainland (and still required a French infantry division, because the British didn't have anything left after deploying 12 brigades to the Crimea), it's not like the Russians had much to worry about ...

Best,

 

[Dilandu]

Absolutely. The Russian Navy learned the lessons of Crimean War well. We have quite a lot of raiders, capable of being deployed against British commerce both on Atlantic and Pacific - a good raiders, fast, reliable and with trained crews - but we lacked bases. The Kronshtadt, Archangelsk and Vladivostok could be easily blocked, and only on Baltic we have anything like battleline. So, ships were dispersed; pre-deployed, if you like it, to provide them free access to enemy communications in case of war.

 

[67th Tigers]

I mean the first attack, when british troops were ambushed and repulsed near the Old Stone Step, the second, when the attempt to enter Don was stalled by russian gunboats, and the third, when the fleet wasn't even able to launch amphibious operation at all.

Ah, so you think the British tried to invade a town defended by 3,500 troops with two men?

In fact the eastern Azov is quite shallow, and the British squadron anchored eight (8) miles off Taganrog and sent two gunboats (Recruit and Danube) and twenty (20) ships boats in closer, towing the armoured raft Lady Nancy. When the Russian defenders refused the British demands to allow the destruction of the Army of Sebastapol's grain stores the gunboats and ships boats opened fire. Under the cover of this fire Lt Cecil William Buckley and Boatswain Henry Cooper made several landings and fired all the stores and the government buildings. Buckley earned the first VC ever awarded for the raid and a previous one, and Cooper also won the VC.

You might call these two men landing an invasion (as Tsarist propaganda did), but that's a hell of a stretch. It was a raid, and it accomplished all it intended too. On the 5th June the allies burnt Mariopol and on the 6th Gheisk. They continued burning the harbours, shipping and grain stores of the Russian Army for another few weeks until nothing was left for the Russian army to eat.

The so called "second attempt" was a patrol sweep by HMS Vesuvius, Curlew and Swallow, who conducted a recce of the new Taganrog defences in mid-July.

The so called "third attempt" on investigation was a patrol sweep by HMS Ardent. The Ardent destroyed a newly erected battery near Taganrog on 5th August, capturing the guns, and then burnt the storehouses nine miles west of Taganrog near Krivaya Spit, where the Jasper was grounded on the 7th.

Likely the RN put small parties ashore at Taganrog twice, the two man burning party on 3rd July, and a naval party from Ardent seized the Cossack's artillery that they'd built into a naval battery on 5th August, spiked the guns and blew up the work before returning to their ship and heading off to destroy more Russian logistics. There is no mention of Commander Osborne's three ships conducting any landings in July.

 

[Dilandu]

Ah, so you think the British tried to invade a town defended by 3,500 troops with two men?

I think that your data is highly questionable. And without sources, I'm not inclined to actually believe in anything you say anymore. Too many mistakes, made-up statements from your side, and your only answer is "this is all Tsarist propaganda".

Like now you pressed the idea of "two man landing party", while all that you actually could confirm is that those two mens participated in landing. My grandfather participated in siege of Koenigsberg in World War II, but I - for some reason - doubt that he was the only men who attacked and captured the city. I htink, there were more)

Basically the only "source" that you wikipedia artciles are based on, is that:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/21971/page/649

The "London Gazette", yeah, yeah. There are no as crystal-clear and honest peoples, as correspondents of wartime newspapers)

 

[kevikens]

I think that your data is highly questionable. And without sources, I'm not inclined to actually believe in anything you say anymore. Too many mistakes, made-up statements from your side, and your only answer is "this is all Tsarist propaganda".

Like now you pressed the idea of "two man landing party", while all that you actually could confirm is that those two mens participated in landing. My grandfather participated in siege of Koenigsberg in World War II, but I - for some reason - doubt that he was the only men who attacked and captured the city. I htink, there were more)

Basically the only "source" that you wikipedia artciles are based on, is that:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/21971/page/649

The "London Gazette", yeah, yeah. There are no as crystal-clear and honest peoples, as correspondents of wartime newspapers)

Do you have information on the technical changes the Russian navy adopted from the Crimean conflict? New and different guns, armor, engines, that sort of thing. I was wondering what would have been the outcome had one of the commerce raiders encountered a British warship.

 

[67th Tigers]

I think that your data is highly questionable.

Of course you do. You've provided no contrary evidence though...

However, let me note:

The "London Gazette", yeah, yeah. There are no as crystal-clear and honest peoples, as correspondents of wartime newspapers)

The Gazette is not a newspaper. It is the official journal of Her Majesty's government in England, and the Gazette is publishing the Victoria Cross citations for the official record.

 

[Dilandu]

Do you have information on the technical changes the Russian navy adopted from the Crimean conflict? New and different guns, armor, engines, that sort of thing. I was wondering what would have been the outcome had one of the commerce raiders encountered a British warship.

The general decision was to abandon the screw ships-of-the-line at all, because it was calculated that with new heavy shell guns the large frigate would have the same fighting power. The "american-type" large frigates were adopted as the new backbone of the navy, especially since american-build "Alexander Nevsky" was comissioned. In total, eight large screw frigates were in comission by 1863. There were also eight screw ship-of-the-line, of them three first-rate, but they were considered outdated.

Also, 23 screw corvettes, and 11 screw clippers (essentially, fast screw sloops) were prepared for raiding actions on Baltic, Pacific and in Archangelsk.

The main armament was 60-pdr smoothbore gun, provided with both shells and forged solid steel shots (they were developed as sort of "armor-piercing" weapon, in an attempt to provide frigates with some capabilities against ironclads). On trials, 60-pdr gun, supercharged with steel shot, proved to be capable of penetrating 4-inch iron plates from 230 yards. Frigates have 60-pdr guns both on pivot mounts and in battery. Corvettes and clippers usually have one 60-pdr pivot gun and smaller 30-pdr - 24-pdr guns in battery.

The quality of trainings and personnel requirements were improved greatly in late 1850s, with more experienced personnel used.

 

[Dilandu]

Of course you do. You've provided no contrary evidence though...

For what? You did not prove any of your claims, except "tsarist propaganda"

The Gazette is not a newspaper. It is the official journal of Her Majesty's government in England, and the Gazette is publishing the Victoria Cross citations for the official record.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't you think that the "British propaganda" exist also, huh?

 

[67th Tigers]

For what? You did not prove any of your claims, except "tsarist propaganda"

Well, it's roughly what happened in the history books and official reports (quoted at length in this book), but I'm sure mileage will vary. After all, you've just dismissed the official citation on the first VC ever awarded.

 

[Dilandu]

Well, it's roughly what happened in the history books and official reports (quoted at length in this book), but I'm sure mileage will vary. After all, you've just dismissed the official citation on the first VC ever awarded.

As well as you dismissed a lot of history books, and scientific works, and rewards awarded just because it doesn't consist with your imaginary idol of Royal Navy.

Might I remind you, that even the history of much less distant past is not simple and clear? I really hope not.

 

[kevikens]

The general decision was to abandon the screw ships-of-the-line at all, because it was calculated that with new heavy shell guns the large frigate would have the same fighting power. The "american-type" large frigates were adopted as the new backbone of the navy, especially since american-build "Alexander Nevsky" was comissioned. In total, eight large screw frigates were in comission by 1863. There were also eight screw ship-of-the-line, of them three first-rate, but they were considered outdated.

Also, 23 screw corvettes, and 11 screw clippers (essentially, fast screw sloops) were prepared for raiding actions on Baltic, Pacific and in Archangelsk.

The main armament was 60-pdr smoothbore gun, provided with both shells and forged solid steel shots (they were developed as sort of "armor-piercing" weapon, in an attempt to provide frigates with some capabilities against ironclads). On trials, 60-pdr gun, supercharged with steel shot, proved to be capable of penetrating 4-inch iron plates from 230 yards. Frigates have 60-pdr guns both on pivot mounts and in battery. Corvettes and clippers usually have one 60-pdr pivot gun and smaller 30-pdr - 24-pdr guns in battery.

The quality of trainings and personnel requirements were improved greatly in late 1850s, with more experienced personnel used.

This sounds like these ships, armed with these guns and having those steel solid shots, would have given a very good account of themselves even if they went up against something like HMS Warrior.

 

[Tielhard]

Dilandu,

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

<snip>

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.

It is my understanding that in Russia in 1861 there was a proclamation freeing privately owned serfs.
It is also my understanding that serfs owned by the Imperium itself were not freed until 1866.
I further understand that in Georgia which was then a part of the Russian Empire some serfs were not fully freed until 1871 and in Kalmykia also a part of the Russian Empire at the time the serfs were not freed until 1892.

Please advise if the assertions I have made above are correct or otherwise.

I note that if my assertions above are correct then 67th Tiger's statement which you objected to and which put the freeing of the serfs in the Russian Empire in 1864 is optimistic by more than 28 years.

 

[Tielhard]

gary,

The Royal Navy would have its hands full with a two Ocean, many seas war. There were ships in the Pacific, Black Sea (and they'd have to get through the Dardenelles) and Baltic. The Baltic Fleet would pose the greatest concern to British isles and the Pacific Fleet was a threat trade (British interests in Asia/India). The RN would also have to try to lift the blockade against the South and guess what, the Union Navy was the biggest navy in the world at that time. If the Union Navy started interdicting British shipping, it would be h*ll to pay.

The RN had only a few ironclad warships (HMS Warrior and her successors) but the bulk of the RN were still wood ships vulnerable to the Monitor and her kind.

At the end of the American Civil War when the Union fleet was at its very largest it never equalled the size of the Royal Navy in terms of the number of hulls available. In terms of tonnage the disparity was considerably greater, some of the Union hulls being sailing schooners of just 50 tons.

Monitor was already sunk by the time the Russian ships arrived at NYC and San Francisco but the newer monitor designs were still basically slow, unseaworthy, poorly armoured rafts with negligible reserve buoyancy and a pair of hard to work large guns in a slow turning easily jamming turret. They could not fight in a significant seaway and were no threat to the Royal Navy anywhere other than under the guns of a fortress (of course the Union did not have many guns for most of the coastal forts) where they might cause a few problems for the Royal Navy littoral forces until overwhelmed.

I would be interested to know how you think the Union Navy would have interdicted British shipping as almost the only ships they had capable of employment as commerce destroyers were the same ships they need to defend the coast? Where do you think they would have interdicted British shipping? There would have been almost nothing in the north Atlantic if the Union had warred on the British and the commerce destroyers were most unlikely to be able to break through the Brazil Africa gap. Where might they coal and provision? Almost every port would be closed to them or strictly neutral if they had warred on the British. Only the purpose built Russian combat clippers would have posed a serious threat to British shipping and there were too few of them to make a difference.

The British had considerably more, larger, better ironclads in commission, reserve or build than the Union had in 1863/4 even including the Webb ships built for export. On top of that British yards had built more than half of the ironclads in commission with other nations at this time including at least one built for Russia.

An Anglo-Union naval war would have been a very very one sided affair, even if it is a Union avec Russia affair the naval war would be very one sided but heaven knows why the Russians would be stupid enough to get involved?

 

[TFSmith121]

Absolutely. The Russian Navy learned the lessons of Crimean War well. We have quite a lot of raiders, capable of being deployed against British commerce both on Atlantic and Pacific - a good raiders, fast, reliable and with trained crews - but we lacked bases. The Kronshtadt, Archangelsk and Vladivostok could be easily blocked, and only on Baltic we have anything like battleline. So, ships were dispersed; pre-deployed, if you like it, to provide them free access to enemy communications in case of war.

It's pretty close to the German strategy, in a similar situation, in 1914; main strength in the key theater, and commerce raiders/cruising squadrons "pre-deployed" as you say... The prospect of a "Coronel" with the Russians playing the role of von Spee et al in 1863 would have had an interesting impact on the reputation of the RN in the remainder of the century.

Best,