Giljak class
The Giljak class (Russian: Гиляк) was a class of gunboats of the Imperial Russian Navy that included four boats. The boats built from 1905 were intended for use in the Far East, but were eventually used in the Baltic Sea . The boats were named after ships that were lost in the Russo-Japanese War . Two of the boats were sunk during the First World War , the other two fell into Finnish and Estonian hands in 1918.
background
While the activities of the Russian fleet were essentially limited to the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea until the middle of the 19th century, other seas also moved into the focus of the Russian naval command at that time. From the 1870s the Imperial Russian Navy tried to establish a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean . The Okhotsk war flotilla was set up as early as 1731, and its base was moved from Okhotsk to Petropavlovsk in 1850 and then to Vladivostok in 1871 . A pacific squadron was built up through a targeted naval armament program, which should serve to assert Russian interests in the Far East. As part of the Great Game , the sea areas in the Persian Gulf came into the focus of Russian interests towards the end of the century .
Smaller ships such as cruisers, mine-layers and gunboats were primarily used to protect the extensive coastline . In the station service used and to conduct diplomatic missions, they gave the gunboat diplomacy its name. During the operation in the Far East, the problem arose of how the extensive estuaries of large rivers could be defended and monitored by naval forces. The commander of the Pacific Squadron, Rear Admiral Pavel Petrovich Tyrtow (Павел Петрович Тыртов) formulated the requirements for such a boat in a message dated May 25, 1892. The main task should not be the fight against enemy ships, but the fight against fortifications and enemy troops as well as the support of own forces on land. The draft should not be more than 2.7 m, the maximum speed not less than 12 knots, the displacement at around 750 t. Armor and armament should be geared towards the main purpose, the fight against land forces. Tyrtow demanded four 120-mm cannons, four 47-mm or 37-mm cannons and a landing cannon with a caliber of 65 mm. He saw the armor as insignificant. A rig was dispensed with from the start, instead a steel mast with a Mars was provided, from which the river and bank could be observed. With the Giljak , the Russian Navy put a boat into service in 1898, the design of which essentially followed Tyrtov's ideas, and used it in the Far East. However, the Giljak remained a unique piece for the time being. Another boat was planned in the 1898 fleet armament program, but it was not built.
.jpg)
In 1904 the Chiwinez was laid down. Following the foreign policy ambitions of the Russian leadership, it was intended for a deployment in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. It was designed so that it could navigate the Shatt-el-Arab and the lower reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers . After Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, however, the international balance of power had shifted, and it became clear that there was a gap between the demands and possibilities of Russian politics. The Chiwinez therefore never came into the Persian Gulf, but rather to the station service in the Mediterranean off Crete . This boat also remained a one-off.
Neither the number nor the characteristics of the boats built were sufficient for use in the river basins of the Far East. Apart from the number, the Giljak had too great a draft. In addition, their mast construction gave constant cause for concern about their stability. Therefore, at the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian military took up the problem of coastal defense in the estuaries of the rivers. The Amur and the Ussuri were seen as particularly important . The main focus was not so much the fight against regular enemy forces as the fight against gangs and similar groups. The commander of the Amur military district, General of the Infantry Nikolai Grodekow , demanded in his 1900 annual report:
«Для наведения порядка и обеспечения безопасности на реках Амур и Уссури приобресйти приобресй приобресйти сожекеальноылыхойспециальноылых сожетиальноылых сожеаль ноылых кужекальноылых кусециальноыхойспециальноылых кусециальноылых сожесеальноыхой специальноыхой специаль.
"To maintain order and guarantee security on the Amur and Ussuri rivers, the provision of special steamships for police tasks"
The Russian Emperor Nicholas II made a handwritten note on the template “Что предполагается сделать? Пора заводить несколько канонерок. "(German:" What should you do? It's time to send him some gunboats. ") And gave the ministerial bureaucracy the impetus to deal with the problem. A commission was formed at the main staff of the land forces which dealt with the organization of a flotilla of gunboats on the Amur. This included questions of determining the tactical and technical characteristics of the boats, the stationing, the organizational structure and the procurement of the necessary finances. Members included representatives from the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of State Control. From the Ministry of the Navy the captain 1st rank MP Molas (М. П. Молас) was assigned to the commission.
In November 1902 the commission asked Adjutant General Je. I. Alexejew (Е. И. Алексеев), the future governor in the Far East, presented the necessary requirements for the defense of the Amur. Half a year later, Alexejew recommended the use of gunboats. These should have a shallow draft and great maneuverability. With this, Alexejew merely repeated Tyrtov's demands, which Tyrtov had made much more precisely eleven years earlier. Alexejew recommended boats based on the Giljak model , only with more powerful machines and low-caliber rapid-fire cannons. In May 1903, Nikolaus II was presented with Grodekov's annual report, in which Grodekov again addressed the question of the Amur flotilla . Nicholas II instructed a report on the state of affairs and then transferred all questions relating to the organization of the Amur flotilla to the Ministry of the Navy. In July 1903, the Ministry of the Navy asked Alexejew for specifications for the construction of the boats. As early as November, Alexeyev found himself able to answer. In it, the Amur river system was divided into four sections with regard to the draft of the ships that could sail on it:
- from the estuary to Khabarovsk , draft 12 feet (3.66 m)
- from Khabarovsk to Blagoveshchensk , draft up to 2.5 feet (0.76 m)
- the course of the Sungari (Сунгари), draft up to 2.5 feet (0.76 m)
- from Blagoveshchensk to the end of the navigable area and the course of the Argun (Аргунь), draft up to 2.0 feet (0.61 m)
For use in the first section to Khabarovsk, boats of the Giljak type were planned. The draft should be limited to 8 feet (2.44 m). If necessary, these boats should also be able to be used on Chinese rivers. For the defense of the remaining sections, Alexejew suggested river gunboats with a draft of 0.61 m, a speed of 10 to 12 knots and an armament consisting of a 75-mm cannon, a 57-mm cannon and four machine guns. Alexeyev's suggestions formed the basis for the design of the river gunboats for the Amur flotilla. On January 11, 1904, the Naval Technical Committee of the Ministry of the Navy received the order to design the boats. The fleet armament program also included the construction of four Giljak gunboats and ten river gunboats .
However, the Hydrographic Administration re-examined the diving depths in the lower reaches of the Amur and the Chinese rivers Yalu , Pin-Jang , Liao He and Hai He . The investigation showed that boats with a draft of 2.13 m to 2.43 m could be freely used on these rivers. Only on the lower reaches of the Hai He were there areas with restrictions, as the water there was only 1.8 m deep in unfavorable wind conditions. This made it clear that the Giljak , which had a draft of 2.58 m, was not possible without changes to the project.
Since the Naval Technical Committee already had a certain amount of experience in the planning of sea-going gunboats with shallow drafts, the construction work did not take up too much time. On September 21, 1904, at the meeting of the committee, the project of a “gunboat with shallow draft for use on the Amur and a water displacement of 858 t” was confirmed.
construction
Overall, the design was only a revision of the Chiwinez project. Basically, dimensions and weights were reduced, new elements were not introduced. In terms of its decisive parameters, the design now fulfilled the requirements of Tyrtow, which Tyrtow had set out in 1892.
Alexeyev's demand for powerful machines was not implemented because of the given limitation of the draft. In doing so, the designers repeated a crucial mistake that had already occurred with the Giljak : the wind had a decisive influence on the controllability of the boats. During the sea trials in autumn 1907 it became clear that the boat rolled heavily in rough seas and drifted off the heading. This made the type practically unusable on the high seas. In order to eliminate drift and rolling, an additional keel was later required and implemented. However, this increase in stability was at the expense of the required shallow draft.
hull
The design was based on the design of the Chiwinez in terms of external appearance, the shape of the hull and the position of the superstructure . The installation of the artillery and the accommodation of the ship's machinery were also solved in the same way as the Chiwinez . In terms of shape, these boats were more reminiscent of small cruisers than of the gunboats previously introduced into the Russian Navy. The draft was slightly shorter and narrower, the displacement significantly smaller in order to achieve the required depth.
| parameter | Tyrtow's Demand (1892) | Giljak | Chiwinez | Project 858 t boat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Displacement, t | 750 | 963 | 1316 | 858 |
| Length in the waterline, m | - | 63.09 | 69.80 | 63.80 |
| Width in the waterline, m | - | 11.15 | 11.28 | 10.99 |
| Width over everything, m | - | 11.28 | 11.28 | 10.99 |
| Freeboard, m | - | 5.58 | 6.10 | 4.88 |
| Draft with normal displacement, m | - | 2.59 | 3.28 | 2.13 |
| Draft at maximum displacement, m | 2.70 | 2.78 | 3.448 | 2.21 |
| Displacement per 1 cm draft, t | - | 5.16 | 5.43 | 5.24 |
| Main frame area, m | - | 25.9 | 31.3 | 20.5 |
| Waterline area, m | - | 505.8 | 538.5 | 536.6 |
As with the predecessors, a very flat floor was provided for the boats. This was necessary in order to achieve the greatest possible displacement with the given draft. In addition, it was better protected against damage in the event of ground contact and also made the boats a stable weapon platform. However, it was also one of the reasons for the poor course stability of the boats.
The hull was planked with square steel sheets with an edge length of 914 mm and a thickness of 7.5 to 8.7 mm. The fuselage construction consisted of a composite of transverse frames and stringers , the frames were made from a profile construction. The boat was divided into watertight compartments by thirteen transverse bulkheads. The double floor did not run the entire length of the boat and extended in width to the second stringer. The deck was made of 4.4 mm thick sheet steel, the deck of the back made of sheet metal with a thickness of 2.5 mm. The deck was covered with linoleum , the upper deck and the forecastle deck with 50 mm thick teak . The wooden support under the gun stands was 100 mm thick. On the cover was a brick built, the walls extended as false board into the back of the ship.
The command post consisted of armor steel with a thickness of 20 mm, the floor and ceiling of weakly magnetic steel with a thickness of 12 mm. The armor of other parts of the boats was not foreseen in the project, insofar as the occasionally encountered in the literature as a name is armored gunboat or armored gunboat wrong. The mast with a diameter of 1.22 m at the base of the mast was designed based on the Chiwinez model . The construction, which led to stability problems, was changed during the construction of the Chiwinez and replaced by a light signal mast without Mars and the machine guns placed on the bridge. For the new boats, however, the mast was built according to the original, problematic construction.
Machine system
The boiler system of the boats consisted of four Belleville water tube boilers each . The boilers were set up in pairs in two separate compartments, with each pair having its own chimney. The boiler pressure was 15.9 atm, the grate area was 8.8 m. The weight of the entire boiler system was 56 t, plus 10 t of boiler feed water.
The boats were propelled by two standing three-cylinder triple composite steam engines with a nominal steam pressure of 13.6 atm. The speed of the screw shafts at nominal power was 230 / min. The piston stroke was 380 mm, the cylinder diameter 300, 450 and 680 mm. The continuous output (six hours) was estimated to be at least 800 PSi , with a design speed of at least 12 knots to be achieved. The boats were driven by two bronze propellers each with a diameter of 1.82 mm, the left screw turning counterclockwise and the right screw clockwise.
The total weight of the drive machines, including the weight of the boiler system and auxiliary machines, screw shafts, spare parts and accessories, was 188 t. This resulted in a weight of 147.5 kg per horsepower. The maximum coal supply was 100 t, but normally only 60 t were loaded,
| parameter | Tyrtow's Demand (1892) | Giljak | Chiwinez | Project 858 t boat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prime mover | - | Triple compound steam engine | Triple compound steam engine | Triple compound steam engine |
| Number of boilers | - | 6th | 8th | 4th |
| Total power, PSi | - | 1000 | 1400 | 800 |
| Top speed, kn | 12 | 12 | 13 | 12 |
| economic speed, kn | - | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| Coal supply, normal, t | - | 70 | 100 | 60 |
| Coal reserve, maximum, t | 168 | 185 | 100 | |
| Driving range at economical speed and normal coal supply, NM | - | 969 | 1100 | 1100 |
| Driving range at economical speed and maximum coal supply, NM | - | 2325 | 2000 | 1800 |
Two steam-powered generators with an output of 25.2 kW and a voltage of 105 volts were provided for the electrical energy supply. Two searchlights with a diameter of 60 cm, eight arc lamps , 252 additional lamps and additional consumers were operated with electrical energy . Seven electrically operated turbo pumps with a capacity of 150 t / h each were planned for the bilge system, the fire extinguishing system was to be equipped with pumps of the Worthington type. In the project, two anchors and one reserve anchor with a weight of 960 kg each were planned for each boat , plus a stern anchor with a weight of 720 kg. The steam-powered anchor capstan had an output of 20 PSi and could catch up with the 215 m long anchor chains at a speed of 12 m / s.
Armament
Compared to the Chiwinez , the number of main armaments was retained, but the number of guns of the middle artillery had to be reduced for weight reasons. Since the main task of the boats was in the fight against fortifications and troops on land, there was no need to equip them with torpedo tubes . Carrying sea mines was also not planned.
| parameter | Tyrtow's Demand (1892) | Giljak | Chiwinez | Project 858 t boat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 120 mm cannon | 4th | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 75mm cannon | - | 5 | 8th | 4th |
| 47mm cannon | 4th | 4th | 0 | 0 |
| 37mm Hotchkiss cannon | - | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 63.5 mm landing cannon | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Machine guns | - | 2 | 4th | 2 |
| Torpedo tubes | - | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Number of sea mines carried | - | 16 | 0 | 0 |
In the project, the 75 mm cannons were to be set up on a bridge over the superstructure in the rear of the boat. This setup had the advantage of a very large lateral swivel range for the weapons. However, problems arose in the construction of the ammunition lifts. In the revised project of September 1905, the cannons were finally set up on bay windows. The swivel range was slightly restricted compared to the first variant, but the construction was simpler and the center of gravity was lower. The machine guns were to be set up on Mars.
Basically, the design adhered to the concept that had already been followed when the Giljak was built. He took into account neither the changes that have occurred in the last twenty years, nor the perspectives that were already recognizable at that time. The reason for sticking to traditional ideas was, on the one hand, the influence of Alexeev, who considered small-caliber armament to be completely sufficient, and, on the other hand, the efforts of the designers to achieve the lowest possible total weight. Compared to the river cannon boats of the Shkwal class (Шквал), which were put into service in 1910, which had a similar displacement and similar speed, the boats in the project were weakly armed and thus morally out of date when they were commissioned. The use of diesel engines on the boats of the Schkwal class made it possible to significantly reduce the weight of the machinery, so that the boats were armored and the main armament of two 152 mm cannons could be set up in armored turrets. The waiver of the requirement for seaworthiness also enabled the construction of a flat-bottomed, significantly wider hull with a draft of only 1.41 m. The boats of the British Insect class, which were put into service in 1915 and designed for a similar purpose, also had a main armament of 152 mm caliber with a lower displacement and shallow draft. Only the boats of the German Iltis class, built from 1900 and used in the station service, had similarly weak armament with a greater displacement and greater draft with two 10.5 cm caliber cannons.
At the same time, new types of warships appeared with the destroyer , which was similar in size to the gunboat, had higher speed and better armament, the fast mine-layer and the submarine. Ultimately, this led to the fact that the gunboat was outdated at the beginning of the First World War and, depending on the purpose, was replaced by river gunboats, destroyers, mine-layers and sometimes submarines.
Other equipment
The equipment with dinghies followed the example of the Giljak . A rowing boat with six oars and a dinghy as well as an 8.5 m long steam cutter and a launch with fourteen oars were suspended from davits . There was also a smaller rowed service boat.
Each of the boats had four steering wheels. One each was set up on the fore and aft bridge, one wheel in the command post and another in the steering position in the superstructure. The scaffolding of compasses , machine telegraphs and speaking tubes was planned at all four places .
crew
The planned manning corresponded to the Giljak , apart from minor deviations . A commander, another staff officer as chief officer, six other officers, two engineers or mechanics, a doctor, two conductors (non-commissioned officers in the Russian fleet) and 157 men were planned.
construction
start of building
In order to be able to complete the construction of the boats in the shortest possible time, the construction contracts for the four boats were divided between different shipyards. One boat was to be built at the New Admiralty Shipyard , another at the Putilov works and two at the Neva works . All three factories were in St. Petersburg .
The Russian naval command was aware of the fact that “despite all the desirable expediency, a standardization of the auxiliary machines and systems on all four gunboats is hardly feasible, since each shipyard has its own technical expertise in the construction of such devices and it is simply too inconvenient would be to instruct the private companies to purchase the machines from one and the same manufacturer. ”The Ministry of Navy, trying to achieve a certain standardization, asked the Putilov plant for the manufacture of the hull, the machinery and the equipment, the drawings of the Nevsky plant to use. This request was formulated regardless of the fact that the type ship of the series was built at the state Admiralty Shipyard. The Putilow works, however, allowed some deviations from the requirements of the project, so that as a result, the four boats of the project got a partly very different equipment and differed in their data.
In mid-October 1904, the shipyards were notified of the advance orders, whereupon the Neue Admiralitätswerft began to break down the work and prepare the working drawings. On this basis, IA Gavrilow (И. А. Гаврилов) carried out a recalculation of the displacement and the mass distribution in February 1905. The normal displacement with 60 t coal and 10 t boiler feed water was now 884 t. When fully loaded with 177 t of coal and 40 t of boiler feed water, the displacement was 1018 t, with a ballast of 110 t of water, which was necessary for use on the open sea, 1128 t. The displacement was thus 230 t or 26% above the project specifications. The project manager IG Bubnow (И. Г. Бубнов) rejected the shipyard's calculations and claimed that "all the figures in the shipyard's calculations are completely unfounded". In the end, however, the actual displacement of the boats was actually well above the project specifications.
In the spring, the New Admiralty began preparing for the assembly of the fuselage. The metal for the construction was delivered from Yekaterinoslav and Matejewka . The other shipyards are still busy preparing the material. The reason for the slow start of construction was that the Putilov and Nevsky factories could not agree on the price of the boats with the ministry. At the end of March of that year, two state observers were appointed to supervise the construction of the boats in the Putilov and Nevsky factories.
On January 22, 1905, the Giljak had to be deleted from the fleet list of the Imperial Russian Navy after it was lost in the Russo-Japanese War. As a result, it was decided in April of that year to name the four boats after gunboats that were sunk during the war - Bobr , Korejez , Giljak and Sivutsch . On April 28, 1905, the Giljak was officially stacked on the New Admiralty . By this time, 25% of the fuselage frame and the planking had already been completed. The Korejez was built at the Putilov works, the Bobr and Sivutsch at the Nevsky works . The keel-laying took place on November 26th and May 30th, 1906. By June 1905, the Giljak had used 139 t of steel. In the same month, the boiler systems for all four boats were ordered from the Black Sea Mechanical and Boiler Works. The Putilov factory produced the engines for all four boats and the stems for the boats built there and the Giljak . Rowing machines and mooring equipment for the Giljak came from the state Ischorski works, the steam-powered generators and turbo pumps from Reval from Wolta , the electrical equipment from various companies, the armament from the Obuchow works and the Telefunken radio system from Siemens & Halske .
At the end of August 1905, after the hull of the Giljak was 50% completed, the individual departments were checked for leaks. In October 1905 AN Malkowitsch-Sutozki (А. Н. Малкович-Сутоцкий), who was also a construction observer at the Nevsky Shipyard, made a new calculation of the displacement and the load distribution. His results largely coincided with Gavrilov's calculations: the boats were heavier than planned in the project. The normal displacement was now 875 t.
In the private shipyards, construction began in earnest towards the end of 1905. In December, the steel for the hull was delivered to the Putilov works and construction of the hull began. The naval ministry had reached an agreement with the factory on deadlines and prices and concluded the contract on March 27, 1906. The boat was to be delivered by July 1, 1907, when the price was agreed to be 910,000 rubles . Negotiations with the Nevsky Works were tough and took longer. The contract was only concluded on July 10, 1906. The boats should be delivered by October 1, 1907, the price per boat was 920,000 rubles.
At the beginning of spring the leak tests of the Giljak were continued, the hull was now 70% complete. These exams lasted all summer and didn't finish until October 10th. After a final Baubesichtigung by the Commission, the boat was from the October 14, 1906 left stack .
Meanwhile, the construction progress of the private shipyards lagged far behind the New Admiralty. This was particularly true of the Nevsky works, where the leak tests did not begin until September 12, 1906. In addition, the work deviated from the specifications of the project. The hull contour was fuller, which required a redesign of the stern tubes , which were made from the same steel as the hull and not from a bronze alloy as intended. Furthermore, a heavier capstan with an output of 24 hp was installed on a high foundation. Fourteen pumps with a capacity of 75 t / h were used for the bilge system. In contrast to the project, the bridge superstructures, the ammunition lift for the 120 mm cannons and the division of the inner rooms were also carried out, which later led to difficulties in accommodating the crew.
Modifications
In October 1906 the Naval Technical Commission decided to replace the command posts with a mushroom roof with closed command posts with 75 mm high visor slots. This was the first modification of the boats made after the experience of the Russo-Japanese War.
The next planned modification resulted in a five-month construction freeze. General NP Linewitsch (Н. П. Линевич) proposed armoring the boats of the Amur flotilla. On October 7, 1906, a meeting of the special committee at the State Defense Council took place, which dealt with the modernization of the Giljak-class boats. The result was:
"Политические обстоятельства видоизменили те требования, которые должны быть предъявлены к строящимся лодкам, а боевой опыт указал их недостатки."
"The political circumstances evidently led to a change in the demands made on the boats under construction, and the fighting experience showed their inadequacy."
With "political circumstances" the defeat of Russia in the war against Japan was described. Using the boats on Chinese rivers was no longer possible, as the area in question was meanwhile ruled by Japan. This meant that the boats could now have a much greater draft. During the consultation, the experiences of the Giljak used in the war were not considered; instead, the boats under construction were compared with the planned river cannon boats of the shkwal class. Such a comparison was not particularly effective, despite all the similarity, the boats were designed for different purposes, and the structural differences between the two concepts were not taken into account.
As a result of the meeting, it was decided to swap the 75-mm cannons for 122-mm rapid-fire howitzers of the Army, which were to be placed on ship mounts, and to continue armoring the side walls. The draft should not be greater than 3 m. To save weight, the superstructure and the forecastle should be removed and the signal mast replaced with a flagstick . As a result, the sea properties of the project deteriorated, while the combat strength still lagged behind the shkwal class. The next day the New Admiralty, where the Giljak's mast was about to be erected, was ordered to stop all work. The other two shipyards received similar orders.
As a result, Gavrilov began working on the new project. The exchange of the weapons was relatively easy to carry out, only the foundation of the weapon had to be changed for the larger tube elevation and the larger recoil forces and the chambers of the ammunition lifts had to be adapted to the 122 mm caliber, there was no increase in weight. The armor on the hull was more problematic. First of all, the planking had to be removed along the entire length of the ship and from the deck to the second stringer. Furthermore, the transverse ribs had to be exchanged for those with a wider profile, the stringers had to be doubled in thickness and finally a side wall with twice the thickness had to be added. This resulted in a weight increase of 76 t.
Gavrilov proposed armoring made up of a total of 30 panels with a length of up to 7.6 m, which should be laid in two layers. In the waterline the armor should be made of Krupp steel 80 mm thick, at the ends only 52 mm and made of nickel steel . The height of the belt armor was estimated at 1.4 m, with the lower edge 0.2 m below the original construction waterline of 2.13 m. A strip of armor plates with a thickness of 38 mm was provided above the belt armor up to the deck. The total weight of the armor plates was 194 t.
Gavrilow refused to waive the forecastle because "the destruction of the halfback would be risky for the sea properties" (German: "уничтожение полубака рискованно для мореходных качеств"), would save one of the masts of 3.5 t, the already completed mast could not be used, a new mast would have to be built, and finally it would no longer be possible to launch the dinghies with the help of the mast boom because the new construction did not provide for such a boom. As a result of the modifications, the displacement would increase to 1230 t and the draft to 2.82 m. However, half of the planned belt armor would be below the waterline. The speed of the boat would drop to 11 knots. The ship's stability would be preserved, but its maneuverability would deteriorate.
Gavrilow further pointed out that the armor only on the side walls was insufficient. If howitzers were fired from land, only 30% of the projected target area would be on the ship's side, but 70% on the deck. Since the boats were not originally intended for armoring the side walls, there was no substructure for fastening the armor plates. The armor had to be attached directly to the planking with stud bolts. However, the hull of the boat was curved on all sides, so it was impossible to let the armor rest with the entire surface on the hull. This in turn would reduce their effectiveness.
The exchange of the side walls brought further problems with it. The boats' equipment, which had already been partially installed, had to be removed and reinstalled after the armor had been applied. For the Giljak the additional cost was estimated at 285,000 rubles, for the other boats at 250,000 rubles each.
In conclusion, Gavrilov summarized:
«Бронирование борта вызовет крупное переустройство и составит сложную и дорогую работу. Судно, не изменив заметным образом свою скорость и остойчивость, будет во многиху отношениях знач. Я осмеливаюсь высказать свой взгляд, что даже небронированные канонерские лодки типа "Гиляка" могут быть во многих отношениях полезны и что лучше будет оставить их так, как они построены, и не делать компромисса, употребив выделенные деньги на постройку новых канонерок, специально проектированных для покрытия броней. Относительно настоятельной необходимости бронирования канонерской лодки, по моему мнению, до сих пор вопрос не достаточно выяснен, так как бой при Таку, действия "Бобра" и 2-х миноносцев, а также обстреливание Кинджоуских позиций японскими канонерскими лодками показывает, что действия даже небронированных канонерских лодок не всегда бывают мало успешными »
“The armor on the side walls leads to major modifications and is a complicated and lengthy job. The ship, whose speed and stability change only insignificantly, is deteriorating in many ways. I would like to express my conviction that the unarmored Giljak would also be useful in many ways and that it would therefore be better to leave it as it was built and not to compromise, the financing of which would be at the expense of new gunboats specifically for one Armor were projected. As regards the need for armor on gunboats, I believe that this question has not been adequately studied. The battle for the Taku forts, the use of the Bobr gunboat and two mine layers, but also the bombardment of the positions near Tsingtau by Japanese gunboats shows that actions by unarmored gunboats do not always have to be unsuccessful. "
Gavrilov's statement was condensed by Rear Admiral AA Virusius (А.А.Вирениус) except for the reference to the costs and the undesirably large depth and passed it on to the State Defense Council. After taking note of this message, the council, chaired by Emperor Nicholas II, made a decision on November 25, 1906, recognizing the need to increase combat strength, but at the same time demanding that the modifications should not be at the expense of timely delivery. This decision led the Navy Ministry to a dead end, as it was clear from Gavrilov's comments that the modified boats could not be delivered on time. Nevertheless, the ministry dutifully asked the steelworks about the possibility of manufacturing the armor, the price and the delivery times. the Ishorksi factory was only able to produce armor for two boats and suggested that the armor for the remaining two boats be made by the Obuchov factory. The delivery time was estimated to be four months, with the manufacture of armor for the Pallada , the Bajan , the Imperator Paul I and the Andrei Pervoswanny being postponed by this period. The factory also did not want to guarantee the quality of the 80 mm Krupp steel tank. The Obuchow-Werke estimated six months for the construction of the armor, but without the end pieces made of nickel steel, with a corresponding delay in other orders. As a result, the total cost was estimated at 2 million rubles.
On January 29, 1907, the minister asked Emperor Nicholas II whether the armor could be abandoned because it would delay the construction of the boats by a year. After a month and a half, the decision was made not to armor the ships, but to remove the mast and superstructures and to exchange the 75 mm cannons for 122 mm howitzers. However, it quickly became clear that the Treasury could not approve additional funds for any modifications, and so the decision was made at the end of March to complete the boats according to the original project.
On May 10, 1907 the Korejez was launched. The draft at the bow was 0.53 m, at the stern 1.37 m. The launch of the Bobr followed on May 30th. The day before the launch, the factory management had informed the head office for shipbuilding that the late decision on armoring had delayed construction and that the boats could not be delivered on time. A month later, a meeting of the Naval Technical Commission with the commanders of the boats determined that they should be completed in 1908. The main naval staff provided for a two-month trial period in the summer navigation period of 1908. Thereafter, the Giljak and the Korejez were to be sent to the Far East, while the other two boats were assigned to the reserve fleet until 1909. Regardless of the extended deadlines, the equipment work at the New Admiralty and the Putilov works continued quickly in the summer of 1907. On September 6th, the Giljak's stand testing began , and on October 3rd, the boat moved to Kronstadt for testing .
The Siwutsch was launched on July 19, 1907. The management of the Nevsky plant achieved a further delay in delivery times.
testing
The Giljak reached a speed of 12.2 knots on October 20, 1907 with a displacement of 858 t. A performance of the ship's engines of 909.2 PSi was indicated. The Korejez began testing the stand on September 23 and completed the acceptance run on October 6. With a displacement of 850.5 t, the indicated power was determined to be 807.5 PSi, and the maximum speed achieved was also 12.2 knots. The acceptance commission came to the conclusion that the boat was completed without delay. All work on the boat was carried out with the necessary care and conscientiously. On October 23, the Korejez was taken over. The naval minister IM Dikow (И. М. Диков) decided to let the two boats winter in Libau . The crossing to Libau turned out to be difficult. On November 21, 1907, the boats left Kronstadt via Helsingfors and Reval to Libau. The wind force was 8 to 9, there were short and hard waves. The temperature quickly dropped to −15 ° C. Ice quickly formed near the shore, and the superstructures of the boats quickly iced up on the open sea. After leaving Reval on December 10th, the boats lost each other in the fog. Near the island of Odensholm , the steering gear failed at the Korejez and the Giljak got stuck in the ice near the island of Worms . The tug Moguchi (Могучий) towed the boats back to Reval. The balance of the transfer trip was sobering:
«Из всех переходов выяснилось, что лодки этого типа обладают далеко не достаточными морехоадныч. Лодки страшно сносит ветром, что сильно затрудняет счисление, так как пока нет вет возак пока нет возя возможности. Рыскливость большая. Кроме того, достаточно небольшой волны, чтобы лодку, если курс ведет лагом к волне, начало неимоверно раскачивать в обе стороны, причем размахи все увеличиваются, стремительность качки большая и тогда приходится волей-неволей приводиться ". «Лодки обладают стремительной качкой. При ветре 6 баллов лодки делают 24—28 размахов в минуту от 35 ° до 40 °, вследствие чего люди не моганх держанеганх.
“From the crossings it became clear that the boats of this type do not have sufficient seaworthiness. The boats are carried away by the wind. Calculating the course is difficult as there is no way to tell the drift. The boats lurch heavily. In addition, a small wave is enough to make the boat roll in both directions incredibly. The amplitude increases continuously. The boat rolls 24 to 28 times a minute up to a heel of 35 ° to 40 °, so that the crew cannot stand on their feet. "
The well-known shipbuilding engineer AN Krylow assumed the reason for the behavior of the boats was the shallow draft in relation to the height of the ship's side and the superstructure. In his opinion, the poor seaworthiness resulted from the large width in relation to the draft. The laying of the boats in the Caspian Sea was immediately abandoned, especially since the boats were too wide for the locks of the Russian inland waterways. The commander of the Reval port, Rear Admiral AA Irezki (А. А. Ирецкий) noted that the Korejez looked more like a ready-made impression. The Giljak appeared hastily and clumsily cobbled together. Boilers and machines would be inadequately protected, and in combat they would fail as soon as a splinter hits the ground. The main shortcoming of the new boats, in his opinion, was the lack of maneuverability and the lack of a keel . Gavrilov, who arrived in Reval in January 1909, shared Irezki's view. He created a 120-point list for rework and improvements. One of the points was the installation of a false keel with a height of 0.91 m and two bilge keels with a width of 0.61 m. Since the Nevsky works required 80,000 rubles for the modification of the two boats built there, the execution of the work for all boats for a price of 31,000 rubles was agreed with the Putilov works. On June 26, 1908, the boats reached Kronstadt again and came to the Petrovsky dock . The work was completed after two months. During the inspection run of the Korejez , the diameter of the turning circle at full speed was 273 m, a turn took 3 minutes 50 seconds. Without the additional keels, the diameter had been 266 m at the same time. After a week of test drives, Krylow summarized the result as follows:
"Остановка килей, не устранив коренной причины стремительной качки - избыточную остойчивость, уменьшает размахи качки и дрейф [...] Лодки будут качаться и при легкой зыби, но размахи не будут достигать опасных пределов [...] Самая опасная для этих лодок высокая и короткая волна с периодом 5—6 с. При такой волне придется изменять курс, подставляя скулу или раковину […] Есть возменаножность возменян вумн оголен (61) 200 (61) оволен. Придется также менять курс, идя к волне под углом, чтобы изменить длительность встречи с волной »
"The addition of the keels did not eliminate the real problem, the lack of stability of the boats, but the drift and heel reduced [...] the boats will roll even in light waves, but the amplitude will no longer reach dangerous values [...]" the most dangerous for these boats are short and high waves with an interval of 5 to 6 s. With such waves the course must be changed […] at a wave length of 200 feet (61 m) the propellers come over the water surface. You have to change the course and cut the waves at an angle in order to change the length of the wave to the ship [...] "
Krylov's assessment was confirmed at the end of September by a test voyage of the Giljak (draft 3.05 m) and the Korejez (draft 3.22 m). With a wind force of 5 to 8 and a swell of 4 to 6, there were waves with an interval of 3.5 to 5.5 s, a length of 61 m and a height of 1.22 m. When heading against the wind , the boats yawed 15 times per minute. At half-wind courses the boats heeled ten times per minute, the maximum heel was 20 ° and decreased quickly. There was no influence on the machinery. After the completion of the test drives, preparations were made to move the boats to the Pacific. In October the two boats left Kronstadt, followed on November 30th by the Bobr and the Siwutsch from Reval.
On the crossing, the Giljak and the Korejez got into a severe storm off Algeria, which both boats survived, but which caused damage to the machinery. In rough seas, the boats quickly lost speed and the consumption of coal rose dramatically, so that the crossing was slow. On December 22, 1908, the boats reached Piraeus .
The takeover tests for the Siwutsch and the Bobr did not begin until July 1908. Both ships were measured at 868 t and both reached a top speed of 12 knots. The machine of the Bobr made 1029 PSi, that of the Siwutsch 921 PSi. On October 6, 1908, the boats came into the Petrovsky Dock. Since the dock had to be cleared by winter, the work ran around the clock. On October 30th, the boats came out of the dock and entered Reval on November 6th for artillery tests.
commitment
At the beginning of December, the Novaya Rus newspaper (Новая Русь) published an article dealing with the boats of the class. The reason was a report from the commandant of the Giljak , in which he stated that the Giljak was 0.15 m deeper in the water and that the engine needed 15 revolutions more than the Korejez for the same speed . The author of the article pointed out that both boats were built according to the same drawings, but that the Giljak , built at a state shipyard, had significantly poorer properties than the Korejez , built at a private shipyard, and made serious allegations against the state shipbuilding companies that used the fleet as before unsuitable ships would be handed over. The Navy Ministry left the matter to Gavrilov to clarify. He made it clear that the differences were practically irrelevant and explained their reasons. Despite the tendentious formulations and regardless of the fact that he did not understand the problem, the author was right on one point: the fleet had not received one but four boats that did not meet modern requirements. For the Ministry of the Navy, this gave rise to the problem of finding a use for the newly commissioned boats.
By December 1908, the Amur Flotilla had put ten new river cannon boats into service. Three of them belonged to the Buryat class (Бурят), seven more were modernized and armored boats of the Bogul class (Вогул). The completion of eight boats of the Shkwal class, which were heavily armed and equipped with diesel engines, was expected in the summer of 1909. The sending of the boats of the Giljak class was no longer of decisive importance for the combat strength of the flotilla. Boats whose passage was delayed by weeks due to bad weather could not be a reinforcement for the fleet in the Far East, since they should also be used there on the open sea. With the defeat in the war against Japan, the original purpose, the use on the Chinese rivers, ceased as these were meanwhile ruled by Japan. However, a change in the balance of power in the Far East was out of the question in the foreseeable future. On December 3, 1908, it was decided to transfer the Bobr and Siwutsch , which were still in Libau, to the reserve fleet of the Baltic Sea on January 1, 1909. The Giljak and the Korejez were to move on to Vladivostok and continue their testing there. The commander of the United Baltic Sea Squadron, Rear Admiral von Essen , suggested that the boats be used to form an independent department for the defense of the Finnish archipelago . Emperor Nicholas II decided on December 23, 1908, and the boats in Piraeus were recalled to Kronstadt, where they arrived on February 21, 1909.
Boats of the class
The class includes the four built boats:
In order to distinguish them from their predecessors, the boats are occasionally marked with the suffix II , but the drawings for the project do not reveal such a name.
In 1909, all four boats were initially incorporated into the inventory of the 2nd Mining Division, whose task it was to defend the Finnish archipelago. The boats were stationed in Helsingfors .
Giljak
In July 1910 the boat came together with the Bobr to the main hydrography administration , from 1911 to 1914 it was used at the artillery school. During the First World War, the boat initially belonged again to the 2nd Mining Division and was mainly used to support Russian troops on land during the course of the war. During the war some of the guns were exchanged for anti-aircraft guns. In 1918 the boat in the port of Abo fell into German hands and was subsequently handed over to the Weißfinnen. These incorporated the Giljak into their fleet under the name Iljak .
Koreez
In 1910 the Korejez was assigned to the artillery school and from 1911 to 1914 it was assigned to the artillery training units of the Baltic Fleet. With the beginning of the First World War, the boat came back to the 2nd Mining Division. After the rapid advance of German troops into Kurland , the Korejez and the Siwutsch gave fire support to the Russian troops deployed there on June 8, 1915. On August 5th, Jul. / August 18, 1915 greg. both boats shot at German positions near Kemmern . On August 6th, July / August 19, 1915 greg. the boats were provided by a German squadron with the liners SMS Posen and SMS Nassau , the cruisers SMS Pillau , SMS Bremen , SMS Graudenz and SMS Augsburg as well as other ships. The attempt to escape to Moon Sound failed. The Korejez was able to evade enemy fire, but ran aground in shallow water. Since the boat management did not have a clear picture of the situation, the boat was blown up the next day so as not to let it fall into enemy hands.
Bobr
The Bobr was posted to the Naval Engineering School on May 13, 1909 and was deployed in Björkö Sound . There it was used to train ship machine personnel and was also used to transport people. On June 12, 1909, she came to the artillery school and moved to Reval. During the crossing, the radio station of the Bobr was tested, while the connection with Reval could be maintained over a distance of 130 nm . In the school's training company, the boat quickly wore out, came back to the 2nd Mining Division after three months and was repaired in September 1909. In July 1910 the boat and the Giljak came to the Hydrographic Headquarters.
During the First World War, the boat initially belonged again to the 2nd Mining Division and was mainly used to support Russian troops on land during the course of the war. During the war some of the guns were exchanged for anti-aircraft guns. Like the Giljak , the boat in Abo fell into German hands, but unlike the latter, it was not given to the White Fins. Under the name Biber , it served as a workshop ship. After the November Revolution in Germany, the boat fell into Estonian hands and was sold there under the name Lembit . Armed again, it was used in the defense of Reval and the ultimately unsuccessful advance of the Estonian troops into Petrograd against Russian troops. The boat is said to have been removed from the fleet list in 1925 and abandoned in 1926, according to other sources it was in use in Estonia until the 1930s.
Sivuch
The Siwutsch was stationed in Sveaborg from 1910 . From 1913 she was one of the fleet's mine training units. On August 6th, July / August 19, 1915 greg. the boat was put together with the Korejez after the laying of mines near Ust-Dvinsk by superior German forces. After a thirty-two minute battle with the cruiser Augsburg and the torpedo boats V 29 and V 100 , the boat received several heavy hits, lost speed and was shot down and sunk by the newly arrived battleships Posen and Nassau .
Web links
literature
- А. В. Скворцов: Канонерские лодки Балтийского флота "Гиляк", "Кореец", "Бобр", "Сивуч". (AW Skworzow: The gunboats of the Baltic fleet Giljak, Korejez, Bobr, Siwutsch. ) (Russian)
Footnotes
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i quoted from Skworzow
- ↑ In addition, the place names customary in Russia at the time or their German transcription are used, but the link leads to the names in use today
- ↑ meant here is the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion , in which the Taku Forts by the Russian gunboats Russian gunboat Korietz , Giljak and Bobr and the French Lion , the British Algerine and the German Iltis were fired
- ↑ see below Skworzow
Type Opyt: Opyt
Type Gornostai: Gornostai
Floating batteries: Perwenez | Ne tron menja | Kremlin
Type Bronenossez: Tifon | Uragan | Lawa | Perun | Bronenossez | Latnik | Jedinorog | Strelez | Weschtschun | Koldun
Smertsch type: Smertsch | Russalka | Charodeika
Type Admiral Lazarew: Admiral Lazarew | Admiral Greig | Admiral Spiridov | Admiral Chichagov
Popovka : Novgorod | Vice Admiral Popov
Type Admiral Ushakov : Admiral Ushakow | Admiral Senjawin | Admiral General Apraksin
Doschd type: Mina | Pishshawl | Kars | Sekira | Jorsch | Burun | Tutscha | Wichr | Doschd | Sneg | Grosa | Burja | Degree
Grozjashchi type: Grozjashchi | Gremyashchi | Otwaschny
Type Chrabry: Chrabry
Type Korejez / Manchur: Korejez | Manchur | Donets | Zaporozhez | Kubanez | Terez | Uralez | Chernomorets
Giljak type: Giljak
Chiwinez type: Chiwinez
Giljak type: Bobr | Koreez | Giljak | Sivuch