RN cruiser sunk at Dogger Bank, Oct 1904

[Admiral Beez]

To the British populace there is only one reason for the existence of the Royal Navy, and that is to protect British territory, its citizens and trade. With that in mind, I'd argue that had a RN warship been sunk along with the fishing boats by the Russians in 1904, the British people and its politicians would be calling for blood, and it would have been acted upon.

All it would have taken is for there to be one British protected or small cruiser bearing direct witness to the Russian attack on the fishing fleet. There is no way that any British commander is going sit back and W/T back to the Admiralty for instructions when British merchant seaman are being murdered in plain sight. I would expect the W/T message from our sole light RN vessel to the Admiralty to be as follows....

"HMS Retribution, Dogger Bank...unknown warships, estimated over one dozen cruisers and several battleships and light vessels, suspect Russian, attacking British fishing trawlers, two Brits sunk, enemy fire continuing...moving to engage, God Bless the King...."

By the time the Admiralty is roused out of bed, and reads the initial W/T, HMS Retribution (Apollo class, http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/hms_retribution.htm) will have been destroyed by Russian gunfire, with her surviving wireless operator sending a second and final W/T advising that they were disabled, on fire and sinking, marking their position. Almost 300 RN sailors are dead, though some survivors will be picked up by the British trawlers.

By morning, the W/T transmissions are leaked to the newspapers, and the British Public is enraged, the Royal Navy has been attacked. A hugely powerful RN fleet meets Rozhdestvensky in the morning off Gibraltar, and demands his immediate surrender and interment in a British port. Hoping to receive assistance from the French Navy nearby, Rozhdestvensky refuses, and his fleet is destroyed by the RN.

We have to remember how close Britain came to war over this. Am I wrong to suggest a chance encounter with a RN cruiser as I propose above would have tipped the balance?

 

[zert]

It is plausible, though not likely to cause a war. I can see HUGE fines, compensation to the families of the victims, and possibly the fall of the Czar.

I will let others give better feedback than I might.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

No, I can't agree. This would definitely lead to war. This is much worse than the mistaken attack on the fishing fleet. A battle has been fought in the Royal Navy's back yard and a British Warship sunk, they have to retaliate for a couple of reasons. 1 The public will demand it. 2 If the Government lets the Russians get away with it they are in effect saying to the rest of the world "Do what you like to British shipping, we wont stop you". The rest of the world will be asking "If they won't protect British ships in the waters around Britain then they certainly won't do so here on the other side of the world".

 

[Aphrodite]

Incidents like these can be an excuse for war but someone must want war for that to happen. Here neither the British or the Russians want war. The British are already moving towards the Entente. War with Russia could mean war on the continent and war with France. How does that benefit the British?

What does Britain gain by war with Russia? What would the British want from Russia?

The Russians have their hands full and don't need anymore. The incident would be settled as in OTL. If either side wanted war the OTL incident is enough

 

[Ming777]

Actually, the real question is: can the Russians even hit the British Cruiser?

This was a naval formation that hit themselves more than they actually hit other ships.

 

[James Ricker]

Most likely scenario the Royal Navy intercepts the Baltic fleet and destroys it before Admiral Togo gets the chance,the Black Sea fleet meets the same fate at the hands of whatever the Royal Navy has in the Mediterranean, and Yamamoto gets to keep all his fingers.
The Russians try to invade India, but with their logistics the starving survivors surrender to the first farmer they meet.

 

[Scotty]

more likely is the RN roflstomp the Russian Fleet somewhere near Gib / The Med

then they go 'thats honour satisfied, Britannia still rules the waves, Russians have been put in their place, job done', and oh some compo would be nice or we might just do it again

The Russians will fold faster than Superman on laundry day

 

[King Augeas]

Yeah it'll cause a battle and the destruction of the Russian fleet - unless it surrenders first - but it's not likely cause an actual war. Neither side can easily get at each other, nor do they really want one. Destroying the fleet would enough.

 

[Catsmate]

I like it! But then I did a scenario where a group deliberately turned the incident into an early World War so I'm probably biased...

Some background.
Firstly, as has been mentioned, the Russian gunnery was abysmal so actually sinking a warship is highly unlikely unless it was something small and unarmoured. Even before Dogger Bank the 'Second Pacific Squadron' had fired on the Swedish steamer Aldebaran, the German trawler Sonntag and the French sailing vessel Guyane, without hitting anything. At Dogger Bank over a thousand shells were fired from the Russian warships' secondary and tertiary armament (mostly 37mm and 75mm guns), many at ranges of less than a hundred metres at targets that were searchlight illuminated and generally static (as the trawlers had their nets down). Very few hits were scored and only one boat (the Crane) had been sunk, with two of its crew killed. The others were saved by the efforts of other trawlers, though several men suffered serious injuries. A third man later died of injuries sustained; more than thirty more were injured. The casualties would have been worse but for the presence of a Mission ship (the Joseph and Sarah Miles) carrying a doctor and medical facilities.
The British fishermen weren't the only casualties of the firing; two Russians were killed when ships fired on each other and the cruisers Donskov and Aurora were damaged.

Now historically the British were furious; not only had the Russians fired upon fishing boats in international waters but they hadn't tried to aid the damaged and sinking boats even after they'd stopped firing. The general feeling was that the Russians should have realised, from the distinctive design of the fishing boats, their displayed lights, and their nets down, that the boats were harmless. A leader in The Times said:
"It is almost inconceivable that any men calling themselves seamen, however frightened they might be, could spend twenty minutes bombarding a fleet of fishing boats without discovering the nature of their target".
Also the fact that the incident occurred on the 99th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar exacerbated matters, patriotic fervour was already high.

Britain prepared for war, with the Royal Navy's Home Fleet ships (including 26 battleships) was readied for deployment, and cruisers were dispatched to shadow the Russian fleet. At the time Britain was a Japanese ally, the Anglo-Japanese Treaty had been signed in 1902, and was under discussion for renewal (this would happen in August 1905). This was a major reason France didn't become involved in the Russo-Japanese War, despite her alliance with Russia. This would activate the mutual defense portions of Anglo-Japanese treaty.

King Edward VII took a personal interest, meeting with several survivors and awarding the Albert Medal for actions in rescuing those wounded.

Now while there was a risk of war it was pretty slight, no-one was really enthusiastic about one. The British government (under Balfour), the Royal Navy (under newly appointed First Sea Lord 'Jackie' Fisher), the French government and the Russian ambassador worked to calm matters. Newspapers were pressured to urge moderation. An international enquiry was agreed upon (which would delay things nicely until feelings cooled) to be empanelled in Paris; this eventually blame Admiral Rozhestvensky for everything, and compensation (£66,000) would be paid.

Now, assuming a British warship was on the spot, maybe a Laird/River/E-type TBD. This would probably be taken by the Russians as one of the feared Japanese torpedo boats that they believed thronged the North Sea at the time. It's likely to be attacked, especially once it starts firing. Alas for the OP the Rivers, along with almost all TDBs/destroyers of the period didn't carry radio equipment, so maybe a cruiser is better.

I'd expect it would be far more difficult to calm matters. Perhaps the Russian ambassador, Count Benckendorff, isn't merely booed as he walked from the Russian embassy (Chesham House in Belgravia) to answer the Foreign Office's summons. There were a lot of Russian émigré's in London at the time with no love for their homeland's government...
Then there's the media. When it comes to yellow journalism and war-mongering in the period one name comes immediately to mind, that vile excrescence on journalism and politics, Horatio Bottomley.
Now in late 1904, IIRR, Bottomly didn't own any newspapers nor was he in Parliament.
But maybe he was, ITTL, elected to the Commons in 1900. It nearly happened, Bottomley lost to Thomas Robertson by 338 votes. With him in parliament, and I could see patriotic ire being whipped up, at least if Bottomley thought there was something in it for him

 

[Cymraeg]

Hmmmm. I wonder what kind of impact a battle between the RN and the Russians in the North Sea (with a subsequent smashing to pieces of the latter) would have on Anglo-Japanese relations? I'm just imaging Japanese newspaper headlines lauding the British and possible butterflies from that.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Actually, the real question is: can the Russians even hit the British Cruiser?

It's a good question. Meanwhile, with her two 6" and six 4.7" guns and twin torpedoes, along with a well trained and led crew, we might very well see HMS Retribution score first blood (not counting the fishing boats) against the Russians.

 

[thezerech]

It's a good question. Meanwhile, with her two 6" and six 4.7" guns and twin torpedoes, along with a well trained and led crew, we might very well see HMS Retribution score first blood (not counting the fishing boats) against the Russians.

Honesty with Russia's performance during the war, if they engage an actual enemy warship they might just end up torpedoing themselves some how.

 

[Catsmate]

Honesty with Russia's performance during the war, if they engage an actual enemy warship they might just end up torpedoing themselves some how.

Not to mention the fleet flagship Knyaz Suvorov running aground, one of the escorting cruisers losing it's anchor chain and and one of the escorting torpedo boat destroyers ramming the battleship Oslyaba
And that was before they left Tallin.
At Madagascar the accidental loading of a live round for firing a salute scored a hit on the Aurora.
It was not a highly trained fleet.

 

[thezerech]

Not to mention the fleet flagship Knyaz Suvorov running aground, one of the escorting cruisers losing it's anchor chain and and one of the escorting torpedo boat destroyers ramming the battleship Oslyaba
And that was before they left Tallin.
At Madagascar the accidental loading of a live round for firing a salute scored a hit on the Aurora.
It was not a highly trained fleet.

Frankly I'm surprised they managed to make it to Asia without just blowing each other up. It was like a fleet of William D. Porters.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

IIRC the Russian fleet had to contract civillian operators to provide coal. And he Brits had the only operation capable of supplying a fleet the size of the Russian in the Atlantic. Hostilities between the two may leave the Russian fleet stranded at sea with dwindling bunkers. Who would allow them to put a entire war fleet into their ports to restock?

Note: When Roosevelt dispatched the USN on its 'Great White Fleet' global tour the voyage was dependent on UK based coal shippers as the US maritime industry could not handle the entire task.

 

[Catsmate]

Frankly I'm surprised they managed to make it to Asia without just blowing each other up. It was like a fleet of William D. Porters.

Yeah it was a bit of a farce. And then a tragedy.
I believe the Kamchatka (a repair ship) was the most comparable to the Porter.
It caused numerous problems during the voyage. It was one of the main culprits in the incidents with the Aldebaran, Sonntag and Guyane, firing over three hundred rounds (without actually hitting anything). It was also involved in another incident with a merchant ship near Tangier, after getting lost for a few days. The Kamchatka's captain Stepanov (who was frequently drunk) was particularly prone to signal problems; off Denmark it signalled the fleet that it was under attack by torpedo boats.
This was particularly interesting as Stepanov was actually attempting to ask, at night and via light signals, for permission to dump 150 tonnes of poor quality coal that he claimed was the reason for the poor performance of his ship's engines (and it's constant lagging behind the fleet much to Rozhestvensky's annoyance).


Similarly off Angola when it sent "Do you see torpedo boats" rather than "We are all right now" (it'd again gotten lost in a storm), When leaving Tangier, one of the refuelling stops, it managed to accidentally cut the city's underwater telegraph cable with her anchor, cutting the city off from communications with Europe.
I will give you one guess what ship accidentally shelled the Aurora at Madagascar...
After that they were prohibited from firing.

Then there was the gunnery practice in the Indian Ocean after leaving Madagascar; not one of the destroyers managed to hit a stationary target tethered to a cruiser. One of Rozhestvensky's battleships did manage a single hit...on the cruiser.
Torpedo practice also went awry (partially down to ships operating with different code books). Of the seven torpedoes fired, one jammed in the launch tube, three swung off target, two experienced propulsion problems and missed the target altogether. The seventh went round in a circle causing ships to scatter in panic. And the Kamchatka sent a signal saying they were sinking. When she was boarded for investigation this turned out to be a cracked steam pipe in the engine room. Oh and some brawling stokers...

She was sunk as Tushima on 25MAY1905 with the loss of almost her entire crew.
Though, despite this record, she didn't actually fire on anyone at Dogger Bank; her captain was (as appears to be usual for him) drunk and had gotten lost in the North Sea.

IIRC the Russian fleet had to contract civillian operators to provide coal. And he Brits had the only operation capable of supplying a fleet the size of the Russian in the Atlantic. Hostilities between the two may leave the Russian fleet stranded at sea with dwindling bunkers. Who would allow them to put a entire war fleet into their ports to restock?

Note: When Roosevelt dispatched the USN on its 'Great White Fleet' global tour the voyage was dependent on UK based coal shippers as the US maritime industry could not handle the entire task.

OTL the Russian ships were packed with coal, bags stowed everywhere and piled on deck. They were, after shooting up the fishing boats, prohibited from coaling at British ports and from transiting the Suez Canal. This required them to travel around the Cape and rely on Germany supply ships hired to transport coal. This was done at, or rather off, Dakar. Unrep at sea was, despite the calm conditions, dangerous and caused several casualties. Other sailors died from the noxious combination of coal dust, again coal had been crammed in every possible location on the Russian ships (some carried twice their usual bunkerage) and humidity.

 

[Cymraeg]

Yeah it was a bit of a farce. And then a tragedy.
I believe the Kamchatka (a repair ship) was the most comparable to the Porter.
It caused numerous problems during the voyage. It was one of the main culprits in the incidents with the Aldebaran, Sonntag and Guyane, firing over three hundred rounds (without actually hitting anything). It was also involved in another incident with a merchant ship near Tangier, after getting lost for a few days. The Kamchatka's captain Stepanov (who was frequently drunk) was particularly prone to signal problems; off Denmark it signalled the fleet that it was under attack by torpedo boats.
This was particularly interesting as Stepanov was actually attempting to ask, at night and via light signals, for permission to dump 150 tonnes of poor quality coal that he claimed was the reason for the poor performance of his ship's engines (and it's constant lagging behind the fleet much to Rozhestvensky's annoyance).


Similarly off Angola when it sent "Do you see torpedo boats" rather than "We are all right now" (it'd again gotten lost in a storm), When leaving Tangier, one of the refuelling stops, it managed to accidentally cut the city's underwater telegraph cable with her anchor, cutting the city off from communications with Europe.
I will give you one guess what ship accidentally shelled the Aurora at Madagascar...
After that they were prohibited from firing.

Then there was the gunnery practice in the Indian Ocean after leaving Madagascar; not one of the destroyers managed to hit a stationary target tethered to a cruiser. One of Rozhestvensky's battleships did manage a single hit...on the cruiser.
Torpedo practice also went awry (partially down to ships operating with different code books). Of the seven torpedoes fired, one jammed in the launch tube, three swung off target, two experienced propulsion problems and missed the target altogether. The seventh went round in a circle causing ships to scatter in panic. And the Kamchatka sent a signal saying they were sinking. When she was boarded for investigation this turned out to be a cracked steam pipe in the engine room. Oh and some brawling stokers...

She was sunk as Tushima on 25MAY1905 with the loss of almost her entire crew.
Though, despite this record, she didn't actually fire on anyone at Dogger Bank; her captain was (as appears to be usual for him) drunk and had gotten lost in the North Sea.


OTL the Russian ships were packed with coal, bags stowed everywhere and piled on deck. They were, after shooting up the fishing boats, prohibited from coaling at British ports and from transiting the Suez Canal. This required them to travel around the Cape and rely on Germany supply ships hired to transport coal. This was done at, or rather off, Dakar. Unrep at sea was, despite the calm conditions, dangerous and caused several casualties. Other sailors died from the noxious combination of coal dust, again coal had been crammed in every possible location on the Russian ships (some carried twice their usual bunkerage) and humidity.

I... I... How....
Words fail me. If someone had written that up in either a book or a timeline they would have been accused of being a Russophobe and of making things up. Good god, and people wondered how the Japanese were able to hammer them into scrap so quickly

 

[Catsmate]

I... I... How....
Words fail me. If someone had written that up in either a book or a timeline they would have been accused of being a Russophobe and of making things up. Good god, and people wondered how the Japanese were able to hammer them into scrap so quickly

Yeah. There are plenty of odd people and incidents like that in history, that'd be laughed at in fiction.
Very few people in that fleet covered themselves in glory, from Rozhestvensky downwards.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I... I... How....
Words fail me. If someone had written that up in either a book or a timeline they would have been accused of being a Russophobe and of making things up. Good god, and people wondered how the Japanese were able to hammer them into scrap so quickly

Fact is stranger than fiction. Usually less believable.

 

[Catsmate]

On the subject of the quality and capability of the Russian warships I believe Vice Admiral Lord Charles Beresford said it best. He'd shadowed the Russians after the historical clash at Dogger Bank and, after meeting with Rozhestvensky at Tangier, preparing to engage them if so ordered by his masters in London

"I should only have engaged the Russians at Tangier…with four of my battleships, at a distance of from 5,000 to 6,000 yards. It appeared to me that this would only be chivalrous, under the circumstances."