This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
1. Naval War Notes 1691
2. Diplomatic Notes 1714
NAVAL WAR NOTES
Prepared by Lieutenant R. S. Edwards, U. S. Navy
1'. The Battle of Jutland................................................................... 1691
2. North Sea and the Channel....................................... 1703
3. Baltic Sea..................................................................... 1705
4. Mediterranean Sea .................................................... 1705
5. Black Sea..................................................................... 1706
6. Miscellaneous ............................................................ 1706
7. Table of Losses............................... ......................... 1707
THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND
COMPARISON OF OFFICIAL GERMAN AND BRITISH ACCOUNTS OF THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND
Note.—The following has been compiled from Admiral Jellicoe’s report . and the statements of the German Admiralty, except where otherwise noted ln the text. The object aimed at is to give the British and German versions each incident of the battle in as concise form as possible. The reports inferred to are published in full in the July-August issue of the Proceedings. 9errnan summer time is used in all German reports, while Greenwich time ls Used in Admiral Jellicoe’s report. Consequently, in order to coordinate the incidents of the battle, two hours has been subtracted from the times 8'ven in the German reports. We also reproduce charts of the battle from British and German sources.—R. S. E. •
MISSION
British Account
.The Grand fleet left its base on 30 in pursuance of a general Policy of periodical sweeps of the North Sea.
German Account High Sea fleet was cruising in the Skagerrack on May 31 for the purpose, as on earlier occasions, of offering battle to the British fleet.
forces
Beatty’s Divisions:
Four Lyons (28.5-knot battle cruisers, eight 13.5-inch guns) ; Indefatigable (25-knot battle cruiser, eight 12-inch guns) ; New Zealand (25-knot battle cruiser, eight 12-inch guns).
5th Battle Squadron:
Barham, Valiant, IVarspite, Malaya (25-knot battleships, eight 15-inch guns. These are Queen Elisabeth class, but Queen Elizabeth itself was apparently not present).
3d Battle Cruiser Squadron:
Invincible, Indexible, Indomitable (26-knot battle cruisers, eight 12-inch guns).
Armored Cruiser Squadron:
Black Prince, Defence, Duke of Edinborough, Warrior (23-knot armored cruisers, 9.2 inch guns. Battle squadrons under Jellicoe and numerous light cruisers and destroyers.
(From “Battle of Jutland,” by Pollen. )
Five battle cruisers of Derfdinger and Moltke types (Derfflinger is a battle cruiser, probably 27 knots, eight 12-inch guns; Moltke is a battle cruiser, probably 28 knots, ten 11-inch guns).
Three squadrons of battleships.
Large number of small cruisers.
Several torpedo-boat flotillas.
CONTACT
Beatty was scouting to southward of the battle fleet, when, at 2.20, presence of enemy vessels was reported. Beatty changed course to SSE., the course for Horn Reef, to interpose between enemy and his base.
Light cruisers, screening in advance of Beatty, engaged enemy light cruisers at long range.
At 2.35 Beatty changed course to E., and subsequently to .NE., sighting five enemy battle cruisers at 3.31.
At 3.31 Beatty formed line of bearing on course ESE. at 25 knots, slightly converging on enemy, then 23.000 yards distant.
Visibility was good, sun behind British and wind SE.
At 348 both forces opened fire simultaneously at 18,500 yards.
At 2.30, about 90 miles west of Hantsholm, the van unexpectedly met eight small English cruisers and 15 or 20 N class destroyers.
German light cruisers, followed by 1st battle cruiser division, attacked and British light cruisers withdre"' northwestward.
Battle cruisers sighted six enemy battle cruisers to westward.
Enemy formed in battle line to southeastward, and German battle cruisers took same course in line ahead.
Weather was clear and sea calm 1 wind from NW.
At 3.49 Germans opened fire a1 about 13,000 meters.
Hantsholm
irns fisher
BARK
i JUTLAtiO BANK
Amide Deep^
ReFere
Approximate
Track of British Battle Fleet____
” *» British Battle Cruisers—** Enemy's Ships
Wiihelmshave
MILES"1 •
20 30 40
Plan of the Battle of Jutland
(London Times, July 7)
THE BATTLE
Action continued on mean course of about SSE., enemy steering a parallel course, distant about 18,000 to 14,500 yards.
Ten minutes after the engagement became general the Indefatigable sank.
(From “ Battle of Jutland,” by Pollen.)
At 4.08 5th battle squadron (four fast battleships) came into action following astern of Beatty. Their range was about 20,000 yards.
Two enemy submarines w-ere sighted near Beatty’s divisions.
At 4.15 12 destroyers, simul
taneously with a similar movement by the enemy, attacked the enemy and were met by 15 destroyers and a light cruiser. Two German destroyers were sunk, and two British destroyers (Nestor and Nomad) were disabled and later sank.
About 30 minutes after the engagement became general the Queen Mary sank.
(From “ Battle of Jutland,” by Pollen.)
At 4.42 German battle fleet appeared ahead of Beatty, bearing SE. Beatty changed course 16 points in succession to starboard. German battle cruiser shortly afterwards also turned and action continued on a northerly course.
5th battle squadron turned also and followed astern of Beatty, coming under the fire of the leading ships of the German battle squadrons about 5.00.
From 5 to 6 Germans were obscured by the mist, only showing up clearly at intervals.
From 5 to 6 action continued on a northerly course, Beatty drawing ahead and gradually turning to NE., keeping enemy at about 14,000 yards. Enemy gradually hauled to eastward, his leading ships receiving severe punishment.
During this stage British destroyer attack resulted in a hit on about the sixth ship of the enemy line.
Pollen states that by this time the Germans had only three or four battle cruisers left, but still had 19 major ships to the British eight.
After about 15 minutes of action the Indefatigable blew up.
At 4.20 five Queen Elizabeths joined enemy battle line, and al* ships opened fire on our battle cruisers.
(German reports make no mention of submarines.)
At about 4.20 a destroyer attack was launched in the hope of reducing the enemy’s superiority. Two German and two British destroyed were sunk, and two others (Nestof and Nfitnad) were disabled and latef were sunk by the-battle fleet.
At 4.30 the Queen Mary was sunk’
German main fleet approached from the south and British battle cruisers turned and retired north' ward at high speed, closely followed by the German fleet.
The battleships at the head of the German main fleet exchanged intermittent shots with the Queen ElizO' beths.
Hostile ships showed a desire to run in a flat curve across the head our line and to cross it.
About 5.45 English small cruiser* and destroyers attacked, but made no hits.
THE BATTLE—Continued
As the British battle squadrons were joining the battle cruisers detached ctl°ns were fought, which are described as follows:
At about 6.10 or 6.15 Invincible, Inflexible, and Indomitable, arrived and swung into line ahead of Beatty, who changed course to ESE. The •“Htish battle squadrons, coming ?°wn on a SE. by S. course, followed astern of Beatty. Leading Smps were about 8000 yards apart ^ R -^e British well advanced.
, British fleet endeavored to close y altering course to S. and then v> W. by gradual changes, but the germans turned away, bringing the “Otish to a quarterly bearing be- Whon the German fleet and its base.
Puring this stage several German h'Ps hauled out of line and at least 0tle sank.
^nvincible sank about 6.20 (Pol-
_ Marlborough (Iron Duke class) Was hit by a torpedo at 6.17, but ontinued in the action.
An accident to the Warspite’s elrn caused her to turn toward the nerny, but she regained her station.
, At 6.16 the armored cruisers, en- te^yoring to meet a destroyer at- ack, found themselves unexpectedly nder the guns of German battle- /”Ps appearing out of the mist. De- Ince Was sunk; Black Prince was arnaged and sank later; Warrior as damaged and sank next day n Way to base.
(R ■ craft actions the Shark
6fnt,sh destroyer) was sunk at • 0 by light cruisers while one Ger- an light cruiser was sunk at 5.55 by etence and Warrior, and another (}s torpedoed by the Onslow tuestroyer) at 6.05. The Onslow as torpedoed and badly damaged.
At 5.45 British battle cruisers withdrew from the fight—permanently so far as we have determined. A line of at least 25 large ships appeared out of the mist to NE. These first sought a junction with Beatty on a NW. to westerly course and then turned to an easterly to southerly course.
The Lutzow was hit by 15 heavy shells and dropped out of line. Sank while returning to base.
Invincible sank between 6.20 and 6.30.
One Iron Duke was hit by a torpedo.
One Queen Elizabeth was seen to be running around in a circle.
One Queen Elizabeth blew up.
While steaming NE. to meet the British main fleet the German battle squadrons came upon four British armored cruisers in the mist. We sank the Defence and the Black Prince, and damaged the Warrior which regained its own line but later sank.
Shortly after 5.45 the Weisbaden (light cruiser) was put out of action and later sank. Later a German destroyer was sunk, while an English destroyer was torpedoed and seen to be in a sinking condition.
Both sides agree that the action after the British battle squadrons joined "fas intermittent and that the opposing fleets were only occasionally in 'Sht of one another, though they kept in touch until about 7.45 when °ntact was lost entirely in the gathering mist and smoke clouds.
About 8.30 Beatty was heavily About 8.30 German battle cruisers an? v.ed with German battleships sighted enemy capital ships to sea- in,a.battle cruisers, apparently the ward and opened fire. Two German ading ships of the fleet. battle squadrons joined the action
and the enemy turned and vanished in the darkness. •
International Notes
Small cruisers.
First battle cruiser squadron.
Queen Elizabeth division.
Torpedo boat flotillas.
Battle of Jutland, ist Phase1
'From German Official Story of tV\e Skagerrack Sea FigVit in Scientific American, August rg.
Naval War Notes
□o
£
Small^ cruisers.
Queen Elizabeth division.
3 battle cruisers.
5 older armored cruisers.
Main fleet (battleships).
Battle cruisers. Main fleet (battleships).
Torpedo boats.
Destroyed
Battle of Jutland, 3d Phase1
Hostile vessels
Our vessels
►—n-X Queen Elizabeth dl* •'V vision.
t ir~X7 2 Invincibles.. i fp-_ Main fleet (battle pZ-Z’ ships).
Torpedo boat Ho* tillas.
BBattle cruisers.
■At Main fleet (battle- Vv ships).
Torpedo boat flotillas.
Battle of Jutland, 4th Phase1
'From German Official Story of the Skagerrack Sea Fight in Scientific American, August lg.
t—I
Several destroyer attacks were made during the night the reports of which state:
British losses:
One vessel of the Creesy class- (German Admiralty reports that British lost Turbulent, Nestor, and Alcaster—all flotilla leaders—bul does not state when these losses occurred.)
German losses:
Pommern (old battleship) torpedoed and sank.
Frauhenlob (light cruiser).
During the night the German fleet cruised in a southerly direction where British were last seen- British light vessels attacked until dawn, but their capital ships were not sighted.
British losses:
Tipperary (1830-ton flotilla leader).
Ardent (destroyer).
Fortune (destroyer).
Sparrowhawk (destroyer). Damaged in collision and sank later.
Turbulent (flotilla leader). German losses:
Four destroyers between 8.20 and 840.
One destroyer sunk by Castor during night.
One battleship or battle cruiser torpedoed and sunk by destroyers during night.
During the night Jellicoe maneuvered to remain between the German fleet and its base, while Beatty pushed to the eastward to get between the German fleet and the coast of Jutland.
TIIE BATTLE—Continued
JUNE I
At day-light British fleet cruised to northward to meet German fleet which could not be found. About
4 a. m. engaged a Zeppelin for about
5 minutes. At 1.15 p. m. the divisions of the fleet shaped their course for their bases.
LOSSES IN THE BATTLE
British vessels sunk:
Queen Mary (battle cruiser). Indefatigable (battle cruiser). Invincible (battle cruiser). (British deny loss of Warspite). Defence (armored cruiser). Black Prince (armored cruiser). Warrior (armored cruiser), sank on way to base.
Destroyers Nestor, Nomad, Turbulent, Tipperary, Ardent, Fortune, Shark, Sparrowhawk. German vessels sunk:
Two large battleships.
One old battleship.
One battle cruiser.
Five light cruisers.
Six destroyers.
British vessels sunk:
Queen Mary.
Indefatigable.
Invincible.
Warspite (fast battleship).
Two armored cruisers. Warrior.
One small cruiser.
Flotilla leaders Nestor, Notnadi Turbulent, Alcaster.
German vessels sunk:
Pommern (13,000-ton battleship).
Lutzow (battle cruiser). Rostock (light cruiser).
Elbing (light cruiser). Weisbaden (light cruiser).
One other light cruiser.
Five destroyers.
REVIEWS OF THE REPORTS ON THE BATTLE
Weather Conditions
That Sir John Jellicoe was severely handicapped by the weather con- jotions is undoubted. As history has shown, no naval victory has eyer Been complete when a fleet was formed in line of battle, a formation which ao doubt he felt bound to adopt to avoid accidents in the misty weather. '»e have ^ad too many cases of fleets missing each other, both in history and in maneuvers, to wonder that touch was lost with the German fleet: *,nd, minefields, submarines, and destroyers had to be considered. Admiral Jellicoe no doubt thought, as Beatty did, that being between the German .eet and their base, he would probably fall in with the enemy again on - morning of the first of June, but he has not explained why by detaching ast cruisers to follow them, he could not have been kept informed of their movements so as to complete the victory so well begun. But I have no J'lsh to criticise; undoubtedly, the safety of the fleet during the dark hours must weigh on the commander-in-chief, and though risks must be run, and something must be left to chance,” in Nelson’s words, it is for the dmiral in command to balance the chances and decide. It is enough for s that the Admiralty have given their entire approval of the commander-in- ™ef’s conduct of the action, and that he retains the full confidence of the mcers and men serving under him.—United Sendee Magazine, August.
How the High Seas fleet escaped its clutches we do not know. The umiralty communication says it was due to “ low visibility and mist.” It !?ay be so, but we confess to being a little tired of Admiralty communica- >ons blaming the weather. It is alien to the spirit of the sailor. When the ,lree Creesys were sunk, because they were unaccompanied by destroyers, ’e blame was put on the weather, just as was the case when the Hampshire j’ent down with Kitchener on board. The Dardanelles failure was a long- ?ra\vn tale about the weather. We had from the India office something ,n the same vein about the relief which never got to Kut. After the ,farbor°ugh bombardment, the German armored ships escaped because of . e “ low visibility and mist.” In no circumstances is one allowed to blame cln administrative act or defect, such as the failure to provide Zeppelin 'c°uts—of which the Germans appear to have made considerable use— • r sufficient high fuel-endurance destroyers; but the clerk of the weather s..‘;air game. Let us say plainly that the sea in all its aspects is always the “‘/y of the best-trained and best-equipped navy.—Quarterly Review, July. Warlyon Bellairs.)
Gunnery
. Perhaps the greatest technical surprise of the action was the apparent '''efficiency of the gunfire on both sides, and the fact that only a single 0rPedo hit was registered against the British fleet. It has been pointed and it may very likely be true, that these two things explain each other. Quick maneuvering may again and again have saved ships from 0rpedo attack, and the maneuvering may very easily have rendered their sUnfire ineffective. The result is woefully disappointing, because it in no ''ay reflects the skill and devotion which the gunnery men have brought to their task. They seem either to be handicapped by an ineffective method, 0r to be faced by an insoluble problem. That the existing fire control has v.ery marked limitations in this matter has often been pointed out, so that he battle of Jutland only confirmed the expectations of those who had "'ade a careful study of previous engagements.
The result is certainly in sharp contrast with all that may be called the 9jdinary lay expectation of a sea action. Speaking in the House of Commons on March 18, 1912, Mr. Churchill said:
“ We must expect that in a fleet battle between good and efficient navies equally matched, tremendous damage will be reciprocally inflicted. Man)' ships on both sides will be sunk or blown up. Many more will sustain injuries which will take months to repair. Others, again, will not come ottf again during the whole of the war. Indeed, the more we force ourselves to picture the hideous course of a modern naval engagement, the more one i* inclined to believe that it will resemble the contest between Mamilius ano Herminius at the battle of Lake Regillus, or the still more homely confl|Ct of the Kilkenny cats.”
Never has the potential power of naval force stood in so sharp a contrast with its actual efficiency in war. So far from battleships destroying each other with the fierce facility of Kilkenny cats, it seems that they can to-day maintain a reciprocal bombardment from a quarter to four unt'J seven o’clock at night with only three ships being sunk on one side an“ apparently only one by gunfire on the other. Yet had any one of yon Hipper’s or Admiral Scheer’s squadron been anchored, and any of Admit3' Evan Thomas’s squadron been allowed five salvos at her from a range of 14,000 yards, it would be dreadnoughts to doughnuts that the German ship must have been sunk before the fifth salvo was fired. It is a state of affairs that illustrates how little the gunnery difficulties which action maneuvers must create, were appreciated before the war. Not that there has not always been in the navy a considerable party, strong both in brain* and in numbers, that in season and out of season urged that there counj be no war fitness till fire control was put upon a scientific basis. But was unfortunately a party that never, in the six years preceding the wan was represented directly or indirectly on the Board of Admiralty. long as fire control methods gave results that could be made to appear go°“ at battle practice, it was confidently assumed that they must give g°°, results in battle. There never was but one department that protested against this very dangerous optimism. Successive instructors of target practice—whose duty it was not only to report results, but to analyze theffK had no difficulty in detecting the fallacy that underlay the complacency °\ the Whitehall Department. But the I. T. P. had no executive power an3 no official status as an adviser. From 1910 to 1913 the departments ot I. T. P. and D. N. O. were consequently at continuous loggerheads. Th3 first represented the gunnery experience and the gunnery requirements °* the fleet; the second, the soporific theories of official infallibility. A® intolerable position was ended by the abolition of the first department altogether. War has exposed the wisdom of these proceedings.
The comfort is that the break with Germany came before the Germa*] Navy had developed any more effective system of fire control than ha3 we. The Germans are great masters of optical science, and it is possibly that the claim made on their behalf that they have far better range-findef* and sights than we, may have some foundation. But no range-finder, however good, will solve the chief difficulties of fire control, and in tbe absence of a really scientific method, that side will reach the highes* efficiency that has the most experienced personnel. In this respect th* British Navy is certainly unrivalled. Excellent as the German gunner) has been in the opening phases of every engagement, in none has >ts quality survived. The enemy may secure the first hits. He has often done so. But he has never secured the last.—Land and Water, 10/8.
.... Here it may be remarked that the German fire was extraordinarily accurate in the early part of the battle, but that it deteriorated appreciably under our tremendous volume of fire. It was the triumph of the big gul1 and of the all-big-gun ship. The utmost credit is due to our gunnerf officers, for the quality of our marksmanship was maintained, while the Germans, with guns out of action and scientific instruments destroyed were unable to continue effective fire.—Nineteenth Century, August.
• • • . Owing to the perfection of the German sighting arrangements, the ia'“ration, and the elevation of from 25° to 28° given to the guns for °ng-range firing, the loss of two battle cruisers was inflicted on us in the ,ery early stages of the fighting. These were not surprises for us. All atr ^ava' fights in this war have shown that very remarkable ranges were trained by all descriptions of German guns, and that the spread of their a vos was markedly less than our own.—Quarterly Review, July.
Strategy
John Jellicoe’s strategy has been the reverse of the sallying policy „ the Germans. From time to time he has cruised with the whole of his or a large part of it, through the North Sea. It was a concerted move- onir t'1's c'laracter that brought about the battle in the Heligoland Bight s ' the 28th of August, 1914. In the following month we heard of numerous Wii-V,11® ^°tfijas sweeping the North Sea up to and into the Heligoland Bight tnout seeing a German ship. Similar operations were conducted sub- V^ntly frequent intervals, such movements in the early part of the bvtb ’n" difficult and fraught with danger, owing to the large area covered ".the fleet, the existence of mines and the activity of enemy submarines.
« " e are still in doubt as to the real purpose of the Germans in their j^terprise directed northward.” Our knowledge of German naval policy ent str.ategy would lead us to believe that they had in hand no greater .erPrise than a sally, though we cannot feel absolute certainty on that t, lnb At the very basis of all their preparations has lain the principle of def sa"y—the strategy of a nation besieged. When vague ideas of coast .ranee and commerce protection which were current in Prince Adalbert’s ^ ys> and were not consonant with any right conception of strategy, had j^en cast aside, the policy of the sally was adopted, and the intention of the •j.,avy Law of 1898 was the creation of a sallying fleet (Ausfallsflotte). Pa f-°bject of such a fleet was the attrition of the enemy’s strength, and in jt‘rticular of his naval forces. It was to issue forth, effect what damage c°uld, and return —Quarterly Review, July.
A German Opinion on the Battle
^ Part of the English press has been at great pains for some time to £ Present the course of the Skagerrack fight about in these terms: The erman fleet has had some secret strategic purpose. The British, on “cunt of the unfortunate lack of light, were, from the first appearance , the Germans, not sufficiently well-informed to be able to attack in full rce. The “ overbold ” cruisers of the English fleet therefore met the eatly superior full force of the Germans. In combat with these vessels, an 1 were a*so supported by submarines, mine fields, gas bombs, airships, d.other “ unfair ” means, they suffered considerable loss. Then, when the q n'al British admiral at the proper moment brought up his main fleet, the jt|rrnan fleet unfortunately avoided the defeat and destruction prepared for “y flight to a safe harbor. Result: No attainment of tbe German strategic j,UrPose, the complete tactical defeat of the German fleet by the superior ^Uglish gunnery, no loss of prestige for England. The victorious English ect rules the North Sea now as before, fab • w'" corne when England herself will be ashamed of these
spi/'cutions. A correct historical study will be mercilessly freed from such cjt'delusions. ■
the official German report sets forth correctly the place, time of day, and Urse of the fight, and makes it clear what was planned and what was complished. No secret strategic purpose actuated the German fleet. It anxious to fight and sought the enemy for that purpose where he rad last been announced. For this very purpose the German fleet j|ad previously gone to sea repeatedly. It is not its fault if the English g.rat was not on the spot at an earlier date. Unlike the opponents of the n§hsh in the affair of 1794, its movements were restricted by no worries
over the safety of a convoy, or any such matters. It always went to sea to fight. That the Germans desired to fight under the most favorable practical conditions possible, was their good right, especially in the role of the considerably weaker party numerically. It was, and is, good tactics to bo stronger at the point of contact than the enemy. Lord Nelson taught the world many years ago at Aboukir and Trafalgar that this applies to sea- power. Were it otherwise, the weaker party would never have a chance oj victory. The outcome of the battle indicates that the German intention o> fighting under advantageous tactical conditions was realized, thanks to skillful management by the German staff. Wind, weather, position of the sun, and location of the scene of action are all weighty factors in such a tactical calculation. The attacker, in this case the German fleet, had, a* always, the advantage of determining the time and place of the battle, and of therefore being able to regulate to its own advantage many of the factor5 mentioned. That is always the advantage of the offensive over the defen' sive. To take the offensive is to command the enemy. He who doe5 this has trust in his material and personnel. He reckons in advance up011 victon and its fruits. To English dullness it seems incomprehensible that the German fleet, outnumbered almost two to one, did not come to anchor somewhere and wait patiently until the entire English force had gathered about unmolested in order then to be able to put through, without risk the oft threatened program of complete annihilation. This was not oUr intention. The German sea chief would not willingly help the English t° such cheap renown.
The German fleet, so says the Naval Act of 1900, is conceived and built a5 a “ risk-fleet.” Contemplation of the risk of battle, it was hoped, would keep us in peace. When war became unavoidable, however, the risk battle should be so great for the enemy that the position of even the strongest sea-power would be threatened thereby. The correctness of tin5 underlying principle of our naval program is now substantiated by the victory7 of the German fleet.
The English assert that the battle was fought only between parts of tbe opposing fleets. This the official report has unequivocally contradicted- The entire English fleet was in action against the German. It was the constantly repeated attacks of our torpedo-boat flotillas upon the head ft the English battleship line, led by Admiral Jellico himself, that caused the English leader to break off the fight. An explanation for this can be sought and found only in the fact that the English battleship squadrons had suffered such heavy losses from our guns and torpedoes that a continuation of the maneuvers begun by him seemed dangerous to the English admiral. !" any event, from this moment he withdrew from the zone of fire of our ship5- Smoke and fog which gathered upon the field of battle unfortunately pre" vented this movement from being clearly discerned. From this point o"1 the German commander-in-chief executed all movements of our force3 already begun without interference and as correctly as though on parade and got the night march under way.
The absured claim that submarines, Zeppelins, mine fields and poisonou5 gases were the sources of the German victory attained in honorable battrj has been sufficiently refuted from German official sources. The English claim is very transparent. If neutrals must be informed that the sea' ruling and strongly preponderant English fleet has suffered such extraof- dinary and unlooked-for losses, the German victory must, at any cost- be denied to have had its origin in the natural way through “ sheer hard fighting ” of the warships with those queens of weapons, guns and torpedoes; some German deviltry must be exhibited as the source of the misfortune. English pride will not and cannot be satisfied that any other fleet has surpassed its own in gunnery.
Finally, the “ flight ” of the German fleet to its base. Which had the greater numbers—of battleships especially, but also cruisers and torpedo- boats—the English fleet or the German? Whose squadron had the greater average speed? Both fleets, as stated above, were in close battle contact
3|niost until the fall of darkness. The German fleet was more than 150 Wiles from its nearest base, in the open sea. It is almost a straight line rom the scene of the battle to Heligoland. Doubt as to the course of the erman fleet could hardly exist. It was a short June night with barely five °urs of darkness. Is there a single Englishman of intelligence who really °pes to make the world believe that an energetic, eager-to-fight, unhamPered English admiral could not have kept in touch with the German fleet Ur‘ng the night by means of his light vessels, if the desire to wipe them °ut still lived in him, and the strength for this operation was at hand? Was Physical and mental strength denied the comparatively young Admiral Jellico, ® °nce before on June 1, 1794, it was denied the aged Lord Howe? Shall f dl success of the commander of the English fleet be taken as a con- on!'011 inadequate seamanship and deficient tactical skill on the part p1 his scout ships? In the hard drills of the long years of peace has not the Polish fleet, with its many swift cruisers, learned how to keep track r°ugh one short night of a hostile fleet numbering in the neighborhood of
th:
|° capital ships? We do not believe it; we rate English ability too high • r that. Sir Jellico has actually thanked Sir Beatty foryhis work of scout-
hjT ” ' ' ................................................................................. '
Wg. He must have been satisfied with it. Will the English commander ?Ve us believe that, on the basis of the information brought him by his
obsi
eryers, it was impossible for him, on the morning of June 1, to take P Position which would have enabled him to offer decisive battle to the crrrjan fleet? The course of the latter was without doubt known to Ijwiral Jellico through the work of his scouts, either of those upon hich the German fleet had had occasion to direct a precautionary fire, or Se.of those which successfully engaged the Pommern and the Frauenlob. Lflce burning torches in the descending darkness, the wrecked English TPisers and destroyers marked out for him the path of the German fleet. J'by did he not hurl at that fleet, whose destruction was his ordained task nd his eagerly pursued purpose, the squadron of 12 vessels arriving fresh nd intact from the south, thus holding the hostile forces until he himself Quid reach the new scene of battle? That he did not do this, that he
did
, - not even make an effort to do it, proves that he felt himself too weak for Urther battle. The victorious German fleet and the English admiral both teered for a home port, and the German ships found time on the
to
rescue many brave English seamen of the sunken ships and to bring them
n as prisoners.
H}e German commander and the whole German fleet actually waited • n the morning of June 1, on their way toward the inner German waters, J the hope of finding the reinforced English fleet ready for further fighting, ut they did not appear; when the sun of June 1 arose the sea was empty the foe and remained so. For the German admiral to stay at sea with
the
, - Purpose of seeking out the enemy there was no occasion. His end ad been attained, his work finished. The desire to replenish his provisions 1 Pd fuel, to give his brave crews their well-earned rest, and to disembark
his
wounded in order to be quickly ready for a new encounter, easily
^Plains his decision.—Captain Z. S. Hollweg of the German Navy Depart- P^nt in Scientific American, 26/8.
NORTH SEA AND THE CHANNEL
GERMAN AIRCRAFT RAIDS ON ENGLAND
~ During the period covered in this issue of the Proceedings—July 15 to jePtember 14—Zeppelins were not particularly active. On the night of July 28-29, Zeppelins attacked the English east coast and, according to Jarman reports, dropped bombs on the railway depot at Lincoln, the naval fPses at Grimsby and Cunningham, and on advance—post vessels off the Plumber, destroying the lighthouse at the mouth of the Humber. The °ritish deny that any material damage resulted. The Zeppelins returned
undamaged. It was possibly one of these returning raiders that passed over Flushing on the afternoon of July 29 and was fired at by the Dutch frontier guards. Again on August 1 the Germans report attacks by Zeppelins on London and the eastern counties of England, with apparent success in dropping bombs on coastal works, anti-aircraft batteries, and munition plants. The English press reports of this raid mention at least six Zeppelins; estimate that about 60 bombs were dropped and deny that there were any British casualties. It appears that none of the Zeppelins was damaged. On August 12 two German seaplanes raided Dover, dropping four bombs which injured seven persons, but did little material damage During the night of September 2 Zeppelins attacked London, Yarmouth’ and Harwich and other places in the southeastern counties. The usual reports and denials of damage were made by the belligerents, and Berlin admits the loss of one Zeppelin which was brought down by a British aeroplane while approaching London.
BRITISH SEAPLANE RAIDS ON GERMANY
The London Times reports that on July 30 British seaplanes in conjunction with the French, attacked the benzine stores and barracks at Miilheim on the Rhine, and carried out a successful bombardment; all machines returning safely. The Times adds that this is the eighth air rain on Miilheim that has been officially reported.
GERMAN DESTROYERS RAID THE THAMES
On July 22 a German flotilla raided the British coast, the text of the , English statement being as follows: I
“At midnight of July 22, while near the North Hinder Light vessel some of our light forces sighted three enemy destroyers, who retired before damage could be inflicted on them. •
“ Subsequently, off Schouwen Bank, six enemy destroyers were engage1* and a running fight ensued, during which the enemy was repeatedly hit- but he succeeded in reaching the Belgian coast. One of our vessels was h*‘ once and one officer and one man were slightly wounded. There was n° other damage of casualty.” t r
Heavy firing was heard off the Dutch coast all day Sunday, says a dispatch from The Hague to the Exchange Telegraph Company. Five Germa’j A destroyers were observed returning toward Zeebrugge. Two of them, had a heavy list.
The German version is as follows:
“ In the night of July 22-23 German torpedo-boats, sta r 3 from Flanders undertook a raid extending until they were close t- he mouth of the Thames without sighting hostile naval forces there. While returning they encountered several small British cruisers of the Aurora class and de" stroyers. A short artillery engagement followed, in the course of which obtained luckly hits. Our torpedo-boats returned to their base undamaged-
ACTIVITIES OF GERMAN SUBMARINES
There are unconfirmed reports that on July 11 German submarines >" the North Sea destroyed a 7000-ton British auxiliary cruiser and three patrol boats. The British Admiralty admit the German claim that 0" August 24 a German submarine torpedoed and sunk the Duke of Albany’ an armed merchant ship of 1977 tons, used for boarding purposes. The British destroyer Lassco was sunk off the Dutch coast on August 13, aftef an explosion which is generally attributed to a mine or a torpedo.
THE GERMAN FLEET COMES OUT
The Allied press reports that on August 19 the German High Sea fleet came out but returned to port after an action between their scouts an®
those q the British fleet. The Germans deny that their fleet was driven Jaek t) port by the British, but do not state the object of the maneuver ,'l'r vhy their fleet did return. The losses admitted by both sides are the olttigflaln and the Falmouth, British light cruisers of recent date, which 'veri torpedoed by submarines during scouting operations. A British uest oyer rammed a German submarine which, according to Berlin, re- ‘urred to port only slightly damaged, and the German battleship Westfalen pa> torpedoed and damaged to a slight extent by the submarine E-23. The jfrman claim that a British battleship was badly damaged by a torpedo ,rom a submarine, and that a destroyer was sunk is denied by the British, ^hile the Germans do not admit the loss of a submarine which British accounts claim. The fighting seems to have been confined to attacks by submarines of both fleets, which penetrated the outer screens, and it is [^Ported on somewhat vague authority that contact occurred near the logger Bank about 35 miles off the coast of Holland.
THE BALTIC SEA
. Activities in this area have been confined to seaplanes’ raids, the only 'Important results being told in an unconfirmed report from The Hague that a Zeppelin was damaged by Russian anti-aircraft guns during a raid 011 Riga in July and fell near Tukurn, where German engineers salvaged the Machinery. A Reuter dispatch from Sweeden announces that Russia intends to lay mines around the Aland Islands as far as the Sweedish territorial waters. It appears that Russia early in the war fortified these islands Which command the entrance to the Gulf of Finland.
THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA
The Italian Navy has suffered the loss of two submarines which, the Admiralty states under date of August 3, left with others on a mission to •he enemy coast “ a long time ago ” and have not been heard from since. A Vienna dispatch of August 3 reporting the capture of the-Italian sub, Marine Giacinto Pullino in the North Adriatic may refer to one of these 'essels. Further Italian losses are the destroyer lmpetuoso, sunk by a submarine in the Straits of Otranto on July 10, and the battleship Leonardo ^ ^,da Vinci which caught fire and blew up in the harbor of Taranto some time f 'n August. The Italian Admiralty has announced neither the cause nor Te.exact date. The Army and Navy Journal is authority for the statement •'_); t the ship may be refloated.
' An engagement is reported to have taken place on August 2 off the Italian coast between Austrian torpedo-craft and Italian destroyers in Which small damage seems to have been inflicted on either side.
Press reports of the Allies claim that an Italian submarine torpedoed an Austrian destroyer in the upper Adriatic on August 2, evidently referring •0 the “torpedo gunboat” Magnet which Vienna reports was damaged on •hat day by submarine torpedo fire, but returned to port. Other Austrian losses claimed by the Allies, but not referred to in the somewhat meager reports that have come through from Vienna, include a submarine torpedoed off Corfu by a French destroyer early in August, and a transport torpedoed by the French submarine Archimede.
Important movements of vessels include the arrival of an Allied fleet off the Piraeus on August 2, when some German and Austrian merchant ships Were seized by boarding parties and the evacuation of Trieste by the Austrian fleet, which is chronicled in a Geneva dispatch of July 17. The dispatch does not state whether the fleet left under threat of the Italian advance or in the ordinary course of events.
Seaplane raids are reported by Italy and Austria, but the results appear to be unimportant.
P°rtS that AIll<rd warships bombarded Alexandretta, Asiatic urkey on an unannounced date, the damage, with the exception if the destruction of the American consulate, being insignificant. 1
Al
THE BLACK SEA
vJ-hvrn*?HU a ur ‘u 6 Goebe" bave evidently survived, since the Army ad Amy Gazette publishes an official announcement from Petrograd that these \_essels on July 4 bombarded ports on the northeastern shore of the Black
Russian activity on the Black Sea has been confined to assisting a Russian land force in turning back a Turkish drive along the Armenian
whTrh T'nC-t- °u Apgust. 7 Publishes a dispatch from Copenhagen
which states that a British submarine entered the harbor of Constantinople
ffie LbuAfoUf thencaS e ^ Steam6rS’ aftenvards bombarding
■1
Ci,
»fj,
G.
till
'i'.r
MISCELLANEOUS NAVAL ACTIVITIES
LAKE TANGANYIKA
on Ju,-V 28 the last German gunboat I, ,, n the lake> tlle Graf Gotten, was sunk by the Belgian gunboat
,7,7 Turkish reports refer to the bombardment of Beirut, Syria, on July 7 by a British aeroplane which was transported 011 a French destroyer. Details of this interesting operation are lacking.
VLADIVOSTOCK
The following is taken from the New York Herald of July 17 •
Tv,rcL-iSpearne^heri!- g00d autbor>ty that the captain of the Russian warship Peresznet, which was recently wrecked on a nearby island during a tHalrun, committed suicide shortly after the accident S
T, mnW?n°theu-'Va!shipS the Pere^‘ was recently purchased from japan, the three ships in question were captured from the Russians by the
wi?h a R,lU?ng hC Rr°paparlCSC War After bein2 refitted and manned with a Russian crew the Peresviet was taken out for a trial run, but ran ashore in a thick fog. In atonement the commander killed himself Japanese warships are aiding in the attempts at salvage”
GERMAN SHIP RUNS THREE BLOCKADES The New York Times of September 1 publishes the following:
rMi“ nCCfTl°fKthe y0^'age .of the German steamship Marie, which L?orLaH,.the Dut^h barbor Of Batavia on May 13, after escaping the British blockade against German East Africa, instead of taking refuge in an African river as then reported, shows that the vessel left Germany in Africa0 Wlt" 3 Carg° °f suppbes for tbe German forces fighting in East
mlTh of(C\f^Cp.Sfully TAnA b,°ckadc in the N°rth Sea and at the ™°Utb °yb® Sudi River and delivered her cargo, which, German officials
loVL f fi w German soldiers to continue their resistance against the lorces of the Entente Allies invading the German colony.
German naval officers say the expedition deserves to rank with the cruisers of the commerce raiders Emden and Moewe. The Marie was
Entpmed4lThreeilrneSuheibr°ke bIockades established by warships of the w thffi °V v uSt °9casion she was forced to run in darkness
withm so \ ards of a British gunboat which was patrolling the Sudi River.
when ^‘!nnfiLl|Vera d?ys, bombardment by British cruisers and gunboats, when 1131 shells were fired, the Mane was hit 105 times. Nevertheless the vessel was able to reach a neutral harbor.” ’
ABLE
OF NAVAL LOSSES OF THE VARIOUS BELLIGERENTS SINCE T, THE OUTBREAK OF WAR
H.hfc f0jj .
table is compiled from various articles appearing in the press of the several belligerent * ShreP°rts are so contradictory that it is impossible to furnish an absolutely correct list of ^date. In many cases the belligerent powers have failed to acknowledge the losses of all No attempt has been made to include herein a list of the various trawlers, mine-sweepers .dutv'^ smaU craft which may have been destroyed while mine-sweeping or on submarine
-(0\‘WWt,
given.
vessels’ l(\Taa^e' many cases the belligerent powers have failed to acknowledge the losses of all
%sr ’ ' ‘..............................................................
[(On ^
“1°S3 is if^Jnarpn of this table of losses is a reference to the whole number in which an account of
A page index of these losses is given in the whole number referred to.
a?-
jb0«u^'::,e;c.
sunbiai:::::::::::::::::::::: ?•*;
ABBREVIATIONS FOR TYPE OF VESSEL
l}eshipght ba«leship ................................................ d. b.
b.
'■r°yer
f. 1. d.
Torpedo-boat .......................................................... t. b.
Submarine ............................................................... sm.
Auxiliary cruiser ...................................................... ax. c.
Transport ................................................................. tr.
Minelayer.................................................................. m. 1.
Coast guard ............................................................. c. g.
Hospital ship ............................................ .............. h. s.
Training ship ........................................................... tr. s.
Patrol boat................................................................ p. b.
Armed merchant vessel......................................... a. m. i
Yacht ........................................................................ y.
Naval tender ........................................................... n. t.
Losses of Great Britain and Her Allies
S:’ '56 .
BRITISH WARSHIP LOSSES
NAME TYPE TONNAGE
■Audacious ........................ d. b. ... 24,000..
REMARKS
153 - .Bulwark .................................. b.
*56 . *56 . *56 . 162 »s8 ;
‘58 .
"T 164 :64; I64 . I64 16 2 . 'S3 . ’34 . ’54 . ’34 . I:, ‘S<t • I-4’ '55 J4' ’55 . 160 . I64 *64 '
'64 .
’Si 164 • 33, '55 . '65 .
’65 .
'53 . *53.
162
*55; *63.
<6,
15
53,
164
•Formidable . •Irresistible .
■Ocean ..............
•King Edward •Goliath •Triumph •Majestic ■Russel . •Queen Mary •Indefatigable ■Invincible •Natal ...
•Warrior •Hogue .. •Cressey .
• Aboukir •Hawke . •Good Hope •Monmouth
•Argyll ---------
•Defense .. •Black Prince •Warrior .. ■Hampshire ■Pathfinder •Falmouth . •Nottingham
•Amphion •Pegasus
• Arethusa •Hermes
• Penelope
•Speedy . •Niger ... •M-30 ...
VII
.b. .. .b. c. .b. c. .b. c.
•-t. g. . •-t. g. .
15.000.
15.000.
15.000.
12.950. i6,35o.
12.950. 11,800. 14,900.
14.000.
27.0. 18,750. 17,250. 13,360.
13.550.
12.000.
12.000.
12.0. 7,350.
14,100.
9,800.
10.850. 14,600.
13.550.
13.550.
10.850. 2,940. 5,250.
5,440.
3.36o.
2,135 •
3,750.
5.600.
3.600.
810.
810.
Reported sunk off Irish coast. Cause unknown. British Admiralty, noncommittal ..29
Internal explosion at anchor i '
Thames...........................................................
Sunk by German sm., North Sea
Sunk in the Dardanelles..............................
Sunk in the Dardanelles..............................
By mine, North Sea......................................
Torpedoed in Dardanelles..........................
Sunk by sm., Dardanelles............................
Sunk by sm., Dardanelles............................
Sunk by mine, Mediterranean...
Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland _ Internal explosion and sunk at anchor. .30-
By mine........................................................................ 5
Sunk by German sm. U-29, North Sea..22- Sunk by German sm. U-29, North Sea. .22- Sunk by German sm. U-29, North Sea. .22- Sunk by German sm. U-9, North Sea... 16- Sunk by German forces in Pacific.
Sunk by German forces in Pacific.
Ran aground, east coast of Scotland Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland.
Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland.
Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland.
Sunk by mine, off Orkneys..........................
Sunk by German sm.. North Sea.
Sunk by German sm., North Sea ,Sunk by German sm., North Sea Sunk by mine, North Sea. ... —
Sunk by German c. Koenigsberg
Zanzibar .............................................................
By mine off east coast of England. ,
Sunk by German sm. U-27, North Sea. .30
Reported damaged beyond repair, attack
on Hovesloft.................................................................. 25-
Sunk by mine, North Sea.............................................. 3
Sunk by German sm. while at anchor.. 11 Sunk by Turkish gunfire, Gulf of Smyrna 13
the
..25.. 1..18. .18- •• 9*
.25
.27
.26-
•3i-
•3I_ 3i
..28-
• -31-
• .31. .31.. 6- •. 5. .19. . 19.. fiat
. .20- • 14-
10- 14
11- 14
1-15
3- 15 3*15 1-16 5*15 5-15 5-15
4-16
5-16 5-16 5-16
12- 15 9-14 9-14 9-14
9- 14
10- 14
11- 14 11-14 10-15
5-16
5-16
5- 16
6- 16 9-14 8-16 8-16 8-14
9-14
2-16
10-14
4-; 6
9-14
11-14 - 5-16
BRITISH WARSHIP LOSSES—Continued
. .Tipperary . .Turbulent
..i.
. .f.
WHOLE
NUMBER
X64
164
|
|
|
|
157. 158 . .Recruit ........................... |
|
157, 158 . .Maori ............................. |
|
159 . .Lynx ................................ |
|
t6i . .Louis............................... |
|
162 . .Coquette ...................... |
|
164 . .Fortune ....................... |
|
164 . . Sparrowhawk . . . | .. .d.................. |
164 . .Ardent .......................... |
|
164 .. Shark ............................ |
|
|
|
164 . . Nomad .......................... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .. .t. b.............. |
160 . .No. 96 .............................. |
|
162 . .No. 11 ................................ |
|
153 •. AE-i ................................... | •. .sm............... |
154 • -E-3 ................................... | • .sm.............. |
t54, I55-.D-5 ...................................... |
|
D-a ................................. |
|
E-io ................................ |
|
157 ..E-15 ............................. | . .sm.............. ; |
|
|
l62 . .E-I7 ................................... | . .sm............... - |
159- t6o . .AE-2 .................................. | .. sm..................... ■ |
E-I3 ................................. | . .sm.............. ; |
160 . .E-7 ..................................... | • - sm..................... ■ |
l60, l6l • • E-20 ................................. | • «sm............. |
163 . . E-22 .................................. |
|
154 • .Oceanic .......................... | . .ax. c. .. |
162, 163 ..Alcantara ......................... |
|
Rohilla ........................ | . .ax. c. .. |
156 • • Viknor ........................... | . .ax. c. .. |
Clan Macnaughton | . .ax. c. .. |
157 . .Bayano .............................. | . .ax. c. .. |
159 • • Ramsey ......................... | . .ax. c. .. |
159 • - India ............................. | . .ax. c. .. |
165 ..Duke of Albany... | • .a. m. v.. |
159 . . Royal Edward . . . | . .tr............... |
160 .. Marquette .................... |
|
160 .. Ramazan ......................... |
|
161 . . Woodfield ..................... |
|
Ilythe ........................... |
|
158 . .Princess Irene . .. |
|
163 .. Medusa ............................ |
|
161 .. Abbas ................................ |
|
161 ..Abdel Monaym ... | • .c. g............ |
|
|
Fishguard II ............... | • - tr. s. ... |
160, 161 . .Tara ..................................... |
|
| |
161 . .Irene....................................... y................. |
ONNAGE REMARKS
1,850?.Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland............................. .
------ . .Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland.......................... ^
370- -Sunk in collision with Dutch merchant
ship ...............................................................................................
------ ..Kan ashore, Scotch coast............................................
550.. Wrecked in a storm..................................................
385.. 5unk by German sm., North Sea.............................
1,035.. Blown up by mine off Belgian coast. **t
935.. 5unk by mine..............................................
..if
..31'
y-:u. . ouiiK uy gunnre, Daiue 01 .1 utiana • • • •
950.. Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland......................... -
950.. Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland.........................
950.. Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland---------------- •
555.. Sunk after collision, English Channel-•
---------- . .Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland ’
---------- . .Sunk by gunfire, battle of.............. Jutland............ *
---------- ..Sunk, mine or torpedo, North Sea..**'
---------- ..Sunk in collision ........................................................ •'
244*-Sunk by German sm., North Sea........................................ *
253.. 5.nk by German sm., North Sea ‘
130.. Sank after collision with merchantman
Straits of Gibraltar....................................................................... •'
253.. Sunk by mine, North Sea •'
725-810. .Accidentally sunk off Australian coast-*
550-600. .Sunk by German mine, North Sea..- 550-600..Reported lost. Details not known. •• 725-810.. Missing, North Sea
stroyed by own picket boats. -..Stranded, Dutch coast
Sea of Marmora...........................................................
. 725-810.. Sunk by German torpedo
Danish coast ...................................................................................
5-810.. Sunk at Dardanelles....................................................... ••*
----------- ..Announced as sunk by Turks in Dafd3’ «•:
nelles............................................................................................... •' k
..Sunk off Holland
craft
17,274.. Ran aground off north coast of Scotia*10
storm
15,300.. Sunk in battle, North Sea..
7.400.. Ran aground off Whitby,
wrecked ................................................................
5.386.. Lost off Irish coast...........................
4.985.. Lost in a gale
npletely
5,948.. Probably^ torpedoed by German sm. lJ1,j
Irish Sea
------ .. Sunk by German ax.
Sea ............................................................ ....................
7.900.. Sunk by German sm., North Sea__________ *
1.977.. 5unk by German sm., North Sea...........................
Meteor,' Nortl1
7,057* • Sunk by German sm., ^Egean Sea. • 3.477..Sunk by German sm., ;Egean Sea..
------ ..Sunk off coast of Morocco...................................
201. .Collision, ^Egean .......................................................
------ ..Internal explosion off Sheerness...
„ „ Egypt .......................................... .......................... •* fr
598. - Sunk by German sm. off Solium Harbof,j7-
1,862..Sunk by mine, English Channel............................... ''if
------ ..Foundered in gale, North Sea................................... j-
-n,1".*" t? tbe,ab°ve’> the press report, that several other English submarines have been i&f The list above includes only those which were apparently officially announced by the British ^
FRENCH WARSHIP LOSSES
NAME
J56 . .Bouvet ....................
57 ».Leon Gambetta
162 156 156
Amiral Charnier Mousquet gague .. Branlebas -Renaudin ^4 . .Fourche 164 • .Bantassin Zelee ...
No. 347
No. 338
162 ..
No.
'SS.-CuV.9. l56..Saphir .. Joule ... Calypso .
33i
• Jl9 * -Mariotte . .5° ••Turquoise ^••Fresnel ..
°2 • - Provence Indian .. .
158 r- Calvados ... ’ • -Casa Bianca
161 - .Monge ............................
TYPE
..b. ...
- - a. c.
REMARKS
DATE
.................... 18- 3*15
Straits of
26- 4-15
..c. ... ..d. ... ..d. ... ..d. ... ..d. ... ..d. ... ..d. ... ••g. b. ..t. b.
.-t. b. ..t. b.
. .t. b.
. .t. b. ..sm. . ..sm. . - - sm. . ..sm. .
.rf
12,007..Sunk at the Dardanelles...
12,352. .Torpedoed by Austrian sm
Otranto..........................................................................................
4,702. .Torepdoed, Mediterranean ...........................................
298.. Sunk by Emden at Penang. — ......
720. .Sunk by Austrian mine off Antivari..
330. - Sunk by mine ....................................................................
756. .Torpedoed, Adriatic ..........................................................
845.. 5.nk by Austrian sm.,St. of Otranto
453 • • Sunk incident to collision........................................
636.. Sunk by German cruisers at Tahiti..
^ J- Sunk in collision with each other....
---------- ..Reported lost_...........................................................
97.. Sunk in collision off Cherbourg............................
87.. 5unk off Nieuport..................................................
392.. Sunk by Austrians at Pola.....................................
386- ? ..Sunk at the Dardanelles..............................................
392- ? .................................... ;.....................
345-490.. Rammed and sunk during maneuvers off
Cape Lardier....................................................
522-615 •• Sunk at the Dardanelles 386- ? .. Sunk in the Sea of Marmora.....
92- ? • • Sunk in the Adriatic by an / *
18,400. .Torpedoed, Mediterranean
800.. Sunk by sm. off Rhodes......................................
---------- ..Sm., Mediterranean ...............................................
945 • • Sunk in the JEgean Sea by a mine... 392- ? ..Sunk by Austrians, Adriatic
8- 2-16 28-10-14 24- 2-15
18- 3-16 26?-6-i6
- 6-16
22- 9-14
9- 10-14
- 1-15
16- 6-15
- 1-15
23- 12-14 15- I-I5
8-
7-15 0- 7-15
„ . . 3-II-I5
392- ? . - Sunk in the Adriatic by an Austrian ship 5-12-15
26- 2-16
8- 9-15 -11-15
3- 6-15 28-12-15
RUSSIAN WARSHIP LOSSES
7.775* -Sunk by German sm., Baltic........................................................................ 11-10-14
3.130.. Sunk by Emden, Penang........................................... 28-10-14
1.224.. Sunk by Turks, Black Sea. Raised by
Russians ....................................................................................................... <............ 31-10-14
1,280. .Reported by Turks sunk by Turkish d..29-10-14
875.. Sunk by Germans, Baltic Sea.......................................................................... 20- 8-15
1,200. .By gunfire,( Odessa.......................................................................................... 29-10-14
-------------------------- ..Sunk by mine, Black Sea................................................ 10- 3-16
-------------------------- ..By gunfire........................................................................ 30-10-14
5.440.. Scuttled to avoid capture.......................................... 29-10-14
3.522.. Captured by Emden................................................... 6- 8-14
2.926.. Sunk by German sm., Baltic....................................... 4* 6-15
1.125.. 5.nk, Black Sea................................................................ 24-12-14
1.743.. 5.nk, Black Sea................................................................ 24-12-14
| .sm. ... |
| . sm. ... |
| . sm. ... |
| • ax. c. . |
| .ax. c. . |
|
|
... . m. 1. .. |
159 .
162 . j55 . 158 ,
163 .
Pallada ..................... | . .a. c. ... |
f^onnetz .................... | . . g. b. ... |
Kubanez .................... •Sivutch ...................... Kubanetz .................. •Leit Pushtscheen | ..g. b. ... ..g. b. ... ..g. b. ... .. t. b.................... |
•Prut.............................. | . .ax. c. .. |
• Yenisei ...................... Oleg................. %.___ | . ,m. 1. ... . .m. 1. ... |
• Portugal .................. | . . h. s. ... |
ir H ^.German reports state that Russian men-of-war were destroyed in the several minor engage- ne Baltic. These losses were never officially announced by the Russian Admiralty.
i*1
JAPANESE WARSHIP LOSSES
Shirotaye ............................. d................. 380..Ran ashore, Tsing Tao.............................................. .. ........... 4- 9-i4
No.
‘S4’ >56 . ' a^tion
i65 . 160 ■58 . <58 . ■58 .
164 .
.
165 .
33
.t. b.
158
X£5
*6i
Name unknown .. | . .t. b............. |
•Takachiho ................... | • .tr. s. ... |
to the above, five special service | |
| ITALIAN |
• Leonardo da Vinci | ..d. b. ... |
• Benedetto Brin ... |
|
• Amalfi ......................... |
|
• Garibaldi .................... | . .a. c............. |
| . .d................. |
|
|
| . .d................. |
| . .d................. |
5-PN ............................... |
|
17-OS .............................. | . .t. b.............. |
• Medusa ....................... |
|
Nereide .................. .. | . .sm............. |
• Giacinto Pullino .. | . .sm............... |
• Re Umberto............... | . ir................ |
82.. Sunk by mines while mine-sweeping off
Tsing Tao......................................................................................... 11-11-14
------ .. By mine...........................................................................
3,700.. Torpedoed by German d., S-90, off
Tsing Tao ...................................................... ......................... • • • 17-10-14
22,340. .Caught fire and blew up, Taranto harbor .................. ■ 8-16
13,215.. Sunk by internal explosion.............................................. 28- 9-15
9.958.. Sunk by Austrian sm., Adriatic.................................. 7* 7-15
7.234.. Torpedoed off Ragusa, Austrian sm....i8- 7-15
325.. Scuttled to avoid capture after engage
ment with Austrian vessels, Adriatic. .24- 5-15
3.495.. Sunk by Austrian sm., St. of Otranto. .26 ?-6-16
680.. Sunk by mine, Adriatic................................ <............ 17-12-15
650. .Sunk, Austrian sm., Otranto Straits.... 10- 7-16
118.. Torpedoed by Austrian sm. off Venice..26- 6-15 118. .Sunk by own mine while mine-laying off
Salvore..................................................................... .......................... - 7*IS
241-295.. Torpedoed and sunk, Austrian sm............................... 17- 6-15
221-315.. Sunk by Austrian sm., Adriatic........................................ 5- 8-1"
400. .Captured by Austria............................................................... - 8-16
---------- . .Reported missing.......................................................... - 8-16
---------- ..Sunk by mine, Adriatic.................................................. 17-12-15
Losses of Germany and Her Allies GERMAN WARSHIP LOSSES
WHOLE
NUMBER
164 . 164 .
155 ■
.Pommern . Lutzow .. .Yorck ...
TYPE
• b.
.b. c. c.
13,040
28,000
9,350
155. 156, 158 . *55, 156, 158 .
*55 •
. Scharnhorst ...
. Gneisenau ................
.Friederich Karl
• a. c.
• a. c.
11,420 11,420 8,858
156,163 .
160 .
153, 154 • *53, 154 ■ *53, 154 •
154, 155 ■ 153 •
154, 155, 156, 163, 164
*54, 155, 156, 160
*55, 156, 158 .
158 .
155, 156, 158, 162
160, 161 .
161 .
. Bluecher ..............
. Prinz Adalbert
. Mainz ......................
. Koeln ......................
. Ariadne ...................
.Hela .........................
. Augsburg .................
Emden ....................
Leipzig
. Nurnberg . Dresden
Koenigsberg
•P-
.p.
•P.
•P-
•P-
•P-
.p.
♦ P-
• P-
15,550
8,858
4.280
4.280 2,618 2,003
4.280 3,592
3,200
. Sunk by gunfire, battle of ___
.Sunk by gunfire, battle of j. , , , ,1
.Sunk by German mine nea^tj^d............................... 3** 5-^|
.Sunk by English forces off 1 Wilhelmeoast
. Sunk by English forces off F •;:.......................................
. No official report. Press report-*kJannean-----------------
was lost in the Baltic.................................. 'klar •••••** *’
. Sunk by British forces off Doggt ttl£utland. • • ’
. Sunk by British sm. in Baltic.. .* • -utland- • • * .Sunk by British forces, North Sutland. • •* .Sunk by British forces, North Sea Jutland-• •* .Sunk by British forces, North Sea. Channel' .Sunk by British sm. E-9, North Sea.iand. • • •
.By gunfire.................. .. ......................................... ^nd-------
.Sunk by Australian c. Sydney, Indksea.**
Ocean ............................................................................ .............
.Sunk by English forces off Falklands. ...
DATE
:
.Sunk by English forces off Falklands..
.Sunk by British cruisers in Pacific.............................. 1
• Sunk by English forces in Rufiji River. 11- , ..-j
157
155
■ Undine ................
.Bremen ....................
Friedrich ................
. Kronprinz Wilhel
. Berlin ......................
Patagonia ...............
..p. . .p.
. .c.
m. .c.
ast-'
161
159
*53
Eber .......................
.Kormoran II
.------ (two) . .
.Magdeburg ..
..c. c. .. 1. c. . .1. c.
1,000.
3,5o8.
4,478.
155 162
.Geier_____
.Karlsruhe
• 1. c.
1,630.
4,822.
164 . 164 . 164 . 164 .
. Elbing ... . Weisbaden . Rostock ... . Frauenlob Moewe ...
1. c. 1. c.
g. b.
Sunk by British sm. in the Baltic............................... 7-1j,,.
Sunk by sm. in the Baltic............................................ 17-1.,,.
Interned, Norfolk ................................................. 7- 4,15
Interned, Norfolk ................................................. 29-
Interned, Norway ................................................. 16-1 >
Seized by Argentina, violation of neutrality ................ *’J
Interned, Bahia .......................................................... - s,,|
Interned, Guam ......................................................... 15-12* |
Gulf of Riga.................................................................. 17- 8*'|
Ran ashore in fog in Baltic; blown up °| by own crew after engagement with ■ I
Russians ....................................................................... 27- &•*
Interned in Honolulu.................................................... 8-xifiq
No official report as to this vessel’s destruction. Press reports state she was blown up by internal explosion while
cruising in the Atlantic................................................
Sunk by gunfire, tettle of Jutland............................
Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland...........................
Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland...........................
Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland...........................
Sunk by her own crew at Dar-es-Salam
when English vessels appeared.................................. 14- 8-14
Captured by English on Lake Nyasa...2o- 8-14
ill -ii-.l 1- 6-10 1- 6-16 1- 6-16 1- 6-16
Wissman Planet ..
5,000?
5,000?
4,820.
2,650.
640.
g. b. .about 300. g. b. ... 640.
155, 162 . .Cormoran | .................... g. | b. .. | approach of Japanese fleet......................... . 1,604.. Sunk by Germans in Kiao-Chau Bay before surrendering Tsing-Tao to Allies . 886.. Sunk by Germans in Kiao-Chau Bay before surrendering Tsing-Tao to Allies . 886.. Sunk by Germans in Kiao-Chau Bay be- | 7-10-14 |
155, 162 . .litis .................. |
|
| 7*11-15 | |
155, 162 . .Tiger----------- |
|
| 7-11-15 | |
155, 162 . .Luchs ... | ...................... g- | b. .. | fore surrendering Tsing-Tao to Allies . 886.. Sunk by Germans in Kiao-Chau Bay be- | 7*ii-i5 |
155, 162 . .Jaguar ... | ...................... g- | b. . . | fore surrendering Tsing-Tao to Allies . 886.. Sunk by Germans in Kiao-Chau Bay be- | 7-11-15 |
Tsing-tau Vaterland .V-187 .S-115 . S-i 17 . S-i 18 . S-119 . S-90 .
7"* 1**5 17- 8-14
*54
154 154 154 *54 154, *62
g. b. g. b. d. .. d. .. d. .. d. .. d. .. d. ..
168.
168.
689.
4i3-
413-
4i3-
413
396.
155 . .Taku ........................................ d.
276.
fore surrendering Tsing-Tao to Allies
Interned, China ......................................................... 1
Interned, China .......................................................... 17- 8-14
■ Sunk by British forces, North Sea 28- 8-14
Sunk by English destroyers, North Sea.17-10-14
■ Sunk by English destroyers, North Sea. 17-10-14 Sunk by English destroyers, North Sea.17-10-14 Sunk by English destroyers, North Sea.17-10-14
■ Driven ashore and wrecked by own crew
off Tsing-Tao after having torpedoed
the Japanese ship Takachiho......................... 20-10-14
, Sunk by Germans in Kiao-Chau Bay before surrendering Tsing-Tao to Allies. 7-11-15
GERMAN WARSHIP LOSSES—Continued
124
TYPE
■d. ...
TONNAGE
• 463-
• 750..
• 675-'
. 689..
V-i8i6 S-10 6 •S-,^6
•G-j.96
156 .
•U-3
Prince Adalbert
Sudmark ...................
Hedwick von .Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse ...
Bethania ...................
Spreewald .................
Cap Trafalgar .. Max Brock . —
.Itolo ............................
Rhios .........................
Soden ........................
Gneisenau ................
13,952
7,548.
3,899
18,710.
4,579
299
150.
150.
8,185.
2,753
4,505
5,794
4,624.
4,347-
153 .
*59 .
8-15
12-15
8-15
10-15
10- 14
11-14 3-i5 7-i5 3-i5
3-i5
6- 15
7- i5
8- 15
27- 8-14 7- 9-14 12- 9-14 14- 9-14
- 9-14
24- 9-14 24- 9-14
*>le
VmBer
j55 ..S-
>54 . >59 . •59 .
16<c. | S-116 ........................ ------ (five) ... A-2 ........................... | .......... d. .. |
|
/ | A-6 ........................... |
|
|
1 / |
|
|
|
/ |
|
|
|
1 |
| ......... t. b |
|
■ 159. | ------- (eight) ------ | .......... t. b. | .... —. |
•53 - •55 . | •U-15 ......................... •.U-18 ......................... |
| .about 450. |
t6°. 161 . | • U-8 ......................... U-si ......................... | .......... sm. . | —246-293. |
•57 . | U-I2 .......................... • U-29 ......................... | ......... sm. . ......... sm. . | —246-295. |
| U-14 ........................... |
| .about 300. |
| u- ...:. :..: |
| |
*59 . | .U-27 ........................... | ......... sm. . | ---- 840-890. |
i63 • | •U.35 ........................... |
| __ |
| U- .............................. |
|
|
U-
• sra.
.ax.
• ax.
153 .
... ax. c.
... ax. c.
... ax. c.
.. .ax. c.
... ax. c.
... ax. c..
.. - ax. c.
... ax. c.
.. .ax. c.
Graecia ............................................................. ax. c.
Markomannia .......................................... ax. c.
Navarra ............................................................. ax. c.
Greif ............................................................ ax... c.
Eleonore Woermann.ax. c.
158 . .Macedonia .............................................. ax. c.
Accidentally rammed and sunk by a
merchant vessel in Baltic............ 22-11-14
By gunfire..................................
By gunfire..................................
By sm. ..... .... ............................................................ 6-10-14
Sunk by British sm., North Sea........... 26- 7-15
Announced by France as sunk by two French torpedo-boats off Belgian coast.22- 8-15 .Reported sunk by Russians in Baltic... 19- 8-15 .Reported sunk by British sm. £-19 between Denmark and Sweden. Not confirmed ................................................................ 14-10-15
.Sunk by English sm. E-9, North Sea... 6-10-14
.Sunk by gunfire, battle of Jutland........................... 1- 6-16
.Sunk by British destroyers, North Sea.. 1-15-15 .Sunk by British destroyers, North Sea.. 1-15-15 Officially announced by Russia, blown
up by mine.................................. 30-.. 6-15
.Announced by German Admiralty, sunk
by mines, Baltic............................................................... 19- 8-15
.Announced by German Admiralty, sunk by mines, Baltic 19. Sunk by sm., Baltic 17. Gulf of Riga 17. Collision, Baltic 15. Sunk by British c. Birmingham io-
.Destroyed by English d. Garry off Scotch
coast ................................................................................ 23-
.Sunk by British destroyers............................................ 4-
• Sunk, Black Sea......................................................... 17.
.Rammed and sunk by British d. Ariel., io- . Announced sunk by British. Loss admitted by German Admiralty 26. Sunk by British forces 8
. Officially announced by French sunk in
English Channel by French squadron. 4. Announced by German Admiralty as missing
• Announced by English Admiralty as
sunk by British aeroplane off Belgian coast. Denied by Germany 20- 8-15
• Reported run ashore near Riga in Baltic
and probably lost. Not confirmed by
Germany ...................................................................... 19-8-15
. Interned in Holland. Reported as being the U-8, but this vessel had been officially reported as having been sunk by the British
• Reported by British Admiralty as sunk
by British seaplane off Belgian coast.27-11-15
• Rammed ................................................................ 9. 8-14
• Captured by British c............................................ - 8-14
• Captured by British c............................................ 15- 8-14
• Sunk by British c. Highflyer...
• Captured by British c............................
• Captured by British c............................
. Sunk by British ax. c. Carmania
• Captured by British c. .....................................
• Sunk by French g. b. at Cameroon. .. .
• Sunk by French g. b. at Cameroon.....
• Captured by English c. off Cameroon
River ........................................................................
. Sunk by Belgians prior to evacuation Antwerp.....
• Captured by English c...........................................
• Sunk by British c. in Indian Ocean. . .
• Sunk by English ax. c. in Atlantic... .
• Sunk by Australian c. Australia............................
. Captured ....................................................................
1-10*14
of
8-10-14
10- 10-14 16-10-14
11-11-14
6- 1-15 30- 4-15 - 8-15
• Reported as sunk in the Baltic............................
GERMAN WARSHIP LOSSES—Continued
WHOLE NUMBER
162 . .Greif ........................................................ ax.... c.
154 . .Comet ...................................................... ax. c.
Karnac ............................................................... ax... tr.
164 . .Hermann ................................................ ax. c.
153 ..Konigin Luise ......................................... m. 1.
Rufin .................................................................... 1.
NAME
TYPE
1,165. - Sunk in battle, North Sea3 977.. Captured by Australian fdl 4,437. .Interned, Chile
3.0. . Sunk by Russian destroyers
2.163.. Sunk by English d., North 1,
---------------------------------------------------------------- . .Sunk by Germans in Kiao-Ch,_
fore surrendering Tsing-Ta<_
1. ... ..Reported by the brench capt
side of Havre disguised
collier ..........................................................................................................................................................
1. ... 2,165.. Sunk by Russians in Baltic.
raised and interned in Swede:
159 ..Meteor ..................................... m. 1. ... 3,613..Sunk by own crew after attempt!
escape British forces, North S'
158, 159 • .Albatross
157
Bunz ..............
.. Prinz Eitel Kingani ..
..Lost in Baltic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .. Captured by
Tanganyka .
1,020.. Interned, Honolulu 1,153. • Captured by _ English c., North Sea.l English claim vessel an ax. c., whilel Germany claims her a hospital ship.. 4,3?* Several armed trawlers ............................................................................................ Sunk by Russian destroyers........................................................................ r n
In addition to the above, there seems to be no doubt that a great number of German submarines oeen destroyed around the British Isles and possibly also in the Mediterranean and near the D; nelles. The exact number of German submarines sunk during this war is not known, although press state this number to be at least 50 and possibly as many as 70.
Locksun 158 . .Ophelia
153 155, 162 161
161
161
153
. .a. m. v..
.n. t.
AUSTRIAN WARSHIP LOSSES
.Zenta .................................... c..... ..
• Kaiserin Elizabeth ..c. .. . (Novara type).c. ..
-—• ........................ e- b'
Temes
.Triglav .Lika . , .No. 19
U-18 .. .U-12 ..
. .r. m. d. .. d. .. t. b.
• t. b.
.t. b. . sm. .sm.
-sm.
2,264,
3.937
3,384
433
787.
787
78.
685-860.
159
159 .-U-3 ............................... | .. . .sm. | . . .233-295 | |
U-11 ............................ | ----- sm. |
| 860 |
|
|
| 5.000 3.000 |
|
|
| |
162 . .Elektra ...................... | •. .h. s. |
| |
Beethoven ............. | .. .tr. s. |
| — |
• ». | TURKISH | WARS | |
155 . .Messudyeh .... Kheyr-Ed-Din .. |
|
| 10,000 |
___ b. .. |
| 9,900 | |
158 . .Mejidieh .................... |
|
| 3,330 |
161 . .Burak Reis .... | ----- g. b. |
| 502 |
158 . .Pelenk-I-Derih . | ----- g. b. |
| 886 |
Marmaris ................ | ----- g. b. |
| 492 |
159 . .Berk-i-Satvet (type).g. b. |
| 725 | |
161 ..Issa Reis (type) | ... g. b. |
| 500 |
Doruk Reis_____ | ----- g. b. |
| 502 |
Malatia .................... | ----- g. b. |
| 210 |
Yadikar Nilet .. |
|
| 610 |
159 ..Barbarossa 161 .. Yar Hissar.................................... |
|
| 284 |
Demir Hissar .. | . -. t. b. |
| 97 |
.Sunk by French fleet off Antivari.............................. 16-
.Sunk by her own crew at Tsing-Tao... 7-
•Torpedoed ..................................................................... 13
• Sunk, Adriatic ............................................................. 24-
.Struck a mine and sank off Shabatz... .23-
• Sunk by gunfire in Adriatic........................................ 29
• Sunk by mine in Adriatic............................................. 29
. Struck by a mine and sank at entrance
to Pola .............................................................................. 18
• Sunk by mine in Adriatic....................................
.Sunk by mine in Adriatic.....................................
.Sunk by an Italian d...................................................... 17
.Reported by France sunk by a French
aeroplane, Adriatic........................................................... 1
• Torpedoed and sunk by an Italian sm.,
upper Adriatic ................................................................. 12
.Sunk by French d. Bisson............................................. 13-
.Gunfire, French fleet..................................................
.Sunk by aeroplane ......................................................... i*
.Sunk by Italian# warships, Dmazzo
roads; loaded with munitions.....................................
•Sunk by Italian warships, Dmazzo
roads, loaded with munitions......................................
.Torpedoed, Adriatic .................................................... 18-
Struck a mine and foundered.................................... 17-
5-U
7’T
7-15
3-16
[2-14
• Scuttled to avoid capture.......................................... 31-10-14
Black Sea. ially reportec Black Sea.
.. 1-6-15 . 29- 4-15 .. i-ii-i<*
ik
V 10-12-15 ik
.. 10-12-15
.. - 5-15
•• 3-12-15
.17- 4-15
ffSOL*
KuMber
TURKISH WARSHIP LOSSES—Continued
name type
*5? *-Dhair Hissar......................... t. b. .
Nagara ............................................ tr. . .
-------------- (three) ....................... tr. ..
TONNAGE
REMARKS
158
v be- \lHeS
renc*1
160
160 ,
•Carmen ................................. tr.
•Rechid Pasha ..................... tr.
Eezemialen .......................... tr.
Bachriachmar .................... tr.
Midiat Pasha ...................... tr.
DATE
97..Driven ashore, Greece.......................................................... 17. 4-15
------ ..Sunk by British sm., Sea*of Marmora.. - 5-15
------ ..Sunk by Russian warships; contained
troops ............................................................................................
4.424.. 5m., Marmora 24-10-15
8.0. .5m., Marmora -12-15
------ ..Sunk, Black Sea ................................................................. 14-11-14
------ ..Sunk, Black Sea ................................................................. 14-11-14
..Sunk by sm................................................................................. 6- 9-15
have been destroyed around the Dardanelles
.orte^in the* in the above, other Turkish men-of-war may _ _ ___ __________
••Voting tWv ?e*- Reports from England, Russia and Turkey in regard to these operations are so ng TPorts and ** ,s- impossible to accurately state what Tu * ' * * * * * * “
supply ships.
Turkish vessels have been destroyed, especially
J INDEX of war | VESSEL LOSSES MENTIONED IN THIS NUMBER |
| |
I British Vessels J Oo°^ ^hany. . . | PAGE | Italian Vessels Leonardo da Vinci............................................... | PAGE • •• 1705 |
, '“Shan,............................................ |
| Giacinto Pullino ................................................. |
|
|
l