Calling all Borodino (Бородино) class (Tsushima 1905) fans

[ironclad]

I have only read the one book, "The Tsar's Last Armada" so far. There was such a lack of intelligence that the bulk of the fleet could not travel through the Suez canal for rear of ambush there by the Japanese.

Bondoman! I Read nothing about in in Russian books, heard nothing about in on Russian forums. If Author proved his idea, I am already hunting this book!
I had read, that group of new heavy ships ( BORODINO type) can not go throught Suetz canal because of large draught - they went around Africa. All other ships went throught Suetz - they were not afraid of ambush.

About "Battle of Dogger Bank" incident: I think, it was very well organised provocation. Without witnesses, who saw destroyers, I will immediately agree, that incident was only a horrible mistake of "green" artillerymen.
But We have three INDEPENDENT large groups of SEAMEN, who had seen destroyers or destroyer there. They are: crew of "KAMCHATKA", crews of battleships, and English fishermen. This means: We have proof of provocation. Who made this - I dont know.

Ironclad, I understand what you mean but I still think that, if it was decided to send a fleet on round the world journey into unknown, they should have been provided with at least some means of scouting and screening. I know that, after the fall of Port Arthur, Russia did only have 4 cruisers worthy of their name (Avrora, Oleg, Izumrud and Zhemchug) but 4 brand new battleships were send with Avrora as their only real means of gathering intelligence!

Darius! Still I am not sure, that I understand You, but will try to answer.
When war began, all normal ships were already at Port-Artur. Beginning journey, Second squadron was really a reinforcement for first squadron, not a normally organised "battle group". Few ships were bought, lightly armed and become auxiliary cruisers - seems in general nothing more can be done.

but 4 brand new battleships were send with Avrora as their only real means of gathering intelligence!

I can not understand this place.

[Bondoman]

here you go ironclad:
http://www.amazon.com/Tsars-Last-Armada ... 0465057926
You are probably correct about the canal. I found a couple of sources that say the depth of the canal in 1904 was nominally 26 feet. The draught of the four battleships no doubt was at least that (Wiki says 29 feet).
There's also a claim in the book that Roz pushed to acquire four modern ships from Argentina/ Chile to join the squadron. At least they would have been in the right ocean!

[DariusP]

Ironclad, what I meant was that Avrora was the only ship which could do any reconnaissance (??????) for Borodino group.

When war began, all normal ships were already at Port-Artur. Beginning journey, Second squadron was really a reinforcement for first squadron, not a normally organised "battle group". Few ships were bought, lightly armed and become auxiliary cruisers - seems in general nothing more can be done.

I guess you are right. 2nd Pacific Squadron was divided and there were not enough cruisers to provide cover for all the groups. How many groups there were BTW? 2 or 3? Was the Suez Canal group the same as "Catching up" squadron (?????????? ?????)?

[Bondoman]

Ironclad, what I meant was that Avrora was the only ship which could do any reconnaissance (??????) for Borodino group.

When war began, all normal ships were already at Port-Artur. Beginning journey, Second squadron was really a reinforcement for first squadron, not a normally organised "battle group". Few ships were bought, lightly armed and become auxiliary cruisers - seems in general nothing more can be done.

I guess you are right. 2nd Pacific Squadron was divided and there were not enough cruisers to provide cover for all the groups. How many groups there were BTW? 2 or 3? Was the Suez Canal group the same as "Catching up" squadron (?????????? ?????)?

The Squadron was separated near Gibraltar. As a result of the Dogger Bank incident, Britain was shadowing the fleet and enticed/ forced the section commanded by RADM Folkersham (who Rozh. considered a "sack of :censored_2:") into Gibraltar where terms were dictated regarding whether the fleet could continue pending an investigation of the earlier incident.
Humiliated, Rozh. then split the Squadron in two on November 1, 1904; the Borodinos and company sailing south down the African coast, and Folkersham sailing when released through the Suez with the battleships Olyabya, Sissoi Veliky, Admiral Nakhimov, and the cruiser Navarin. They eventually rejoined in Madagascar in March 1905.

The follow up Third Squadron of coastal defence battleships transited the canal in early 1905 and joined the main group at Cam Rahn.

[DariusP]

About "Battle of Dogger Bank" incident: I think, it was very well organised provocation. Without witnesses, who saw destroyers, I will immediately agree, that incident was only a horrible mistake of "green" artillerymen.
But We have three INDEPENDENT large groups of SEAMEN, who had seen destroyers or destroyer there. They are: crew of "KAMCHATKA", crews of battleships, and English fishermen. This means: We have proof of provocation. Who made this - I dont know.

Unfortunately Politovskij in "From Libau to Tsushima" wrote to his wife about Dogger Bank incident: "They were, no doubt, fishermen. Now there will be a universal scandal. As a matter of fact they are to blame themselves. They must have known our fleet was coming, and they must have known the Japanese wished to destroy it. They saw the fleet. Why did they not cut adrift their nets, if they had them out, and get out of the way ? The nets could be paid for afterwards."
And: "Our division fired on the Aurora. She and the Dimitry Donskoi were detached (we are in six divisions). At the time of the firing on the steamers the men lost their heads. Probably some one took her to be Japanese and fired on her with the six-inch guns ; she was very far off. A very, very sad occurrence. The only consolation is that our shooting is so good."

[ironclad]

Hello, All!
Bondoman! Thank You for the link to book. Some of customer reviews were very interesting. I afraid, book is full of mistakes.

IMHO: before Tanger second squadron was divided into 6 groups, plus group of "unfinished ships" under command of Dobrotworskiy ( joined squadron later, at Madagascar ). At Tanger groups were rearranged, list of ships in groups changed. After Tanger Rozestvenski led main forces (battleships: SUVOROV, ALEXANDER III, BORODINO, OREL, OSLYABYA, cruisers: NAKHIMOV, AVRORA, DONSKOI + transports) around Africa, while groups of ships, that cannot withstand ocean voyage, went through Suetz. Felkelzam led one of that groups, later groups of Dobrotworskiy and Nebogatov also went throught Suetz.

, and Folkersham sailing when released through the Suez with the battleships Olyabya, Sissoi Veliky, Admiral Nakhimov, and the cruiser Navarin. They eventually rejoined in Madagascar in March 1905.

Bondoman! It was written directly in book of Constantine Pleshakov, or You understood Him this way? In His book written, that OSLYABYA and NAKHIMOV went through the Suez, that NAKHIMOV - battleship , and NAVARIN - cruiser? If You, like We All, made mistake, it means nothing. But Pleshakov ...

You are probably correct about the canal. I found a couple of sources that say the depth of the canal in 1904 was nominally 26 feet. The draught of the four battleships no doubt was at least that (Wiki says 29 feet).

This fact is well-known on Russian forums. But it is good idea to test it.

Ironclad, what I meant was that Avrora was the only ship which could do any reconnaissance (??????) for Borodino group.

Now I understand, Darius, Thank You.

Was the Suez Canal group the same as "Catching up" squadron (?????????? ?????)?

IMHO: before Madagascar "Catching up" squadron may be group under command of Dobrotworskiy, after Madagascar may be Nebogatov.

Unfortunately Politovskij in "From Libau to Tsushima" wrote to his wife about Dogger Bank incident: "They were, no doubt, fishermen. Now there will be a universal scandal..."
And: "Our division fired on the Aurora. She and the Dimitry Donskoi were detached (we are in six divisions). At the time of the firing on the steamers the men lost their heads. Probably some one took her to be Japanese and fired on her with the six-inch guns ; she was very far off. A very, very sad occurrence. The only consolation is that our shooting is so good."

Again, I warn You: be careful with Politovskij and His thoughts - He is not a type of common Russian Officier.
Of course, AVRORA was damaged not by enemy, but by battleships, but what it proves?
"... they were present - in this believed all. Destroyer, by his appearance or moving style, is very specific. Person, able to confuse it with other type of ship, can not be among seamen." - Duke Chegodaev-Saxonskiy A.P. "On board of "ALMAZ". From Libau through Tsushima to Vladivostok."
Maybe in other countries court uses somebody`s thoughts, beliefs, faith in something, in Russia it uses facts, seen by witnesses.
Rozestvenski was warned by Russian military ship about group of few destroyers without national flags. He canceled coaling near Scagen and led squadron to next point through Dogger Bank.

But We have three INDEPENDENT large groups of SEAMEN, who had seen destroyers or destroyer there. They are: crew of "KAMCHATKA", crews of battleships, and English fishermen. This means: We have proof of provocation. Who made this - I dont know.

IMHO: it was not an attack with physical damage, but imitation of attack, provocation, that caused great political damage - much more than sinking of ship. Having few destroyers against alarmed squadron, remembering low persentage of torpedo hits at Port-Arthur against unprepared, anchored squadron, what tactic will enemy commander choose? And if destroyers were of country, not fighting with Russia? Worst variant - they can not escape after provocation, because of damage, and are captured - they always can say: We made no harm, We only made a mistake, went too close to squadron. Destroyers caused gunfire and immediately disappeared; active guns at the beginning were 47mm (Flyswatters) - they cannot sunk destroyer, only lightly damage it. And provocation was successful.

p.s. I have bad feeling, that We offtoping ...

[Bondoman]

Ironclad, be patient with me, but how could the japanese possibly move a flottila of destroyers to the north Sea, in essence making the trip of the 2nd Squadron in reverse, engage the Russian Fleet without firing, and then escape?
It's too hard for me to understand that!
If you are familiar with the history of the US in Vietnam, read about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (there were two). Under very similar circumstances, the US Navy believes(?) it was under attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats, and went to war accordingly. But it was not the truth.

[DariusP]

Besides, Japan and Russia were at war and Dogger Bank lays in international waters. IF (and I personally don't believe that it had happened) Japanese have somehow managed to get their destroyers there, they could have delivered a fully blown torpedo attack and (possibly) cause some real damage not just panic and confusion.
The "provocation" scenario would only make sense to me if the provoking ships British and not Japanese.

[Bondoman]

I've gone back and snapped apart, then rebuilt the fore and aft bridge structures. I was careless aligning the mast holes in the decks, which are a really tight fit to begin with and were designed to drop onto stub masts. I chose to wait and build the masts as a unit, and of course then they wouldn't fit.
It all seems better now, and i also made use of a fair amount of PE deck support that wasn't shown in the instructions, but was included on the fret and identified.
I'll get some pictures in a bit, but just now things are a little chopped up.

[ironclad]

How it can be?
Both sides (Russia and Japan) were secretly purchasing weapons, equipment and materials from almost the whole world. I know that both sides purchased few submarines from USA, Russia purchased 1 sub ( FOREL ) from Germany. These are well-known facts. You can read about it in many books, but, of course, You will never find traces of military contraband in official documents, like ships cargo lists. Many Russian officers knew about destroyers, builded in England for Japan. Russian diplomacy preferred not to touch this, because both sides were guilty. Semenov wrote, that attackers were these destroyers , build in England, their crews arrived from Japan and received ships. After attack they simply went to Japan, using English bases and maybe later participated in Tsushima. (SEMENOV. RASPLATA (THE RECKONING) 1909, pages 479-483 ) English-language publisher of Semenov book wrote, that �The Suez Canal records � show that no vessel remotely resembling torpedo craft of any class passed through the Canal �� ( He searched traces of special operations in official documents? ) and published this part of Semenov text as appendix, like thing, nobody must treat seriously. From beginning this incident treated as �not worth to discuss and think about�, while really it is very unclear.

Think about position of England - if Japanese will use torpedoes against Russian fleet, Englishmen becomes their partner-in-crime, England becomes a pirate base. How to avoid this big scandal? Maybe equip ships with all, needed for voyage, but without single torpedo or shell? This will force Japanese to go home, not to make problems in Europe. Having torpedoes, Japanese will attack with torpedoes, but how they are able to serve country without them? Imitate attack, to provoke gunfire at fishermen flotillas or, at least, make enemy squadron crews be nervous in safe waters for the whole voyage . Seems destroyers were divided into two groups. First was unsuccessful: their position was near Norwegian fishermen flotilla, nobody went directly to ambush, they saw single ship passing by � KAMCHATKA, �attacked� it, leading it by �attacks� to Norwegian fishermen flotilla - and KAMCHATKA didn`t shoot at fishermen. KAMCHATKA crew reported about shells explosions on board of destroyers, while no country reported about civilian or military ship, damaged by KAMCHATKA.( and KAMCHATKA was long ago from Hull flotilla ) Of course, damage of destroyers must be very little, crew losses � minimal. Second group of destroyers ambushed main forces near Hull flotilla: they revealed themselves, caused gunfire and left field of battle. Meanwhile fishermen were shot at. Seems here destroyers received no damage at all.

Tsar Alexander III in his last years was assembling sort of political block with Germany and France to confront England. Each country had �interests� under possible threat of England. During Russian-Japan War French government betrayed this block and joined England. Agreements between Russia and French government were ruined, Second Squadron went to voyage without promised support. French government needed a scandal � �open� reason to hide pure betrayal (Especially from Frenchmen). England needed a scandal to change World laws to make voyage of Second Squadron much harder. Maybe French or English destroyers received order and executed it. As I wrote before, in this case they cannot use weapons, because they can be captured during operation. Again, real risk seems minimal. They are not closing with squadron, receiving damage � they showing themselves, then running away.
Of course, You can mix French and English needs in political scandal with Japanese readiness to do everything to help their country, using Europe-build destroyers.
You asked: How it can be?
I answered a POSSIBLE VARIANT.

English fishermen from Hull flotilla were interviewed and they made detailed description of "Russian" destroyer, while groups of Russian destroyers were at France at the moment of attack. When this fact became known, ALL English newspapers immediately closed discussion of this destroyer - forever.
At Madagascar Russian seamen received English newspapers - description was the same, crews of different Russian ships did for attackers.

[Charlestonguy]

I will be the first to admit I know very little about Dogger Bank battle/incident but I did find an interesting article about it here.
http://hulltrawler.net/History/russian% ... ussian.htm

I had the same feeling about it as Bondoman when he mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin. I was looking at another incident too involving the Battleship Main in Havana Cuba, where Randolph Hurst used that as a ploy to whip up a war that could have been avoided.
It's hard to know what the facts are after so long of time, but history is full of errors promoted by those who have an agenda.

Thanks for the interesting commentary on Dogger Bank, hope that we can have more facts come out here to support the positions.

[Bondoman]

But the directions are to hog out the little thwarts cast in the boats first! Hopefully that's easy.

I did mine already, and I'll try to post some pictures in the next couple of days. You gotta have a DREMEL.

Done- it worked like a charm. I only blew through the side of the very first one I tried, after that it all went smoothly.

[Bondoman]

I've made a lot of progress. I replaced the kit funnels with 7/16" brass tube, which eliminated the cartoonish plates and seams. I scratch built caps using plasticard and the etched grilles from the WEM set, although I cut off the ring surrounds on those and shaped them into a dome over the end of a drafting pencil.
I used Marker Yellow paint, it is pale and has a faintly green tinge that I think looks pretty accurate.
All the boats are in place. There's a lot of shiny CA showing, but it will dissappear under a couple of coats of dull varnish.
Next is to rig the masts and yards.
Wish those main armament barrels would come.

[DariusP]

Looks very good Bandoman Brass barrels still haven't arrived?

[Bondoman]

No, although I did get a personal email from the preident of WEM telling me they are on it- supplier problem.
Looks like the Mikasa came with two complete sets of draft markings, in Roman. Good thing as I'll use one set on the Borodino.
But, anyone have a set of the ships name as a decal? I have Suvorov, but as has been seen, that's no longer the subject.

[maarten]

Great looking model Bondoman - my compliments!
Just about to start my own, with both GMM and WEM etch as well as a bunch of brass barrels. I've ran into a few questions though, which I hope one of the experts on board could shed their light on.
Firstly, WEM provides a whole bunch of rather nifty looking stands for the 47mm guns. Thing is, looking at pictures of Borodino (which I intend to model), I just can't see these being used. Much more like what is provided in the kit, a sheet metal cone. Anyone know for sure on this one?
Secondly, I somehow ended up with two sets of barrels, one whole meal deal from Master Models and then just the primary and secondary batteries from BMK. Both sets are very nicely machined but also decidedly different in design. The secondaries look best in the Master Model set, but I'm not sure yet about the primaries. If it helps I can make some pictures comparing them, but for now my question would be, which are regarded as most correct?

Thanks for any and all assistance, best regards,
Maarten Bilo

[DariusP]

IIRC WEM used model in St.Petersburg museum as basis for their PE. Trouble is that this model depict generic "Borodino class" rather than any of Borodinos in particular. Cone bases provided with the kit are of correct shape.

As for the barrels... Here are the main guns barrels:


and secondary:

[maarten]

Thank you Darius - great information and very helpful. Looks like the Master Model barrels are the way to go for both the primary and secondary batteries. BMK misses several key points, beautifully made or not. Can no doubt use them elsewhere though so that's no problem
I have pulled up the pictures from the museum model and indeed the pintles are right there, just like on the WEM set. Now I know where those came from!

Thanks again, best regards,
Maarten

[Charlestonguy]

I got a set from RB Models. You can find them here on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... K:MEWAX:IT

Shipping was under two weeks, and that was during Christmas holidays.

[Bondoman]

Just to my eye, the 6" BMK barrels seem a little thin. I used them anyhow. Also. I am having real second thoughts about the 47mm plastic kit barrels. They look terrible. I'm seriously considering snipping them off IN PLACE and replacing with stretched sprue or plastic rod even.

The 75mms are also clunky looking, but I can live with them. There are complete barrel sets available, and if I was to do it again (not) I would go that way.