WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Royal Navy > Romanian Pocket Battleships

Posted by: toniyona October 27, 2003 10:35 pm

Gentlemen:
From another website a comment was made that during the 1930's Italy's Ansaldo offered a pocket battleship design to Romania, among other countries.
Obviously this was never pursued.
Might anyone on this forum have any further information?
I was going to paste a picture here but all my attempts failed, my apologies.
If any interest, I can note the websites the comment was made on and another that has a picture of the vessel.
Thank-you.

Posted by: Cristian Craciunoiu October 29, 2003 07:03 am

In the early '20 ies, Romanian Royal Navy was offered by the British Royal Navy a pocket batlleship of the HMS GORGON class among other ships. Even if talkings went very far they were not finalized.
In the '30 ies a reach Romanian merchant, of Greek origin who made his huge fortune in Romania offered the Romanian Navy a cruiser under the condition that the ship will have his name. The order was given in Italy and in the end the offer was rejected. That is a part of the story of the cruiser GIORGIOS AVEROFF of the Greek Navy and that was the name of the rich merchant.

Posted by: Tiornu October 29, 2003 08:27 am

If Gorgon was no better built than her sistership, the Romanians did well not to buy her.

Posted by: toniyona October 31, 2003 12:14 am

Gentlemen:
When I tried to research this further, Conway's was the only source I could find.
The purchase of Gorgon was mentioned but not pursued.
Conways also mentions a cruiser proposal for Romania. Might anyone have any information on this if to purchase or build a British "D" class perhaps?
Cuisers like Italy built for Argentina and was building for Siam would also seem to fit Romania's needs.
There appears to be very little out there on the Romanian Navy.
Thank-you for your time and assistance.

Posted by: Andreas von Mach October 31, 2003 10:58 am

P.Brook
"Warships for Export. Armstrong Warships 1867-1927"
p.213 GORGON

After the war she was offered byck to Norway, but she was now too beamy to use the Horten dock, and was rejected. She was put on the sales list, and enquiries were received from South American countries and what at one time seamed a firm offer form Romania, but no sale took place. In 1921 her armament was removed, and she was used for tests to study the effects of bombs or heavy charges bursting under water. These and other experiments continued until 1928, when she was sold for scrapping on 28 August to Wards, Pembroke Dock.

Posted by: Cristian Craciunoiu November 01, 2003 10:09 am

Romanian magazine Revista Aerului si Marinei din 1928 no 4 has a study about Romania opening a naval base ( two suggeswted sted Mangalia and Mamaia ) and the warships to be ordered for it. There are several options: British or American at second hand, new French or Italian. There were at least two battleships and 6 cruisers, plus destroyers and submarines. This naval programe was never applied.

Posted by: toniyona November 01, 2003 04:05 pm

Mr. Craciunoiu:
Thank-you for the note.
Most interesting and this is information hither to unknown!!
Due to language and the age of the publication you mention, I doubt I'll be able to find a copy here in the U.S. but I'll defenitely give it a shot. (If I do find a copy and a Romanian-English dictionary, I'll have my winter entertainment set for a while.)
At your convenience, might you be able to add some deatils such as what second-hand ships were considered, size & armament of the battleships / cruisers considered if built new?
Thank-you.

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 01, 2003 11:01 pm

Les Flottes de combat 1929 listed the following program:
3 cruisers 6000-7000t
16 torpedo boats 1850t
18 submarines 600t
1 submarine base
1 minelayer

Another source (from notices) 1926 naval program (12,000,000.-englisjh Pound)
a) 4 years program
1) new cnstructions: 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 4 MTBs
2) refits and rearmament: MARASTI, MARASETI
3) New naval base on the Black Sea

10 years program (to follow the above)3 cruisers
10 destroyeers
18 submarines

Cornel I.Scares "100 jahre rumänische Kriegsmarine"
Marine Rundschau 9/1977 p493s

Program 1899 (for memory)
6 coast battleships 3500t (not built)
4 destroyers 300t (not built)
12 torpedoboats 80t (not built)
8 river monitors (4 built)
12 riverine TBs (8 built)

Pogram 1912/1915
6 cruisers 3500t
12 destroyers 1500t (4 ordered in Italy)
1 submarine (ordered in Italy)
1 Danube tug (MACIN)
2 Danube patrolships (built, - I think there were 3 ships)

Program 1926/28
4 destroyers (2 built)
2 submarines (1 built)
1 submarine base (built)
9 Danube patrol boats (built)
3 Dnestr patrol boats (built)

Program 1937/39
1 cruiser 4-5000t (not built)
4 destroyers 1300-1500t (not built)
3 submarines S1-S3 (S3 not built)
4 mine laysers (1 built,1 laid down, 2 not built)
9 MTB (3 built)
1 training ship
1 royal yacht

Posted by: toniyona November 01, 2003 11:17 pm

Mr. von Mach:
Thank-you for the additional information.
This tends to show that there were no plans for any battleships, either as coast defense ships or pocket battleships.
Pity.
Thanks again for the input.

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 01, 2003 11:30 pm

In every small fleet are admirals which like to sail battleships, not MTBs or submarines.

Posted by: tjk November 02, 2003 02:27 pm

Why would Romania want such a large fleet mentioned in all these plans other than an ego boost ? I doubt that Romania could afford and maintain such a large fleet and due to a lack of resources could not win an arms race with the Soviets, who would be the natural opponents.

Posted by: toniyona November 02, 2003 03:33 pm

Gentlemen:
If someone can get a copy of the article Mr. Craciunoiu was kind enough to mention, then we might get a better feel if the plan was fact or fancy.
I would like to thank Mr. Craciunoiu once again for the information.

That is what I like best about these boards, individuals working together to preserve pieces of history that would otherwise be lost forever.

The "battleships", I am guessing, would have been more along the lines of small coast defense ships as Finland had in her Ilmarinen class who also shared water with Russia.

Here is the comment from

http://warshipprojects.board.dk3.com/2/viewtopic.php?t=436

that got me going on this topic.

“…….
Another component of the ocean going navy was the pocket BB design:
10550 tons,
6/254/55 (2*3)
Fiat diesel propulsion, 4 shafts, 80.000 HP
32 knots
The same design, but with a conventional power plant (the trials with the Fiat solutions wasn't successful), was offered, without success, by Ansaldo to the Romanian, Chilean and Swedish Navies between 1936 and 1939.
………….”

So this more of an armored cruiser than a battleship.

If anyone has any more information, it would be welcomed.

Posted by: Tiornu November 02, 2003 07:39 pm

We would need to know exactly what scenarios the Romanians were planning for. We would also want to know the status of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. It never had more than a single battleship in service.

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 03, 2003 03:42 am

The scenario is really important.
I have read many boks about theSoviet scanario, ie war planning,of course most interesting those lice icebreaker, but i have never found any strategy ageinst Poland (invided 1939), Finnland (attacked 1940 Winter War), Romania, etc. It seems these countries were not an enemies for Soviets like Germany, England, etc.
As is already mentioned by Suvurov "Icebreaker" and his following books. even in the Danube area, the Danube flotilla after war was broken opened the only "emergency" envelope they posess , and stared to invade Riomania, it was the only plann of them.
You have also no planns to by everyday bread for you family, only some planns ti buy a home, car, ranche, so the Soviets prepared only big plans for the big wars.

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 03, 2003 08:44 pm

I have something interesting found in my notices.
Source ???
Accoprdigly to Romania Miltara in 1914
Cpt. Mihuutsu designed a battleships for the lack Sea:
13000t 117x22x8m
10600-11000ihp=16-17kts
800t coal
4x305 (2xII)
4x203mm (casamates)
12x150
5TT
Armour:
sides 250mm (ends 178mm)
casametes 152mm (1st) 127mm (2nd)
CT 250mm

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 03, 2003 08:46 pm

Marine Rundschau Projekt 1914
6 cruisers 4000t 2x8in guns
12 destroyers
4 monitors (Danube)
8 patrol boats (Danube)

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 03, 2003 08:55 pm

Weyer 1900 ,Jane 1905/06 and Les Flottes de Combat 1909 repeated the 1899 Programm
(see my previous mail)

6 coast battleships 3500t
4 destroyers 300t
12 torpedoboats 80t
8 river monitors 500t
12 riverine TBs 40t
8 motor boats 12t (armed with torpedoes)

Morskoy Sbornik 1896 listed followings ships planned
2 coast battleships
5 cruisers ELISABETA class

Posted by: toniyona November 03, 2003 11:38 pm

Mr. von Mach:
Most interesting!
Anything from the late 30's?
Thank-you once again.

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 04, 2003 01:31 am

I have checked
Les Flottes de Combat of 1920s-1940s
and some of
Janes Fighting Ships of 1930s (not all till now)
no any new infos :cry:

Posted by: toniyona November 05, 2003 12:13 am

Mr. von Mach:
Thank-you for trying and you get an "A" for effort.
Hopefully Mr. Craciunoiu will weigh in with more information from the Romanian article he cited earlier.

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 05, 2003 10:54 am

Hi toniyona!

It will be for me very interesting to know , which
of these programs were really officialy signed and
when, which were only used for propaganda goals
and which were clear speculation.

Many athors copied them without source tracing.

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 12, 2003 08:15 pm

Nautilus 1914 discussed Plann of 1914 already mentioned by me.
According to it the Plann was of the beginning 1913., of them already 4 destroyers were ordered by Pattison at Neapel.
At the end of 1913 an Romanian officer proposed to built insteed of
6 cruisers and rest of 8 destroyers, four 7500t coast battleships similar to the Swedish SVERIGE. It was suggested that such ships could go upstream of Danube up to Braila and could also go into every Romanian harbour.

Posted by: toniyona November 14, 2003 04:19 am

Mr. von Mach:
Once again many thanks.
Now if we could just get more information for plans (dreams) during the inter war period.

Posted by: dead-cat November 17, 2003 03:07 pm

QUOTE

Accoprdigly to Romania Miltara in 1914
Cpt. Mihuutsu designed a battleships for the lack Sea:
13000t 117x22x8m
10600-11000ihp=16-17kts
800t coal
4x305 (2xII)
4x203mm (casamates)
12x150
5TT

these are specs. for a pre-dreadnought. intresting that someone still thought in 1914 that such a ship could counterweight the russian dreadnoughts ...

Posted by: Andreas von Mach November 17, 2003 08:05 pm

1) Perheps there was a drawing in this paper?
2) Is the name of Mihuutsu correct ?
3) Were the Russians considered as an enemies or Turks, or Bulgar before WW I ?
4) What was the same calculation in 1930s?

Posted by: dead-cat November 18, 2003 08:49 am

of course, i didn't object the accuracy of the specs. the name would probably be without the second "u".

the specs given 1914 are clearly specs for a pre-dreadnought. it's even weaker than the King Edward VII/Lord Nelson class. i allways thought after everybody completed their last pre-dreadnought under construction since 1906 the obsolescence of this type was worldwide recognized.

even if the turks were considered the enemy, they aquired the Goeben 1914 which , albeit a battlecruiser, is superior by any means to this spec.
if the specs were drawn before turning over the Goeben to turkey, it's even worse, because the turks ordered 1910 a "real" dreadnought in the UK (Erin) which was completed Aug. 1914.

Posted by: Tiornu November 19, 2003 06:44 am

"Mihuutsu"--looks Finnish to me. Is that possible?
The Swedes went ahead and built a design that was much smaller than this one, and it proved sufficient for its role.

Posted by: dead-cat November 19, 2003 09:02 am

i don't want to hijack this thread and bring it to the realm of offtopic but:

the swedes didn't see in combat in the 20th century. the swedish design (even the "Sverige" (launched 1915 i think) class) was a "panzerskepp" which is more comparable to an upgunned armored cruiser, but not a battleship. it couldn't and wouldn't stand in a fight against any post 1910 russian(or german) battlecruiser even.

Posted by: Tiornu November 19, 2003 07:24 pm

"the swedes didn't see in combat in the 20th century." Exactly!
These ships are coast defense designs; they do not have to "stand up" to enemy battleships because they form only part of a defensive system. The Germans were thoroughly aware that they could not attack Sweden by sea because of the Sveriges and the rest of the coast defense system.

Posted by: dead-cat November 20, 2003 09:00 am

the specs said "battleship" and not "coastal battleship" which are 2 diffrent things.
in case of a german attack on sweden by sea, the coastal defences (coastal battleships included) would have suffered much the same fate as the russian defences on Ösel and Dagö during operation Albion 1917

all this apart from the fact that a german attack on sweden wouldn't have made sense.

Posted by: Tiornu November 20, 2003 04:32 pm

They could call it a battleship, an armored ship, a coast defense ship--that doesn't tell us anything. A ship does not become more or less powerful, more or less useful because of a label.
I agree that a German attack on Sweden would likely have caused the loss of the Sveriges, but that does not negate their value as deterrents. The Germans themselves determined that an invasion of Sweden would have been prohibitively expensive, or am I mistaken?

Posted by: dead-cat November 20, 2003 05:18 pm

QUOTE

They could call it a battleship, an armored ship, a coast defense ship--that doesn't tell us anything. A ship does not become more or less powerful, more or less useful because of a label.

no but the label determines how it's going to be used. see the fate of the battlecruiser, which, by original design was never thought to fight a full-blown battleship. when it did, the result was desastrous.
as long the battlecruiser was used the way it was designed, as a large cruiser, it performed splendid (Falklands).

QUOTE

The Germans themselves determined that an invasion of Sweden would have been prohibitively expensive, or am I mistaken?

probably in terms of small craft and transport capacity, since mines proved to be a better defence than a strong coastal battery. but since swedes never had a problem with selling iron ore to germany, there wasn't even a remote necessity to threaten sweden in any way. especially because since the mid 18c there were no overlapping fields of interest.

and about the deterrent subject: 1917 the russian fleet could field 4 petropavlovsk class dreadnought type battleships + a few more pre-dreadnought (slava class) + various cruiser and destroyer sized crafts + extensive minefields + rather strong coastal defences. it didn't really deter the german navy from attacking the moon sound.

moving back to the original topic, i'm still failing to grasp how a pocket battleship for the romanian navy would serve as deterrent. the only neighbour with less military capacity (Bulgaria) wouldn't attack alone anyways. destroyers and torpedo boats would have been much more usefull than a coastal (or whatever) battleship with outdated specs.

Posted by: Tiornu November 20, 2003 09:56 pm

I can agree that a label determines use insofar as politics are concerned. Having an admiral in a battleship looks very different from having a commodore in a coast defense ship. However, the label does not determine tactical employment. Did the Germans trick themselves into using their Deutschland class cruisers as coast defense ships simply because they were labeled "armored ships"?
The battlecruiser does not illustrate any important point here. The type WAS originally seen as a battle line fighter, supposedly the evolutionary step that would replace the battleship and armored cruiser. Keep in mind that armored cruisers were co-equals with battleships in the battle line, as in the Russo-Japanese War.
When did disaster result from a battlecruiser fighting a battleship? The only battlecruiser sunk by a battleship was Hood. In fact, Hood was armored as a battleship, and her loss resulted not from a battlecruiser label but from the fact that she had never been adequately modernized. An unmodernized battleship would have blown up just as easily, as Hood herself proved when she destroyed Bretagne in 1940. The number of battlecruisers sunk by battleships equals the number of battleships suink by battlecruisers.
I don't see any parallel between Moon Sound and Sweden's defensive position or Rumania's.
What was Turkey's battle line in 1914?

Posted by: dead-cat November 21, 2003 07:52 am

the evolution looked like this:

in the 1880ies there were "protected cruisers" 1st-4th class as the only capital ships around.
a bit later (around 1885 or so) the protected cruiser 1st class evolved into the armored cruiser (still a cruiser).

the pre-drednought battleship however is an improvement of the turret battleship (see Victoria class for an example).

the battlecruiser however is an entire new concept (and not based on the armored cruiser), based on the dradnought and not on the armored cruiser. its original task was to hunt down enemy armored cruisers and to scout ahead for the main fleet (see R. Masse "dreadnought"). it was never designed to fight with battleships (look at the armor specs).

i'm not even counting the hood.

battlecruisers sunk (Jütland): Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible
of course you can argue that the ships that fired at them were mainly battlecruisers themselves, but after british standards, german battlecruisers were comparable with british battleships in terms of armor.

QUOTE

don't see any parallel between Moon Sound and Sweden's defensive position

operation albion was an example of a successfull attack against moderatly heavy coastal defences, protected by a very large minefiled and an enemy fleet, a likely similar defensive system which could be expected along the swedish coast.

QUOTE

What was Turkey's battle line in 1914?

pre dreadnoughts:
Torgud Reis (ex Weisenburg)
Haireddin Barbarossa (ex Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm)
Brandenburg (only until 1915)
Wörth (only until 1915)

battlecruisers:
Yavuz Sultan Selim (ex Goeben)

armored cruisers & cruisers
Midilli (ex Breslau)
2 more armored cruisers (need to check when i'm back at home)

QUOTE

However, the label does not determine tactical employment.

it shouldn't but it did occasionaly. (Jütland & arguably Doggerbank)

Posted by: Tiornu November 21, 2003 04:51 pm

A good overview of the battlecruisers origins appears in John Roberts's Battlecruiser. It lays out the thinking of Adm Fisher with his desire to entirely replace the battleship and armored cruiser with his large, fast ships. The battlecruiser was not an entire new concept, as you say, but a natural step from previous fast-wing ships.
As your post indicates, of the three British battlecruisers lost at Jutland, not one was destroyed by battleships. The sole German battlecruiser loss was also attributable primary to shells from other battlecruisers. The idea that labels caused inappriopriate use of the battlecruisers can't "hold water," given a correct understanding of the BC's origins.
Am I correct that the British and the Japanese were the only navies to complete a "battlecruiser"?
I think I've finally found a parallel between Moon Sound and other coast defense situations. When did that battle take place?

Posted by: dead-cat November 21, 2003 07:53 pm

Ok we've got diffrent sources on the battlecruiser issue, i'm not going to defend my position very hard because i very well might be wrong over this and you might be right. however i'll try to make a few points explaining why (and this i should've said in the pervious post) i think that not only the battlecruiser, but the battleship as well is a new concept.
of course, you might have a diffrent vision about this, but as i said, i'm not going to dwell on this.

1. all big gun approach

the only thing retained from the pre-dreadnought type was the main gun barrell. the "Dreadnought" itself had only 76mm secondary arillery (corrected upwards with the next class)

2. all-or-nothing armor scheme approach

essential parts like engine room, turrets, conning tower would be protected as good as possible at the expense of non-essential areas

3. compartimentation

no bulkhead doors. so no human error possible (forgetting the doors open). if one section is flooded, the men might drown but the ship lives

4. steam turbine engine

much better efficienty, less stress on the bearings. earlier ships with triple-expansion engines, if they travelled with full speed for 12 hours they had to spend the next 3 weeks in port readjusting the bearings (somebody called them "monsters with short legs").
actually the Nassau class still had triple expansion engines.

so practically dreadnoughts didn't retain much from their predecessors.

battlecruisers shared alot with battleships. they had quite similar armamanet (unlike the pre-dreadnought/armored cruiser comparision where ACs usually had 9.2" guns vs. 12" for pre-dreadnoughts) similar in size (Invincible was only 1000t lighter than the Bellerophon class, build roughly at the same time). the battlecruiser sacrificed armor for speed, this being the only diffrence to a "true" battleship.

QUOTE

As your post indicates, of the three British battlecruisers lost at Jutland, not one was destroyed by battleships. The sole German battlecruiser loss was also attributable primary to shells from other battlecruisers.

this doesn't invalidate my point, because battleships had similar (or even heavier) artillery. the Lützow was lost to torpedo hits which caused the flooding of several compartiments and sank under tow. had the ship been only hit by gunfire, it would have been possible to tow it to safety.

QUOTE

The idea that labels caused inappriopriate use of the battlecruisers can't \"hold water,\" given a correct understanding of the BC's origins.

yes you expressed it better.

QUOTE

Am I correct that the British and the Japanese were the only navies to complete a \"battlecruiser\"?

if you really want to go into nitpicking, well the "Kongo" was build by Vickers, the rest of the class was build in Japan.
if you want to count them, the USA build the "Alaska"

QUOTE

I think I've finally found a parallel between Moon Sound and other coast defense situations. When did that battle take place?

oct. 1917

Posted by: Tiornu November 21, 2003 10:49 pm

When it comes to labeling, I've never seen any ship more hotly debated than Alaska. Some copy the official designation of large cruiser, some insist she was a battlecruiser, and she could well be called a second-rate battleship. Me, I prefer to label her "large piece of junk." (Hee!)

Posted by: dead-cat November 22, 2003 11:26 pm

QUOTE

Me, I prefer to label her \"large piece of junk.\" (Hee!)

i can't really argue that

Posted by: PT Dockyard November 25, 2003 07:03 pm

If someone has a drawing, I could possibly make and produce this in 1/1200 scale.....

Dave. G.

Posted by: toniyona January 06, 2004 03:32 am

In thinking this over, modern battleships and cruisers would seem to be beyond the economic reach of Romania.
To the extent this plan was achievable, might the "battleships" have been pre-dreadnoughts, as the Greeks purchased. The Connecticut class for example.
With respect to "cruisers", might something small such as the U.S. Chester class Scout Cruisers or Denver class Peace Cruisers (Gunboats) that were up for disposal about the same time have been what they had in mind? About this time, Yugoslavia purchased the pre-WWI Niobe.

Posted by: dead-cat February 27, 2004 08:25 pm

according to the naval program of 1899, Romania planned to build:

6 coastal battleships
4 destroyers
12 torpedo boats

according to the in 1912 the program :

6 light cruisers (3500t)
12 destroyers (1500t)
1 submarine.

the only accomplishments from those ambitious programs were the
4 destroyers of the above program, ordered in Italy and seized 1915.

source: Paul Halpern "A Naval History of World War 1"

quite an expensive affair since dreadnought costed from 40 million marks upwards.

Posted by: toniyona April 07, 2004 01:44 am

The attached link to designs proposed to Romania for cruisers may be of interest.

http://warshipprojects.board.dk3.com/2/viewtopic.php?p=6435#6435

http://warshipprojects.board.dk3.com/2/viewtopic.php?t=868

Posted by: Imperialist October 21, 2005 04:22 pm

QUOTE (Andreas von Mach @ Nov 1 2003, 11:01 PM)

Pogram 1912/1915
6 cruisers 3500t
12 destroyers 1500t (4 ordered in Italy)
1 submarine (ordered in Italy)
1 Danube tug (MACIN)
2 Danube patrolships (built, - I think there were 3 ships)

In 1914 Romania ordered a sub, but from my sources it was ordered in France, not Italy.

Posted by: lancer25k December 19, 2005 06:24 pm

In opinion while a Battleship would have had alot prestige. What the Romania really needed was at least modern 12-16 destroyers, 6-8 subs, alot more transports. Then instead 1 or 2 powerful heavy crusiers such as the Admiral Hipper class. Which given the constraints of the Black Sea and age the Russian and Turkish Battleships; would have been the most powerful ships in the Black Sea.

Thank You

Posted by: sid guttridge December 20, 2005 01:09 pm

Hi Guys,

It is very difficult to see any practical reason why Romania might have needed major warships.

Romania had only three possible naval opponents: Russia, Turkey and Bulgaria.

No matter how powerful the Romanian fleet might become, it was unlikely to be able to force a usable sea passage through the Straits. Therefore there was no point in trying to challenge Turkey's fleet as the Straits could be blocked from the land - look what happened when the Anglo-French tried to force passage from the opposite end in 1915.

Any war with Russia or the USSR was likely to be decided on land. Besides, in any Black Sea naval arms race the massively larger Russia/USSR had all the advantages.

The only naval opponent Romania had reasonable prospect of mastering was Bulgaria. However, the Bulgarian navy has always been pitifully small, so even this required a fleet no larger than the one Romania actually had.

It seems to me that talk of battleships, or even cruisers, was pure sabre rattling. These vessels were not needed. A best they were prestige projects at a time when Romania had huge surplus oil revenues and might afford them. Romania was very wise not to to waste money on any of them.

It appears that a couple of large flotilla leaders like Regele Ferdinand and Regina Maria were perfectly suited to Romania's limited surface needs.

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: Wings_of_wrath February 05, 2006 06:07 pm

I agree to that.
The only aditional units Romania could have used during WW2 would have been some other 4-8 submarines- They're realtively cheap, and would have served well as a deterrent against any major russian surface operations, as well as helped with the blockade on Sevastopol or the Kerch Strait.

Posted by: crolick November 19, 2006 12:14 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 21, 2005 04:22 pm)

QUOTE (Andreas von Mach @ Nov 1 2003, 11:01 PM)

Pogram 1912/1915
6 cruisers 3500t
12 destroyers 1500t (4 ordered in Italy)
1 submarine (ordered in Italy)
1 Danube tug (MACIN)
2 Danube patrolships (built, - I think there were 3 ships)

In 1914 Romania ordered a sub, but from my sources it was ordered in France, not Italy.

Hello,

what names were given to ex Romanian destroyers?!

And what was the name of ex Romanian sub?! Any idea how could it be named under Romanian flag?!

Cheers,
Andrzej

Posted by: Victorian January 05, 2007 09:21 am

Hello friends,

About the submarine to be purchased from France in the beginning of the 20th century:

I have a book published by the staff of the Maritime Museum in Constanta, which is called "Noi contributii la istoria Marinei Militare Romane" (New contributions to the Romanian Navy's History" authors: Ion Ionescu, Georgeta Boranda, Marian Mosneagu, Muntenia & Leda Publishing house, 2001 ISBN 973-8082-47-1 ISBN: 973-8304-12-1).

At page 78:

Based upon M.R. Order (Royal Navy order) Nr. 3829/ july 1920 lt. comandor Gheorghe Koslinski (which will later become admiral) was sent to France and started discussions in october 1920 to purchase a french submarine. However, after all the technical issues were put in good order, Koslinski was called back home by the Romanian War Ministry.

The submarine in question was named O'Byrne and the agreed price was 3.250.000 francs. The submarine would have been handed over completely functional, with all necessary spare parts, fittings and ammunition including torpedoes. The price also included some modifications asked by the Romanians to adapt the sub to the Black Sea.

Finally, the sub was never purchased due to insuficient funding. However, there was also a legal issue: during the signing of the Versailles treaty (1919) Britain asked for a complete ban on war use of submarine ships. Therefore, for a very short interval (1919-1922) having a submarine warship would have violated the international treaties. This matter was finally settled upon during the Washington Naval conference in 1922.

I have no means to check if there was any French submarine called O'Byrne. The name sounds distinctively Irish, but this may be misleading. For instance there also was a ship called O'Higgins, another typical Irish name. The ship was however a Chilean corvette!

Posted by: crolick January 06, 2007 12:52 am

Hello Victorian,

You are quite right! There was in French Navy submarine called O'Byrne.
342/513 t
52,4 x 4,7 x 2,7 m
14 / 8 w
4 x 450 mm TT
1 x 47 mm
It was builid in the Schneider yard in Chalon-sur-Saone launched on 22.V.1919 and commisioned on 31.VIII.1922.

Lieutenant de Vaisseau John Joseph Gabriel O'Byrne was CO of French submarine Curie which on 20.XII.1914 was trying to enter the Austro-Hungarian base in Pola. During this passage sub was caught in the anti-sub net and subsequently sunk with the lost of 3 ratings.

What is interesting 2 other boats of its class Louis Dupetit-Thouars and Henri Fournier were in fact builiding for... Turkey but after WWI started taken over by French Navy.

Do you know how the sub would be named in Romania??

BTW. In 1914 when 4 destroyers were ordered in Pattison yard there was also sub ordered in Fiat yards in La Spezia. It was one of the Medusa class submarines but I do not know still which one it was! As in the case of destroyers it was also taken over by Italians in june 1915.

Cheers,
Andrzej

Posted by: Victorian January 07, 2007 10:03 am

Hello Andrzej!

There is no mention of any Romanian name given to the O'Byrne. Generally speaking, it was King's job to give names to the new Romanian Navy units. I only came across this matter occasionally when seeping through papers in Bucharest Archive. I believe there was first a paper issued from the War Ministry which requested for a name, then there was a King's decree for this name to be given.

Insofar I saw, this happens only in late stages, when the new hull is almost built and is ready to be launched prior of completion on the yard. Until this, the new ship is only spoken of in the ministry papers under terms such as "the brick" (in case of "Mircea" I) or "the cruiser" in case of "Elisabeta".

Anyway, at the time the Romanian authorities fiddled well enough around the idea of having a submarine. There was also the story of the submarine seized by the Austrians on the Danube, when the famous Von Trapp was involved. Do you know that story?

Posted by: crolick January 07, 2007 10:56 pm

Hello Victorian,

Hmm, then something is wrong here. Sub was ordered somewhere in 1916. Since the ship was launched on 22.V.1919 hence according to your words 'when the new hull is almost built and is ready to be launched' O'Byrne should have Romanian name!!

And there is another surprising fact. If the order to lt. cdr. Koslinski was given in VI.1920 then it does not make much sense since the sub was already launched and ordered for about 4 year already!

You are wrong with the Washington Naval conference. Submarine matters were not discussed there for sure but were the topic during London Naval Treaty [1930]. And subs weren't in fact never 'illigal' according to the international law...

Cheers,
A.

PS. No I do not know the story of Austro-Hungarian sub. What is it?!

Posted by: Victorian January 13, 2007 03:00 pm

Well Crolick, in fact I don't know too much on submarines. As my nick says, my epoch of interest is mainly the 19th century. What I wrote here about the Washington Treaty is only what is stated in the named book ( "Noi contributii la istoria Marinei Militare Romane" (New contributions to the Romanian Navy's History" authors: Ion Ionescu, Georgeta Boranda, Marian Mosneagu, Muntenia & Leda Publishing house, 2001 ISBN 973-8082-47-1 ISBN: 973-8304-12-1)., page 79.

The whole story of the O'Byrne submarine was quoted on page 78 as being taken from the papers of Nicolae Koslinski, son of (later) adm. Gheorghe Koslinski. These papers are now kept in the Maritime Museum of Constanta Library.
Here they found a handwritten paper, never previously published, called "The Story of Buying the O'Byrne Submarine".

As I understand the story, the O'Byrne was initially launched and armed as French submarine during the end of the war. This is why she was given the name of a French hero. She was not INTENDED for the Romanians. Only after the war, the French considered the sub wasn't necessary anymore so a good alternative to scrapping was to be sold to the Romanians. In fact this is exactly the same story as with the four "Chiffonne" units which were sold to Romania just one year earlier.

Posted by: crolick January 30, 2007 01:37 pm

Hello Victorian,

if so then sub was launched in V.1919, offered to Romania in VII.1920 and finally in X.1920 lt. cdr. Koslinski was sent to Bordeaux to negotiate. Right?!
When Koslinski was sent back to Romania?!

Though on the French site: http://perso.orange.fr/sous-marin.france/SC7.htm
It is written

QUOTE

- Construit par le chantier Schneider pour la marine Roumaine.
- A été utilisé pendant et après la guerre par la marine Française.

Which means that the construction started for Romanian Navy and only during the war sub was taken by the French. Is it possible that after the end of the war it was offered to Romania?! Or do you think it is improbable that sub was building from the very beginning for the Romanian Navy?!

What's the story with 'Chiffonne' class vessels?!

Posted by: Victorian February 01, 2007 05:19 pm

Hello Andrzej,

Very interesting that French site about submarines!

So it seems you were right... the O'Byrne submarine was INTENDED for the Romanian Navy, but perhaps because was finished during the war was used finally by the French Navy. After the war, Koslinski was sent to negotiate the returning of the ship to Romanians, but at a certain moment the Romanians withdrew from negotiations. The said book does not say a date when Koslinski was called back home. Moreover, I am sure the story is more complex and since not all documents survived, now we can only guess the whole picture. Perhaps government officials considered not suitable to buy a submarine which was already used by the French and which was by now heavily outdated. In fact, after the war many pre-war submarines were outdated due to the German advances in the field...

The story with "Chiffones" is as it follows: (source... the same book, page 80 and following):

After the war, in 1918 there were many mines left floating in all former battle zones. This problem was dealed with by the "Inter-allied Naval Council" which in his 31 october 1918 meeting decided how the waters are divided and who is responsible for clearing the mines.
But the Romanians had no mine-clearing ships, so the French sent four units to help, which at first were manned by the French, then romanian mariners were trained to use them, then there were discussions about the units to be lent to the romanians. Finally in his 15 december 1919 meeting the Romanian War Ministry got approuval to buy the four "Chifonne" units. The units were transferred to the Romanians in 9 january 1920. It may be possible, but I have no documents to check it, that also these ships were at first intended for the Romanians, but when the war started the ships were used by the French.

From "Navomodele, vechi nave romanesti"/"Shipmodels, old Romanian ships" by Cristian Craciunoiu (Editura/Publishing House Sport-Turism, 1979) :

"Chiffonne" (built Lorient, 1917) became "Locotenent Lepri Remus"
"Frippone" (built Lorient, 1916) became "Lt-comandor Stihi Eugen"
"Impatiente"(built Brest, 1916) became "Sublocotenent Ghiculescu"
"Mignonne" (built Brest, 1916) became "Capitan Dumitrescu".

These ships were in fact not only mine-clearing but multi-role. The French built many of them during the war which were used as escorts. Romanians called them "canoniera" from the French "cannoniere" meaning "gunboat". They had two 100 mm guns, anti-submarine grenade launchers and also could sustain a decent 15kn speed due to their twin 450HP Diesels.

One of these units survived until our days. Until 1995 I could see her in the "Tomis" Marina here in Constantza, just several streets away from my home. Disarmed, she was used as a patrol boat for the "Romanian Sea Life Institute". Nowadays it seems she lays as a hulk somewhere in Constantza Harbour, awaiting to be broken up.