The Dogger Bank Incident.

catsmate

No longer the 1
catsmate
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
34,767
A day early but I'm probably going to be busy tomorrow

During the Russo-Japanese war in 1904 the Russian Navy deployed ships from it's Baltic Fleet to the Pacific to reinforce it's forces there (which had been badly depleted by Japanese naval activities). Due to the winter ice the fleet was forced to sail an extremely long route (~30,000km in all) around Europe and, it was initially planned, through the Mediterranean and Suez canal (with supplies of coal crammed everywhere there was space and even bags piled on deck).
  • In fact they actually were forced to take an even longer route around the coast of Africa.
The initial part of the journey route took the 45 ships through the North Sea. The sailors were worried by the newly developed torpedo boats, which the Japanese had used to good effect in their attack on Port Arthur in January 1904, and the possibility of clandestinely laid minefields.
There was a distinct atmosphere of 'torpedo boat panic' that led to a number of incidents separate to the one at Dogger Bank. There were reports (from Russian Naval Intelligence) that the Japanese had clandestinely assembled torpedo boats in isolated Norwegian fjords, though this was utterly untrue.

However there were torpedo boats being built for Japan in Britain, along with Japanese crews training up to take delivery, and neither of these facts was particularly secret. Add to this a level of paranoia, to assume the British would allow the Japanese to launch an attack out of British ports, and there was a basis for concern.
  • It wasn't the first time sailors had demonstrated such jumpiness; during the Spanish-American war US Navy ships had seen torpedo boats in ocean swells, coastal rocks and even trains, firing on such mirages a number of times.
The voyage began on the 16th of October 1904, the fleet (now the 'Second Pacific Squadron') departed from Libau. The start of the epic voyage was inauspicious; the fleet flagship Knyaz Suvorov ran aground and one of the escorting cruisers lost its anchor chain. While the fleet waited for the tide to refloat the grounded flagship (and the cruiser to retrieve its misplaced anchor) one of the escorting torpedo boat destroyers rammed the battleship Oslyaba (probably accidentally) and had to return to Reval (now Tallin).

These incidents would set the tone for the voyage.

During the trip through the Baltic and North seas the Russian ships fired on the Swedish steamer Aldebaran, the German trawler Sonntag and the French sailing vessel Guyane along with a number of small craft (which were attempting to deliver Russian consular dispatches) when passing near the Danish coast.
  • Ironically one of the undelivered dispatches was a personal message for the fleet commander (Rozhestvensky) from Tsar Nicholas telling him of his promotion to Vice-Admiral rank.
After surviving several attacks from phantom Japanese
torpedo boats and submersibles, and negotiating a non-existent minefield, the fleet reached the Dogger Bank.

  • Dogger Bank is a huge sandbank (about 17,500km²) in the North Sea, the remains of the ancient 'Doggerland' land bridge between Britain and Europe. It's in a shallow area of the North Sea about 100km from east coast of England and has been a popular fishing area for centuries.
On the night of 21/22 October 1904 the 'Gamecock' fishing fleet (operating from the port of Hull) encountered a fleet of warships operating in the North Sea. The fishermen assumed the ships were British and watched their maneuverings, what one trawler skipper described as a "brilliant spectacle". It was only after the trawler Mino, was hit by shells that they realised that they were being fired upon.

Over the course of the next twenty minutes the Russian warships fired more than one thousand shells from their secondary and tertiary armament (mostly 37mm and 75mm guns), many at ranges of less than a hundred metres.
With their nets down the trawlers had no opportunity to quickly escape from the bombardment, though few hits were actually scored thanks to the generally abysmal Russian gunnery.

The shelling ended when the Russians saw a group of larger vessels approaching and departed; the ships were actually another element of the Russian fleet.

One boat (the Crane) was sunk, and two of it's crew were killed. The others were saved by the efforts of other trawlers, though several men suffered serious injuries. A third man later died of injuries sustained; more than thirty more were injured. The casualties would have been worse but for the presence of a Mission ship (the Joseph and Sarah Miles) carrying a doctor and medical facilities.

The British weren't the only casualties of the firing; two Russians were killed when ships fired on each other and the cruisers Donskov and Aurora damaged.

  • This wasn't the only time the Russians would shell the Aurora during the voyage; while the fleet was ported at Madagascar she was hit by a live shell accidentally loaded during the firing of a salute. The ship had an interesting history, playing a role in the February 1917 revolution and a key role in the October revolution, firing the shot that signalled the start of the assault on the Winter Palace. It's the sole survivor of the fleet, anchored in St. Petersburg today as a commissioned museum ship.
As the fishing boats lacked radio, the news of the incident had to wait until the trawlers returned to Hull to spread. When this happened word spread rapidly; thousands lined the waterfront at St. Andrew's Dock. A delegation travelled by train to London where they were received at the Foreign Office on the morning of Saturday the 22nd. Word spread rapidly with crowds gathering in Trafalgar Square. The Russian Ambassador was booed as he left the embassy to answer the Foreign Office's summons.


The British reaction was furious; not only had the Russians fired upon fishing boats in international waters but they hadn't tried to aid the damaged and sinking boats even after they'd stopped firing. The feeling was that the Russians should have realised, from the distinctive design of the fishing boats, their displayed lights and their nets down, that the boats were harmless.
The leader in The Times said: "It is almost inconceivable that any men calling themselves seamen, however frightened they might be, could spend twenty minutes bombarding a fleet of fishing boats without discovering
the nature of their target".

  • Though this is somewhat unfair as Russia didn't operate trawlers and the sailors may have been unfamiliar with such the boats. But then again, they were firing at ranges of less than 100m against searchlight illuminated boats and in a popular fishing area.
The Russians were prohibited from transiting the Suez canal or using British controlled ports to re-fuel.
Britain prepared for war, with the Royal Navy's Home Fleet ships (including 26 battleships) readied for deployment and cruisers deployed to shadow the Russian fleet.

  • The fact that the incident occurred on the 99th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar rather exacerbated matters.
Britain was at the time a Japanese ally; the Anglo-Japanese Treaty had been signed in 1902, and was under discussion for renewal (this would happen in August 1905).

  • This was the major reason France didn't become involved in the Russo-Japanese War, despite her alliance with Russia. This would activate the mutual defense portions of Anglo-Japanese treaty.
King Edward VII took a personal interest, meeting with several survivors and awarding the Albert Medal for actions in rescuing those wounded.


While there was a risk of war no-one really wanted one and the British government (under Balfour), the Royal Navy (under newly appointed First Sea Lord 'Jackie' Fisher), the French government and the Russian ambassador (Count Benckendorff) worked to calm matters. Newspapers were prevailed upon to urge moderation.
An international enquiry was agreed upon, empanelled in Paris, and this eventually blamed Admiral Rozhestvensky and compensation (£66,000) was paid.

Perhaps though in a slightly different universe these events lead to the Anglo-Russian war and a different world.
 
At that point in history, with rather modern weaponry but almost nothing in the way of communications, and no radars or anything else to assist in identification.... Naval warfare on a large scale must have been massively confusing.
With even slightly-poor weather, seeing the enemy at all, much less identifying him, must have been near-impossible, and communications between ships would have been limited to flashing lights and flags....
 
catsmate1 said:
  • This wasn't the only time the Russians would shell the Aurora during the voyage; while the fleet was ported at Madagascar she was hit by a live shell accidentally loaded during the firing of a salute. The ship had an interesting history, playing a role in the February 1917 revolution and a key role in the October revolution, firing the shot that signalled the start of the assault on the Winter Palace. It's the sole survivor of the fleet, anchored in St. Petersburg today as a commissioned museum ship.
Click to expand...

Blimey, that ship went through a lot.
Wiki.

Her guns were used in the defense of Leningrad, and she was sunk in the harbour.
 
Bikewer said:
At that point in history, with rather modern weaponry but almost nothing in the way of communications, and no radars or anything else to assist in identification.... Naval warfare on a large scale must have been massively confusing.
With even slightly-poor weather, seeing the enemy at all, much less identifying him, must have been near-impossible, and communications between ships would have been limited to flashing lights and flags....
Click to expand...
Is that why there was so little naval warfare on a large scale, in the "ironclad" age? 1866, Lissa: Austria v Italy. 1905 Tsushima: Japan v Russia. Any other big fleet actions? Some more or less small engagements, eg Chile v Peru, and Denmark v Austro-Prussian alliance. Nothing much.

ETA Oh, I forgot: Battle of the Yalu River (1894) Japan v China. And the Denmark thing was wood on wood. Not ironclads. Of course one might count the Monitor v Virginia too, but it wasn't on a large scale.
 
Last edited:
If I am remembering correctly, things got even worse for the Russian Fleet when it finally confronted the Japanese.
 
Craig B said:
Is that why there was so little naval warfare on a large scale, in the "ironclad" age? 1866, Lissa: Austria v Italy. 1905 Tsushima: Japan v Russia. Any other big fleet actions? Some more or less small engagements, eg Chile v Peru, and Denmark v Austro-Prussian alliance. Nothing much.

ETA Oh, I forgot: Battle of the Yalu River (1894) Japan v China. And the Denmark thing was wood on wood. Not ironclads. Of course one might count the Monitor v Virginia too, but it wasn't on a large scale.
Click to expand...
Party, some of it was the political climate. Before aerial reconnaissance finding an enemy fleet, except at choke-points or "must protect" targets was difficult.
Scouting was very tactically focussed before radio, sending messages required couriers or using the telegraph network.

Of course navies in the nineteenth century were used to it, it'd been pretty much that way since the Age of Sail began. Arguably radio was as important strategically and operationally as explosive shells and steam propulsion were tactically.

Giordano said:
If I am remembering correctly, things got even worse for the Russian Fleet when it finally confronted the Japanese.
Click to expand...
Yep. Their "short victorious war" was a disaster.


From an allo-historical perspective I find the Russo-Japanese war fascinating, so many what-ifs; French intervention, better Russian performance, a prolonged war leading to economic trouble in Japan, even a general war being triggered. Plus the Dogger Bank incident itself is just so strange.
 
catsmate1 said:
a prolonged war leading to economic trouble in Japan
Click to expand...
But think: it ignited a revolution in Russia, which significantly disrupted the Autocracy, and the Russian state machine never recovered, and started behaving irrationally under the stress of failed attempts at reform. Without that, would the twentieth century have been the same?
 
Craig B said:
But think: it ignited a revolution in Russia, which significantly disrupted the Autocracy, and the Russian state machine never recovered, and started behaving irrationally under the stress of failed attempts at reform. Without that, would the twentieth century have been the same?
Click to expand...
Unlikely. Without the RJ war the problems with Russia wouldn't have been so visible.

Of course a slightly worse iteration of the Dogger Bank incident would easily have disrupted the Anglo-Russian Entente changing the alliances at the start of a future war.
 
Maybe the Dogger Bank Incident (a mighty fleet sinks a herring boat after several hours bombardment) and the subsequent battle (fleet destroyed) had the same effect on other powers' perception of Russian military capacity as did Stalin's debacle against the Finns in 1939, and caused them to underrate the significance of going to war with Russia.
 
Craig B said:
Maybe the Dogger Bank Incident (a mighty fleet sinks a herring boat after several hours bombardment) and the subsequent battle (fleet destroyed) had the same effect on other powers' perception of Russian military capacity as did Stalin's debacle against the Finns in 1939, and caused them to underrate the significance of going to war with Russia.
Click to expand...
Well if the UK had decided to go to war it might well have spread; the Franco-Russian alliance would have been activated (though the French could argue that as Russia [apparently] started the war they're not obliged to get involved), the Germans would probably have got involved (the fear of encirclement and the worry about potential Russian development was starting). Potentially other countries too.
A very different century.
 
MG1962 said:
Imagine how rich Eisenstein would have been if he got paid a dollar by every director who stole the scene for their own films
Click to expand...
In the Soviet Union? Do you think Stalin would have let him keep the money from royalties or such? ;)

The end of the steps scene, where the ship's guns fire on the theatre, is real. It's only a bit embellished that, in reality, they weren't hits.
 
catsmate1 said:
Well if the UK had decided to go to war it might well have spread; the Franco-Russian alliance would have been activated (though the French could argue that as Russia [apparently] started the war they're not obliged to get involved), the Germans would probably have got involved (the fear of encirclement and the worry about potential Russian development was starting). Potentially other countries too.
A very different century.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting a war between a British-German alliance and a Franco-Russian alliance? That's very weird indeed. But what then about the British-French Entente Cordiale, which had been signed in April earlier that year?

ETA: and thanks for the great write-up in the OP!
 
ddt said:
Are you suggesting a war between a British-German alliance and a Franco-Russian alliance? That's very weird indeed. But what then about the British-French Entente Cordiale, which had been signed in April earlier that year?
Click to expand...
Yes it would be the Great War with powers on different sides. Japan versus Russia, the UK v France and all kind of other weird things,
 
The aftermath of such a conflict would be interesting -

Japan likely with large parts of Siberia is less likely to get involved in adventurism in southern China as their military would be tied up securing the "Northern Resource Area";
There is every possibility that the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman Empires could keep creaking along for a number of years before internal pressures cause their collapse - and without Sykes-Picot, et al. the Middle East would be very different;
The Dominions remain so - the absence of their superb battlefield performance in WWI removes the impetus to pass the Treaties of Westminister that confirmed the independence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and South Africa in matters of foreign policy, et al. and that political chapter doesn't get written til later or in the same manner.
 
ddt said:
Are you suggesting a war between a British-German alliance and a Franco-Russian alliance? That's very weird indeed. But what then about the British-French Entente Cordiale, which had been signed in April earlier that year?
Click to expand...
The think is the French would have been in a bit of a bind; their alliance with Russia predated the Entente Cordiale and was considered more important to French interests, given their primary perceived enemy was Germany (with Austria-Hungary and Italy in the Triple Alliance).

When the Russo-Japanese war began France did not intervene because of the existing Anglo-Japanese treaty, which would have triggered if Japan faced both powers.

If the Dogger Bank incident had triggered an Anglo-Russian war (damned unlikely unless somehow the situation was exacerbated1) I can see France desperately trying to stay out, but being under immense political pressure to adhere to their alliance with Russia.

Now if Britain and Russian are at war I can see Germany also intervening, they view Russia as their primary enemy. This will certainly precipitate French entry.

Austria-Hungary, Italy and the Ottomans I see as more opportunistic (especially the Italians), if Russia is visibly threatened I can see the Austro-Hungarians going after the Balkans at least, and the Ottomans also getting involved.


ddt said:
ETA: and thanks for the great write-up in the OP!
Click to expand...
:o Thanks.


1 for example by a small group of time travellers with a stolen Gotland class sub, a sniper rifle equipped drone and a supply of identifiably British and Russian small arms...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom