Photo-ID, Russian Battleship “Evstafi“ or Battlecruiser “SMS Goeben“?

[Holger Kotthaus]

Photo-ID, Russian Battleship “Evstafi“ or Battlecruiser “SMS Goeben“?

Same photo, but different descriptions!

This photo was attributed to both, to “SMS Goeben” and also the “Evstafi”. I'm not sure. What do you all mean?

Regards Holger

[Michael Lowrey]

It's not Goeben.

Edited 6 March by Michael Lowrey

[michaeldr]

The damage to the Russian ship matches that which she received on 18th November 1914 from the Goeben/Yavuz

[Michael Lowrey]

And a link to a prewar photo of Evstafi:

[Holger Kotthaus]

In 2023 I saved the photo above as a screen shot. Unfortunately I didn't save the source and couldn't find it again. This exact image was shown in a detailed German description of the hit on the “Goeben”. At that time, this did not seem unbelievable to me, as other sources also mention a heavy hit in a 15 cm case-mate gun on the port side; - exactly like in the picture above.

Naval battle on 19. November 1914 near Cape Sarytch in the Black Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Sarych

Battleship Evstafi (ship, 1911) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Evstafi_(ship,_1911)

Both above mentioned ships received on the same day at the same Naval battle, almost identical hits; - hence the confusion.

But I also assumed that a uniform specialist could confirm that they were Russian sailors and not Turkish, since I couldn't see any fez.

Regards Holger

Edited 7 March by Holger Kotthaus

[KizmeRD]

95% sure the the men in the photo are in fact Russian.

MB

[michaeldr]

Top Russian - Evstafi

Bottom German/Turkish - Goeben/Yavuz

Edited 7 March by michaeldr

[michaeldr]

5 hours ago, Holger Kotthaus said:

Naval battle on 19. November 1914 near Cape Sarytch in the Black Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Sarych

Both above mentioned ships received on the same day at the same Naval battle, almost identical hits; - hence the confusion.

Holger,

Per the Wiki link which you provided:-
“At 12:20 Evstafi, with a clear view of the Ottomans, opened fire on Yavuz, striking and disabling the third starboard 15 cm (5.9 in) casemated gun with its first salvo. … …  The 12-inch shell had passed through the casemate armour and barely penetrated a 150 mm plate before detonating. … ... It also detonated three 15 cm (5.9 in) high explosive shells and set 16 cartridges on fire. The resulting explosion tore a square meter-sized hole in the side of the ship and killed the gun's crew. The flash fire traveled down the munitions elevator and up into the fourth starboard casemate, which was temporarily abandoned.”

You can pick-out the third casemate gun on this diagram, sited just forward of the second funnel and indicated by the red arrow.
The photograph below (& the above diagram) is from Matti E. Mäkelä's book on the Goeben and his caption disagrees with Wiki regarding the side of the ship hit -
“Schwerer Treffer in der Backbordkasenatte III der Yavuz am 18 November 1914” 
but not the fact that it was the third gun

Edited 7 March by michaeldr

[MikB]

Design of the gunhouse and superstructure is obviously predreadnought and matches Russian practice. I don't think there can be any doubt it's Evstafi.

[Holger Kotthaus]

Gent´s; - Thank you! - Yes, of course I am now convinced that it is the “Evstafi”

Here's just a rough perspective as to why I didn't question the description at the time that the picture came from the “Goeben”.

 

1. Two main guns in a turret approx. 30 cm in the top, recessed level

2. In the level below, case-mate guns approx. 15 cm in a notch opening

3. Identical rubbing strip as a protruding end to the side wall

 

In the meantime, like Michael, I also found a photo of the hit in front of the 15 cm casemate on the "Goeben".

Shell-hole punched next to one of the broadside casement guns

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_05_2007/post-160-1179593804.jpg

 

By the way; - the „“Geoben“ crew didn't look so different from the Russian sailors.

https://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/battleships/goeben/1913_00_00_goeben_crew.jpg

 

Regards Holger

Edited 7 March by Holger Kotthaus

[MikB]

The damage to Evstafi's casemate looks more likely to have been done by 15cm fire than 28cm. 

Such a full-calibre hit close to the centreline of a main armament barbette could have been very dangerous, depending on range and quality of armour... 

[michaeldr]

4 hours ago, MikB said:

The damage to Evstafi's casemate looks more likely to have been done by 15cm fire than 28cm. 

Mik,

 

Detailed accounts of this particular battle are hard to come by. There is one here http://www.gwpda.org/naval/csayrch1.htm and it includes the following:-

“The one certain fact is that at least one 12in shell from Evstafii first salvo had struck the ship in the secondary battery; according to the official history,

...the port casemate gun No. III had been put out of action with the entire gun-crew (12 men) and some of the powder magazine personnel died later from gas fumes.

That this may be less than a complete catalog of damage is suggested by another statement in the official history:

[Goeben] had fired only 19 of her 28 c. [centimeter] shells. The secondary armament had not been able to engage”

[MikB]

56 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

Mik,

 

Detailed accounts of this particular battle are hard to come by. There is one here http://www.gwpda.org/naval/csayrch1.htm and it includes the following:-

“The one certain fact is that at least one 12in shell from Evstafii first salvo had struck the ship in the secondary battery; according to the official history,

...the port casemate gun No. III had been put out of action with the entire gun-crew (12 men) and some of the powder magazine personnel died later from gas fumes.

That this may be less than a complete catalog of damage is suggested by another statement in the official history:

[Goeben] had fired only 19 of her 28 c. [centimeter] shells. The secondary armament had not been able to engage”

That last sentence looks like a clincher then - seems it must have been a 28cm hit. But it made a helluva lot smaller hole than Evstafi's 12 inch round did in Goeben. I know there were secondary explosions in the latter case - but if Goeben's round had penetrated Evstafi's barbette and then exploded, big shells and charges in the trunk hoists would have been at risk. If it had failed to penetrate and exploded, you'd expect more blown-out damage around it, not apparently intact scuttles feet away. My guess would be it didn't explode. They'd obviously managed to train the mounting forward, so the barbette's unlikely to have been penetrated.

Edited 8 March by MikB

[michaeldr]

15 hours ago, MikB said:

My guess would be it didn't explode.

Mik,

These details below are from a letter addressed to the Editor, Warship International No.2, June 30, 1971 [p.123/4] and were apparently based upon research provided by Russian sources and mentions at least one case of a German shell penetrating but not exploding 

“During this action EUSTAFI, which bore the brunt of the fight, was badly hit. The most grievous wound she received was caused by 11" projectile which penetrated 5" armour of 6" battery setting fire to ready 6" ammo and finally exploded in officers' galley killing everybody in it. The casualties were high. Killed were 4 officers and 29 ratings, 1 officer mortally wounded and of 24 ratings wounded, 19 were hurt critically, some dying later. The third projectile exploded near the ship's side, holing a large unarmored area near 22nd rib and destroying the hospital compartment. The fourth one penetrated into starboard fwd. 6" gun casemate, caused serious structural damage and wiped out entire personnel. The 5th shell went thru the armor of 8" gun casemate but didn't explode. All the damage was repaired in 10 days of round the clock work. The damaged armor was replaced with plates taken from old 12 APOSTOLOV.
GOEBEN  received 3 -12" and 11 medium caliber hits. She lost 12 officers 103 ratings killed and 7 officers and 52 ratings wounded. She had a big fire on board and received serious damage the repairs of which took 14 days of round the clock labor. For some unexplained reason, she didn't use her 5.9" artillery.”
 

Edited 9 March by michaeldr

[michaeldr]

12 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

The 5th shell went thru the armor of 8" gun casemate but didn't explode

Unfortunately, I don't think that it is one of the 8-inch casemates which we have been looking at here. The 8-inch guns can be picked out in this photograph below

 

[michaeldr]

1 hour ago, michaeldr said:

11" projectile which penetrated 5" armour of 6" battery setting fire to ready 6" ammo and finally exploded in officers' galley killing everybody in it. 

Mik,

Could this explain the limited external damage which you noticed?

[MikB]

Michaeldr, thanks very much for the detailed account you provided.

It seems clear that the round that did the damage in the first phot in this thread was the one described as the fourth one. The account makes me think it entered the top front of the casemate radius and travelled backward and perhaps inward, so the explosion could be well inboard and some distance from the forward barbette. Therefore there's more damage inside and the hole we can see amounts to only the entry hole, more or less.

It seems also clear that the 8" casemate hit by the round that didn't explode is elsewhere, not in the first photo.

[michaeldr]

No problem Mik; it's been an interesting subject in a neglected area. Also interesting to see how well the Imperial Russian gunners performed, scoring hits with their very first shots

[MikB]

45 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

No problem Mik; it's been an interesting subject in a neglected area. Also interesting to see how well the Imperial Russian gunners performed, scoring hits with their very first shots

Yes, that was certainly not like their performance at Tsushima. German crews, skilled as they were, wouldn't normally have expected such an immediate result. Reports of the battle seem to vary, especially on the number of hits and casualties on Goeben/Yavuz, but with the numbers above, a fire aboard and several aggressive Russian predreadnoughts engaging it's not surprising Souchon decided to withdraw his main asset from further risk.

RN experience seems to have been that German crews using stereoscopic rangefinders got on target quickly but might deteriorate in long actions as the range-takers tired - the instruments required well-balanced binocular vision and acuity. I *think* only the Germans used that design at this time.