Talk:Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau

Troubridge was outgunned?
That doesn't seem like an accurate assessment. His cruisers had (slightly) smaller guns than the Goeben, but in terms of volume of guns he outgunned Souchon due to having so many more ships at his disposal. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well that's the question, isn't it? At least in theory, Goeben, being faster, could stay out of range of the smaller guns but still hit the british ships with its own guns, until they were all sunk. Then there was the question of british armour, which was also inferior to the german ship. Against this was the question of what speed Goeben could really make, being short of coal, relatively short of ammunition, and how quickly she could have dealt with multiple targets approaching in different directions. Sandpiper (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because the cruisers had slightly smaller guns than Goeben doesn't mean that their shells would be slightly less heavier. Find the relative info at [www.navweaps.com] and you'll see that as gun sizes go up, the shell sizes get much bigger.  As Sandiper says, the Germans with their greater range and speed would be able to fight a battle the way they wanted to. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 08:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The British shells might hit, but would 9.2" shells penetrate 9-11" armour at long range? The German's had 11" shells to penetrate the British ship's 6-7" armour. So if he could get in range Troubridge may have had more chance of scoring hits which may not penetrate, but Goeben would have a much better chance of penetrating at the closer range. And then there were the (at the time unknown) problems with British shells actually penetrating (as opposed to bursting on impact) and the vulnerability of British cordite to explosion. I feel Trowbridge would have lost a ship or two, but if he could have slowed Goeben for the battle cruisers to catch it may have been worth it. One of many great unknowns in history. Andrewshobley (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that Troubridge got off too lightly, and should have been drummed out of the Royal Navy entirely for his cowardice. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As Massie, hardly an authoritative but still representative author, puts it, Troubridge's "reputation for physical courage was too high" for him to be charged with cowardice. (Massie. Castles of Steel. p. 51.) He was charged at his Court-Martial with having failed to pursue Goeben &mdash; specifically not on a charge of cowardice in the face of the enemy.  Even Massie implies that Troubridge's force probably wouldn't have stood a chance of either sinking Goeben or surviving an encounter with her.  Troubridge did what leaders do and made a carefully thought out decision and no one can say that he didn't think it out.  Accusing him of cowardice is childish.  Had he realised that he would return to Britain under a cloud and effectively end his career - and then attacked Goeben in an attempt to find an "honourable" way out then that would classify as cowardice, I think.


 * Oh my, what's this I have here - could it be the finding of the Court? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Court finds as follows :—

That on the 2nd August 1914 the Accused left Malta in accordance with the orders of the Commander-in-Chief with the following ships in company :— Defence (Flag) Indomitable, Indefatigable, Duke of Edinburgh, Warrior, Gloucester and the 1st and 2nd Divisions of Destroyers, and was informed that "should we become engaged in war it will be important at first to husband the naval force in the Mediterranean and, in the early stages, to avoid being brought to action against Superior Forces". He was also informed that "Goeben" must be shadowed by two battlecruisers, approach to Adriatic Coast must be watched by Cruisers and Destroyers. It is believed that Italy will remain neutral but you cannot yet count absolutely on this.

That in compliance with these orders the Accused proceeded towards the approaches to the Adriatic.

That at 3.19 p.m. on 3rd August the "Indomitable" and "Indefatigable" were detached by the Commander-in-Chief and proceeded to search for the "Goeben" west of Sicily.

That on the 4th August the "Black Prince" rejoined the First Cruiser Squadron.

That at 1.45 a.m. on the 5th August the Accused received the Admiralty general signal to commence hostilities at once against Germany.

That on the 5th August at 0.31 p.m. the Accused received news that the Austrian Fleet was cruising outside Pola and at 4.0 p.m. the "Goeben" was at Messina.

That at 6.15 p.m. on the 6th August the Accused received news that the "Goeben" had left Messina steering East shadowed by "Gloucester". That after then "Goeben" and probably "Breslau" were steering N.5p.E. towards the Adriatic. The Accused's action in proposing to arrive at Fano Island at daylight next day was justifiable.

That at 11 p.m. on 6th August the Accused was informed by "Gloucester" that "Goeben" was going to the south east. That at that time his position was N.86.E 145 miles from the "Goeben" approximately. That at that time the battlecruisers were disposed as follows :— Inflexible (Flag) and Indefatigable about 30 miles west of Marsala, Sicily, and the Indomitable had left Bizerta at 8.0 p.m. after coaling steering eastwards. That the destroyers were at Vasilico Bay, Santa Maura, seriously short of coal and unable therefore to proceed at high speed to attack the Goeben at night.

That it therefore appeared that the Accused would get no support for the 1st C.S. and that from his then position it was impossible from him to attack the Goeben before daylight.

That in view of the instructions he received from the Admiralty Accused was justified in considering that he must not abandon his watch on the Adriatic having regard to the transportation of the French troops then taking place between Algeria and France and the possibility of the Austrian Fleet coming out.

That in view of the instruction received from the Admiralty by the Commander-in-Chief and repeated by him in his Sailing Orders to the Accused, and also the Signal made on the 4th August, viz — 1st C.S. and Gloucester are not to get seriously engaged with superior force — the Court are of the opinion that under the particular circumstances of weather, time and position, the Accused was justified in considering the Goeben was a superior force to the 1st C.S. at the time they would have met, viz — 8 a.m. on the 7th August in full daylight on the open sea.

That, although it might have been possible to bring the Goeben to action off Capa Malea or in the Cervi Channel, the Court considers that in view of the Accused's orders to keep a close watch on the Adriatic, he was justified in abandoning the chase at the time he did as he had no news or prospect of any force being sent to his assistance.

The Court therefore finds that the charge against the Accused is not proved, and fully and honourably acquits him of the same.

I got my copy of the above from the papers of an officer who served under Troubridge. However, for others seriously interested in the subject, the findings along with all of the proceedings of the Troubridge Court-Martial and some contemporary opinion can be found in. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that Goeben was a mere battlecruiser, not a battleship. Battlecruisers are not substantially more durable than heavy cruisers, they're just bigger. Unlike a battleship, which is expected to withstand heavy bombardment without significant degradation of its combat ability, a battlecruiser is expected to survive solely by avoiding hits. I don't think it would've been able to just shrug of the cruisers' shells without any problem. And that wouldn't even be the greatest threat Goeben would've faced: the British cruisers and destroyers were armed with torpedoes, and there were simply too many of them for Goeben to take out before being hit many times. And given the relative positions of the ships, it would've been very likely for some of those torpedoes to hit the propellers and/or rudder, and we know from the later example of the vastly sturdier Bismark how devastating that is to a warship. To avoid that, Souchon would've had to turn and present a broadside in order to bring all 10 of his guns to bear, which of course would have stopped his movement toward Turkey for however long the battle would take. Even if Souchon were lucky enough to escape any meaningful damage to Goeben in this scenario, which is unlikely, he still could've been slowed long enough for Milne's battlecruisers to catch up. And with triple his firepower they'd have picked Goeben apart. Frankly, even the total loss of Troubridge's squadron would've been a small price to pay for that, given that the escape of Goeben led to millions of deaths. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mere" battlecruiser? Goeben was one of the Imperial German Navy's newest warships and their armour protection is widely praised.  British battlecruisers were initially designed to "survive solely by avoiding hits".  Not so German battlecruisers.  There were no such thing as "heavy cruisers" in the 1910s - don't confuse those with "armoured cruisers" which Troubridge led.  The fact that you believe "that the escape of Goeben led to millions of deaths" says it all. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite. Goeben's sister, Moltke, survived Jutland virutally unscathed while her near sister, the Seydlitz, absorbed a large number of 12", 13.5" and 15" shells without sinking despite having essentially the same armour protection as the Goeben.  The Goeben herself demonstrated considerable resistance to underwater damage as she was mined repeatedly during her career and survived them all, despite the fact that period mines had much bigger warheads than period torpedoes.  Troubridge simply didn't have any weapons at his disposal which could credibly threaten the Goeben.  Battlecruisers were created specifically to outclass armoured cruisers - even the six inch armour on the British Invincibles was sufficient to protect them against the mediu calibre guns carried by Armoured Cruisers, as was proven at the Battle of the Falkland Islands.  The Goeben had an armour belt up to eleven inches thick - that's about the same thickness as the armour of contemporary British Dreadnought battleships.  Had Troubridge engaged the only question is how many ships the Goeben would have sunk before escaping - she would have still reached Constantinople and everything would still have unfolded as it did historically, only a lot more people would have died...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.166.8 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a Link added
Wikipedia has a page for the Straits of Messina. A link should be added but I am too much of a newbie to do it. August 16, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk • contribs) 04:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Long term importance
From the looks of it, this seems like one of the events in modern history. I mean, think about it, if those ships had not passed though the Dardanelles than they never would have been given to the ottoman empire. if they hadn't been given to the ottomans, than the ottomans would not have been tempted to attack russia and enter the war. If the ottomans had not entered the war, than the British would never have invaded the middle east. If the british had never invaded the middle east and betrayed arab nationalism than the post-colonial nations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan would never exist. If the post-colonial borders did not exist there would be no State of Isreal. If there were no state of Isreal there would be no Zionism. If there were no Zionism there would be nothing to Interfere with the creation of an Arab nation. If there was nothing to interfere with the creation of an arab nation than there would be no reason for the Islamic revival. If there were no reason for the islamic revival than there would be no terrorism. If there was no terrorism there would be no September 11th terrorist attacks. If there were no september 11th terrorist attacks there would be no war in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there was no war in Iraq and Afghanistan than there would be no reason for the US to support all of the dictators of th post-colonial nations (Iran & Syria obviously excluded). If the US did not need to support these dictators there would be no need for the Arab Revolutions of 2011.--99.141.193.112 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No Declaration of war

The Ottoman Empire issued NO declaration of war on the Entente powers! This is simply propaganda. Read the link to Geoffrey Miller - Turkey enters the war and British actions. Ships flying the Ottoman flag attacked Russian ports and shipping without any declaration of war. Russia wished to avoid a third front draining away munitions from her war with Germany & Austria, however punctually after the expiry of an ultimatum to expel the German crews of Breslau & Goeben British ships bombarded Turkish forts at the Dardanelles. Follow the link. Revisionist99 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Premature Admiralty Signal
I believe that there was a premature signal sent by the Admiralty "resident clerk" in error, "Commence hostilities with Austria", that had an important effect. Can anybody verify this and give details? I know the name of the person said to have done it, but will not give it here in case it is inaccurateSeadowns (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Given it was noon on a Saturday when the message was sent then it presumably wouldn't be a resident clerk sending it? &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Guns of August Ch 10 verifies this:
 * “At two o’clock next afternoon, August 8, when he was about halfway between Malta and Greece, he was brought to a sharp halt by word from the Admiralty that Austria had declared war on England. Unfortunately the word was an error by a clerk who released the prearranged code telegram for hostilities with Austria by mistake.” Thegkl (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

First Cruiser Divison v. Goeben
Topic that should be added: Could the 9.2 inch guns penetrate Goeben's amour at any range? No they could not have. It is often and incorrectly stated the WW2 Battle of River Plate vindicated Troubridges' court-martial. The tactical situation was different. At River Plate both sides ships could penetrate the armour of their opponent. Additionally a Pocket Battleship is far less formidable opponent than a battlecruiser. Two WW1 naval battles that are relevant are The Battle of the Falklands and The Battle of Jutland. At the Falklands Scharnhoirst and Gneisnou were unable to penetrate the 7 inch armour of two British battlecruisers. But the battlecruisers easily penetrated 6 inch amour of German cruisers. A few months later all but 1 of the same Armoured Cruisers of the 1st Cruiser Squadron were rapidly sunk by German Battlecruisers. Most likely the Goeben would have just outrun the 19 knot cruisers. Souchon had orders to deliver his squadron intact to the Ottoman Empire not fight obsolete warships. 97.101.95.246 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)