Soviet Naval Battles

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
Post Reply
lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#121

Post by lupodimare89 » 14 Apr 2013, 12:41

Too much signs was confused in one time. Yes, soviet sailors many times confused types of ships, but almost all this cases - subs or TKA, crafts that is very bad as observaton base. But OK, they can somehow mistaked with type.
How can SOKR. didn't notice fires raged on Z.26? Remember, she has only one gun that time and damages was very extensive.
This should have been the first thing to get confused: smoke covered by the same sea mist lifted by the perturbation that also covered the fire. Also remember the ship wasn't visible for long time, and neither well for what it seems..
If intervals was big, SOKR. may has absolutely different view to battle, than ECLIPSE.
Exactly, totally missing the arrival of Fury, or noticing it after, if she was too much north to notice her (and again considering the bad visibility).
I write this overstatement to underline you 100% denial of soviet visual observation.
In this situation i think that a choice have be done.
Honestly i think to trust more the observation of a British captain which ship was in a central position, rather then the two point of view of the soviet destroyers that were at the sides of Eclipse, giving them a less "central" view of the action. (with Sokr. that had a less clear view of Fury (and could have not noticed her, i don't know if there is a mention to her in her report) and Grem. that confused the engagement of all that happened at her stern side (mixing the movement of Fury with the one of Z-26)
It's not lack of confidence in Soviet reports, just that i think that comparing the positions and the british naval experience, it seems more accurate an evaluation of British commanders, even if with admitted mistakes (thinking that Sokrushitelnyi's target was Trinidad).
"After second salvo in area of machine DD strong steaming arise, she turn to right and dissapeared it snow storm" - words from SOKR. report.
Ok. but lacking a full report from the Z-26, this means few.. because the ship could have easily kept then on his sailing to SW.
Lets suppose, that Z.26 go to west or NW to evade TRINIDAD, which was now from starboard for she. Then Tr. disappeared (have turned hard tp SE after tropedo hit) and now new enemies arouse from port, shelled Z.26 and force them to turn to starboard. What force them turn back to enemy? Why Z.26 not to make long turn to North, then north-east, to safety?
If she sailed more W / SW to escape Trinidad, was the exact position of meeting with the DDs.
1) because he was not possibly aware of self-torpedo of Trinidad and wasn't aware that Trinidad left her being self-torpedoed, with the danger of the ship at north, the only route of escape was south. And SW, rather then SE, knowing that convoy (and enemy escorts) were following an East route.
Due the damage, the Z-26 was going to evade the enemy and so moving on the opposite side of expected enemies (DDs at south, sailing to east, and Trinidad chasing her from north). Not being aware of Trinidad self-torpedoing, Z-26 didn't sail to North
Yes, and in archive anyone can see them long before 2010.
Then explain me why this has not been mentioned before.
Why? I can't see any strong proofs. I'm not exclude possibilities that SOKR. fired at Z.26 but consider it low enough in comparison with clash with FURY.
All in all, even if SOKR. fire two salvoes against Z.26, it can hit target only occasionally and can't damage german considerably.
Damage or not is another issue, my main point is to understand if there was a contact (= if Soviet DD engaged at least one time with German DD).
I can write again, too: document crearly show that ECLIPSE see two different ships. That's all. SOKR. see one ship, but which one? I think that FURY, you think Z.26. Both we have proofs, both stay on ours positions. Discussion go to dead end, and without additional documents it must remain there.
You're right, my point it's mainly that in this kind of battle could have been easier to not seen a second ship due the visual condition and position, rather then confuse a single ship for two different ships, reporting also a different position about the sightening for both of them specifying that happened at the same time (remember that reference at degrees, i'm not exactly sure about how interpret them, but seems quiet specific).
SOKR.'s report say visibility 10-15 cables, not so terribly bad. Fire was open at 15 cables.
In Eclipse are said different visibilities during the battle, and all are evaluation and changing, but the general conditon were not much pleasent.
Where you get this statement? SOKR. report say to as that shells started to fall near her board. Which one? It is not said.
True, it's not directly said but honestly it's pretty much logic. Considering also that ECLIPSE report Fury arrival at 0930 and if i'm right the engagement of SOKR. started shortly after the shells at 0927
There is a difference of few minutes, but in general the whole situation match for me with overshots fired by Trinidad that reached the DDs

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#122

Post by lupodimare89 » 14 Apr 2013, 12:43

However, as you said, kept dealing about this is useless because we're both sure of our positions, and other's contributions or evaluation will only help a bit if there are.

We could move on something else, when you've time.

As for the event reguarding the RUBIN in protection of Edinburgh.
There are few to none soviet data or there are but don't mention it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peoples ... 6518.shtml
It's worthy to say that here mention 2 different soviet ships: Rubin and a "tug".


igorr
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 03:21

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#123

Post by igorr » 14 Apr 2013, 16:47

Case with RUBIN totally unclear to me. No word about collision in report i have, but it is pretty short and i can admit that such uncomfortable fact was omitted.
If collision take place, it was light, because 20.5.42 RUBIN was on duty again, ascorted icebreaker KRASIN.
And you can go on with battles in 1943 when you wish. We finished 1942, yes?

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#124

Post by lupodimare89 » 14 Apr 2013, 18:58

You're right, but it could be sad that because of something that was perceived as embarassing at the moment, it was not done an accurate account, because the British account seems quiet interesting. Sadly there are not other mentions to RUBIN apart that were there among the other minesweepers (doesn't say that Rubin too opened fire).
Just to give more detail, there is confusion too in British accounts (even if i've not found some official documents) here for exemple say that Rubin WAS the tug I don't know honestly at this point who's wrong because the two different sites say different things.
http://www.world-war.co.uk/loss_edinburgh.php3
The only other mention to the event there is
"Meanwhile, the Russian tug Rubin came racing in towards Harrier and for some obscure reason misjudged her speed and collided with a resounding crack. Fortunately little damage was done to either vessel"
But again no mention to her activity during the peak of the battle.
Will search more on British sites/forum posts because seems an interesting event (apart for the small ramming, i think the whole engagement and presence of a soviet unit).

------------------

For 1943 here what i've these few (i've included also Soviet MTBs against merchants using machine guns fire / boarding)

5 January 1943
A bit unclear event about the Soviet merchant Vanzetti (it curious that had the name of an Italian political activist killed in Usa), that shelled a submarine forcing it to dive. The event should have happened far from Artic water but i put here to make easy. If i'm right it should be attacked the U-354, no damaged but was forced to dive and prevented further attack. It's confirmed that U-345 was attacked or was someone else?

19 January 1943
Battle of Sytlefjord
Leader destroyer Baku and destroyer Razumnyi vs minelayer Skaggerak, submarine chasers UJ-1104 and UJ-1105, minesweepers M-322 and M-303. One hit on Razumnyi from minesweeper. Baku launched also torpedoes.
Germans should have suffered no kind of damage (so it's wrote on sites, you've documents about the UJ and the Minesweepers that confirm that?) , it has been claimed that Baku torpedoed the small merchant Tanja (137 GTR) that's not present in German convoy however, and was lost that day (if i'm right) but on different location due storm.
warsailors.com mention as lost at Kirkenes on 20 Jan, with further detail of her stranded due storm at Bøkfjord. Ever far from the battle's location. Ship was used by Germans at the time.

21 June 1943
German merchant Foula (103 GTR) sunk Soviet motor torpedo boat TK-13 with gunfire.

7 May 1944
Norwegian merchant Moder-2 (124 GTR) sunk after being set on fire by Soviet ex-british motor torpedo boats TK-289, TK-292, TK-294, after having boarded and captured the ship.

22 November 1943
TK-13 had managed to torpedo and sunk the merchant Marie (250 GTR), but the other attacking unit, TK-14 was sunk by gunfire of escort ships.
There are more detail of the escorts?

Also could be interesting knowing if there were more contacts of gunfire and surface engagements by Soviet small crafts against German escorts, or boarding/shellings of small merchants/motorboat by small soviet crafts.

Speaking about this, i've absolutely NOTHING of Soviet activity of MO-4 crafts in Artic, i know just they laid mines, but i've seen 0 contacts with German patrols or submarine chasers for 1943 and 1944 in Artic.
(differently from the many contacts in Baltic and Black Sea).

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#125

Post by lupodimare89 » 14 Apr 2013, 19:00

Missed this one:

5 July 1943
Submarine M-106 rammed and sunk by UJ-1217 Star XXII

igorr
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 03:21

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#126

Post by igorr » 15 Apr 2013, 05:26

About RUBIN: there was tug Nr. 22 which try to tow EDINBOURGH. Maybe collision was with him, but names was confused.

igorr
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 03:21

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#127

Post by igorr » 15 Apr 2013, 07:55

lupodimare89 wrote:5 January 1943
A bit unclear event about the Soviet merchant Vanzetti (it curious that had the name of an Italian political activist killed in Usa), that shelled a submarine forcing it to dive. The event should have happened far from Artic water but i put here to make easy. If i'm right it should be attacked the U-354, no damaged but was forced to dive and prevented further attack. It's confirmed that U-345 was attacked or was someone else?
U.354 attack VANZETTI with torpedoes and was shelled after that. More, U.625 was in vishinity but not attacked just held contact. Both subs lost steamer around 15.00-15.30. U.354 after forced to submerge, U.625 in bad visibility.
Btw USSR has another steamer named SAKKO I VANZETTI (Sakko and Vanzetti)!
19 January 1943
Battle of Sytlefjord
Leader destroyer Baku and destroyer Razumnyi vs minelayer Skaggerak, submarine chasers UJ-1104 and UJ-1105, minesweepers M-322 and M-303. One hit on Razumnyi from minesweeper. Baku launched also torpedoes.
Germans should have suffered no kind of damage (so it's wrote on sites, you've documents about the UJ and the Minesweepers that confirm that?) , it has been claimed that Baku torpedoed the small merchant Tanja (137 GTR) that's not present in German convoy however, and was lost that day (if i'm right) but on different location due storm.
warsailors.com mention as lost at Kirkenes on 20 Jan, with further detail of her stranded due storm at Bøkfjord. Ever far from the battle's location. Ship was used by Germans at the time.
I wrote big article about this subject togheter with M. Morozov. It about to be published in begin of summer.
All documents from german and soviet side is well presented. There was no hit at any side, hit at RAZUMNYI was maked up by Juan (maybe he repeat someone false story).
BAKU fired torpedoes from one tropedo device, second refuse to work because of icing.
You absolutely right about TANJA
21 June 1943
German merchant Foula (103 GTR) sunk Soviet motor torpedo boat TK-13 with gunfire.
This was norwegian motorboat with load for Luftwaffe and with LW-soldier on board. She try to escapeto Fisher-halfisland (or drifted there with broken engine, it is not clear), attacked and damaged by german aircrafts. Then TKA Nr. 13 come close make POW 1 norwegian and 1 german and sunk motorboat.
7 May 1944
Norwegian merchant Moder-2 (124 GTR) sunk after being set on fire by Soviet ex-british motor torpedo boats TK-289, TK-292, TK-294, after having boarded and captured the ship.
Hmm, 1944? Numbers you listet belongs to USN (not british, because this was us-MTB type Higgins) 289 in soviet Navy has name TKA Nr.215, 292 - Nr. 218 and 294 - Nr. 219. Soviet make 15 POW including Vadso major.
22 November 1943
TK-13 had managed to torpedo and sunk the merchant Marie (250 GTR), but the other attacking unit, TK-14 was sunk by gunfire of escort ships.
There are more detail of the escorts?
Wrong date. It was 22 December, not November. MARIA (holl. motorsegler) joined convoy without permission, then fell out of them and was missed. TKA Nr. 13 attacked her while she goes alone. All crew perished.
TKA Nr. 14 was sunk in attack in same night by M.365 or V.6108. Both claims 1 TKA sunk but in fact it was one boat. 5 men POW. Convoy was very big - 20 different escort ships and 6 transports + 1 tug. In same battle TKA Nrs. 12, 22 and 201 was also damaged by gunfire. From other side one man was killed by MG-fire on V.6115 + 1 wounded. On NKI.10 barrel of one 2-cm exploded, wounding 2 men. M.274 has 7 wounded from MG-fire. No german ship has material damage.
5 July 1943
Submarine M-106 rammed and sunk by UJ-1217 Star XXII
All true. There was no shelling.
Speaking about this, i've absolutely NOTHING of Soviet activity of MO-4 crafts in Artic, i know just they laid mines, but i've seen 0 contacts with German patrols or submarine chasers for 1943 and 1944 in Artic.
(differently from the many contacts in Baltic and Black Sea).
MO-4 lay mines in vishinity of Petsamo-fjord, very rarely. I can't tell you about 1943 for sure, this year for me is not so good known. I know two operation for minelaying in 03.43. There was no clashes at all between MO-4 and germans, because MO almost never penetrate enemy area. There was only 3 forces in North that fight widely with germans on their waters: avaitions and submarines (all 4 years) and MTB's (basically 1944).

You forgot:
27.7.1943 U.255 gunned and sunk survey ship AKADEMIK SHOKALSKY in Kara sea.

18.4.43 TKA Nr. 13 received 2 hit from 3.7-cm while attacking "transport". In fact it was R-boote screning SS ALTENFELS going to Petsamo to drew attention from BRUMMER which laid mines north from Petsamofjord. R.63 has MG-hit in Windschild on her bridge, no damage, no losses. Add-ly she has two hits 2-cm from two M-boote trying to shell attacking TKA's. Navigation room was holed, no losses.

12.4.43 K-21 shelled group of norw. motorboats: FROY was sunk, BARREN, HAVEGGA, OEISTEIN damaged. All in all 9 men was killed, 5 wounded (one of them later deceased). Soviet sub lost one man overboard, who was taken POW.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#128

Post by Juha Tompuri » 15 Apr 2013, 08:51

igorr wrote:12.4.43 K-21 shelled group of norw. motorboats: FROY was sunk, BARREN, HAVEGGA, OEISTEIN damaged. All in all 9 men was killed, 5 wounded (one of them later deceased). Soviet sub lost one man overboard, who was taken POW.
The K-21 also took some Norwegian fishermen as POW's.
At the camp one of them was later converted to fight at Soviet side.

Regards, Juha

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#129

Post by lupodimare89 » 15 Apr 2013, 11:39

U.354 attack VANZETTI with torpedoes and was shelled after that. More, U.625 was in vishinity but not attacked just held contact. Both subs lost steamer around 15.00-15.30. U.354 after forced to submerge, U.625 in bad visibility.
Btw USSR has another steamer named SAKKO I VANZETTI (Sakko and Vanzetti)!
Interesting! (just the name of second ship should be "Sacco" with c, but maybe it was turned a bit with russian letters)
U-354 had no actual damage? It's interesting however because sdue the Soviet action (being forced to submerged) and the whole event seems very fascinating, a merchant that manage to defend herself in this way.
All documents from german and soviet side is well presented. There was no hit at any side, hit at RAZUMNYI was maked up by Juan (maybe he repeat someone false story).
This is interesting too i mean, that apart resize many of Soviet claims, also events of damages suffered have to be reconsidered.

Code: Select all

Then TKA Nr. 13 come close make POW 1 norwegian and 1 german and sunk motorboat.
There is a number of the other causalities? For what i've understood was carrying other Luftwaffe personal
Hmm, 1944? Numbers you listet belongs to USN (not british, because this was us-MTB type Higgins) 289 in soviet Navy has name TKA Nr.215, 292 - Nr. 218 and 294 - Nr. 219. Soviet make 15 POW including Vadso major.
Yeah sorry! I added it by mistake because among the top of my 1944 list and got mixed with 1943 v.v
Wrong date. It was 22 December, not November. MARIA (holl. motorsegler) joined convoy without permission, then fell out of them and was missed. TKA Nr. 13 attacked her while she goes alone. All crew perished.
TKA Nr. 14 was sunk in attack in same night by M.365 or V.6108. Both claims 1 TKA sunk but in fact it was one boat. 5 men POW. Convoy was very big - 20 different escort ships and 6 transports + 1 tug. In same battle TKA Nrs. 12, 22 and 201 was also damaged by gunfire. From other side one man was killed by MG-fire on V.6115 + 1 wounded. On NKI.10 barrel of one 2-cm exploded, wounding 2 men. M.274 has 7 wounded from MG-fire. No german ship has material damage.
Wow, such large match..
Also nothing on cargo of Maria?
There were causalities/wounded on the other 3 Soviet TK damaged?
And about V-6115 and M-274... that a thing that make me think about Baltic action too.
I suppose they're part of all these ships (also in Baltic and as also later as the R-63 that you wrote about) that got machine guns bullets, without a real damage to effect the sailing/combat abilities, but sometimes got few causalities.
18.4.43 TKA Nr. 13 received 2 hit from 3.7-cm while attacking "transport". In fact it was R-boote screning SS ALTENFELS going to Petsamo to drew attention from BRUMMER which laid mines north from Petsamofjord. R.63 has MG-hit in Windschild on her bridge, no damage, no losses. Add-ly she has two hits 2-cm from two M-boote trying to shell attacking TKA's. Navigation room was holed, no losses.
Again very interesting! Expecially because it's the first clear time that i've seen some friendly fire accident done by Germans on German ship while engaging a Soviet unit. Not known the identity of the 2 minesweepers?

Concering about submarines, it's interesting, but i've seen there are already many lists, topics, and discussion of them (and i read about these events)
I'm interested more about their involvement on gunfire engagement, rather then attack on unarmed targets.
While for MTBs and Surface ship (on both side) being less stuff, i try to find also about the attacks on merchant/unarmed targets. It's mainly to keep all focused on surface ships, and find about submarines only when armed ships engaged them on surface or with ramming (as the battles of K-23 and K-3, or the ramming of M-106 and U-578)



PS
As imagined, Morozov replied in the tsushima.net forum, saying that to have a clear understanding of PQ-13 battle are needed report also from the other British ships and German too.

igorr
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 03:21

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#130

Post by igorr » 15 Apr 2013, 12:24

lupodimare89 wrote: Interesting! (just the name of second ship should be "Sacco" with c, but maybe it was turned a bit with russian letters)
In russian this looks like САККО. No difference between double K and double C in transcription.
U-354 had no actual damage? It's interesting however because sdue the Soviet action (being forced to submerged) and the whole event seems very fascinating, a merchant that manage to defend herself in this way.
No damage. There where a lot of cases when armed merchant forced sub to submerge.
There is a number of the other causalities? For what i've understood was carrying other Luftwaffe personal
Two more deads. Right now i can't say who, AFAIK one german, one norvegian.
Also nothing on cargo of Maria?
Alas. nothing.
There were causalities/wounded on the other 3 Soviet TK damaged?
I know only wounded commander of Nr. 12. May be there was more, but no deads.
Again very interesting! Expecially because it's the first clear time that i've seen some friendly fire accident done by Germans on German ship while engaging a Soviet unit. Not known the identity of the 2 minesweepers?
This case need more carefully research, because 5 M-Fl commander wrote, that his ships not participate in action. So this must be shell from another R-boot.
As imagined, Morozov replied in the tsushima.net forum, saying that to have a clear understanding of PQ-13 battle are needed report also from the other British ships and German too.
I think he is very busy now.

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#131

Post by lupodimare89 » 15 Apr 2013, 14:11

Code: Select all

I think he is very busy now.
Understood ^^ He was however polite to reply very soon...

However, before moving (tomorrow i think) to 1944 (that has a number of MBT actions).
Here there is a small list of Soviet MTB successes (claimed and confirmed) that should have not included gunfire actions on target or gunfire actions against escort shios.

6 October 1941
Norwegian merchant (or trawler) Bjornungen (165 GTR) sunk by TK-12 (should have been with torpedo)

15 September 1941
TK-12 sunk Mittnattsol and TK-14 sunk Renoy. Both should be unconfirmed/untrue events,

21 September 1943
TK-15 sunk merchant Antje Fritzen (4330 GTR) with torpedoes, i've read of no contacts with eventual escort.

12 December 1943
TK-12 reported to have sunk V-6106 Tirol. This should have not happened
There was contact with some other ships?
Last edited by lupodimare89 on 15 Apr 2013, 15:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#132

Post by Juha Tompuri » 15 Apr 2013, 14:53

lupodimare89 wrote:6 October 1941
Finnish merchant (or trawler) Bjornungen (165 GTR) sunk by TK-12 (should have been with torpedo)
Norwegian
http://www.warsailors.com/forum/read.php?1,41350,47487

Regards, Juha

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#133

Post by lupodimare89 » 15 Apr 2013, 15:37

Yeah sorry ^^ had wrote bad on a different file, my mistake.

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#134

Post by lupodimare89 » 15 Apr 2013, 15:41

And just to know, Juha, there is some Finnish site/forum or something else about Finnish naval presence at Petsamo in Artic? There was some kind of cost guard service in 1939 that could have been involved during the Soviet offensive in the Winter War?

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Soviet Naval Battles (help with info)

#135

Post by Juha Tompuri » 15 Apr 2013, 16:46

IIRC there were two (major) Finnish state vessels in the Arctic when Winter War broke out.

Liaison Vessel m/s Jäämeri:
Lenght 36.9m, displacement 310t, engine 333hp Diesel.
Image
http://suomenmuseotonline.fi/fi/kohde/S ... ndex=76382

Border Guard Ship Turja
Lenght 22,73, displacement 65t, engine 180hp Diesel, 10 knots
Image
http://blockhaus.ru/forum/index.php?sho ... 66&st=4320
http://www.tugboatlars.se/Petsamo.htm

Jäämeri was burnt and sunken and Turja burnt and demolished when Finns withdrew from Petsamo area.
Turja was repaired in 1940 and later sailed 1944 round Norway to Gulf of Bothnia, Finland.
It then served at border guard and transport duties until 1977.
At the Turja links there are also photos of the post-war career of it.

1940 s/s Suursaari was sent from Finnish Gulf to Petsamo area round Norway as replacement of the destroyed m/s Jäämeri.
It served there 1941-1943, and after that returned to Finnish Gulf.
Image http://blockhaus.ru/forum/index.php?sho ... 66&st=4320
http://www.elka.fi/nayttelyt/laivat/lai ... saari.html

Regards, Juha

Post Reply

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”