Suho Lighthouse

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4214
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 24 Dec 2005 01:13

batu wrote:I quote Seppälä instead of Baryshnikov. Which I actually did.


I think Sami already pointed out that the text of his Finnish version and the others don't necessary match. Are there intentional translation mistakes?

batu wrote:
Harri wrote:Even if something would have been a "Finnish idea" (of which contect is not known) it is very doubtful to create theories based only on that. Basically the whole "story" is worth a fairy tale. All is mere assumption and speculation what might have been. Making such claims based on so little piece of information and evidence is like shooting a fly with a shotgun: it may hit but most of the shots anyway miss the target partly or completely.

true, not much evidence, but I didn't build wild theories. From the Talvela-Kijanen discussion it is clear that it was either Kijanen's or Talvela's idea. Knowing who was Talvela we can easily assume that he could easily come up with it. Actually you don't argue with that. The written estimation of the situation (see my Seppälä's quote) showing Kijanen's excitement at the prospect of the Naval war against suply routes on Ladoga is interpreted by Seppälä ( Seppälä doesn't actually refer to any sourse just quotes Kijanen) as a proof of Talvela's being behind it. It's Seppälä's claim, not mine. And It is Seppälä's claim tht Mannerheim was aware of it. Your cllaim that it was Kijanen's idea and Talvela was just a messanger is stil unsupported by any evidence. But as I said it doesn't matter. It was either Kijanen's or Talvela's idea (Finnish) wihch was transmitted to Germans, GErmans took it well, proposed Italian-German fleet, Finnish HQ were surprised but as Seppälä writes
In any case the HQ was immideately informed about the matter and it appears that it (HQ) was already aware of the arrival of the German boats, because according to the Commander-in-Chief's order of 17.4.1942 the Ladoga Naval-unit K (Kijanen) was established, which provided for the boats coming from Germany and Italy together with Finnish torpedoboat Sisu


This explanation of Seppälä is based on the not proven speculation when he writes "it appears" [näyttäisi]. So, he is not sure. While "the actual plan" is not known there is of no use to continue this because everything between what we know for sure is more or less fictional.

Naval Detachment K was established on 27.5.1942, when Kijanen was appointed to the job, and activated on 11.6.1942.

batu wrote:After the end of the operations Mannerheim gave medals to its participants. I still haven't got your idea how giving medals by Mannerheim was something else than the expression of appreciation however symbolic. If you know that Mannehrime had its own strange way to give medals to people whose activities he despised, why don't you say it straight in simple words instead of sending me to some place to find out for myself?


I have noticed. I thinks the "I see experience" is better if self read from a book.

According to Tuompo already in the summer 1941 Mannerheim refused to award any medals to Germans because they had succeeded so badly in war. At that stage Germans had already awarded numerous medals to Finns and German in turn waited for "their medals". To solve the difference in "award policy" Finns instituted a new "The Order of the Lion of Finland" in 1942. While Germans awarded military medals to Finns, Finns awarded both military (for those with merits) and "half-civilian" medals (for those because of position and no merits) to Germans to make the numbers of medals close to equal.

There are medals which has to be awarded. They are according to a protocol and there is no way to change this even if the receiver would be some "unwanted" person. The case of Heinrich Himmler is exactly such. Medals are awarded to highest commanders but in Finland Himmler despite of his position was not seen equal to other highest military commanders. Thus he received a civilian medal equal to his position. I think also Hitler was awarded in a same way? Göring was an exception again. Finns had "play-eye" [pelisilmää] to award his medal "with brilliants" because he was a known admirer and collector of jevels (not because his position or merits had something to do with it)!!

Usually wounded ones were awarded, also officers but only the best NCOs and men. There is nothing unusual. For example Italian Commander of MAS Squadron received their highest decoration and at least three of the MTB Chiefs received one degree lower crosses and wounded ones received medals. That was a quite normal Finnish way. Most likely Italians didn't receive their crosses "with oak leaves" because their operation was not "highly succesful". In turn Finns received Italian decorations.

I don't see any mystical with these.

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002 07:06
Location: Finland

Post by Tero » 24 Dec 2005 06:30

By batu


I quoted Seppälä from Seppälä.


You did not, actually. You wrote up a reference from his text. Had you quoted it you would have written in up word for word with ot any of your own text in the middle. Your text was a mixture of his text patched up with your own suppositions and conjectured based on your preconceived notions and ideas about what he is saying.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 24 Dec 2005 17:41

Tero wrote:By batu


I quoted Seppälä from Seppälä.


You did not, actually. You wrote up a reference from his text. Had you quoted it you would have written in up word for word with ot any of your own text in the middle. Your text was a mixture of his text patched up with your own suppositions and conjectured based on your preconceived notions and ideas about what he is saying.


Your 'critical' estimation of my text has nothing to do with Harri's mistake. My "supositions and conjectured..." are just free short rendering of unimportant parts of the text. There is nothing preconceived there and there is nothing important. The quote is a quote, badly translated, probably, but a quote. Feel free to make it better. Otherwise your comment is just another irrelevant remark that totally misses the point.

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002 07:06
Location: Finland

Post by Tero » 24 Dec 2005 21:40

By batu

Your 'critical' estimation of my text has nothing to do with Harri's mistake.


Which was what ? The way I read it he said you use Baryshnikovs translation (and interpretation ?) of Seppälä as your source instead of the original (language) text by Seppälä.

My "supositions and conjectured..." are just free short rendering of unimportant parts of the text.


The problem is you are the one who determines what is unimportant and what is not. IMO it you should quote the actual text and make your comments separately from your source.

Are you afraid that if you are indeed using Baryshnikovs rendition instead of Seppäläs original there is a possibility the translation from the translations is proven to be very different from the original if you quote properly from your source ?

There is nothing preconceived there and there is nothing important.


What is not important is your preconception.

The quote is a quote, badly translated, probably, but a quote. Feel free to make it better. Otherwise your comment is just another irrelevant remark that totally misses the point.


Using poker as a simile: if you are playing it is usually required you show your hand when called. Describing your hand without showing the actual cards is considered bad form.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 25 Dec 2005 14:58

Tero wrote:By batu

Your 'critical' estimation of my text has nothing to do with Harri's mistake.


Which was what ? The way I read it he said you use Baryshnikovs translation (and interpretation ?) of Seppälä as your source instead of the original (language) text by Seppälä.

My "supositions and conjectured..." are just free short rendering of unimportant parts of the text.


The problem is you are the one who determines what is unimportant and what is not. IMO it you should quote the actual text and make your comments separately from your source.

Are you afraid that if you are indeed using Baryshnikovs rendition instead of Seppäläs original there is a possibility the translation from the translations is proven to be very different from the original if you quote properly from your source ?

There is nothing preconceived there and there is nothing important.


What is not important is your preconception.

The quote is a quote, badly translated, probably, but a quote. Feel free to make it better. Otherwise your comment is just another irrelevant remark that totally misses the point.


Using poker as a simile: if you are playing it is usually required you show your hand when called. Describing your hand without showing the actual cards is considered bad form.


Tero, get Seppälä's book that I quoted, find any mistakes in my translaiton/rendition. If you find an intentional attempt of mine to misinterpret the book, feel free to point it out. Otherwise your guesses are just an example of your preconceived notions and bias and you posts are just pointless bickering. IF you put my text under suspicion of being a forgery, at least have decency to provide proofs.
PS Sami commented on my quote from Baryshnikov, not on my next quote from Seppälä. You don't even realize what you are arguing about.
The same goes to Harri's previous post. You guys are just lazy to read and quick to write and I'm getting bored to coment on ignorant allegations like that.
The only sensible inormation was given by Harri about Finnish practice of giving medals. I take it in good faith and thank Harri for a sensible part of his post that for once didn't have a punch line about 'typical Soviet myths' or stuff like 'Russians never change'.
I also reread the old thread about Finnish wars with USSR where HArri&Co argued with LeoAU and SErbian Tiger. I guess I'm not the only one who noticed your racist anti-Russian bias? :wink:

User avatar
KalaVelka
Member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 16:12
Location: Suomi Finland Perkele

Post by KalaVelka » 25 Dec 2005 17:44

Batu, in the guidelines there stands that:
* No racism is tolerated

So how can "Harri&Co" practise racism here without being kicked out by moderators?

/Kasper

User avatar
Uninen
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2004 19:26
Location: Festung Europa, Finnland

Post by Uninen » 25 Dec 2005 22:51

And to talk and think of that banning communist party while Lenin and Stalin were alive is somehow undemocratic / violates peoples basic rights is like one would say it was (well would be) illegal to ban NSDAP while it was practicing its genocidal racial policies while our favorite corporal was alive..

It is absurd at the best therefor to claim Finland was somehow "undemocratic" during the time when communist were banned. And also it is also absurd to claim that somehow just after the war when Moscow (Stalin and so on [valvontakomissio]) where dictating us what to do where, when, how etc that this in some freak way would be peak of our democrazy.

And also i just wonder about people like batu, if he infact is a Russian and lives here thinks the way he do, i am greatly puzzled that he even does live here if communism was so great and things in Russia are in order so on.

But sorry for the off topic, just something i had to say cause the things got this far already.

Regards.

User avatar
Bair
Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 01 Nov 2002 14:32
Location: Finland, Helsinki

Post by Bair » 25 Dec 2005 23:00

Could we please come back to 1942 and Suho island? :|

regards,

Bair

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 20:42

Re: Suho Lighthouse

Post by Vaeltaja » 23 Aug 2012 11:17

Reopening the old thread...

Related thread

I think the naval losses are quite clear as Germans lost 1 light ferry to Soviet action, 1 heavy and 1 light ferry as grounded and 1 heavy ferry and one Infanterie boat essentially foundered while returning from mission (total of 2 heavy ferries, 2 light ferries, 1 infanterie boat). Landing force losses were 19 KIA, 4 MIA and 56-57 WIA (of whom 2 more possibly perished later on).

From the Finnish air force archives it is apparent that no Finnish AC was lost on that day. And that 4 claims were made over or near lake Ladoga on that day, 1 x DB-3, 2 x I-16s and 1 x I-153. German claims were 11 according to EFO after action report (of which 3 x IL-2, 2 x I-15, 1 x Mig-3, 1 x I-153 - as per Finnish Air Force war diary). In addition German ferry group claimed several aircraft as well.

Now then, what actually were the Soviet losses (including AC) and what were the actual German AC losses?

And is there any comments regarding German results (as per reported)?
Lighthouse and buildings set on fire (by shellfire), 2 x 100mm guns rendered useless, 2 (personnel) dugouts and several machine-gun nests destroyed. 1 radio mast destroyed other (2?) damaged.

BarSeek
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 07:52
Location: Käkisalmi

Re: Suho Lighthouse

Post by BarSeek » 27 Aug 2012 20:59

Vaeltaja wrote:Now then, what actually were the Soviet losses (including AC) and what were the actual German AC losses?
I tried to estimate actual losses of Soviet aircrafts by searching in Soviet KIA/MIA database (obd-memorial.ru). According their records, two I-15 and two IL-2 (from Baltic Fleet Air Forces) were shot down near Suho on 22.10.42. There were two more IL-2 from land forces found in records as "shot down over lake Ladoga" same day. As far as I know ("Swastika in gunsight", memoir by Igor Kaberov), another two IL-2 were hit near Suho and returned to airfield in smoke and flames. Both had crash landing, one of them burned down.

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 20:42

Re: Suho Lighthouse

Post by Vaeltaja » 28 Aug 2012 08:36

These are not really that good sources but since i don't really know where else to look they may need to suffice...

Luftflotte I - Jagdgeschwader 54
Claims: 7 (on whole of 22.10.42)
22.10.42 Ofw. Windisch (1./JG 54) MiG-3
22.10.42 Ltn. Fischer (3./JG 54) Il-2
22.10.42 Fw. Otto Kittel (2./JG 54) Il-2
22.10.42 Oblt. Siegfried Graf von Matuschka (2./JG 54) Il-2
22.10.42 Oblt. Siegfried Graf von Matuschka (2./JG 54) I-15
22.10.42 Ltn. Horst Ademeit (1./JG 54) I-153
22.10.42 Fw. Herbert Broennle (2./JG 54) I-15
3 x Il-2, 2 x I-15, 1 x I-153, 1 x MiG-3 - precisely the same as reported in Finnish war diary but much different from the one described in German EFO after action report.

Losses... Is a different story... Only sources that i could on a brief search find that handles losses does it on monthly basis, for October 1942:
I./JG54, no losses
II./JG54, 1 x Bf 109G-2 lost to enemy action
III./JG54, 3 x Bf 109G-2 lost to enemy action
So JG54, the fighter wing of the Luftflotte 1 lost only 4 Me 109G-2s in the whole of October 1942. Could some one point me a more specific source?

Granted these are not specific claims rather only just limiters.
BarSeek wrote:I tried to estimate actual losses of Soviet aircrafts by searching in Soviet KIA/MIA database (obd-memorial.ru). According their records, two I-15 and two IL-2 (from Baltic Fleet Air Forces) were shot down near Suho on 22.10.42. There were two more IL-2 from land forces found in records as "shot down over lake Ladoga" same day. As far as I know ("Swastika in gunsight", memoir by Igor Kaberov), another two IL-2 were hit near Suho and returned to airfield in smoke and flames. Both had crash landing, one of them burned down.
Does the obd-memorial.ru track only KIA/MIA cases or all the losses? That is the fighting did take place within Soviet held territory most of the time (AFAIK) in relative proximity to the Soviet forces so could there be other non-fatal aircraft losses in addition to the ones you listed?

BarSeek
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 07:52
Location: Käkisalmi

Re: Suho Lighthouse

Post by BarSeek » 28 Aug 2012 17:41

Vaeltaja wrote:Does the obd-memorial.ru track only KIA/MIA cases or all the losses? That is the fighting did take place within Soviet held territory most of the time (AFAIK) in relative proximity to the Soviet forces so could there be other non-fatal aircraft losses in addition to the ones you listed?
Obd-memorial.ru is wartime reports database of irrecoverable personnel losses (KIA/MIA). So if aicraft was shot down and pilot remained alive on Soviet side in any condition then we shall not find him there.
As for personnel losses at Suho (mostly 473.Battery), database contains seven records of KIA, two died on the way/in hospital and four missing. Though in one summary report six missing men were stated (one of them as followed the enemy at his own will).

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5499
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Suho Lighthouse

Post by Art » 28 Aug 2012 18:23

From another forum:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpost. ... stcount=13
And Soviet info on losses:
http://sirjones.livejournal.com/pics/catalog/280/616857
Personnel losses are said to be 6 men KIA, 26 WIA (23 from the island's garrison, 2 on "Selemdja" gunboat, 1 on MO-198 cutter), 6 POWs
Aircraft losses: 2 I-153 and 4 I-16 (including one from the Leningrad Front's air force, the rest from the Navy).
There was also info in the Meister/Morozov, but I don't have it right now.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11469
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Suho Lighthouse

Post by Juha Tompuri » 29 Aug 2012 07:43

A couple of cases where the author seems to have got it wrong:
The battle flared up temporarily on 22 October 1942. On the night of 21-22 October, the Germans attempted to occupy the small Lake Ladoga island of Sukho. Twelve Siebel ferries were dispatched on this operation. If it had succeeded, it would have posed a major threat against the Soviet sea-line to Leningrad across Lake Ladoga. But the German attack was beaten back by the island’s garrison, and early next day, the retreating ferries came under repeated attacks from Soviet aircraft. Throughout 22 October, the ferries were harassed by Soviet aircraft and torpedo and gunboats, who pursued them back to their own base. I./JG 54 largely failed to provide the German vessels with air cover. Although the Jagdgruppe claimed seven Soviet aircraft shot down (actual Soviet losses were three Il-2s and two I-15s), four ferries were sunk and one was captured by the Soviets. Soviet 3 GIAP/VVS KBF’s Kapitan Georgiy Kostylev, who commanded the Soviet fighters that participated during this operation, was appointed Hero of the Soviet Union on 23 October.
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpost. ... stcount=13

Regards, Juha

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 20:42

Re: Suho Lighthouse

Post by Vaeltaja » 29 Aug 2012 10:00

Art wrote:From another forum:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpost. ... stcount=13
And Soviet info on losses:
http://sirjones.livejournal.com/pics/catalog/280/616857
Personnel losses are said to be 6 men KIA, 26 WIA (23 from the island's garrison, 2 on "Selemdja" gunboat, 1 on MO-198 cutter), 6 POWs
Aircraft losses: 2 I-153 and 4 I-16 (including one from the Leningrad Front's air force, the rest from the Navy).
There was also info in the Meister/Morozov, but I don't have it right now.
Another question, sort of arising form the phrasing or rather the form of the documents... Were these losses 2 x I-153 and 4 x IL-2 suffered by Soviet air units specifically attacking the ferries? Since the lists (claims & losses) from German/Finnish side are not limited to the operation to cover the EFO, just to the area.

For example Finnish claimed an encounter with a bomber and 6 I-16s 20km ENE from the mouth of Miikkulaistenjoki river (which is roughly at N 60.45671 E 30.79668) placing the rough estimate location for the encounter and location for the I-16 claims to N 60.555929, E 31.108932 which is not exactly close to the Suho island. Also the DB-3 was said to be shot down just a mile east of port of Morje (Murje, 60°9'54"N 31°2'12"E). While the I-153 claim was made over Saunasaari (pretty much next to Taipale at N 60.574, E 30.672). None of which are close to Suho, more like at least 50km away from it.

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”