(Reinbek/Reinbeck ?) Well...not exactly neutral...sort of ally.
"Reinbeck" is more correct I guess [nevertheless, some German sources use "Rheinbek" and "Reinbek" for some unknown for me reasons]. Yes, some sort of ally for the end of 1939.
Of course the only real info comes from the ~10 Finns that saw what happened there, and lived to tell.
In this particular case most probably "of course". There were no other eye-witnesses. I agree here as your info is in the very good correspondence
with my sources.
I would like to note that all men-at-arms lived to tell what happened on the war, and historians from both sides checked and check the info from them. Platonov, for example, believe that 100% correct info about victories/losses should be confirmed by independent sources from both sides only.
I am just curious did all 10 Finnish guys told about "30 meters longer sub with two guns of larger caliber" or only Veikko Hyytiäinen mentioned that "real info"?
Well...3 out of the 6 Bofors shots fired hit the target. Hardly possible blinded.
I thought that blinding was the reason of "real info" above, otherwise this is....hmm....
I don't have any info about number of hits [just "artillery fire against Soviet submarine then ram"], if this is true I need to say that artillerymen of "Vetehinen" were much better than of "Iku-Turso" [which fired 50 20mm shells against Shch-307 from 20 m distance(!!!) without any damages - that was confirmed when Shch-307 returned to the base but Finns reported as often that they "saw direct hits"].
Might be, depends to which countrys unit of measure one uses.
But anyway, 1,5 cables is wrong.
Obviously I use here the international sea mile. 1 cable = 0,1 sea mile = 185,2 m. So Finns missed 2 torpedos from even closer distance [not 1.5 cables but 1.34 cables].
I also think that Platonov is right if he mentioned that submarines collided in 2 min after Finns fired and missed 2 torpedos, as 30 sec I mentioned earlier [according to http://www.deepstorm.ru
] is too short period of time. Finnish submarine increased speed till 6 knots [185.2 m/min] and it could cover 250 m for the time near 2 min only.
I just found the exact coordinates of the point: 60.03'3"/19.12'5".
Shch-305 was sank quite close from the point where S-7 was torpedoed. I found one mention that captured by Finns commander of S-7 S. Lisin we've already mentioned above was brought by Germans to the talk with general Vlasov in May 1943. Lisin refused the idea about collaboration with Vlasov [that was according to interrogation report of traitor D. Shchapov from destroyer "Stroiny" who became the leader of enemy diversion group which was captured by Kronshtadt guard 12.10.1943]. Shchapov said that Finnish submarine "Vesihiisi" waited S-7 as Finns had secret code and intercepted radiomessages from Soviet submarines, also "Vetehinen" tried to find Shch-305 in the same area. Shchapov also said that Germans and Finns sank several Soviet submarines in 1942 because they new secret codes for decoding radiomessages and sent anti-submarine vessels immediately to the corresponding area. It is known that communication aircraft U-2 from 8th air division of Baltic Sea Navy was lost 22.05.1942 [there were secret documents and radio codes on board], in three days all Soviet codes were changed according to the order from HQ, so Finns and Germans couldn't use old codes any more. There is also interrogation report of another traitor [Soviet naval officer captured by Germans in 1942 near Moonsund], who became enemy spy and was arrested by NKVD in 1944 - he mentioned [as well as Shchapov] that cipher officer and pilot from that lost U-2 [which made emergency landing] were captured by Finns, interrogated 2 month and were given to Germans, and captured cipher officer helped to decode Soviet radiomessages. As I found this in single online source only [so I am not sure for 100% correctnesses] it will be interesting to know your opinion about the info above?
Juha wrote: underwater collision.
Esa K wrote: The text in Ekmans list is: 12/12 1941 - German U 479 - S of Utö - Rammed by Lembit.
Collision with unknown subject [most probably, wrecks of old ship]. But try to correct Esa K or Ekman, not me
According to P-O Ekman, his rehabilitation began already when he stil was alive, 1959.
Partially correct, but that was a very complicated situation. Quite many Soviet naval sources didn't mention the name of Marinesco even in 1980s, he was awarded with the Hero of USSR degree 05.05.1990 only. I will post some info about the fate of Alexander Marinesco [1913-1963] if I have time.
One Finnish source ( I've lost it somewhere) mentions Marinesco sleeping not with a restaurant keeper but two prostitutes.
Also that he was lost from the New Year's eve to the 3rd January, when he was found heavily drunken from a Finnish sauna.
The S-13 should have left the day before.
For sure Marinesco knew how to have a rest after missions
We have one Russian guy in our group [IIRC he served as marine in Soviet North Navy Liinahamari brigade ~ twenty years ago] - almost the same problems with him during our sea expeditions
And the responsible person is always I, of course
But he is a very good specialist......
About Finnish prostitutes I don't know, seems to be that you should have more sources about the topic
According to interrogation reports Marinesco was found and returned back to the submarine depot ship next day after New Year's eve [he should be on submarine board in the evening but returned back late next day].
Yes, reputation is something he has, and some others don't.
I still very hope that P-O Ekman [despite his mistakes with U-479, P-2, P-3, Shch-320 and several others here....] is much more close to Platonov than to Dmitriev in his reputation.
He wrote what he belived was true. His sources failed. He didn't invent information as some of your sources seemed have done.
You are wrong in your quite primitive and dirty speculations, my dear friend. At first you don't know for what he believed or not, or did he invented something or not. But as I've already mentioned I agree with you that P-O Ekman is a good naval historian [I've read a lot of citations from his books, in mentioned here sources also]. You also believe that you write true but sometimes you sources fail, which was caught several times. To be correct I need to mention that I completelly agree with you in most cases, but you don't like to realize your mistakes
Secondly - none of my detailed sources here invent any incorrect info [if they doubt they mention several possible versions of corresponding event and the origin/analysis of these versions, but additional info is possible, of course]. For sure, you didn't try to translate, read and analyse them [which is a very hard work for me, by the way] as well as, obviously, you have absolutely no idea about their rating by historians [that is why I tried to find thes particular sources and successfully found them]. So avoid nonsense bla-bla-blas, this is the last time I am replying for them as it seems much more useful to post here some new additional info or answer on interesting questions!
If you help me with the exact info [names of submarines, dates] of location of Soviet submarines in Finland (Helsinki, Turku, Hanko) in 1944-1945 - that will be more useful and thankful.
AFAIK U-479 was and is MIA. No traces exept some Soviet tales.
Most probably that U-479 exploded on German or Soviet mine in the beginning of December 1944 NE off Is. Odensholm [someone mentioned here that according to P-O Ekman it was ramed by Lembit in 1941, how it was possible for serious historian [if the citation was correct, I guess that Esa K confused 1941 and 1944] I don't understand. The last radiomessage from U-479 was received 15.11.1944 [off Is. Osmusaar], 12.12.1944 it was proclaimed that U-479 lost for unknown reasons because of end of expiration of its independence.
As I translated only several Russian sources about "Lembit" - absolutely no mentions about such ram/collision. "Lembit" collided under-water [at depth 25 m] with something 14.12.1944 indeed [13.48; 59.43'0"/21.19'6"] N off Is. Utö, but investigation found that was wrecks of old ship, most probably. "Lembit" got light damages of hull [the submarine moved to Turku 15.12., and next day to Helsinki for dock repair].
What Soviet sources do you mean for your claim?
Depends does one count the number of ships(boats) or tonnage.
True, but according to the number of ships 1942 was the most successful year for Soviet Baltic Sea submarines. I am translating at the moment the chapter from Platonov's book about results and victories of Soviet submarines as well as about the technical/training reasons that submariners often estimated misses [in reality] as hits, and increased the tonnage of ships also because of those reasons. Baltic and Black Sea theatres of operation was very specific and estimation using amount of ships [mainly small] instead of their tonnage is more usable for comparisons and analysis of amount of torpedo attacks [but, of course, tonnage is always given also]
Nice to see you start using more (seemingly) critical/objective sources than before.
The same wish to you! More critical source doesn't mean that it is more objective sometimes, unreasoned critics and careful analysis are different things.
Hmm, I valued this your statement as very primitive attempt again to criticize my very correct info in order to side-track attention from your errors [as the result my previous enjoyment and belief of your interesting posts decreased to some degree and this is a pity]. Find another thread for your games as in my threads I will always thank you for the correct and new info and I will always counterattack you for senseless and wrong critic.
IIRC I mentioned that Taras wrote about 22 enemy ships, which were sunk by Soviet submarines on Baltic in 1942. Walter Leotta mentioned 25, but I replied that I belive to 22. Platonov mentioned 20 sinking ships and 2 were heavily damaged by torpedos [sank later], so also 22 ships as victories of Soviet Baltic submarines in 1942. The amount of 22 is probably the most correct, see the full list below. You favourite P-O Ekman mentioned 19 sinking ships for obvious reason [I guess that he didn't take into consideration two damaged by torpedos ships which were sank later and didn't know which submarine sank Elbing IX exactly], so again 22 ships. About what "more objective" sources you are trying to talk here, as everything is in excellent correspondence? I again strictly recommend you to find any incorrectnesses in another place, let me tell you that your weak attempts don't lead to something positive here.
As I've already mentioned Professor Platonov wrote a lot of high-rated books about WWII navies, and IIRC he is a specialist in Baltic theatre of operation. Byelorussian historian Taras I mentioned and used earlier wrote a huge and detailed books indeed but he is very "anti-Soviet" [Platonov is objectively "neutral" - mentioning heroic events together with previously hidden negative info as it was] and ambitious historian so he (Taras) underestimate some victories as me seems and give lower amount of tonnage of sinking ships [nevertheless, he mention more total amount of sinking ships than Platonov - possible reason could be damaged or very small ships/boats I guess]. I found a very interesting mistake in Taras book [volume 4 of his "History of world's submarines"] - in the chapter about Soviet submarines he mentioned that Shch-320 exploded on mine [which was, most probably, really took place and Platonov explaines the reason of loss in details also the reasons of mistakes [not willful falseness] of submariners from "Iku-Turso"] but in the chapter about Finnish submarines Taras mentioned "Iku-Turso" as the reason of its loss
To meet with the best authors of Soviet submarine sources
http://arcticwar.pomorsu.ru/sea/arcticw ... atonov.jpg
[Nikolaev from Kaliningrad, ex-nuclear submariner and author/moderator of http://www.deepstorm.ru
..........No, no, no
I was writing and almost finishing the detailed [time, ship name, coordinate, participated submarine] list of all victories of Baltic Sea submarines in 1941-1945 according to Platonov [especially for you
] and..."Word" crashed....
So I need to type this ones more. Very shortly - 37 ships were sank by torpedos in 1941-1945, 10 were damaged by torpedos [from which 2 sank soon and estimated as additional victories], 9 ships were sank by mines, 3 were damaged by mines, 5 ships were sank by artillery fire: so Baltic submarines sank 48 ships [143265 brt] and 5 warships [2 submarines, 2 mine-sweepers, 1 patrol ship] in 1941-1945.
The most detailed Russian sources about their WWII submarines:
Platonov [2004, 592 pages, 3000 copies], Taras [2004, 480 pages, 4000 copies], Shirokorad [2002, 944 pages, 5200 copies].