Victories and losses of Soviet submarines during WWII

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 08 Apr 2007 23:39

BIGpanzer wrote:Platonov [one of the best historian of Baltic Sea operations during WWII] mentioned 16 ships torpedoed and sank by Soviet submarines in 1942 [of course, he mentions exact names and coordinates as well as details of attacks but no time, sorry - 03:00 am], also 10 ships were damaged by submarine torpedos in 1942, also 3 ships were exploded on submarine mines in 1942 and 1 was sank by artillery fire - 20 ships were sank by submarines in 1942 total according to Platonov.
Nice to see you start using more (seemingly) critical/objective sources than before.
BP wrote:So despite the fact that 1942 was the most hard year for Soviet Baltic submarines [because of large mine fields and improved strong anti-submarine defense of Germans and Finns], the year 1942 was also the most successful for Baltic submarines.
Depends does one count the number of ships(boats) or tonnage.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: Sometimes he has mistaked, when failed to found out the truth from the Soviet sources
BP wrote:As he mentioned the ram of U-479 by "Lembit"
underwater collision.
BP wrote:he failed to find out the truth from German sources also
AFAIK U-479 was and is MIA. No traces exept some Soviet tales.
BP wrote:I also think that it is much better for well-known historian to write nothing about the subject if he failed to find the truth than to write wrong info.
He wrote what he belived was true. His sources failed. He didn't invent information as some of your sources seemed have done.
BP wrote:Reputation is an important thing.
Yes, reputation is something he has, and some others don't.


BP wrote:PS. Additional info about Marinesco
BP wrote:slept with proprietress of restaurant.
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.
BP wrote:[his glorification began after his death also].
According to P-O Ekman, his rehabilitation began already when he stil was alive, 1959.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 09 Apr 2007 02:31

Juha wrote:
(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.
Juha wrote:
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"?
Juha wrote:
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"].
Juha wrote:
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 :?
Juha wrote:
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.
Juha wrote:
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 :lol: 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 :lol: And the responsible person is always I, of course :roll: 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 :wink: 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].
Juha wrote:
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.
Juha wrote:
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.
Juha wrote:
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?
Juha wrote:
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]
Juha wrote:
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 8-) :
http://arcticwar.pomorsu.ru/sea/arcticw ... atonov.jpg [Professor Platonov]
http://www.gazetaby.com/i/2006/05/TARAS4.jpg [Dr. Taras]
http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/autor_e.htm [Nikolaev from Kaliningrad, ex-nuclear submariner and author/moderator of http://www.deepstorm.ru]

..........No, no, no :x 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 :wink: ] and..."Word" crashed.... :? :x 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.


Regards, BP

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].
Image Image Image
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 09 Apr 2007 19:22, edited 13 times in total.

Esa K
Member
Posts: 1252
Joined: 13 Jan 2005 13:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Esa K » 09 Apr 2007 13:16

Errata, errata, errata II...

Looks like my eyes have been crossed when I have tried to quote the "Ekman-list" mentioned above. So once more, this is the now tripplechecked info from the list about the fate of U 479 from the mentioned list:

12/12 1944 - U 479 - S of Utö - Rammed by Lembit.

Sorry if I have caused confusion etc etc with my earlier wrong quotings. And in the above mentioned book (Finland i krig... ) Ekman writes, page 111, about the ramming of U 479. My translation of it:

"[...] Outside Utö Lembit rammed, on it´s return from Baltic sea to Turku 12.12, by accident U 479 (Sons) and sank it. Both submarines was at the moment travelling under water. [...]"


So, pardon my small misstakes

and best regards

Esa K

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 09 Apr 2007 13:33

Esa K wrote:
Looks like my eyes have been crossed when I have tried to quote the "Ekman-list" mentioned above. So once more, this is the now tripplechecked info from the list about the fate of U 479 from the mentioned list:
12/12 1944 - U 479 - S of Utö - Rammed by Lembit.
I assumed that.
I wrote: [...if the citation was correct, I guess that Esa K confused 1941 and 1944].
Esa K wrote:
"[...] Outside Utö Lembit rammed, on it´s return from Baltic sea to Turku 12.12, by accident U 479 (Sons) and sank it. Both submarines was at the moment travelling under water. [...]" (my translation)
Yes, seems to be the similar event from my sources - but that happened 14.12.1944 [collision of "Lembit" with old wrecks].
Esa K wrote:
So, pardon my small misstakes
No problem, of course. I am much more friendly and objective than someone here. As my boss [nominated for Nobel prize one time, but unsuccessfully] says - "It is not so bad if you make mistake, but it is very bad if you don't realize that fact later and don't correct it".

andrus
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 22 Aug 2005 12:28
Location: Estonia

Post by andrus » 09 Apr 2007 19:29

BIGpanzer wrote:Byelorussian historian Taras I mentioned and used earlier wrote a huge and detailed books indeed
Sorry to tell you but Taras and Shirokorad (Широкограб) are both well known plagiarist's. I think it's better to you to search for books they have copied from ;)

The most detailed data so far about sorties of soviet submarines is in book of Miroslav Morozov: Podvodnye lodki VMF SSSR v Velikoj Otechestvennoj vojne 1941-1945 gg. Letopis' boevyh pohodov, in three parts. Seems that deepstorm.ru has used this book.
Also Platonov in his book's foreword thanks M. Morozov :)

Seppo Koivisto
Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 22:49
Location: Finland

Post by Seppo Koivisto » 09 Apr 2007 19:53

Quote:
Seppo Koivisto wrote:
He had wondered what had happened, if the 30 meters longer Soviet sub with two guns of larger caliber had not decided to dive in the first place.

Really?!
Technical specifications are very easy to find and check, why you don't do this?
Shch-305 had length 58.8 m and was armed with 2x45mm guns, "Vetehinen" had length 63.5 m and was armed with 1x76.2mm + 1x20mm guns.

BP
I think Veikko Hyytiäinen was not trying to tell us the technical specifications of the Soviet sub, but to express his humble opinion, that diving was perhaps not the wisest thing to do.

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 09 Apr 2007 23:46

BIGpanzer wrote:
Juha wrote: (Reinbek/Reinbeck ?) Well...not exactly neutral...sort of ally.
"Reinbeck" is more correct I guess
I believe only one name can be correct.
BP wrote:Yes, some sort of ally for the end of 1939.
Yes, till the start of Barbarossa.
Most topic related forms of the co-operation I guess were the Basis Nord http://www.oilru.com/or/16/204/
and the Soviet-German attempts to form a supply organisation from converted German merchant ships for Soviet subs operating at the Gulf of Bothnia.
BP wrote: Platonov, for example, believe that 100% correct info about victories/losses should be confirmed by independent sources from both sides only.
Basicly so, if the sources at both sides are true/honest
BP wrote: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"?
AFAIK the sub log doesn't mention the type or details from the enemy sub.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: 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"],
6 shots from Bofors and 8 from Madsen, of which 3 Bofors shots are mentioned to have hit.
Seems that your sources have not made that deep research at Finnish sources?
BP wrote: 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(!!!)
ShCh-305 was an easier target as being a stationary target at same distance part of the time.
BP wrote:without any damages - that was confirmed when Shch-307 returned to the base but Finns reported as often that they "saw direct hits"]
Perhaps the crew should have used AP shots instead of the HE ones.
If the confirmation you mentioned is true.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: 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.
I have no doubts about what you have ment here, but AFAIK you have used Russian sources, and the Russian "cable" might be slightly shorter http://en.allexperts.com/q/Yachting-226 ... -chain.htm
BP wrote:So Finns missed 2 torpedos from even closer distance [not 1.5 cables but 1.34 cables].
Finnish Navy used there meters. Not arshines, sazhens or cable lenghts. The ca. 250m distance hasn't "changed". Only the info at your sources needs to be changed.
http://www.sizes.com/units/index.htm
Janne earlier wrote:BTW I'm the furthest from an expert on the subject, but IIRC it was a characteristic of the torpedoes to sink upon launch before rising to the (pre-determined?) depth and that the miss (in another case) at the very short distance of 250m was due to this.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=30
BP wrote: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.
Both wrong.
The ramming took place ca. 1 min 30 sec after the torpedo launch.
BP wrote: 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?
I have somewhere read about some German organised, "converted" Soviet formed unit island raids. At the moment can't remember where.
Can't verify the code issue.


BP wrote: Quite many Soviet naval sources didn't mention the name of Marinesco even in 1980s
Quite many unreliable Soviet Naval sources then.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: 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 :lol: 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 :lol: And the responsible person is always I, of course :roll: But he is a very good specialist......
This is a bit away from the issue too, but my personal opinion is that such sevices are used by persons who only can have female company by that way.

BP wrote: 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 instance the origin of these following claims has remained a bit mysterious to me (emphasises on mine):
BP earlier wrote:But several sources mention this also and add - 11.10.1943 Shch-406 was raised by Finns, later scrapped......
...For example the huge and detailed book by Byelorussian historian A. Taras "Submarines of World War Two 1939-1945", Minsk, 2004
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=60
BP earlier wrote:one of the possible reason [mentioned by many Russian databases of Soviet submarines together with the "Finnish reason"] of Shch-317 loss was the attack of Swedish destroyer "Stockholm" 12.07.1942 N to Is. Aland in the point 57.52'/16.55'. www.deepstorm.ru mentions that Swedish divers found submarine in the same point exactly in spring 2000 [Taras mentioned that submarine was found in summer 1999].
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=60
BP earlier wrote:Taras mentiones the following: M-97 exploded on German mine in the Gulf of Finland SW off Porkkala-Ud, 11.09.1942. Found and investigated by Swedish divers in 1990.
http://www.deepstorm.ru as the best and most detailed source in my opinion: 01.09.1942 M-97 was escorted by base mine-sweeper to Eastern Gogland reach, submarine was in diving point at 00.31. M-97 should reach the position No. 9 after that [between Helsinki and Tallinn]. M-97 didn't returned to base and there were no radiomessages from it. 02.09.1942 Finnish radiostation [in Kotka] reported [01.45] about the detection of Soviet submarine 13.5 miles NW of Is. Rodsher. 03.09. [20.45] and 04.09. [22.25] Soviet submarine base tried to communicate with M-97 but there was no answer. In the morning 04.09.1942 Finnish observation post near lighthouse Porkkalan-Kallboda detected Soviet submarine, 10.09 [23.25] Helsinki radiostation mentioned detection of Soviet submarine in that region. Probably, exploded on mine [mine field "Nashorn"], several researches mention the date of explosion - morning 11.09.1942; 20 men were lost. In 1990 it was detected S to Helsinki [59.50'/24.30'].
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=90
BP earlier wrote:
Juha wrote: Also to where the back line of 10th October 1942 at the Russian estimations about the sinking date of the ShCh-320 is based at?
Any answers to that question?
So what, if I don't know the answer [and nobody knows in this case]
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=90
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: 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?
Ekman has used ~20 different Soviet sources (+ AFAIK his personal contacts) at that his book. Don't know at the moment the one where the Soviet claim was from.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: 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]
I believe that both numbers and tonnage are important, but tonnage more.
BP wrote: I will always counterattack you for senseless and wrong critic.
Sad to see you react this way to the info unpleasant to you.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4214
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 10 Apr 2007 11:10

Juha Tompuri wrote:
BP wrote: 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(!!!)
BP wrote:without any damages - that was confirmed when Shch-307 returned to the base but Finns reported as often that they "saw direct hits"]
Perhaps the crew should have used AP shots instead of the HE ones.
If the confirmation you mentioned is true.
Well, there are three possibilities: either the distance was much more than 20 metres (or the visibility was very poor?), the Soviet boat was not shot while fully surfaced at all (bullets usually just "explode" on the water surface if fired from an angle other than 90 degrees) or the source that disputes the Soviet damages lies.

I guess 20 mm Madsen HE bullets intended for AA fire, can penetrate perhaps about 5 - 10 mm steel plate. They might have damaged the submarine. If the witnesses saw the direct hits and it was for example wrote down to the logbook there is no doubt what happened.
Juha Tompuri wrote:
BP wrote: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?
Can't verify the code issue.
Me neither. The question is what documents and codes Soviets would have kept in U-2 plane and why it would have flown somehere on the hostile areas in May 1942? At least this plane is not any of the four U-2 planes Finns captured during the war.

What is the source of this?

-----

About Finnish intelligence:

Interestingly the Intelligence Office (Tied.1) of Intelligence Department (of the Section II of Supreme HQ or Intelligence Section) had a so called "Naval Forces Section" led by Lt.Cmd. R. Grönqvist and since 1943 by Cmd. A. Leino.

The second office of Intelligence Department was Signals Intelligence Office (Tied.2) which was also called as HQ / Supreme HQ Radio Battalion (E/PM Rad.P).

Finnish "Naval Section/Group" [Meriryhmä] as it was called or 2nd Company / Supreme HQ Radio Battalion (2./PM Rad.P) led by Capt. L. Pakarinen ended its work already in November 1941 and a new 2nd Company (Radio Intelligence Center, RTK) was formed (11.41- Capt. Y.Palko, ?- Lt.Cmd. Pekka Visa, 6.6.44- Lt.Cmd. Paavo Visa). It was located at Sortavala next to Lake Ladoga. This unit was the "heart" of the Finnish radio intelligence and took the duties of the earlier "Land Group" (1./PM Rad.P -> became a training company for listening operators) and "Naval Group" (2./PM Rad.P). The latter one was re-established on 10.5.1944 from RTK as 4th Company / Supreme HQ Radio Battalion (4./PM Rad.P) led by Lt.Cmd. A. Tunkelo.

Third office was Interrogation Office (Tied.3) formed in 1942. It belonged earlier to Intelligence Office as POW Section. It was led by Capt.(later Maj.) J. Saukkonen.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5497
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Post by Art » 10 Apr 2007 15:59

andrus wrote:Sorry to tell you but Taras and Shirokorad (Широкограб) are both well known plagiarist's.
Well, in his artillery books Shiriokorad is quite good, at least his encyclopedia of russian and soviet artillery doesn't have any analogues and hardly would have in nearest future. As concerns all that he wrote outside the realm of artillery, it is of course not a low-quality books compliled with the copy-paste method.

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 10 Apr 2007 20:05

Very short notes.
andrus wrote:
Sorry to tell you but Taras and Shirokorad (Øèðîêîãðàá) are both well known plagiarist's.
Taras and Shirokorad are plagiarists, of course. This is the known fact and this is one of the reason that they published a huge amount of very detailed books during the last years. But they mention very correct and newest info mainly [nevertheless, Shirokorad mistakes sometimes in the fate of warships as I could notice]. I rate the books about naval history of Professor Platonov more because of his own very deep research of the problem.
Harri wrote:
Well, there are three possibilities: either the distance was much more than 20 metres (or the visibility was very poor?), the Soviet boat was not shot while fully surfaced at all (bullets usually just "explode" on the water surface if fired from an angle other than 90 degrees) or the source that disputes the Soviet damages lies.
Agree. The possibility that Finns couldn't achieve any hits against the large target with 20mm rapid-fire gun from the very close distance [20 m] and 50 shells - it is quite hard to perform even in the case if the artillerymen were very unexperienced, for example.
I don't think that distance was more than 20 metres as it was described but visibility [according to the description] was poor indeed - it was mentioned that "Iku-Turso" appeared unexpectedly [counter course line with Shch-307, 26.10 at 20:44], made ~50 artillery shots and disappeared quickly. I guess that 20:44 in the end of October is a dark time, and Shch-307 tried to detect Finnish submarine unsuccessfully after that.
Shch-307 didn't break surface that time it perform surface run. The sources that dispute Soviet damages is correct [most probably] as they describe every combat damage in good details [ex. "13 holes from the MG fire of enemy fighter was found...." or "one hole from 20mm shell of German mine-sweeper was found in the 4th compartment and patched by mechanics" - I found such descriptions often].
Harri wrote:
I guess 20 mm Madsen HE bullets intended for AA fire, can penetrate perhaps about 5 - 10 mm steel plate. They might have damaged the submarine. If the witnesses saw the direct hits and it was for example wrote down to the logbook there is no doubt what happened.
One more possibility - that Finns fired above Shch-307 from their Madsen because of unexpected and very fast "meeting" of two submarines. Soviets had no time to open fire [and I am not sure that their artillerymen were near the guns] from 45mm guns [not so rapid-fire as 20mm, of course]. For sure 20mm shell could penetrate 5-10mm steel plate [see the example above - when one of the Soviet submarines was attacked by German mine-sweeper German 20mm shell penetrated the hull]. The doubts in the reports of eye-witnesses in such cases always might and should be - I don't mean that Finnish, Soviet or any other submariners lied especially but they mistaked sometimes in their claims. When I finish to translate the info from Platonov book about observation mistakes during torpedo attacks I will post this info.
Harri wrote:
Me neither. The question is what documents and codes Soviets would have kept in U-2 plane and why it would have flown somehere on the hostile areas in May 1942? At least this plane is not any of the four U-2 planes Finns captured during the war.
What is the source of this?
That is why I am asking, my dear friends. Because I am not sure in the correctnesses of the info [only one online source from newspaper, but quite interesting source] and I need confirmations from the "Finnish side" in this case :wink: . No other sources....
The source [on Russian, I used Babel Fish], author - Dr. of historical sciences A. Pochtarev, name of the article "The secret of death of Baltic "S"" [S-7 - BP]
http://nvo.ng.ru/history/2002-04-26/5_secret.html
About that U-2 [my translation] - the communication aircraft U-2 from 8th air attack division of Baltic Sea Navy was lost 22.05.1942. U-2 performed flight during relocating of one of the regiments of the division from Novaya Ladoga to Leningrad. Crew - pilot and corporal A. Romanov with secret documents and radio codes.....Sorry, I have no even 1 min to finish the post, need to go otherwise I miss my train to reach home. Tomorrow I will finish, sorry

BP

Seppo Koivisto
Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 22:49
Location: Finland

Post by Seppo Koivisto » 10 Apr 2007 23:02

Vetehinen vs. Shch-305

Here is a link to an interview of Kauko Ritoluoma, gunner of Vetehinen:
http://www.turunsanomat.fi/sunnuntai/?t ... :0:0:0:0:0:
He says for instance, that they fired eight shots with the 76 mm gun, the last of which penetrated the tower. After the crash, the Soviet sub capsized and sank silently (for a gunner?).

Looked also the book Taisteluhälytys (Battle Alarm) by Eino Pukkila, published in 1961. At that time it was believed, that Shch-305 could escape, because Russians had asked the name of the escort ship, that on that day at Åland Sea run over one of their submarines, which managed to return dameged to Kronstadt.

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 10 Apr 2007 23:37

Thanks for the interesting link, Seppo!
Seppo wrote:
He says for instance, that they fired eight shots with the 76 mm gun, the last of which penetrated the tower. After the crash, the Soviet sub capsized and sank silently (for a gunner?).
Juha Tompuri mentioned six fired shots from which three hit Shch-305 - whose info is correct? What was the practical rate of fire of 76mm gun of Finnish submarine [there were 250 m between submarines and in ~2 min they collided]? Russian sources I use here mention only artillery fire without exact info about fired shots.
Different eye-witnesses had different supervisions - capsized or sank by the stern immediately :roll: I believe that Soviet submarine didn't capsize but sank during crash dive with strong trim by the head which made damage control almost impossible.
Seppo wrote:
At that time it was believed, that Shch-305 could escape, because Russians had asked the name of the escort ship, that on that day at Åland Sea run over one of their submarines, which managed to return dameged to Kronstadt.
Never saw the versions about escape of Shch-305 [it was extremelly hard for submarine to reach the base after strong side collision]. I also never saw the mention that Soviet submarine was damaged by enemy escort ship at Eland Sea in 1942 and returned damaged to Kronshtadt - do you know the name of that submarine to check the info?

Regards, BP

Seppo Koivisto
Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 22:49
Location: Finland

Post by Seppo Koivisto » 11 Apr 2007 07:43

- whose info is correct?
Ritoluoma says, that (after first shot) he loaded four more shells and the other loader three. However, that all happened over sixty years ago. If the official record is six, I think we should stick to that.

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 11 Apr 2007 10:16

BIGpanzer wrote:[there were 250 m between submarines and in ~2 min they collided]?
No.
-ca. 250m
-ca. 1 min 30 sec between torpedo launch and ramming.

BP wrote:Russian sources I use here mention only artillery fire without exact info about fired shots.
To which sources the Russian sources about the last minutes of SC-305 are based at?

Regards, Juha

Seppo Koivisto
Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 22:49
Location: Finland

Post by Seppo Koivisto » 11 Apr 2007 17:16

BP wrote:
Different eye-witnesses had different supervisions - capsized or sank by the stern immediately
I made only a rough translation. If one compares the original texts, I think their stories are quite similar. It is difficult to say if Ritoluoma means, that it capsized completely. Whereas Hyytiäinen said, that the hull rolled left, when the nose was up.
BP wrote:
do you know the name of that submarine to check the info?
It is only said, that for instance the periscope was bent.

One more link from Turun Sanomat:
http://www.turunsanomat.fi/kotimaa/?ts= ... :0:0:0:0:0:

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