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.
Post Reply
Janne
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 12:53
Location: Helsinki

#211

Post by Janne » 23 Apr 2007, 08:13

To BP: there was no mine for Lisin to agree to work as volunteer at, either. (If everything needs to be spelled out to rule out every possible interpretation you can wrangle out of the words like an opposite candidate at a political debate, it gets very boring to write...)

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 23:51
Location: Central Europe

#212

Post by BIGpanzer » 23 Apr 2007, 20:59

Janne wrote:
there was no mine for Lisin to agree to work as volunteer at, either.
Well, the conditions at axis Finnish POW camps could be hmm...differ [see above]. I didn't see the mentions in Lisin short memoires or in memoires of his colleague from naval school about any mine indeed [so, probably, you are right], but that was mentioned in the interrogation documents from NKVD when they checked Lisin.
Juha wrote:
BP wrote:
P.S. Does somebody know the exact name of Finnish gunboat which tried to ram S-1 24.12.1939? I've already mentioned that event when I posted the info about S-1 here. S-1 crossed at periscope depth South Kvarken and unexpectedly ran aground near Is. Merket. Patrol Finnish gunboat detected it and tried to ram but S-1 could get afloat and dodged the Finnish attack at the supreme moment.
As with Väinämöinen trying to ram a Soviet sub, never read about that claimed ramming too.
The unsuccessful ramming of S-1 by Finnish patrol gunboat during the Winter war was, most probably, took place indeed [a lot of very differ sources mention this]. Pre-WWII accident with "Väinämöinen" was a very differ case as it was mentioned by 1-2 sources only [according to Ivantsov report]. So either you didn't read about the case with S-1 or Finns didn't like to report about their unsuccessful combat attempts (I believe that only sometimes :wink: ).
Juha wrote:
....but most of them were tried to sink with torpedoes. Also only 1 ship from 5 sinking during Winter War by Soviet subs was an enemy one.
From 5 sinking ships - Estonian "Kassari" [no any torpedo attack, didn't stop and destroyed by artillery fire], German "Reinbek" [didn't reply on light warnings and torpedoed after 1 hour of pursuit], Finnish "Wilpas" [shelled by 45mm gun and torpedoed later when the ship ran aground only], Swedish "Fenris" [didn't stop and destroyed by artillery fire, unsuccessfully torpedoed [torpedo missed] when crewmembers abandoned ship on life-boats already], German "Bolheim" [unsuccessfully torpedoed [torpedo missed] and then destroyed by artillery fire].
So only one case of the torpedo attack before warnings and/or artillery fire.
Juha wrote:
The rescued crew were taken by the sub to Kronstadt. There is no mention they being blindfolded.
No, I just guess that they could be placed in one compartment for talks [mess room, for example] and didn't see the whole submarine.
Juha wrote:
The freighters mentioned travelled illuminated, tried to identify themselves to the sub, as they had nothing to hide.
Here one example of some differences between the reports:
This is differ and each case should be investigated if possible. Quite many freighters travelled without lights that time for safety reasons [and those which transported some kind of military materials to Finland]. I also found several mentions that Soviet subs travelled with lights on quite often also [but I guessed that they should perform their mission with light off]. As for reports - they should be analyzed very carefully. I believe that in many cases during WWII they are correct from both sides [some differences could be explained with differ "impressions" of naval and civil sailors - the first just opened warning fire to stop the ship for inspection, the second ones - imagined that the unknown sub attacked their ship], some WWII sub reports could be written in some kind of incorrect form to hide the disobey of orders, cowardice, inattention, etc. [that was quite hard as reports were checked by HQ according to recon info if possible, also other officers on board [including commissar and navigator] could not support the incorrect sub captain report - there are several known cases when navigator or commissar didn't agree to sigh incorrect reports and sub captains was arrested for falseness], also civil crewmembers of enemy and even neutral ships could write incorrect reports also [for anti-Soviet propaganda reasons during the war].

Regards, BP


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

#213

Post by Juha Tompuri » 23 Apr 2007, 22:45

BIGpanzer wrote:The unsuccessful ramming of S-1 by Finnish patrol gunboat during the Winter war was, most probably, took place indeed [a lot of very differ sources mention this].
Where else this "info" could originate than from S-1 crew and/or the hypothetic gunboat? Where there other eye-wittnesses ?

BP wrote:Pre-WWII accident with "Väinämöinen" was a very differ case as it was mentioned by 1-2 sources only [according to Ivantsov report].
Very similar case: a claim, with little or nothing to back it up with.
BP wrote:So either you didn't read about the case with S-1 or Finns didn't like to report about their unsuccessful combat attempts (I believe that only sometimes :wink: ).
As I earlier wrote, I haven't read about that ramming before.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: ....but most of them were tried to sink with torpedoes. Also only 1 ship from 5 sinking during Winter War by Soviet subs was an enemy one.

From 5 sinking ships - Estonian "Kassari" [no any torpedo attack, didn't stop and destroyed by artillery fire], German "Reinbek" [didn't reply on light warnings and torpedoed after 1 hour of pursuit], Finnish "Wilpas" [shelled by 45mm gun and torpedoed later when the ship ran aground only], Swedish "Fenris" [didn't stop and destroyed by artillery fire, unsuccessfully torpedoed [torpedo missed] when crewmembers abandoned ship on life-boats already], German "Bolheim" [unsuccessfully torpedoed [torpedo missed] and then destroyed by artillery fire].
emphasis on mine
BP wrote:So only one case of the torpedo attack before warnings and/or artillery fire.
emphasis on mine.
Note the difference.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: The rescued crew were taken by the sub to Kronstadt. There is no mention they being blindfolded.
No, I just guess that they could be placed in one compartment for talks [mess room, for example] and didn't see the whole submarine.
Yes, most probably.
Who has told that they were toured at the whole vessel?
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: The freighters mentioned travelled illuminated, tried to identify themselves to the sub, as they had nothing to hide.
Here one example of some differences between the reports:
This is differ and each case should be investigated if possible. Quite many freighters travelled without lights that time for safety reasons [and those which transported some kind of military materials to Finland]. I also found several mentions that Soviet subs travelled with lights on quite often also [but I guessed that they should perform their mission with light off].
Majority of the ships Soviet subs sank during the Winter War travelled illuminated. IIRC at no reports I have read the Soviet subs travelled illuminated at those missions.
BP wrote: I believe that in many cases during WWII they are correct from both sides [some differences could be explained with differ "impressions" of naval and civil sailors - the first just opened warning fire to stop the ship for inspection, the second ones - imagined that the unknown sub attacked their ship]
When the "warning fire" hits the ship, that can well be thought as an attack.
BP wrote:some WWII sub reports could be written in some kind of incorrect form to hide the disobey of orders, cowardice, inattention, etc. [that was quite hard as reports were checked by HQ according to recon info if possible, also other officers on board [including commissar and navigator] could not support the incorrect sub captain report - there are several known cases when navigator or commissar didn't agree to sigh incorrect reports and sub captains was arrested for falseness],
New to me.
BP wrote:also civil crewmembers of enemy and even neutral ships could write incorrect reports also [for anti-Soviet propaganda reasons during the war].
I think there was no need for that, and Germans, (the main? origin of ships being attacked) were not even completely neutral, but as the captain of Oliva:
JT earlier wrote: When Oliva (AFAIK) arrived to Mäntyluoto 7th Dec-39, the captain of the steamer asked the Finnish officials that the incident would not be used at propaganda purposes.
Regards, Juha

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 23:51
Location: Central Europe

#214

Post by BIGpanzer » 24 Apr 2007, 18:39

Juha wrote:
Where else this "info" could originate than from S-1 crew and/or the hypothetic gunboat?

If you didn't read about something that doesn't mean that such event didn't happen and should be quoted :lol: :? Obviously, there is a lot of new info for you here [for example, detailed procedure of recon/agents/eye-witnesses confirmation reports in Soviet Navy if possible - I will post some additional info about this when I have time as Prof. Platonov wrote about this [as well as about origins of mistakes during torpedo attacks] in his book in details]. The info is without any quotes :? The gunboat was not hypothetic [this is your additional "knowledgeable" version and nothing more - just my hmm...still friendly reply for quoting, OK? :? ] but that was one of the few Finnish patrol gunboats most probably. Another possibility [my guess - BP] - that was not gunboat but patrol boat. The origin of the info I don't know [it was mentioned by Prof. Platonov, http://www.deepstorm.ru, Dr. Morozov as it is - date and event]
Well, what I've read [again] - 24.12.1939 S-1 crossed at periscope depth South Kvarken and unexpectedly ran aground near Is. Market. The sub was immediately noticed by Finnish gunboat which patrolled the area and tried to ram S-1. The sub could get afloat with the full reverse speed and avoid ramming at the supreme moment. So I wanted and still want to know additional details about that event from somebody.
For example, it could be gunboat "Karjala" which was noticed by Shch-311 [near South Kvarken] 25.12.1939 - Finns also noticed surfaced submarine and signalized with identification light from 15 cables - Soviet sub captain realized that he couldn't decrease the distance for attack under such conditions and decided to escape at surface, Finnish gunboat began pursuit but lost Shch-311 soon.
By the way - as for two Finnish hydroplanes which performed patrol flight close from ice-pressed S-1 at low altitude [ca. 200-250 m]. Seems to be quite probably that one of them was heavily damaged by artillery fire from sub 45mm gun indeed [48 shells were fired, gun commander - lieutenant Bakanov] - Shirokorad mentioned that one hydroplane made emergency landing on ice after shell hit [if so, it could be found and repaired by Finns later, so they didn't count it as the combat loss - but Shirokorad mentioned that only 8 45mm tracer shells were fired, which is not correct in my opinion], almost the same wrote Polish historian E. Kosiarz in "Drugiej wojnie światowej na Bałtyku". But sub commander Tripolsky mentioned that he saw only that damaged aircraft began to increase altitude and disappeared beyond the horizon soon.
Juha wrote:
Very similar case:...
In my opinion possible accident with "Väinämöinen" and Soviet small submarine [didn't remember its name, see my post somewhere above] in September 1938 is quite differ case - peaceful times and unfamous captain Ivantsov. IIRC I agreed with you that it could happen during the Finnish Navy parade.
Juha wrote:
Note the difference.
Yes, please, do :? . I meant that only in the case of German "Bolheim" the attempt to torpedo the ship was made before any warnings. All other ships were pursued at surface and shelled by artillery fire.
Juha wrote:
Majority of the ships Soviet subs sank during the Winter War travelled illuminated.
Some - yes, some - no. The majority of ships didn't stop for inspections [for example, "Reinbek" was pursued during more than one hour and didn't reply on light warnings for unclear reason until Soviet sub outran it and torpedoed]. Sometimes the reports of sub commanders and ship captains were differ as we know - and I need to say, that sometimes it is not very obvious which reports were more correct.
Juha wrote:
When the "warning fire" hits the ship, that can well be thought as an attack.
More than agree. Warning fire was a warning fire - shells hit the water.
Juha wrote:
I think there was no need for that, and Germans, (the main? origin of ships being attacked) were not even completely neutral, but as the captain of Oliva:
Here mostly agree [captain of "Oliva" was handshaked by Ivantsov even :) ]. But I meant the German/Finnish WWII propaganda machine in general - sinking ships or dropping bombs over city, they liked to accuse Soviet Army in cruelty for "forget" about their own war crimes [quite often much more significant].

About "Oliva" - yes, sorry, I wrote it ones as "Oliwa".
Juha wrote:
P-O Ekman mentions that after the sinking of Bolheim, the German ambassador von der Schulenburg 14th December 1939 gave an official protest concerning to the sinking of Bolheim and shooting Olivia. When Oliva (AFAIK) arrived to Mäntyluoto 7th Dec-39, the captain of the steamer asked the Finnish officials that the incident would not be used at propaganda purposes.

Now the detailed info about Black Sea as we already paid too much attention to quite insignificant sub operations during the Winter war [and almost everything is quite clear].

I’ve already mentioned the victories and losses of Pacific submarines during the Soviet-Japanese war in August 1945 [4 Japanese ships were sunk (3 by torpedos, 1 by artillery fire) and one Soviet submarine (L-19) exploded on Japanese mine 22.08.1945].
Also Pacific Navy lost 4 submarines before 1945 [M-49 and M-63 exploded on Soviet mines 08.1941, Shch-138 sank in the port because of own 4 torpedos explosion (possible Japanese diversion) 18.07.1942 and L-16 was torpedoed 800 miles from San Francisco by Japanese or US submarine 11.10.1942].

I would like to analyze the victories and losses of Black Sea submarines at the moment.
1941 – was the very hard year for Soviet submariners as Germans mined with air mines sea-gates of main naval base Sevastopol during the first days of the war, and blocked submarines there [but four submarines could escaped and started patrols near Romanian and Bulgarian coast, also in Bosphorus]. When Soviet naval bases Nikolaev and Kherson were captured, Sevastopol was besieged and Kerch was evacuated, submarines moved to Poti and Batumi but there was no necessary equipment for their service support there.

_________________________________________________________________________

Losses in 1941 – 7 submarines: M-34, M-58, M-59, Shch-204, Shch-206, Shch-211, S-34. Also M-54 was run aground by strong storm 10.12.1941 near Tuapse [got afloat 30.06.1942, towed to Poti 05.07.1942, not repaired and scrapped 02.1945].

*M-34 [captain-lieutenant N. Golovanov] – exploded on floating mine near Romanian port Constanta 03.11.1941 [all 20 crewmembers were lost including commissar of 2nd brigade of submarines A. Yakimchuk].

*M-58 [captain-lieutenant N. Eliseev] – exploded on mine [most probably, mine field “S-18”] near Romanian port Constanta 18-21.10.1941 [all 19 crewmembers were lost].

*M-59 [senior lieutenant G. Matveev] – exploded on mine near Romanian port Sulina 31.10.1941 [all 20 crewmembers were lost].

*Shch-204 [captain-lieutenant I. Gritsenko] – was damaged by Bulgarian aircraft, and soon exploded on mine [Romanian mine field “S-18”] 20 miles SE from Bulgarian port Varna 06.-07.12.1941 [all 46 crewmembers were lost]. It was found by Bulgarian ship “Alka” 05.06.1983 [point 42.53’75”/28.03’64”] and investigated by Soviet and Bulgarian divers later [divers could take some details of submarine]: Shch-204 had very strong damages – three large holes in 3rd, 5th and 7th compartments, also a lot of small holes from fragments and bullets.

*Shch-206 [captain-lieutenant A. Karakai] – was sunk by depth charges of Soviet destroyer “Soobrazitelny” 60 miles from Romanian port Constanta 26.06.1941 [all 45 crewmembers were lost]. Captain of Shch-206 didn’t know about presence of Soviet warships near Constanta and tried to attack Soviet destroyer “Soobrazitelny”, which dropped 12 depth charges in reply [after strong explosion the stern of submarine became visible, soon air bubbles and oil spots appeared].

*Shch-211 [captain-lieutenant A. Devyatko] – sank by depth charges from Romanian patrol ships [and/or exploded on Romanian mine from “S-18” mine field] 6 miles E from Cape Ak-Burnu [S from Bulgarian port Varna] 22.11.1941 [all 44 crewmembers were lost, the body of second-in-command senior lieutenant Borisenko was found ashore near Varna – there is a memorial there]. The submarine was found by Bulgarian divers 09.2000 [depth 30 m] and investigated by Russian naval divers 07.2003 [they could take gun and screw for the museum of Black Sea Navy, but couldn’t enter inside submarine].

*S-34 [captain 3rd rank Ya. Khmelnitsky] – exploded on mine [Romanian mine field “S-16” or Bulgarian mine field “S-39”] in the northern part of Burgas bay [Bulgaria] 12.11.1941. All crew [51 men] was lost including 2 men [second-in-command senior lieutenant V. Dushin and boatswain chief petty officer F. Terehov] who were found 14.11.1941 ashore near Bulgarian Sozopol in wet suits (they could escape from sinking submarine [from depth 62 m] and tried to reach the coastline [33 km from the point of catastrophe] by swimming) – there is a memorial there.

_________________________________________________________________________

Victories in 1941 – 6 ships [17887 brt] and 3 warships [mine-layer, mine-sweeper, landing vessel] + 1 ship and 1 landing vessel were damaged.
24 torpedo attacks were performed [6 were successful].

1. Romanian transport “Peles” [5708 brt, in ballast; convoy] – torpedoed [3 cables; 2 torpedos] by Shch-211 15.08.1941 [10:54, N of Cape Emine].

2. Bulgarian transport “Shipka” [2304 brt, grain on board] – exploded on mine of L-4 15.09.1941

3. Italian tanker “Superga” [6154 brt, 1800 t of petrol and 2350 t of oil on board; well-guarded convoy] – torpedoed [2 cables; 1 torpedo] by Shch-211 29.09.1941 [10:16, near Cape Emine, there is a photo made through periscope]. Next day the half-sunken tanker was completely destroyed by 2 additional torpedos [19:35, 6 cables].

4. Romanian mine-layer “Regele Carol I” – exploded on mine of L-4 10.10.1941

5. German self-propelled ferry/landing barge SF25 [convoy] – destroyed by artillery fire [18:48-19:15, 3 cables; 110 45mm shells, 4 hits] from M-35 26.10.1941 [N from Constanta]

6. Turkish schooner “Kaunakdere” [85 brt, cotton on board] – destroyed by artillery fire [01:05-01:10, 1 cable, 8 45mm shells] from Shch-214 03.11.1941 [near Cape Zeitin-Burnu]

7. Italian tanker “Torcello” [3336 brt, in ballast; convoy] – torpedoed [4 cables, 1 torpedo] by Shch-214 05.11.1941 [21:38, near Cape Curuburun]

8. Turkish transport “Yenice” [300 brt, in ballast; convoy] – torpedoed [4 cables, 1 torpedo] by Shch-215 18.11.1941 [16:37, N from Bosphorus – Cape Zeitin-Burnu]

9. German small mine-sweeper D2 – exploded on mine of L-4 19.11.1941 [E from Varna]

Also:
German transport “Lola” [1193 brt; convoy] was damaged by torpedo [4 cables, torpedo hit but didn’t explode] from M-35 27.10.1941 [20:20, near Sulina]
German self-propelled ferry/landing barge SF36 [convoy] – was sunk by artillery fire [18:48-19:15, 3 cables] from M-35 26.10.1941 [N from Constanta] but later it was raised and repaired.

_________________________________________________________________________

As for activities of Soviet submarines at Black Sea in 1941 – they tried to attack enemy convoys and warships near Romanian, Bulgarian and Soviet coast, also at Bosphorus; shelled ports and enemy troops [27.10.1941 – S-31 shelled enemy units near Evpatoriya by 79 100mm shells from 75-100 cabels, 19.11.1941 – S-32 shelled Yalta by 113 100mm shells, 20.11.1941 – D-5 shelled Alushta by 9 102mm shells and 30 45mm shells from 45 cabels, 25.11.1941 – D-4 shelled Yalta by 42 102mm shells from 54 cabels; 27.12.1941 – L-6 shelled enemy units near Sevastopol by 17 100mm shells from 70-80 cabels]; landed recon groups [including Bulgarian communists] and raiding parties of marines; worked as sea lighthouses during landing operations of Soviet marines [Feodosiya-Kerch landing operation 12.1941]; installed mines near Romanian and Bulgarian coast [L-4 installed 140 mines 08.-10.1941. L-5 installed 102 mines 08.-11.1941, L-6 installed 20 mines 11.1941]; L-6 performed 1 transport mission to Sevastopol [26.12.-28.12.1941, delivered 8 tons of aircraft ammunition].

Several combat accidents in 1941 as examples –
Shch-205 was damaged by 2 mines near Bulgarian port Varna 04.12.1941 but could reach the home base after patrol mission;
Shch-212 was heavily damaged by mine near Varna 25.10.1941 but could reach the home base;
M-31 was damaged by mine near Constanta 04.09.1941 but could reach the home base. S-32 unexpectedly dived [because of mistake of one crewmember] during the surface detection of convoy 06.09.1941 – lieutenant T. Slivko, first sergeants F. Svetlenko, I. Weiner and sailor P. Gorbachev, who were on the command bridge that time, were lost [submarine did surface in 1.5 min but couldn’t find the men].
M-33 unsuccessfully attacked Romanian submarine “Delfinul” near Constanta 20.08.1941 [1 torpedo from 7 cabels].
M-34 [with British naval officer on board as observer] did surface after the attack against convoy 21.09.1941, 2 Romanian patrol ships detected submarine and pursued it during 10 hours [37 depth charges were dropped] – M-34 was damaged but returned to home base.
L-4 was lightly damaged [close bomb explosion] by German hydroplane Ar-196 18.08.1941 and damaged by Romanian mine [UMA-type] near Varna 12.12.1941 [nevertheless, submarine continued patrol mission].

Regards, BP
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 24 Apr 2007, 20:37, edited 1 time in total.

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

#215

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Apr 2007, 19:11

BIGpanzer wrote:I will answer on your posts tomorrow, Juha.
OK
BP wrote:8. Turkish transport “Yenice” [300 brt, in ballast; convoy] – torpedoed [4 cables, 1 torpedo] by Shch-215 18.11.1941 [16:37, N from Bosphorus – Cape Zeitin-Burnu]
Another "Finnish" ship sunken:
"Yenice" was built in Finland 1876 as "Jakobstad"
http://www.turkusteamers.com/ulkomaanli ... laiva.html

Regards, Juha

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 23:51
Location: Central Europe

#216

Post by BIGpanzer » 24 Apr 2007, 20:46

Already replied [see my previous post above]. Juha, lets avoid overquoting as I've already asked several times and save our time for posting more interesting info and discussions about exact data.
Juha wrote:
Another "Finnish" ship sunken:
"Yenice" was built in Finland 1876 as "Jakobstad"
Thanks, interesting. I read quite often that ships were built in Finnish Grand Principality of Russian Empire were of lower quality in comparison with ships were built in England or Russian St.Petersburg but Finnish businessmen asked for their ships the large amount of money sometimes exceeded the cost of British and Russian [St. Petersburg-built] ships. What is your objective opinion of general quality of XIX c. Finnish ships?

Regards, BP

Janne
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 12:53
Location: Helsinki

#217

Post by Janne » 25 Apr 2007, 09:42

FWIW the "standard" works of Winter War history or the Finnish Navy merely state that "a few observations of enemy subs were made during December, but no results of anti-sub warfare were noted". In other words, in absence of ship or unit histories or any other such monographs that would give us an exhaustive list of every single confirmed or possive observation, every single succesful or unsuccesful action or, indeed, the excat whereabouts of every single vessel during the war, it is impossible to say more with any kind of 100% certainty.

As you probably know, the Finnish gunboats in the area were "Turunmaa", "Uusimaa" and "Hämeenmaa". According to the afore-mentioned sources "Karjala" didn't turn up until January - although I'm unable to pin down its location on December 25th - so it would appear to be rather unlikely that it would've been where the Soviet sub reported it. OTOH other Finnish vessels, such as "mine-clearers" and VMV-class boats, were on patrol duty there

BTW the area where these incidents you describe took place is awfully close to the Swedish maritime border, so the obvious question is whether they could've been _Swedish_ gunboats?


As for the sub observations made by Ripon pilots, the same sources mention three certain: Dec 14th, Dec 16th (when a sub was unsuccesfully bombed) and Jan 19th - and "some possible" later in January. Unfortunately, the existing monograph doesn't tell us about every single flight or every single mechanical or combat incident (although a Finnish description of the Dec 16 incident has already been given here).

As for the general policy of combat loss accounting: if an aircraft made a forced landing. but could be fixed up, I don't think, either, that it was considered a combat loss.If the aircraft had suffered a mechanical breakdown or if the pilot had been forced to emergency land because of bad weather, it wouldn't have been considered a plane loss in peaceful times, either.


As for the other stuff in your two latest posts, I'll just have to say: "No, I won't bite!":-)

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

#218

Post by Juha Tompuri » 25 Apr 2007, 21:52

BIGpanzer wrote:If you didn't read about something that doesn't mean that such event didn't happen
As true as if you have read about something, that doesn't mean that such event did happen.
BP wrote: The origin of the info I don't know [it was mentioned by Prof. Platonov, http://www.deepstorm.ru, Dr. Morozov as it is - date and event]
Can there be any other sources than S-1 crew?
BP wrote:For example, it could be gunboat "Karjala" which was noticed by Shch-311 [near South Kvarken] 25.12.1939
As Janne posted, it could not be gunboat Karjala at either cases.

BP wrote:By the way - as for two Finnish hydroplanes which performed patrol flight close from ice-pressed S-1 at low altitude [ca. 200-250 m].
I think a better term for "hydroplane" (direct Russian translation?) is "floatplane". IIRC the Ripons at that time were not equipped with floats, but with skis or wheels.
BP wrote: Shirokorad mentioned that one hydroplane made emergency landing on ice after shell hit [if so, it could be found and repaired by Finns later, so they didn't count it as the combat loss - but Shirokorad mentioned that only 8 45mm tracer shells were fired, which is not correct in my opinion],
BP earlier wrote:Shirokorad mentions that two Finnish aircraft [no exact model] attacked submarine [in my opinion even if they didn't drop bombs but flew at low altitude of 200 m that could be recognized as unexpected air attack by submarine crew] and one was knocked down by 45mm gun [48 shells were fired].
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=150
Which is correct?
BP wrote: sub commander Tripolsky mentioned that he saw only that damaged aircraft began to increase altitude and disappeared beyond the horizon soon.
BP earlier wrote:Tripolsky wrote in his report the following...Two Finnish hydroplanes with bombs under wing performed patrol flight near submarine at low altitude [ca. 200 m] and it seemed that they began to attack submarine but they were driven away by fire from MG and 45mm gun. Flash [possible hit of 45mm shell] was visible on one of the enemy aircraft which began to come down and soon they disappeared in sky without any further attacks
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=150
Which (way the planes went) is correct?
BP wrote:
Juha wrote:Very similar case:...
In my opinion possible accident with "Väinämöinen" and Soviet small submarine [didn't remember its name, see my post somewhere above] in September 1938 is quite differ case - peaceful times and unfamous captain Ivantsov. IIRC I agreed with you that it could happen during the Finnish Navy parade.
...or not at all.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: Note the difference.
Yes, please, do :? . I meant that only in the case of German "Bolheim" the attempt to torpedo the ship was made before any warnings. All other ships were pursued at surface and shelled by artillery fire.
Actually I first stated that
JT wrote:most of them were tried to sink with torpedoes
Your replies to that have been a bit off-topic from my original post.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: Majority of the ships Soviet subs sank during the Winter War travelled illuminated.
Some - yes, some - no. The majority of ships didn't stop for inspections [for example, "Reinbek" was pursued during more than one hour and didn't reply on light warnings for unclear reason until Soviet sub outran it and torpedoed].
Kassari, Bolheim, Wilpas and Fenris (4 out of 5) were travelling with lights on.
From Reinbeck, no-one lived to tell.
BP wrote:Sometimes the reports of sub commanders and ship captains were differ as we know - and I need to say, that sometimes it is not very obvious which reports were more correct.
Hmm..my personal opinion is that the political system and situation at USSR at those days encouraged people to give such reports, the superior wanted to receive.
BP wrote:. Warning fire was a warning fire - shells hit the water.
sometimes to the ships.
BP wrote: I meant the German/Finnish WWII propaganda machine in general - sinking ships or dropping bombs over city, they liked to accuse Soviet Army in cruelty for "forget" about their own war crimes [quite often much more significant].
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=195
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: P-O Ekman mentions that after the sinking of Bolheim, the German ambassador von der Schulenburg 14th December 1939 gave an official protest concerning to the sinking of Bolheim and shooting Olivia. When Oliva (AFAIK) arrived to Mäntyluoto 7th Dec-39, the captain of the steamer asked the Finnish officials that the incident would not be used at propaganda purposes.
When quoting, please do it at correct and honest way.
I've never posted that and/or that way
BP wrote:quite insignificant sub operations during the Winter war [and almost everything is quite clear].
I agree on both.
Do you have info about the ships that were claimed damaged by Soviet subs during the Winter War?

Regards, Juha

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

#219

Post by Juha Tompuri » 25 Apr 2007, 22:20

Janne wrote:"Karjala" didn't turn up until January - although I'm unable to pin down its location on December 25th - so it would appear to be rather unlikely that it would've been where the Soviet sub reported it.
According to "Suomen Laivasto 1918-1968" vol I"(Finnish Navy...): gunboat Karjala arrived to Aland Sea 4th Jan-40 from Helsinki.
Also:
-11th(???) Dec-39 gunboat Turunmaa arrived to the Aland Sea and gunboat Uusimaa left the area, steaming to Helsinki, to be fitted with depth charge throwers ( wonder how long that took? , JT)
-Gunboat Hämeenmaa saw an enemy sub 16th and 17th Dec-39 at Flötjan area (could those been the case(s) BP mentioned to have happened on 24th same month?)
Janne wrote:OTOH other Finnish vessels, such as "mine-clearers" and VMV-class boats, were on patrol duty there
According to the source I mentioned earlier:
-Because of the winter the "mine clearer boats" were sent to away 25th dec-39 and VMV boats 27th same month.
-also VMV ramming a ~30x heavier target would be quite risky for the attacker.
Janne wrote:BTW the area where these incidents you describe took place is awfully close to the Swedish maritime border, so the obvious question is whether they could've been _Swedish_ gunboats?
Valid point.


Regards, Juha

Mangrove
Member
Posts: 2027
Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 02:33

#220

Post by Mangrove » 03 Jul 2007, 12:25

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/ulkom ... id=1396514

The wreck of SC 305 has been found.

Martti

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#221

Post by varjag » 03 Jul 2007, 13:36

Martti Kujansuu wrote:http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/ulkom ... id=1396514

The wreck of SC 305 has been found.

Martti
There is an 'english text' text available in this link;

http://www.subsc305.com/

Varjag

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 23:51
Location: Central Europe

#222

Post by BIGpanzer » 03 Jul 2007, 18:21

Interesting info! And very good that the wrecks of Shch-305 was fortunately found by Swedish and Finnish divers! I read that something was detected several times in the point of Shch-305 loss, but that was not identified as submarine.

By the way, IIRC there are two versions about the last seconds of Shch-305 - that submarine sank bow down [according to the description of possible situation from http://www.deepstorm.ru, which mentions that flood of nose I and (possibly) II compartments after collision with "Vetehinen" made damage control almost impossible during crash dive of Shch-305 that moment because of rapidly increased nose-down angle] or stern down [IIRC according to one of several Finnish eye-witnesses]. According to the link, provided by Varjag, "ShCh-305 went down with the bow into the mud", which supports the version that it sank bow down.

Point of Shch-305 loss 05.11.1942 - 60.03'3/19.12'5; all 38 crewmembers were lost [including commander - captain III rank D.Sazonov, born 22.02.1910].
The Martti's/Varjag's link mentions the depth 136 m, so I guess that crewmembers from stern compartments [if they had time to close the doors, otherwise they were killed by immediate flooding spreaded all over the submarine from the nose damage hole] lived some time until the oxygen came to the end.

P.S. For sure I am continuing the posts about victories/losses of Soviet submarines year by year and sea by sea according to the newest sources, but no time at the moment for such long posts, sorry guys.
P.S.2. I will try to inform you about news or possible interesting additional historical details from Russian sites about this event, but there are only short mentions in Runet at the moment ["Shch-305 was found in Swedish waters with the help of under-water video camera; research group from Aland islands doesn't give the info about exact location of this war grave because of possible actions of wreckers" - this is strange as quite exact location is known from 1942 already and how wreckers can make possible illegal actions at 136 m depth in Swedish waters undetected? - BP]

P.S.3 - illustration from the most detailed and illustrated book about careers of WWII Soviet submarines by Miroslav Morozov, 2001 [in my opinion, book by Platonov is more informative but less illustrated] - "Places of losses of Finnish ships and Soviet submarines in Aland Sea in 1942. The point, described as loss of Shch-320, is the point of unsuccessful attack of Shch-307 by Iku-Turso in reality". For some reason I guess, that JT has this book :wink:


Regards, BP
Attachments
Morozov, 2001.jpg
Morozov, 2001.jpg (26.58 KiB) Viewed 2022 times
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 03 Jul 2007, 19:50, edited 2 times in total.

Esa K
Member
Posts: 1257
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:49
Location: Sweden

#223

Post by Esa K » 03 Jul 2007, 19:42

Pictures and videos (and text [in Swedish]) about the find of Shch-305 here:

http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=2 ... pos=lasmer


Best regards

Esa K

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

#224

Post by Juha Tompuri » 03 Jul 2007, 21:03

BIGpanzer wrote:By the way, IIRC there are two versions about the last seconds of Shch-305 - that submarine sank bow down [according to the description of possible situation from http://www.deepstorm.ru, which mentions that flood of nose I and (possibly) II compartments after collision with "Vetehinen" made damage control almost impossible during crash dive of Shch-305 that moment because of rapidly increased nose-down angle] or stern down [IIRC according to one of several Finnish eye-witnesses]
Every info about the case is based on Finnish eye-wittnesses.
I, as the Swedish sites, prefer ramming over the some Soviet preferred collied


BP wrote:P.S.3 - illustration from the most detailed and illustrated book about careers of WWII Soviet submarines by Miroslav Morozov, 2001 [in my opinion, book by Platonov is more informative but less illustrated] - "Places of losses of Finnish ships and Soviet submarines in Aland Sea in 1942. The point, described as loss of Shch-320, is the point of unsuccessful attack of Shch-307 by Iku-Turso in reality". For some reason I guess, that JT has this book
I, as M. Morozov, prefer facts over fiction.



Regards, Juha

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 23:51
Location: Central Europe

#225

Post by BIGpanzer » 03 Jul 2007, 23:47

Juha wrote:
Every info about the case is based on Finnish eye-wittnesses.
I, as the Swedish sites, prefer ramming over the some Soviet preferred collied
Yes, the only eye-witnesses were Finns as we've already discussed, but some of them reported incorrect things about size of Soviet submarine and other details [most probably, because of darkness and short time for detailed observations]. As for ramming/collision - ~95% of Russian sources mention the term "ramming" [as well as all today's Russian news I am trying to find], as for me - I also think that was ramming, but I don't feel any differences between ramming and collision terms in physic sense [ramming means collision of two objects also] as I meant just the origin of fatal hull damage in my previous post.
Juha wrote
I, as M. Morozov, prefer facts over fiction.

Facts and some part of beliefs to the correctness of read sources :)
I am almost not doubt in the statement about facts and I would like to note that I am also the member of such an honest knowledgeable team :wink:
It will be interesting to wait the finding of Shch-320 wrecks for exact investigations as according to the best Russian sources [Dr. Morozov, Prof. Platonov] Shch-320 exploded on floating mine around 03 October 1942 whereas Shch-307 was unsuccessfully attacked by torpedos and artillery fire from "Iku-Turso" 27 October 1942 [also one day earlier by artillery fire from "Iku-Turso"- see above about 50 shots from 20mm Madsen] and Soviet submarine dived so rapidly after anti-torpedo manoeuvre [captain N. Momot detected "Iku-Turso" from deck-house] that Finnish captain believed that torpedo hit the target [identified by Finns as Shch-320]. Shch-307 survived the war with 2 victories [German submarine U-144 and Finnish transport "Betty H"] and its deck-house can be seen in Moscow museum of WWII. I will return to this subject later, as Baltic Sea and year 1942 are not described yet here in full details [full list of victories/losses], and there are several unclear details also. By the way, could you provide me with the original info [links, scans] where Finns from "Iku-Turso" claimed the hit of Shch-320 together with the unsuccessful attacks against Shch-307? [because I believe that Finnish submariners just confused Shch-320 with Shch-307 as it is mentioned by authors above] What are the evidences that Shch-320 wasn't exploded on mine around 03 October 1942?

Regards, BP

P.S. About JT's old question:
Do you have info about the ships that were claimed damaged by Soviet subs during the Winter War?
AFAIK no additional Soviet claims to the ships sank/damaged/shelled in reality - because almost all were attacked by artillery fire from surface positions and there was no way for mistakes. As for 1941-1945 - there were many mistaken claims [ship was damaged/sank according to report but later it was found that there were no hits]. Platonov mentions in his book only victories which was confirmed by sources from the enemy side only [which is quite easy today to search as all archives is possible to investigate and all data about losses of German, Finnish, Italian, etc. ships are known]. He mentions also that the main source of wrong claims during WWII was sound control of explosion after calculated time of torpedo run [because of a) distances to the target quite oiften were calculated only approximately because of danger to use periscope for more than several seconds, b) torpedos could hit rock or sand bank - only North Navy submarines reported 20 such cases as wrong claims, c) torpedos self-exploded -14 such cases are reported officially at least], d) possible hits of targets could be explosions of enemy depth charges in reality. Despite the fact that Soviet submariners had complicated and very truthful in theory system of victory confirmations [sound control + visual control + data from intelligence service], in war reality only sound control could be used for the majority of cases. But intelligence service worked and some wrong claims were found during the war already [opposite cases also took place but seldom - two Soviet captains reported that their torpedos missed but only in many years after WWII it was found that all their targets were hit in reality]. Also two cases are known officially when captain tried to report about victory and he knew that torpedo missed - but commissar and navigator didn't sign such report and those captains were arrested for report falsification [usual punishment - reduction from rank and penalt battalion, or shooting]. And relation with colleagues who participated in every day dangerous missions was very important also [especially for naval officers, preserving old traditions despite of Stalin's regime] - for example, almost nobody from Baltic submariners like Ivantsov for his lie about incident with Estonian steamer [see above], and his further successful missions meant nothing for another captains because of this reason. The most truthful and experienced in sound control captain was N. Mokhov [3 sank and 1 damaged ship; 9 days and 2.5 torpedos per target; all victories were confirmed later]; the most mistaken captain was famous I. Travkin [reported about 13 victories, but in reality he damaged only 1 transport and achieved a record - 50 missed torpedos during the war!]. The most successful submarine captains were M. Avgustinovich [7 victories including explosions on submarine mines], V. Vlasov [6 victories including artillery fire], G. Shchedrin [4 ships sunk by torpedos + 1 damaged ship by torpedo].

Regards, BP

Post Reply

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