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

Post by BIGpanzer » 03 Feb 2008 12:32

Interesting documents from Platonov's book (the translation is mine).

Instructions to establish the facts of sinking of enemy ships
Approved by People's Commissar of Navy of USSR admiral Kuznetsov, June 1943

To establish the following evidences confirmed the fact of sinking of enemy warships:

I. For submarines
1. Evidences of sounds of explosions of launched torpedos according to the calculated time to reach the target, distance of torpedo firing, amount of torpedos in salvo (probability of hit), size and parameters of target move; with confirmation of the loss of enemy ship by recon and agential data.
2. Visual observation of fact of sinking the enemy ship by submarine commander after salvo from surface position as well as from underwater position, with indication of observation time and characteristic of actions of enemy ship.
3. Reconnaissance and agential data, confirmed the fact of sinking of enemy ship.

II. For naval aviation
1. For single torpedo-bombers and bombers - observation the fact of sinking the enemy ship by all crewmembers.
2. For attack aircraft and other aircraft - observation the fact of sinking the enemy ship by leading or supporting aircraft.
3. Fotos, confirmed the report of crew about sinking of enemy ship.
4. Reconnaissance and agential data, confirmed the report abou the fact of sinking of enemy ship.
5. The reports of warships or submarines in corresponding area observed the sinking of enemy ship.

III. For MTBs
1. Visual observation the sinking of enemy ship by crewmembers of MTB.
2. Visual observations the sinking of enemy shipo by crewmembers of other MTBs (aircraft), participated in combat run together with MTB which attacked the enemy ship.
3. Reconnaissance and agential data, confirmed the reports about fact of sinking of enemy ship.

IV. For submarine chasers during the sinking of enemy submarine
1. Visual observation of commander of submarine chaser of underwater explosion took place immediately after explosion of depth charge, and surfacing the wrecks of enemy submarine and dead bodies of her crewmembers
2. Reconnaissance and agential data, confirmed the reports about fact of sinking of enemy submarine

Head of Air Forces
colonel-general of aviation
Zhavoronkov

Acting Head of the Naval Department of Political Training
captain 1st rank Kuznetsov

Acting Head of the Naval Department of Combat Training
rear admiral Shelting

Abstract from the order no. 00260 from 20th December 1944 about the control of combat action of Red Banner Baltic Navy
5. Brigade of submarines made a significant job since the possibility to enter the sea using skerries arised. But a number of significant disadvantages in combat action was found also.
a) one month delay in deployment of submarines to the ports of Finland caused problems in organization of their combat actions as well as in continuity of their combat control.
b) there is no any cooperation between submarines and aviation up to now. Submarines received the data from reconnaissance flights about enemy transports in 10-18 hours only.
Manoeuvring and group use of submarines is not organized because of this reasons.
c) the results of torpedo attacks are not checked, and this causes false representations about the efficiency of their use. The most unthinkable example is the report case of Shch-307 (home port Turku) which sank three anchored transports in Windau using four-torpedo salvo and this so-called fact wasn't checked by air recon as well as no other confirmations were presented.
My note about the last case: the captain of Shch-307 commander Nikolai Momot (four torpedo attacks, one successful; reported about two unsuccessful attacks from those four) who avoided the torpedos of "Iku-Turso" 27.10.1942 by skillful manoeuvring wasn't the captain of Shch-307 since 24.02.1944. New captain, lieutenant commander Mikhail Kalinin performed six torpedo attacks on Shch-307 between 10.1944-01.1945, five were unsuccessful but he reported about possible success in all cases according to sound and/or periscope control. The case with three "sinking" transports took place 16.10.1944 when 4 torpedos were launched from 18 cables (the first attack of Kalinin on Shch-307), recon confirmation flight wasn't made after this as well as Soviet naval divers found no any ship wrecks there after the war.

Regards, BP

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5452
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Post by Art » 04 Feb 2008 15:06

Several amendments were made in the earlier post by BIGpanzer according to his own request. They are highlighted with bold, when needed links are given to posts with additional information.

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 04 Feb 2008 16:43

Thanks, Art! Sorry for my small requests, I just want to improve the early info according to the new data I found (including personal online communications with Dr. Morozov).
May I ask you to improve one more case (the last ones) about submarines of the North Navy.

I wrote:
D-3 "Krasnogvardeets" ("Red guardsman"): 8 combat runs (138 days), 12 unsuccessful torpedo attacks, 1 successful (probably) anti-aircraft combat (12.08.1941, German air raid against Olenia Bay, shot down fighter Bf 110C from Stab/ZG76 by 45mm gun), 2 destructions of detected floating mines by artillery fire (08.03.1942, 03.05.1942), lost with 53 crewmembers between 10.-30.06.1942 (most probably exploded on mine of mine fields Bantos-A [10.06.1942] or Sperre-III).
Interesting that mines of Bantos-A were installed by German mine-layers "Brummer" and "Cobra" 20.03.1942 which were unsuccessfully attacked by D-3 one week before that.
The case with anti-aircraft combat of D-3 is quite interesting.
According to German/Norwegian sources: at first I found that Germans lost one Bf.110C from Stab II./ZG76 that day indeed [12.08.1941] - http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/Losses/tap412.html
But that happened not during the air raid near Kirkenes in reality. That Bf.110C had Kirkenes as the point of destination indeed but the aircraft departed from Sola [~ 170 km to the south from Bergen, county of Rogaland] and crashed soon off Urgeane [county of Buskerud, to the east of Bergen] because of bad weather.
http://ktsorens.tihlde.org/flyvrak/fodalen.html
So it couldn't be the victim of D-3 for sure because that Bf.110C crashed in south-west Norway and because it transported mail not participated in any air raid.
According to Soviet sources: during the regular anti-aircraft alarm [12.08.1941] the crew of 45mm gun of D-3 under the command of petty officer 2nd class A.P. Beregovoi opened fire against enemy bombers and according to numerous evidences of eye-witnesses, they shot down four-engine bomber Fw. 200. But there is no such info in log-books of brigade of submarines as well as official reports of Soviet North Navy HQ don't contain any info about Soviet air victories on 12.08.1941.
My note - perhaps later investigations of Soviet researchers found the fact of loss of Bf.110C the same day (see above), and it was considered as the possible victim of D-3. As for Fw.200 - IIRC they appeared in Arctic in January 1942 only.
The air raid of German bombers took place there indeed (12.08.1941), so it is possible to assume that gunners of anchored D-3 could damage bomber (perhaps, two-engine He.111 or Ju.88) during that air raid, and eye-witnesses from the shore confused this with four-engine Fw.200 because of large distance, smoking of the aircraft was estimated as its kill (this happened very often during the war from all sides). Soviet combat reports and log-books didn't mention this case on 12.08.1941 because according to the Soviet rules the wrecks of shot down aircraft must be found to confirm the air victory officially [the real headache for all Soviet naval pilots and army pilots achieved their victories over the enemy territory]. Anyway Luftwaffe didn't have any losses on 12.08.1941 in that area except mentioned Bf.110C, and I don't have the full info about all cases of damages of German bombers in Arctic for 1941, unfortunately. One more note - it was quite hard to hit the aircraft using rear 45mm AA gun of D-3 (non-automatical gun 21K had no shells with time-fuse), so direct hit could happen only by chance.

Regards, BP

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11456
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 08 Feb 2008 21:40

BIGpanzer wrote:The torpedo attack of K-21 against motorboats in Vogen port wasn't successful according to Adm Norwegen, Adm Polarkueste. Germans noticed torpedo explosions mentioned by captain Lunin in combat report but they thought that was explosion of floating mine close to the port. Most probably, torpedos hit the sea bottom or littoral sludge conglomeration as it happened quite often during the attacks in shoal Norwegian fjords.
BIGpanzer wrote:The following change should be done - ...9 unsuccessful torpedo attacks.
Nice to se the progress at your posts:
Juha wrote:
BIGpanzer wrote:As "Lunin's" motorboats from 20.02.1943 - despite the fact that I agree with Morozov and Juha's opinion based on Morozov's info I decide to keep Platonov's 'probably successful attack' in this case.
1.) I base my info about Norwegian vessels at Norwegian research.

2.) Even only Lunin vision supports your opinions, it's nice to see some some progress here, compared to your earlier thoughts:
BIGpanzer 7th April -07 wrote:As for torpedo attacks were performed by K-21...
...Only one was successful - 20.02.1943 [02:18 am]: several motorboats were sank by 4 torpedos from 10-12 cables.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... t=#1042750
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=240



One thing bothers me still...what is/are the source of this claim you posted:
BIGpanzer wrote:Germans noticed torpedo explosions mentioned by captain Lunin in combat report but they thought that was explosion of floating mine close to the port.
emphasis on mine

I haven't read anything that supports those, and also Mr. Morozov seems to be unaware of such info:
BIGpanzer wrote:Nevertheless, when seven Norwegian fishmen were captured by K-21 from "Skrein" 12.04.1943 [see above] they were asked about such a case and they answered that they heard about losses of several motorboats of Vogen Is. because of strange unexpected explosions in the port. Morozov described this case as "no info from German/Norwegian side" and doesn't include it in his table of victories.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=225
BIGpanzer wrote:www.deepstorm.ru [the most detailed, regulary updated and best online source about Russian submarines based mainly on Morozov's info; casts a shadow over several addition Russian, German and Finnish claims also]. Here you can see the photos of captured Norwegian fishmen, as for the torpedo attack from 20.02.1943 against fishing boats - it is mentioned that 4 torpedos were fired from 12-13 cables against motoboats near berth, in 90 sec 3 explosions were detected and there are no foreign data about this.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=


Regards, Juha

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 10 Feb 2008 15:25

Tompuri wrote:
Nice to se the progress at your posts:
Personal remark?!
The progress is much better than to read old "Sukellusvenesotaa Itämerellä" by P-O Ekman without careful analysis the info from another side, a? :)
Well, I can honestly answer that it is quite funny to hear this from you, my dear friend, taking into consideration some of your posts here and the info in your posts about fates of Soviet submarines on Baltic especially.
I strongly recommend you to find the following book by Morozov, Kulagin (sorry, on Russian) - ["Pikes". The legends of Soviet submarine force] - about submarines of "Shch"-type published in December 2007 [the largest part describes their actions on Baltic, with many illustrations, maps, coordinates of real positions, detailed analysis of known Soviet, German and Finnish archive data concerning their claims also, etc.].
Image

As for the torpedo attack of K-21 against Norwegian motorboats in the port of Vogen (Bogen) performed 20.02.1943. According to Linin's combat report several masts of motorboats were visible at 02:00 and 4 torpedos were launched from 10-12 cables [surface position] at 02:18, 3 bursts were visible in 90 sec near the berth [in the conclusion Lunin mentioned the result of that attack as probably successful]. There were no info about the exact amount of detected motorboats in the report because, perhaps, it was hard to calculate them exactly from that distance. Interesting, that one of the best German online sources about WWII sea operations: http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/an ... 02-asa.htm [chapter "U-Booterfolge der Alliierten; 1943, Februar"] mentions the following:
date - 20.02.1943; time - 02:18; submarine - K-21; torpedos - 4 torpedos; target - APC, 5 Motorboote; the result of the attack - +]; location - Bogenbucht.
. Emphasis is mine. What is the exact source for this info, does anybody know? There is also an incorrectness there (according to Dr. Morozov) because German transport "Düna" 1926 brt exploded 22.04.1943 at 20:00 in Lyngenfjord hit not the mine laid by K-21 [indeed close to that area] but the mine of German mine-field NW-14 (laid by mine-layer "Skagerak") 29.03.1943. I have the question - during that combat run and the same day when attack in Bogen was performed, K-21 landed the recon group between 23:30-01:00 to Is. Arnö [it should be noted that Soviet submarines in Arctic participated quite active in landing of small recon groups of 2-4 men to Norwegian islands and seashore during the war]. There is no any info that recon group was taken back by K-21 later, so was the recon group taken back by another submarine or perhaps captured by Germans during the mission?

Regards, BP

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11456
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 10 Feb 2008 17:50

BIGpanzer wrote:Personal remark?!
BIGpanzer wrote:Well, I can honestly answer that it is quite funny to hear this from you, my dear friend, taking into consideration some of your posts here and the info in your posts about fates of Soviet submarines on Baltic especially.
No...just glad to see you seem here have understood to drop the Soviet era info based "statistics", and finally agree with the reality.
That's all.
BIGpanzer wrote:The progress is much better than to read old "Sukellusvenesotaa Itämerellä" by P-O Ekman without careful analysis the info from another side
P-O Ekman used also Soviet info at his book. Sometimes even too much.
A valuable book.



BIGpanzer wrote:As for the torpedo attack of K-21 against Norwegian motorboats in the port of Vogen (Bogen) performed 20.02.1943. According to Linin's combat report several masts of motorboats were visible at 02:00 and 4 torpedos were launched from 10-12 cables [surface position] at 02:18, 3 bursts were visible in 90 sec near the berth [in the conclusion Lunin mentioned the result of that attack as probably successful]. There were no info about the exact amount of detected motorboats in the report because, perhaps, it was hard to calculate them exactly from that distance. Interesting, that one of the best German online sources about WWII sea operations: http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/an ... 02-asa.htm [chapter "U-Booterfolge der Alliierten; 1943, Februar"] mentions the following:
date - 20.02.1943; time - 02:18; submarine - K-21; torpedos - 4 torpedos; target - APC, 5 Motorboote; the result of the attack - +]; location - Bogenbucht.
. Emphasis is mine. What is the exact source for this info, does anybody know?
So what are your sources to the following statements?
BIGpanzer wrote:Germans noticed torpedo explosions mentioned by captain Lunin in combat report but they thought that was explosion of floating mine close to the port.
emphasis on mine

Regards, Juha

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 10 Feb 2008 18:30

Tompuri wrote:
No...just glad to see you seem here have understood to drop the Soviet era info based "statistics"....
P-O Ekman used also Soviet info at his book. Sometimes even too much.
A valuable book.
Some contradiction between these two phrases, have you see? :)
I agree with Dr. Morozov after online communications with him about attack in Bogen (about German observation of explosions in Bogenbucht - the info is from personal communications also, I already asked him about the source and waiting the answer). The "Soviet era info based statistics" is an additional interesting example of your "friendly attitude" here because I would say in this case "the single example of Soviet combat report handling by Prof. Platonov without confirmation from enemy side" to be much more correct.
P-O Ekman book is a good book (I have and use it also) but too obsolete at the moment for quite many cases described there, so let me guess that the value of my list is much higher than corresponding info from his book :wink:

BP

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11456
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 10 Feb 2008 19:42

BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
No...just glad to see you seem here have understood to drop the Soviet era info based "statistics"....
P-O Ekman used also Soviet info at his book. Sometimes even too much.
A valuable book.
Some contradiction between these two phrases, have you see?
Actually no.
There is a considerable difference in how using the Soviet era info between you and P-O Ekman.

BIGpanzer wrote:I agree with Dr. Morozov after online communications with him about attack in Bogen (about German observation of explosions in Bogenbucht -
So no German observations?
BIGpanzer earlier wrote:
BIGpanzer wrote:Nevertheless, when seven Norwegian fishmen were captured by K-21 from "Skrein" 12.04.1943 [see above] they were asked about such a case and they answered that they heard about losses of several motorboats of Vogen Is. because of strange unexpected explosions in the port. Morozov described this case as "no info from German/Norwegian side" and doesn't include it in his table of victories.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=225
BIGpanzer wrote:www.deepstorm.ru [the most detailed, regulary updated and best online source about Russian submarines based mainly on Morozov's info; casts a shadow over several addition Russian, German and Finnish claims also]. Here you can see the photos of captured Norwegian fishmen, as for the torpedo attack from 20.02.1943 against fishing boats - it is mentioned that 4 torpedos were fired from 12-13 cables against motoboats near berth, in 90 sec 3 explosions were detected and there are no foreign data about this.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=
emphasis on mine

BIGpanzer wrote:The "Soviet era info based statistics" is an additional interesting example of your "friendly attitude" here because I would say in this case "the single example of Soviet combat report handling by Prof. Platonov without confirmation from enemy side" to be much more correct.
No.
As I earlier posted, you changing your sources to Platonov was a progress:
Juha earlier wrote:
BIGpanzer wrote:As "Lunin's" motorboats from 20.02.1943 - despite the fact that I agree with Morozov and Juha's opinion based on Morozov's info I decide to keep Platonov's 'probably successful attack' in this case.
1.) I base my info about Norwegian vessels at Norwegian research.

2.) Even only Lunin vision supports your opinions, it's nice to see some some progress here, compared to your earlier thoughts:
BIGpanzer 7th April -07 wrote:As for torpedo attacks were performed by K-21...
...Only one was successful - 20.02.1943 [02:18 am]: several motorboats were sank by 4 torpedos from 10-12 cables.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... t=#1042750
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=240


Regards, Juha

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 10 Feb 2008 22:09

Tompuri wrote:
There is a considerable difference in how using the Soviet era info between you and P-O Ekman.
Partially may be yes as I am trying to analyze such info in detail if I have a possibility to use several modern sources from different sides as nonprofessional. By the way, Morozov is mentioned recently on http://www.deepstorm.ru that he completelly agrees with the fact that Soviet popular sources are checked and the corresponding info improved a lot but Finns believe to their own "canonical" myths till now and don't pay attention to correct them, a balance is necessary. Morozov wrote that biased approach is a very bad thing to start the historical research, some time ago that was characteristic of Soviet research, now the time is changed a lot but absolute trust to western sources causes the great opposite problem as many foreign researches still make their conclusions and research based on stereotypes of period of ideological confrontation. Only careful research of Russian archive data together with deep analysis of foreign archive data and communications with objective Russian and foreign specialists about specific questions will give the most correct result. I agree with this, of course.
Tompuri wrote:
So no German observations?
Dr. Morozov answered that he wrote in PM to me about German observations of explosions in Bogen Bay as the possible event. That is why he wrote in his books that there is no any info from the enemy side which is absolutely correct indeed.
Quote from his letter:
I can confirm, that there were no German dates about explosions. But, of course K-21 launched torpedoes and as she shot against shore target they must exploded. As a German local service didn't see the sub, Germans could decided that this was a drifting mine's explosion and could not mentioned this fact in their diaries.[/quote]
Tompuri wrote:
No.
As I earlier posted, you changing your sources to Platonov was a progress:
[/quote]
A very wrong assumption I need to say. Also it is funny to read about any progress from you as I've already mentioned, pay much more attention to some of your own posts at first.
I used Platonov always but perhaps forget or didn't notice his "probably" in my old post about this insignificant attack of K-21 which you tried to quote so often (the compalain for such overquoting was sent to Markus last month already, and this will be done always in every further case). By the way, I don't notice "probably" [IIRC - luultavasti?] in many cases described by P-O Ekman in his books.

But...at first I used http://www.uboat.net, book by Byelorussian historian Taras (very anti-Soviet in my opinion) about WWII submarines and books by famous German historian J. Rohwer - good http://www.uboat.net sometimes gives incorrect info about victories [increasings and decreasings were found for some Soviet submarines], Taras decreased the amount of victories of "Red" submarines and mentioned incorrect reasons of loss for some of them as I can see now [also he "forget" to mention enemy ships exploded on mines laid by Soviet submarines], J. Rohwer was among the best ones till I found Morozov's books but Rohwer tried to minimize some results of Soviet submariners if he saw the possibility to interpret the archive info in such a way [quite understandable, he was German naval officer during the war]. So your assumption about my progress is not so bad, probably.
I can use modern and very good German online source if you want :lol: but the problem is that after communications with Dr. Morozov I came into conclusion that there is an incorrect info about K-21 here
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/an ... 02-asa.htm [torpedo attack of K-21, 5 motorboats, +]

BP
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 10 Feb 2008 23:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11456
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 10 Feb 2008 23:35

BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
There is a considerable difference in how using the Soviet era info between you and P-O Ekman.
Partially yes as I am trying to analyze such info in detail if I have a possibility to use several different sources as nonprofessional.
Like earlier you choosed to trust Platonov info more than Morozov one.
BIGpanzer wrote:By the way, Morozov is mentioned recently on http://www.deepstorm.ru that he completelly agrees with the fact that Soviet popular sources are checked and the corresponding info improved a lot
I understand
BIGpanzer wrote:but Finns believe to their own "canonical" myths till now and don't pay attention to correct them, a balance is necessary.
So because the Russian side has to change their information a lot, then for a balance, Finns would have to find out as much incorrect info from their side?
Strange.
Could you point out the exact page where Morozov posted that.
BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
So no German observations?
Dr. Morozov answered that he wrote in PM to me about German observations of explosions in Bogen Bay as the possible event. In his books he wrote that there is no any info from the enemy side as you know.
Quote from his letter:
I can confirm, that there were no German dates about explosions. But, of course K-21 launched torpedoes and as she shot against shore target they must exploded. As a German local service didn't see the sub, Germans could decided that this was a drifting mine's explosion and could not mentioned this fact in their diaries.[/quote]
So you are writing here about possible events and guesses as facts?
There seems to be no facts where Lunin spent his torpedoes.
BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
No.
As I earlier posted, you changing your sources to Platonov was a progress:
A very wrong assumption I need to say. Also it is funny to read about any progress from you as I've already mentioned, pay much more attention to some of your own posts at first.
I used Platonov always but perhaps forget or didn't notice his "probably" in my old post about this insignificant attack of K-21
My posts about the K-21 torpedo acchievements have stayed critical from the start.
Yours have had certain variation: 9 to 10 torpedo attacks, several to 0 vessels sunken by torpedoes.
BIGpanzer wrote: (the compalain for such overquoting was sent to Markus last month already, and this will be done always in every further case).
Detailed quoting eases to point out the info gaps at your posts.
BIGpanzer wrote:I can use modern and very good German online source if you want :lol: but the problem is that after communications with Dr. Morozov I came into conclusion that there is an incorrect info about K-21 here
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/an ... 02-asa.htm [torpedo attack of K-21, 5 motorboats, +]
[/quote] Modern and German are not (neccessary) synonyms for very good.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11456
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 11 Feb 2008 00:10

Do I understand correctly that
the Island of Vogen
Port of Vogen ( Bogen)
Bogen Bay
are all actually meaning the same thing as mentioned goal of K-21 ?

Regards, Juha

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 11 Feb 2008 01:13

Well, lets stop quite senseless [and off-topic] discussion, OK? And return back to the list of victories/losses.

PS. short answers on your phrases.
Tompuri wrote:
Do I understand correctly that
the Island of Vogen
Port of Vogen ( Bogen)
Bogen Bay are all actually meaning the same thing as mentioned goal of K-21
Of course.
I hoped you help me here with Norwegian geography as Norway is more close to your north area but you noticed the name only now. I came into conclusion that Bogen is much more correct name than Vogen. Originally (in Lunin's report) the attack of motorboats in the bay (áóõòà) of Bogen (Âîãåí, Vogen as transliteration) is mentioned, where motorboats were detected at port berth. In Platonov's book - the area of attack: Is. Bogen (îñòðîâ Âîãåí).
There were at least two Bogen in Norway - http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Bogen&country=NO
Tompuri wrote:
So because the Russian side has to change their information a lot, then for a balance, Finns would have to find out as much incorrect info from their side?
Strange.
Could you point out the exact page where Morozov posted that.
No, the problem is that Finns don't want to recognize some of their historical info as myths. They are always right.
I think I exchange you on Morozov soon, this will be an excellent choice.
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/?1-9-0-00000036-000-80-0 (short discussion of Morozov's article about six victories of lucky Sarvanto where he agreed with the opinion about Finnish "canonical" myths but mentioned that the Finnish description of the case with those DB-3s is not a myth but, most probably, correct info)
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/?1-10-0-000000 ... 1162580274 (about trust to Rohwer according to Morozov)
Tompuri wrote:
There seems to be no facts where Lunin spent his torpedoes.
Exactly [from the enemy side] as I've mentioned several times quoting the info from Morozov's book. The crewmembers on the bridge could saw the explosions also as that was surface attack but we are talking about confirmations from the enemy side here.
Tompuri wrote:
Yours have had certain variation: 9 to 10 torpedo attacks, several to 0 vessels sunken by torpedoes.
Not a real variation actually.
Several is the one case [motorboats in Bogen; possibly successful attack according to Platonov and unsuccessful attack according to Morozov], already discussed. Amount of torpedo attacks - in the conclusion about K-21 (Platonov's book) 10 performed attacks were mentioned while according to the table in the text I counted 9. In Morozov's book I found the following info - 12.11.1941, two torpedo attacks were performed against the same convoy [5 ships] in the point 70.46'/23.57' - at 14:20 [3 torpedos from 20 cables, 3 dull explosions were heard in 180 sec] and at 14:29 [2 torpedos from 16 cables, 1 explosion was heard in 134 sec, one transport wasn't detected through periscope raised in several minutes - captain Zhukov [predecessor of Lunin] thought that transport sank and reported about one victory; Germans noticed the traces of two torpedos from those five and K-21 was counter-attacked by patrol ship "Nordwind" with depth charges, quite seriously damaged [got a hole in one fuel tank, two ballast tanks were damaged] but returned back to home base in 9 days successfully]. This is the reason of Platonov's info in my opinion - he didn't distinguish those two attacks against the same convoy in the table and mentioned only one performed at 14:20. I hope for thanks for such long explanations.
Tompuri wrote:
Detailed quoting eases to point out the info gaps at your posts.
I very disagree, of course. What new info did you add except the quote from the Russian site as shadow to the success of attack in Bogen in the very beginning? But you quoted a lot. This point out something very differ than just knowledge, don't want to use the dirty words here. The correct and detailed info is more than enough for the AHF in my posts, everybody can make his own correct conclusions reading the posts from the beginning to the end as well as I already changed the info about this attack in Bogen in my list by myself [thanks to Art]. There were some another info gaps and much more interesting questions here which I am trying to find out but I don't see your efforts there.

BP

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11456
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 11 Feb 2008 11:43

BIGpanzer wrote:Well, lets stop quite senseless [and off-topic] discussion, OK? And return back to the list of victories/losses.
I think it's not off-topic to ask you about the sources of your claims.
BIGpanzer wrote: PS. short answers on your phrases.
Tompuri wrote:
Do I understand correctly that
the Island of Vogen
Port of Vogen ( Bogen)
Bogen Bay are all actually meaning the same thing as mentioned goal of K-21
Of course.
I hoped you help me here with Norwegian geography as Norway is more close to your north area but you noticed the name only now. I came into conclusion that Bogen is much more correct name than Vogen. Originally (in Lunin's report) the attack of motorboats in the bay (áóõòà) of Bogen (Âîãåí, Vogen as transliteration) is mentioned, where motorboats were detected at port berth. In Platonov's book - the area of attack: Is. Bogen (îñòðîâ Âîãåí).
There were at least two Bogen in Norway - http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Bogen&country=NO
I haven't checked the place as I have trusted on you that you know what you are writing about.
Also it's quite difficult to find info about an event that might not have even happened.
Could you tell us the location of the Island/Bay/Port of Vogen/Bogen L-21 claimed to have fired the torpedoes at?
BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
So because the Russian side has to change their information a lot, then for a balance, Finns would have to find out as much incorrect info from their side?
Strange.
Could you point out the exact page where Morozov posted that.
No, the problem is that Finns don't want to recognize some of their historical info as myths. They are always right.
I think I exchange you on Morozov soon, this will be an excellent choice.
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/?1-9-0-00000036-000-80-0 (short discussion of Morozov's article about six victories of lucky Sarvanto where he agreed with the opinion about Finnish "canonical" myths but mentioned that the Finnish description of the case with those DB-3s is not a myth but, most probably, correct info)
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/?1-10-0-000000 ... 1162580274 (about trust to Rohwer according to Morozov)
Ah...I knew that discussion.
...I think this thread is not the proper one for aviation history and Sarvanto, but for (example) less luckier Lunin.
So back to the topic please.
BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
There seems to be no facts where Lunin spent his torpedoes.
Exactly [from the enemy side] as I've mentioned several times quoting the info from Morozov's book. The crewmembers on the bridge could saw the explosions also as that was surface attack but we are talking about confirmations from the enemy side here.
As I have earlier posted, perhaps more correct would be:" according to the Soviet reports, the crew saw...
A bit like earlier here about the Norwegian prisoners: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=240
Also no info from the friendly, Norwegian side.
BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
Yours have had certain variation: 9 to 10 torpedo attacks, several to 0 vessels sunken by torpedoes.
Not a real variation actually.
When USSR still existed Finns had an expression: Suuri maa, suuret toleranssit Something like: "big country, big tolerances" in English. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15
BIGpanzer wrote:Several is the one case [motorboats in Bogen; possibly successful attack according to Platonov and unsuccessful attack according to Morozov], already discussed. Amount of torpedo attacks - in the conclusion about K-21 (Platonov's book) 10 performed attacks were mentioned while according to the table in the text I counted 9. In Morozov's book I found the following info - 12.11.1941, two torpedo attacks were performed against the same convoy [5 ships] in the point 70.46'/23.57' - at 14:20 [3 torpedos from 20 cables, 3 dull explosions were heard in 180 sec] and at 14:29 [2 torpedos from 16 cables, 1 explosion was heard in 134 sec, one transport wasn't detected through periscope raised in several minutes - captain Zhukov [predecessor of Lunin] thought that transport sank and reported about one victory; Germans noticed the traces of two torpedos from those five and K-21 was counter-attacked by patrol ship "Nordwind" with depth charges, quite seriously damaged [got a hole in one fuel tank, two ballast tanks were damaged] but returned back to home base in 9 days successfully]. This is the reason of Platonov's info in my opinion - he didn't distinguish those two attacks against the same convoy in the table and mentioned only one performed at 14:20. I hope for thanks for such long explanations.
Thank you, now you also seem to agree that K-21/Lunin was a bit "unlucky with the torpedoes" as I have tried all the way to make you understand.
BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
Detailed quoting eases to point out the info gaps at your posts.
I very disagree, of course. What new info did you add except the quote from the Russian site as shadow to the success of attack in Bogen in the very beginning?
As I have earlier posted,
it's quite difficult to find info about an event that might not have even happened.
BIGpanzer wrote:This point out something very differ than just knowledge, don't want to use the dirty words here.
For your own sake here, I very much recommend that too.
BIGpanzer wrote:The correct and detailed info is more than enough for the AHF in my posts, everybody can make his own correct conclusions reading the posts from the beginning to the end as well as I already changed the info about this attack in Bogen in my list by myself [thanks to Art]. There were some another info gaps and much more interesting questions here which I am trying to find out but I don't see your efforts there.
There are several info gaps here, like
Juha wrote:One thing bothers me still...what is/are the source of this claim you posted:
BIGpanzer wrote:Germans noticed torpedo explosions mentioned by captain Lunin in combat report but they thought that was explosion of floating mine close to the port.
emphasis on mine
Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11456
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 13 Feb 2008 21:54

BIGpanzer wrote:
Tompuri wrote:
Detailed quoting eases to point out the info gaps at your posts.
I very disagree, of course. What new info did you add except the quote from the Russian site as shadow to the success of attack in Bogen in the very beginning?
Yes, and the shadows appeared to be a quite dark ones, as success perhaps is not the best word to describe that event.
It also seems that the "new" info you delivered and Art added, is not fact based.
BIGpanzer wrote:But you quoted a lot. This point out something very differ than just knowledge, don't want to use the dirty words here. The correct and detailed info is more than enough for the AHF in my posts, everybody can make his own correct conclusions reading the posts from the beginning to the end as well as I already changed the info about this attack in Bogen in my list by myself [thanks to Art]. There were some another info gaps and much more interesting questions here which I am trying to find out but I don't see your efforts there.

You apparently have quite much trust on Mr Morozov info, as Mr Morozov has been tutoring you at the http://brummel.fastbb.ru/index.pl?1-9-0 ... 6-000-40-0 forum, but you seem not to trust 100% at his info, as you have accepted only a few of his corrections to your "correct and detailed info" at the AHF.
Here a few more quotes, as I'm also a bit puzzled here:
BIGpanzer at AHF wrote:K-23: 5 combat runs (72 days), 2 unsuccessful torpedo attacks, 2 artillery attacks (one + one successful - 26.11.1941, 70.25’/22.00’, Norwegian fishing trawler “Start” was lightly damaged and 7 German soldiers on board were killed/wounded by shell fragments, 15 100mm shells were spent from 16 cables; and 19.01.1942, 70.59’/26.43’, Norwegian transport “Sørøy” 506 brt with packaged cargo on board was burnt and sunk, 2 of its crewmembers were lost, 31 100mm shells were spent from 10 cables), 3 mine installations (one ship was damaged by mine and one was sunk – 05.11.1941, German mine-sweeper M-22 685 brt was heavily damaged, 10 crewmembers were lost; and 18.02.1942, Norwegian transport “Birk” 3664 brt (used by Germans for ore transportation) was sunk, 26 from its crewmembers were lost). Lost with 71 crewmembers 12.05.1942 (surfaced submarine was counter-attacked by German submarine chasers UJ-1101, UJ-1109, UJ-1110 and bomber Ju 88 from KG 30 after unsuccessful torpedo attack against convoy [2 transports + 6 warships], got at least one direct hit of 88mm shell during 1.5-hour artillery combat, dived and she was sunk by the following 99 depth charges during 6.5-hour pursuit – oil spots, small wrecks and pieces of paper with Russian texts were found by UJ-1109 in the point of sinking).
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=225 (emphasis on mine)
BIGpanzer as a question wrote:18.02.1942, Norwegian transport "Birk" exploded on mine. Was it mine from K-23 or "Brummer"?
Morozov as an answer wrote:A German mine, which was laid befor Brummer arriving by German vessels.
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/index.pl?1-9-0 ... 6-000-40-0




BIGpanzer at AHF wrote:L-22: 12 combat runs (118 days), 3 torpedo attacks (one successful - 01.09.1943, convoy 6 ships, 6 torpedos from 8 cables, German transport "Rudesheimer' 2036 brt with timber on board was damaged by torpedo, didn't sink because of timber and towed to the shore, where the ship ran aground, wasn't repaired till the end of the war), 10 mine installations (three ships were sunk by mines - 14.11.1942, 69.55'/30.01', German decoy-ship Schiff-18 "Alteland", 419 brt; 01.06.1943, 70.25'/21.40', German hospital ship "Birka" 1000 brt, 105 men were lost; and 28.12.1943, 70.55'/25.56', German mine-sweeping motorboat R 64 135 brt, 16 crewmembers were lost), survived the war.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=240 (emphasis on mine)
BIGpanzer as a question wrote:14.11.1942 (18-19.11.1942 is incorrect date), German decoy ship "Schiff-18" ("Alteland F6") exploded on mine in the point 69.55'/30.01'. Was it mine from L-22?
Morozov as an answer wrote:Probably she minned on MO-cutters' mine.
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/index.pl?1-9-0 ... 6-000-40-0





BIGpanzer at AHF wrote:S-101: 12 combat runs (211 days), 12 torpedo attacks (two + one successful - 29.03.1943, 70.49'/29.30', convoy 16 ships, 4 torpedos from 7 cables, German transport "Ajax" 2297 brt with 851 tons of fodder on board was sunk; 28.08.1943, 76.49'/69.42', 3 torpedos from 6 cables, German submarine U-639 769 tons with 47 crewmembers was sunk; and 14.06.1943, convoy 3 ships, 2 torpedos from 6 cables, German patrol ship V-6104 was damaged), 1 unsuccessful artillery attack, 1 destruction of detected floating mine (31.03.1943, 19 45mm shells were spent), survived the war (nicknamed "bomb catcher" as S-101 was strongly attacked many times by aircraft and submarine chassers (both Axis and Allies) achieved direct bomb hits even, but submarine survived and returned to the home base always).
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=225 (emphasis on mine)
BIGpanzer as a question wrote:14.06.1943, German patrol ship V-6104 was damaged by torpedo according to some sources. Was it S-101's attack?
Morozov as an answer wrote:V-6104 stay at Kirkenes from 13.6 to 16.6.43 - no damages.
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/index.pl?1-9-0 ... 6-000-40-0




BIGpanzer at AHF wrote:L-20: 14 combat runs (145 days), 4 torpedo attacks (two successful - 01.01.1943, 70.50'/29.28', convoy 7 ships, 6 torpedos from 8 cables, German transport "Muansa" 5472 brt with 65 motor vehicles sent for repair on board was sunk by one torpedo, 19 from its crewmembers were lost; and 01.02.1943, 71.07'/27.23', convoy 3 ships, 6 torpedos from 9 cables, German military transport T-4 "Othmarschen" 7077 brt with 2070 tons of food supplies on board was sunk by two torpedos, 18 from its crewmembers were lost), 11 mine layings [one ship was damaged by mine - 27.11.1944, 70.59'/25.10', German transport "Adolf Binder" 3515 brt], survived the war.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=240 (emphasis on mine)
BIGpanzer as a question wrote:Thank you, Miroslav!

I found one more unclear case in Arctic - German transport "Adolf Binder" (3158 brt), which was damaged by mine explosion 27.11.1944 in the point 70.59'/25.10'. Sometimes it is mentioned that was mine of L-20 but I tend to believe to the version that was German floating mine.

Regards, Andreas
Morozov as an answer wrote:I agree.
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/index.pl?1-9-0 ... 6-000-40-0 http://brummel.fastbb.ru/?1-9-0-00000036-000-80-0



Regards, Juha

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 14 Feb 2008 13:14

Tompuri, try to help us with this if you can, prove that you are ready to help as you claimed above and let me see your abilities in detailed research here [until now I see only shameful overquoting of my own info, no any attempts to honestly recognize your own mistakes based on, probably, Finnish info and a lot of words in attempts to find at least small incorrectnesses in my info - to say another words - "nothing to do by yourself but to criticize the large work done by another person"]. I very doubt that you have possibilities and knowledge to compete honestly as you prefer methods of overquoting, wrong disrespectfull assumptions, etc. we already saw above a lot.
My questions from http://brummel.fastbb.ru/
1. I found the info that M-113 shelled enemy airfield at Novo-Fedorovka 28.02.1942 [distance 25 cables, 40 45mm shells were spent]. Do you know about any results of that shelling?
2. Did M-117 sink large landing barge F-592C2A 220 brt during torpedo attack 25.11.1943 or not? [quite many German sources mention this fact as possible event]. Some sources mention the results of her attacks performed 21.06.1943 and 05.10.1943 as probably successful also (for example, damage of barge F139A in the first case). In my opinion there were no confirmed successful attacks for M-117, nevertheless.
3. Do you have exact confirmations that M-118 was sunk 01.10.1942 by German seaplane Ar-196 [dropped 2 depth charges] and Romanian gun-boats “Locotenant-Commandor Stihi Eugen” and “Sublocotenant Ghigulescu” [dropped 7 depth charges]. Perhaps, oil spot and surfaced uniform were detected in the point 45.53’/30.19’. Some sources mention the explosion on mine of Romanian mine-field S-32 or attack of German flying-boat BV.138 [02.10.1942] as possible reasons also.
4. You mentioned in your book that M-118 shelled schooner 26.02.1942 but stopped artillery fire because of counter-fire from the enemy coastal battery in 5 min. Do you know the name of that schooner? Was it damaged or not?
You can try to help [at least you made one time the attempt for research]
From http://f16.parsimony.net/forum28300/messages/15869.htm
Tompuri wrote (using my info):
Is the Soviet claim about torpedoing the Norwegian motor boats 20th February 1943, true?
"20.02.1943 - Is. Vogen. Fishing motorboats near berth. 4 torpedos from 12 cables, several motorboats were sunk."
"the torpedo attack from 20.02.1943 against fishing boats - it is mentioned that 4 torpedos were fired from 12-13 cables against motoboats near berth, in 90 sec 3 explosions were detected and there are no foreign data about this. Platonov mentioned about this case that several motorboats were sunk [and captured Norwegian sailors from "Skrein", see above about shelling of fishing motorboats 12.04.1943 heard about that case and mentioned that 2 or 3 motorboats were lost because of unknown explosions there indeed]."
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=126564
Rune Raution answered there:
K-21 is an interesting sub mainly because of it's actions against the Norwegian fishing fleet at Senja on 12.04.43, as you mention, and the fact that this is the only remaining K-class submarine today, displayed as museum at Severomorsk near Murmansk.
The list of kills by that sub is short. Except from the small fishing boat "Frøy" sunk on 12.04.43, it sank the fishing boat "Ingøy" near island Ingøy on 21.01.42 (artillery fire) and is credited for sinking the Norwegian steamer "Bessheim" near Hammerfest on 21.11.41 (mine).
Despite on your shameful behavior I am trying to answer on all your questions [because they can be interesting to other forummembers].
Tompuri wrote:
Could you tell us the location of the Island/Bay/Port of Vogen/Bogen L-21 claimed to have fired the torpedoes at?
L-21 served on Baltic and I don't describe it still [in my the most correct list, detailed is not good word I think - in such a case I should spent at least two pages for every combat run of each submarine]. No any attacks at Vogen because of Baltic theatre of operation I guess :) .
But, of course, I understand that you misprinted [and because I have, very fortunately, the very differ logic than yours, you can be sure that I will not use your favourite methods and to quote this post in future many times (including another threads, of course) to illustrate your great inattention and the extremelly incorrect info you posted, for example]. I found already the exact location of Bogen where K-21 fired torpedos as well as some additional info from eye-witness from its bridge about the attack and the map of attack (+ the location of 3 German observation posts there). I need to translate this info but I am not sure that you really need my translation (for overquoting in the future only, perhaps). Also one note - there are small islands (with their own names), bay and port/berth in Bogen indeed. Just Bogen is the good solution to be used in future.

PS1.
Tompuri wrote:
Modern and German are not (neccessary) synonyms for very good.
May be yes depending on the author, the same for modern and Finnish, and modern and Russian I very guess. The problem is that
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/chronik.htm#Z based its info on the research of one of the most well-known naval historians - Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rohwer (IIRC he was(is) the vice-president of International Association of Military Historians).
Indeed, I am thinking what is the source for the info mentioned here:
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/chronik.htm#Z
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/43-02.htm
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/an ... 02-asa.htm
Von ihnen legt K-21 (Kpt. 2. Rg. Lunin) am 18.2. eine Minensperre im Lyngenfjord, auf der möglicherweise am 22.4. der dt. Dampfer Düna (ex-lett. Kandava, 1926 BRT) verloren geht, setzt Agenten an Land und feuert am 20.2. sechs Torpedos auf einen Küstensicherungs-verband in die Bogenbucht.
20.02.43 0218 sj K-21 4T [ APC, 5 Motorboote +] Bogenbucht
AFAIK four torpedos were spent.
AFAIK at least no any confirmations (from both sides) that APC (depot ship?) and 5 motorboats were sunk in Bogenbucht.
Very bad to make boast but I am very proud indeed after comparison of my info (not my, of course, just my combination of best sources of the subject, including Dr. Morozov's books) with the info from German and Finnish professionals - J. Rohwehr and P-O Ekman, they made so many mistakes as I understand now. I just made several small incorrectness for already more than hundred described submarines.


BP

PS2. A very off-topic (may be to longue), very sorry, but would like to share my small joy with, for example, Finnish forummembers (except, probably, one) - we got a good grant for research and I go to Finland as the chief of our partner company's branch there this autumn for several years at least. But I will leave AHF soon indeed, absolutely no time for hobby now :( Nevertheless, the info about Soviet Black Sea submarines as well as about Baltic Sea submarines will be finished for sure, I must do this.

PS3. Tompuri, may I ask you not to use the final word Regards in the case of you "replies" to me. This is very annoying, many thanks in advance. Also you can remove some personal remarks after learning [great doubt, nevertheless]. Not like them but what can I do more to illustrate your shameful behavior [you don't like that I disagree with you about Bogen at first and this is partially OK but your wrong unrespectful assumptions about the reliability of my posts and "hiding" the info I got from Morozov will not be excused anyway].

If somebody interested to see my discussions with Dr. Morozov (in original variant, without quoting by Tompuri) - you are very welcome here:
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/?1-9-0-00000036-000-40-0 (including interesting discussion about D-3 "air victory")
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/?1-9-0-00000036-000-80-0
http://brummel.fastbb.ru/?1-9-0-00000036-000-120-0 (some interesting questions about doubtful cases of M-submarines of Black Sea Navy)
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 14 Feb 2008 17:56, edited 2 times in total.

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