Soviet Naval Battles

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11500
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by Juha Tompuri » 08 Apr 2015 21:00

lupodimare89 wrote:Yeah ok, but... it's already "known" stuff, i mean...
In every kind of english publication regarding the soviet navy it's just repeated and repeated and repeated all the kind of Soviet mistakes committed...
While none of the German ones are reported (but this is generally an issue of the whole Eastern Front, and not just the war on sear).
In the end it's a long discussion that bring to other matters rather than the research of events and data.
I've also read about balanced english language information about the issues.



lupodimare89 wrote:As feared, Morozov reply is not an hoped one
Fear?
Hope?


Regards, Juha

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 17 Apr 2015 17:27

Juha Tompuri wrote:
lupodimare89 wrote:As feared, Morozov reply is not an hoped one
Fear?
Hope?


Regards, Juha
Probably not the best (english) words to express it.
It's just that digging into little known/explored naval events that could actually bring something of new or revalued it's still a bit thrilling, especially considering I take some time with them only for 100% hobby.

(and it actually occurred few times in the past, into the now-long block of pages of this discussion).
However there is every time some kind of "predisposition" to think at the less important/thrilling/fascinating/unexpected explanations of the events (that are most often the common one: sinking of targets due secondary or minory reasons, impossibility to clearly establish them etc...)

It's still part of the job, because when something of unexpected turns to be plausible or confirmed, it's a satisfaction.





BTW:

(for Igor mostly)

While having temporarily delayed the check of KTB, i've tried to clean-up and read some old discussions, and few things I would like to check better:

(all Arctic)




(minor details)

17 May 1943
On the second target hit by S-56, the unexploded torpedo+light damage, you've previously named the ship "Warteland"
MM didn't mentioned WARTELAND?
Checking a bit online the name should not be actually "Wartheland" as I've seen in every other places?
(from the "Reichsgau Wartheland")
But this is a minor detail: equally minor is the GRT:
Conflicting sources, with 3676 GRT, but also 3716 GRT (possibly mistake?) http://warsailors.com/forum/read.php?1, ... 9#msg-2529
and 3678 GRT http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=225


(more relevant)
1 Sept 43
L-22 torpedoed and damaged German merchant Rüdesheimer (2036 GRT) torpedo. Cargo of timber.

Morozov listed this one just as damaged (=) but on this old page:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=270
It's said that it was not restored during the war.

Morozov missed it, or it was actually restored&returned in service?



Two things for the famous K-21
First of all the attack on motorboats in Vogen (that actually now appears to have caused nothing).
It was on 20 Feb 43, right? Because i've also listed on a file 12 Feb 43 (possible mistake confunding with the more successful encounter on 12 Apr 43)


Second thing:
Also, probably, transport "Rigel" (3828 brt) was damaged on mine from K-21 10.11.1941.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=

This one I think to remember to have read something, but could not found further data now...



Last one (on that old topic)
M-119
(one successful - 19.11.1943, 2 warships, 2 torpedos from 5 cables, German decoy-ship "Schiff 20" 992 brt was heavily damaged and run aground),
It seems a bit weird, but also here there is something that puzzle me...
Also if I am right ship should be the "Nerissa" sunk in 1944 by soviet TKA
http://www.town.ural.ru/ship/ship/m119.php3 speak about a failure.

igorr
Member
Posts: 787
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 02:21

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by igorr » 20 Apr 2015 04:14

lupodimare89 wrote: 17 May 1943
On the second target hit by S-56, the unexploded torpedo+light damage, you've previously named the ship "Warteland"
MM didn't mentioned WARTELAND?
Checking a bit online the name should not be actually "Wartheland" as I've seen in every other places?
(from the "Reichsgau Wartheland")
But this is a minor detail: equally minor is the GRT:
Conflicting sources, with 3676 GRT, but also 3716 GRT (possibly mistake?) http://warsailors.com/forum/read.php?1, ... 9#msg-2529
and 3678 GRT http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=225
Of course WARTHELAND, ex latvian ARIJA. Lloyd give 3678 grt, different tonnage maybe so called "deutsche vermessung". Germans made own evaluation of captured ships which sometimes differ from Lloyd's data.
lupodimare89 wrote: (more relevant)
1 Sept 43
L-22 torpedoed and damaged German merchant Rüdesheimer (2036 GRT) torpedo. Cargo of timber.
Morozov listed this one just as damaged (=) but on this old page:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=270
It's said that it was not restored during the war.
Morozov missed it, or it was actually restored&returned in service?
I think Morozov didn't bother about time, when ship was restored. If it was restored - so he didn't call them destroyed, only damaged. Ship becomes a EMPIRE SPRINGFJORD after war. I think this mean she was OK, because ships in bad state wasn't requisitioned but sunk with gas ammunition etc.

lupodimare89 wrote: Two things for the famous K-21
First of all the attack on motorboats in Vogen (that actually now appears to have caused nothing).
It was on 20 Feb 43, right? Because i've also listed on a file 12 Feb 43 (possible mistake confunding with the more successful encounter on 12 Apr 43)
20.2.43
lupodimare89 wrote: Second thing:
Also, probably, transport "Rigel" (3828 brt) was damaged on mine from K-21 10.11.1941.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=
This one I think to remember to have read something, but could not found further data now...
You must be more critical to all things you find in Internet. What was source for this statement? I see none.
In reality RIGEL arrived Tromso 8.11.41 and left for south 12.11.41. As you know, soviet subs never lay mines so far west. Anyway, RIGEL wasn't mined at all.
lupodimare89 wrote: Last one (on that old topic)
M-119
(one successful - 19.11.1943, 2 warships, 2 torpedos from 5 cables, German decoy-ship "Schiff 20" 992 brt was heavily damaged and run aground),
It seems a bit weird, but also here there is something that puzzle me...
Also if I am right ship should be the "Nerissa" sunk in 1944 by soviet TKA
http://www.town.ural.ru/ship/ship/m119.php3 speak about a failure.
Same thing as previous. I have no idea what bring to life such wild fantasy. M-119 fired to "1 transport, 1 cutter". Most probable, some little norwegian cutters.

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 21 Apr 2015 09:38

Thank you for everything ^^

Regarding the weird events found on internet it's easy: having no other source apart internet, I ask exactly to see if something of true, possible or fantasy.


To finish some "cleaning" of my arctic submarine's file, I would try to talk and assess more regarding the 29 April 1942 attack of M-171 on Curityba.

In the end Morozov said that basically there is huge lack of info.
His exact reply was
"I can't find any German documents with this losses - I heared about them only in Gomm's book."
reguarding the possible loss of M 5403 and M 5407.

Reading this (old) topic http://warsailors.com/forum/read.php?1,10966
It appers there could be more info, with original identity being
Later the same month 20 "Zwergs" are ordered at Norwegian yards, and 14 of them are for new minenraumschiff (which? - probably MRS Bali and MRS Paris).
In May 42, 23 crewmembers returns to Bergen from Polarküste after the loss of all the Zwergboats deployed there.
The only trace in sources I have located is that one Zwergboat was lost about 15.1.42 off Kirkenes, and two others with the Curityba. This gives unknown fate of one Zwerg, as the Zwergkönig probably managed to return back to Bergen.

What's your personal opinion?

It's a true event but lacking data, or a false one?

igorr
Member
Posts: 787
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 02:21

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by igorr » 22 Apr 2015 03:12

This is still not 100% ckear case. I've see mention about two Zwergbootesunk without names somewhere besides Gomm.

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 27 Apr 2015 15:41

Thanks...sometimes is not easy to understand, when dealing with uncertain events, the degree of insecurity and personal opinion.

Btw, here a pair of reports from my Q&A on tsushima.net

I've dig and translated more details concering the U-367 case, and here the replies of Morozov:
The battle damages and the location of the wreck say the the version of the sinking of U-367 on the mine of L-21 is quite adoptable. But like Mr. Nistle I think that this took place on the evening of March 15th, not on the evening of 16th, when the false report from U-3010 was received.
Have you the list of the German subs, sunk due combat reasons in Danzig bay before March 1945? This is very valuable info befor we make the final conclusion.
I cheked U-738, U-1015 and U-416 in German documents - all them sunk far away from the point, where wrack was found (54º34’00,000” N; 18º52’49,599” E). It seems that this is U-367, but in fact we don't know the fate of all German newly-commisioned and decomissioned Uboats on that time. For example U-1000, which claimed as scrapped in Koenigsberg, in fact run aground and probably was leaved by her crew off Rixhoeft on 28.1.1945. Here is some Ultra messages:
So this could be another sub, which was lost in another day due to ahother reason.
I would say that personally I have very few doubts about it: the loss of another unknown submarine, challenging all the previous authors knowledge of submarines' fate, exactly in that position and with battle damage, seems a bit a very huge coincidence.

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 27 Apr 2015 15:44

Also interesting I got some replies concerning for some victims of mines 1941: confirmation that "Gertrud-III" and "Anneliese" were sunk on German own mine.
And that Finnish boat Kuha-3 was probably damaged on mine from MO boats.

The most interesting one is however that:
21 November 1941
German tug FOHN (303 GRT)
Yes, I think this was a mine from the central mine position, which was laid by Marti&Ural and some others ships.
Because it adds another victim to the small list of losses caused by minelaying from soviet major warships. (not to mention involvment of Marti, a ship I've ever found interesting).

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 29 Apr 2015 12:54

An update, after another exchange of messages, M.Morozov made further checks and then produced this as reply
Проанализировал всю последовательность событий, связанных с постановкой Л-21 и действиями немецких кораблей в этом районе. Вот, что получилось:
В 18.30 14 марта на минах Л-21 подорвались миноносцы Т-3 и Т-5. Немцы посчитали, что они оба были торпедированы подводной лодкой и решили провести поиск ПЛ силами группы охотников БО-1201, 1208 и 1207. Для этого все учебные ПЛ, находившиеся рядом с районом поиска (такой приказ получили 4 ПЛ, но по идее их должно было быть больше, поскольку впоследствии всплывают и другие номера), должны были вернуться в базу до 06.00 15 марта. В 8 часов утра выяснилось, что У-367 и У-2327 еще не вернулись из района БП - вероятно не получили сигнала своевременно. В 17.50 15 марта У-367 в последний раз вышла на связь, сообщив, что возвращается в базу. Тем не менее она не прибыла и днем 16 марта в район была направлена У-747, которая должна была вызывать У-367 по ЗПС. Поскольку та не отзывалась а на У-747 была неисправность гирокомпаса ее командир попросился в базу. В 23.59 было получено лже-сообщение с У-3010 о подрыве на мине в квадрате АО9573 и группу ПЛО (без БО-1207, который вернулся в Хель) отправили оказывать ей помощь. К 6 часам утра 17 марта разобрались, что с У-3010 ничего не случилось, а сигнал, вероятно, передала другая ПЛ. Лишь в 09.40 утра немецкое командование объявило о закрытии фарватера №76 от цифры 1 до цифры 3 - проходить этот участок разрешалось только за контактными тралами. В 4 милях восточнее параллельно был проложен обходной фарватер для возвращавшихся ПЛ. До 14 часов 18 марта фарватер №76 от 1 до 3 был протрален "раумботами", которые вытралили 11 ударно-механических (ПЛТ) мин. Лишь после этого причина гибели миноносцев была исправлена с торпед на мины, так же на минах предположили гибель У-367.
С учетом всех этих обстоятельств, а так же обнаружения река немецкой подлодки VII cерии рядом с остовом миноносца Т-5 со следами боевых повреждений, думаю, что можно считать, что У-367 действительно погибла на минной постановке Л-21 в ночь 15/16 марта, когда возвращалась в базу, а район еще не считался опасным от мин.

After careful examination of all German documents and Ultra, I agree that U-367 sunk on a mine of L-21 during the night March 15/16, 1945 and I add her in the list of the soviet submarines successes.

Worth to be said that none else on other sources online previously put in doubt this victory for L-21, but well... now it's more safely confirmed

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11500
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by Juha Tompuri » 29 Apr 2015 21:52

lupodimare89 wrote: And that Finnish boat Kuha-3 was probably damaged on mine from MO boats.
A Small Finnish minesweeper damaged from a small Soviet mine 3rd November 1941 at Koivisto area(?)
Image
SA-photo 64474

Regards, Juha

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 20 May 2015 11:24

Interesting photo!

Btw, I got some replies from Morozov on tsushima.net reguarding losses by mines in Gulf of Riga/Irben straits.
German minesweeper M-3131/Nordmar sunk by mine close Dünamündung, while sweeping mines on 23 July 1941 was sunk by air-dropped soviet mine.

And most important finally it has been moved lights reguarding the mysterious losses of "RA-53" and "RA-55" former dutch boats.

Morozov revealed that when they were lost they actually had not such names, but R-203 and R-205 (the rest of the class received the new names).
R 205 (never was RA 55) sunk on a mine on 1.10.1941 at 57.50,6N/ 22.22,2E
R 203 (never was RA 53) lost her stern on a mine 19.11.1941 in Irben str., later was broken up.
According to Morozov, too mine fields were laid there to be 100% sure.
But generally speaking the area was heavily mined by soviet destroyers and other smaller ships.

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 14 Jul 2015 13:27

Some sorry for having been a bit absent: summer+ university + new pc etc...

Will post again as soon as I got something interesting from tsushima.net or from war diaries.

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 08 Aug 2015 23:45

After some other time (summer holidays), here a small but interesting updated I found (and got a confirmation after a question) on tsushima.net

Another brief action involving Soviet destroyers in surface engagement in the Baltic.
On 6 August 1941, Soviet DDs Surovyi and Statnyi briefly engaged the auxiliary minesweeper R-31, that was temporarily grunded (and got some indirect damage, at the bottom due the grounding), before switching target and engaging German ground guns. Also that brief extended fight was successful, no damage suffered on Soviet side, a cache of ammunition destroyed + 3 wounded on German side.

Once again, nothing of big... still something worth to be recorded for the activity of these Soviet DDs

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 03 Dec 2015 17:55

After some long time, here a relevant updated for whoever would like to get interest in Soviet naval warfare.
http://i.imgur.com/2Sfo3wJ.png
That exposed survival of mines from submarine L-3 in Baltic close Memel (Klaipeda) until 1943.

This put a new interesting doubt regarding ships lost by Germans toward end of 1942 and first half of 1943 in regard of possibility of being lost on survived mines from this submarine.
While the loss of merchants "Grundsee" and "Tristan" can't be confirmed (ships were lost without trace, during stormy weather, they COULD have struck a left mine but also could have been sunk by the storms), Miroslav Morozov on tsushima.su found an interesting detail:

http://i.imgur.com/W8etu5q.jpg
The loss of merchant "Dirschau" (762 GRT) reported in that documents some remains (salvage boat) found on lithuanian shore: after this discovery Morozov placed the loss of "Dirschau" into his submarine-list of victories.

This is important because it raise the L-3 at the top list of soviet subs. with 10 victories (above L-4 and L-21, both with 9 victories).

mars
Member
Posts: 1162
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 19:50
Location: Shanghai

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by mars » 04 Dec 2015 15:01

lupodimare89 wrote: This is important because it raise the L-3 at the top list of soviet subs. with 10 victories (above L-4 and L-21, both with 9 victories).
I may be wrong, but should tonnage sunk count more than number of ships sunk?

lupodimare89
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 07 Mar 2013 01:32

Re: Soviet Naval Battles

Post by lupodimare89 » 06 Dec 2015 16:19

mars wrote:
lupodimare89 wrote: This is important because it raise the L-3 at the top list of soviet subs. with 10 victories (above L-4 and L-21, both with 9 victories).
I may be wrong, but should tonnage sunk count more than number of ships sunk?
It was mostly the Germans and the Allied who counted tonnage sinking because they operated in wide oceans with many chances to meet large vessels.
(sometimes with the term of "Ace" submarine commander for at least 100.000 GRT sunk)

Among the soviet submarines they stressed much the actual number of victories (even often inflated): they painted a big star on the conning tower and each time re-painted the number for the number claimed.
Image

Said this, the Soviet submarines could not make a big effect on tonnage (GRT) sunk especialy in Baltic and Arctic. Curiousily it appears that actually sometimes for a matter of strategic details (campaign in 1942), it was more effective scaring the Germans and prevent them to sail convoy than actually sinking ships.

Also for Black Sea (where the Axis had not an huge amount of large merchants), it was important the loss of merchant tonnage in relationship with the available ones (for example: a +1000 GRT merchant lost in Baltic or Arctic was much less important than one lost in Black Sea).

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