Sub K-51
Re: Sub K-51
Mogilevskij stated he see patrol boat nearby.
Re: Sub K-51
Well, then its all settled?
That must have been the waria. (She was a freighter but during the war fitted with armory to serve as Helpcruiser/escort)
(On this actual evening she didnt act as either)
The log and the attack report leaked from russian archives in 1992. (I have seen part of this document, but only pieces) I heard the name Venkov but dont recall his position.
But I have read that there are som differencies in the attack report and the log, for example different postions etc.
I have also read somewhere that there were more than one ship in the escort. Since I havent seen the whole report its hard to know whats true and whats not. I can only referr to the pieces I have seen.
Would I be able to find these documents in russian archives or are they "closed/secret?"
Cheers, J
That must have been the waria. (She was a freighter but during the war fitted with armory to serve as Helpcruiser/escort)
(On this actual evening she didnt act as either)
The log and the attack report leaked from russian archives in 1992. (I have seen part of this document, but only pieces) I heard the name Venkov but dont recall his position.
But I have read that there are som differencies in the attack report and the log, for example different postions etc.
I have also read somewhere that there were more than one ship in the escort. Since I havent seen the whole report its hard to know whats true and whats not. I can only referr to the pieces I have seen.
Would I be able to find these documents in russian archives or are they "closed/secret?"
Cheers, J
Re: Sub K-51
Or does anyone have translations of the full document?
Re: Sub K-51
They not secret, but i think you can't just visit archive and read them. However, i never be in archive by myself.
Re: Sub K-51
Thanks Igorr!
Your probaby right. Im doing a book on the Hansa and thats why I need no get some kind of document to referr too.
There has been to many speculation and guessing in this matter (in swedish media/books etc) so Id would just like to set things straight.
One of the military researchers that has viewed the material is very sceptic to every russian source.
For example he is says that:
1. The captains on the subs always exagerated the size of the ship just to get benefits after the campaigns, such as medals. (?)
2. They made the attack report after the actual attack and when they did they only reported back what their superiors wanted to hear. (?)
3. He even says that some of the L-21 documents were made up AFTER the russians had read the investigation regarding Hansa. (This is hilarious to me. From what I understand the sinking of the Hansa wasnt a big matter in the course of this war)
4. He is also using a difference in the log and the attack report since the two positions doesnt match. Is this common?
Was attack reports and the log made up at the same time?
Cheers, J
Your probaby right. Im doing a book on the Hansa and thats why I need no get some kind of document to referr too.
There has been to many speculation and guessing in this matter (in swedish media/books etc) so Id would just like to set things straight.
One of the military researchers that has viewed the material is very sceptic to every russian source.
For example he is says that:
1. The captains on the subs always exagerated the size of the ship just to get benefits after the campaigns, such as medals. (?)
2. They made the attack report after the actual attack and when they did they only reported back what their superiors wanted to hear. (?)
3. He even says that some of the L-21 documents were made up AFTER the russians had read the investigation regarding Hansa. (This is hilarious to me. From what I understand the sinking of the Hansa wasnt a big matter in the course of this war)
4. He is also using a difference in the log and the attack report since the two positions doesnt match. Is this common?
Was attack reports and the log made up at the same time?
Cheers, J
-
lupodimare89
- Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32
Re: Sub K-51
I would stress the difference between "Soviet" and "Russian" source.
Plenty of modern authors researching and writing over naval matters of WW2 are very detached to the Soviet old point-of-view (quite more than other WW2 naval belligerants, i can say this for sure about Italy).
1. That's pretty much common. And you can see it clearly in sovboat.ru. But from what i gathered they pretty much believed what they claimed due attacks committed sometimes in large distance and with poor visual check of the aftermath (the leitmotive was was periscope observation after the attack was done: target seen "missing" (sailed away) and assumed sunk).
2. Not sure how i could comment this. Pretty much they just believed the clai. But i should stress that lots of other countries submarines (and not just them) made overclaim on enemy targets. Including Germans, British, etc...
As extra note, sometimes the commander's superiors (Division commonanders) sailed on the very same submarines. Especially if the commander was new/unexperienced.
3. Not sure again. But I agree that considering the general naval warfare ongoing in Baltic, it was far from being a primary concern.
4. Differences in positions for attacks (or laying of mines: a subject i am attempting to cover from some time especially concerning surface vessels) it's quite widespread. I may say this turned particularly frustrating for the mine warfare (especially with floating mines: making nearly impossible to identify the cause of of sinking).
Plenty of modern authors researching and writing over naval matters of WW2 are very detached to the Soviet old point-of-view (quite more than other WW2 naval belligerants, i can say this for sure about Italy).
1. That's pretty much common. And you can see it clearly in sovboat.ru. But from what i gathered they pretty much believed what they claimed due attacks committed sometimes in large distance and with poor visual check of the aftermath (the leitmotive was was periscope observation after the attack was done: target seen "missing" (sailed away) and assumed sunk).
2. Not sure how i could comment this. Pretty much they just believed the clai. But i should stress that lots of other countries submarines (and not just them) made overclaim on enemy targets. Including Germans, British, etc...
As extra note, sometimes the commander's superiors (Division commonanders) sailed on the very same submarines. Especially if the commander was new/unexperienced.
3. Not sure again. But I agree that considering the general naval warfare ongoing in Baltic, it was far from being a primary concern.
4. Differences in positions for attacks (or laying of mines: a subject i am attempting to cover from some time especially concerning surface vessels) it's quite widespread. I may say this turned particularly frustrating for the mine warfare (especially with floating mines: making nearly impossible to identify the cause of of sinking).
Re: Sub K-51
1. Yes. So what? Many commanders of all nations exaggregeted their successes, especially if they not recognized targets in some reference books. soviet commanders have no such references and rely on their eyes and poor knowledge only. Moreover, soviet commanders measured their targets in tons (displacement), not in grt as germans.
2. Nobody write attack report in progress of attack itself, this is noncence. All commander in all countries have some kind of rough writings, with them they write attack reports in calm time, when it come. Look at german Gefechtberichte - many of them has date of next day, for example.
3. I've not believe in this. I have not see L-21's docs, but i very doubt that they take care about little swedish steamship. Did swedish foreign ministry made some protests? If no, then Mogilevskij 100% didn't know about nationality of sunken ship.
4. Difference may occur. Log was one doculent. Navigator has his own log, and he can also make some corrections in old data when he have corrections in coordinates after seeng some specific marker (lights, capes etc.). So first coordinates in log may be "rough", and then in later attack report commander can use corrected, more precise coordinates.
We can no exclude some errors in attack report because of human factor, but this is no conspiracy.
2. Nobody write attack report in progress of attack itself, this is noncence. All commander in all countries have some kind of rough writings, with them they write attack reports in calm time, when it come. Look at german Gefechtberichte - many of them has date of next day, for example.
3. I've not believe in this. I have not see L-21's docs, but i very doubt that they take care about little swedish steamship. Did swedish foreign ministry made some protests? If no, then Mogilevskij 100% didn't know about nationality of sunken ship.
4. Difference may occur. Log was one doculent. Navigator has his own log, and he can also make some corrections in old data when he have corrections in coordinates after seeng some specific marker (lights, capes etc.). So first coordinates in log may be "rough", and then in later attack report commander can use corrected, more precise coordinates.
We can no exclude some errors in attack report because of human factor, but this is no conspiracy.
Re: Sub K-51
Thanks to you both!
Your absolutely right Igorr. No official protest from Sweden in the Hansa-sinking. As you say its ridiculous to think that the Hansa was that big of affair to Soviet.
Thank you so much for clearing things up. It is really interesting how everything worked regarding logs and such.
Wasnt there a division commander (along with Mogilievskij) on the L-21 during the spring campaign in 1945? Complaints on the crew?
Cheers, j
Your absolutely right Igorr. No official protest from Sweden in the Hansa-sinking. As you say its ridiculous to think that the Hansa was that big of affair to Soviet.
Thank you so much for clearing things up. It is really interesting how everything worked regarding logs and such.
Wasnt there a division commander (along with Mogilievskij) on the L-21 during the spring campaign in 1945? Complaints on the crew?
Cheers, j
Re: Sub K-51
Don't know about div. commander or other boss on L-21. Mogilevskij was experienced man so maybe he was alone on commanding post.
-
lupodimare89
- Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32
Re: Sub K-51
Sovboat.ru say clearly Alexander E. Orel was onboard (1st division commander) for the third and last campaign.
But you don't have to see something behind it, jringbom.
L-21 was a quite important boat for the Baltic Fleet: alongside L-3 and Lembit, it was the only minelaying submarine left, and it was without doubt the most advanced.
Re: Sub K-51
I thought so.
I read the brillaiant book by Viktor Korhz (red star under the baltic) a couple of years ago. He was also aboard the L-21 on the third campaign?
You say 3 campaigns? I thought the autumn campaign oktober-december was the first one and the springcampaign the second?
L-21 was stationed in Åbo?
Was it the Smolny or the Irtysj that was stationed there as well? (I dont know the actual word fot those ship in english.
What other subs were stationed there during autumn campaign?
Thanks!
I read the brillaiant book by Viktor Korhz (red star under the baltic) a couple of years ago. He was also aboard the L-21 on the third campaign?
You say 3 campaigns? I thought the autumn campaign oktober-december was the first one and the springcampaign the second?
L-21 was stationed in Åbo?
Was it the Smolny or the Irtysj that was stationed there as well? (I dont know the actual word fot those ship in english.
What other subs were stationed there during autumn campaign?
Thanks!
Re: Sub K-51
But i say about first war patrol, not third.lupodimare89 wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 12:11Sovboat.ru say clearly Alexander E. Orel was onboard (1st division commander) for the third and last campaign.
Btw, patrol with Orel de-facto was second. When L-21 exit Turku 28.11 she just continued her first patrol after break to 2 days for repair.
26-28.11 sub stay in Turku for repair. Then 25.12 returned from sea to Hango, but in beginning of 1945 again go to Turku to change batteries.