Military Review

Forgotten Novorossiysk tank landing operation

34
During the entire Second World War, the Soviet army carried out about a hundred naval landings. The overwhelming majority of these landings were few in number and solved operational tasks. At the same time, in the USSR of that time there were no large landing ships and special facilities for the landing of armored vehicles and other equipment. The fleet also used not only motorboats, scowers (non-self-propelled cargo ships) and barges to deliver troops, but also small hunters, minesweepers, fishing barges and even six and eight oars yaly, in general, everything that had seaworthiness a little higher than that of an iron .


For example, the landing of Lend-Lease British “Valentines” (presumably Mk III) and American M-3L “General Stewart” in the infamous South Ozereyrika used the so-called “bindery”. These ships got their own unique name thanks to the Swedish motor company. In fact, they were self-propelled, but extremely slow barges. And they were not used from a good life, there was simply no alternative. What ended this landing is well known to everyone. Most of the Lend-Lease tanks not even overcome the strip of the beach.





The barrel of the gun and the tower of the light American tank M-3L "General Stewart", raised from the bottom of the sea at the South Ozereyka in 1973 year

Ironically, the fame of the South Ozereysk landing tragedy, the failure of the Kerch-Feodosiya operation and the triumph of the “Little Earth” have been relegated to the background and made the Novorossiysk tank landing operation, unique in some aspects, almost forgotten.
Despite the failure of the landing force in Southern Ozereyka, Lieutenant-General Konstantin Nikolaevich Leselidze from the very moment the distracting Novorossiysk assault force became main and entrenched on Malaya Zemlya, bombarded the command of the North Caucasus Front with a tank landing offer to a captured bridgehead. He motivated this by the need to create at least a minimally maneuverable armored group for delivering a counterstrike in the event of a breakthrough in the defense of the Maloheftsmen by large enemy forces. In addition, the presence of tanks would be the moral support of paratroopers, cut off from the main forces.

The complexity of such a landing in those conditions is hard to overestimate. Firstly, the landing area was under the constant influence of artillery and aviation the enemy. Secondly, from the sea there was a serious danger of enemy military boats. Thirdly, almost the entire coast in this area was littered with sunken ships and their debris. Multiply all of these factors by the natural need to land at night, the shallow water of the coast, and the lack of moorings and necessary equipment.

At the first attempt already known “bolinders” were used. 11 February 1943 of the year, these low-speed floating suitcases, loaded again with "Valentine" and "Stewarts", towed from Gelendzhik to Novorossiysk. But, having landed on the Little Land, they could not make a landing, no matter how hard the paratroopers fought. Therefore, the tanks returned to Gelendzhik.

February 13 tanks overloaded to 150-ton barges, equipped with special gangways, more suited to the conditions of the coast of the Malaya. But, unfortunately, all the land-lease tanks and this time suffered the sad fate of their brethren from Ozereyka. The excitement of the sea that day reached 3 points, and the icy north-ost pierced to the bone. The caravan was discovered by the enemy. The landing area was illuminated by searchlights, and artillery and mortar shelling attacked the landing force. The paratroopers jumped into the icy sea. Both barges and two tanks were burned by enemy fire, one tank was destroyed by aviation, the latter sank directly on the coast.

From then on, until March 1943, the command did not want to hear about a tank landing on Little Earth. The impetus for changing the decision was the German operation "Neptune", the essence of which was reduced to the phrase attributed to the Führer, "to dump these Russians into the sea." But the attack choked, the enemy tanks were burned, the infantry stopped, even hundreds of Luftwaffe planes did not save the situation.



Motobot project 165 with an artillery gun on the nose

This time, Leselidze was able to convince the command to repeat the tank landing on Malaya Zemlya. However, now the initiators themselves did not want to hear about barges and the notorious "bolinders". Therefore, the choice fell on motorboats type DB project 165. Length - 14,6 m, width - 3,57 m, draft: 0,9 m. Speed ​​from 5 to 7,5 node, depending on the modification. Also, depending on the modification, load capacity varied up to 5,5 tons. The disadvantage of this type of motoboats was the lack of reverse.

During the war years, motorboats had to work directly landing craft, and boats, minesweepers, and air defense boats, and floating floating batteries. By the way, the weighty part of the message of the bridgehead and the “mainland” lay on the boats of this project. However, one standard amphibious motobot, though capable of taking a light tank on board, if you first “undress” it and the craft itself (for example, headlights, sound signals and distinctive side lights were removed from the motobots, which nobody still used to disguise ) down to the pants. In any case, the crew would have to make hellish efforts just to stay afloat, to say nothing of combat landing.



Motobot in Gelendzhik Bay

Therefore, the command attracted to the solution of the problem of the technical department of the Novorossiysk naval base, headed by Andronik Airapetovich Shakhnazarov. It was these craftsmen who offered to connect two motorboats with a rigid mount, turning them into a kind of catamaran. On top of that there should be a log flooring, on which the tank went. At that time, Rear Admiral Gennady Nikitich Bachelors in his book "Eternal Flame" called these "catamarans" - "Sparka."



An example of the next modification of motoboats in the "Sparku" with deck gun

After the proper tests, which convinced the command of the sufficiently seaworthiness of the Sparky and the rapid, in a certain sense, landing of armored vehicles from them, the tank-landing group was given a go-ahead.

Forgotten Novorossiysk tank landing operation


Motobot in the version of an air defense boat, installed as a monument to the 35 anniversary of the Kerch-Eltigen landing operation in the 1978 year

A part of the route the motorboats loaded with tanks went in tow, since the seaworthiness of the motorboats in the open sea (the section almost in 30 km) was sharply reduced, and accordingly the speed dropped. Directly to the shore "Sparky" were already on their own. On the night from 6 to 7 in May, the first pair of tanks landed on Malaya Zemlya, the 8 was already four in May, and the 9 in May was three. In a short time, 30-ti tanks were transferred to the bridgehead, according to some sources their number reached 36-ti machines.

Unloading of tanks occurred quickly enough. The machine was immediately displayed in the area of ​​concentration of the battalion. There the tank was installed in a pre-opened caponier and carefully camouflaged. Moreover, all movements of armored vehicles were carried out only at night and in order to camouflage enemy positions during an artillery bombardment, so that the armored cavalry would not make the enemy happy with their steel bass before the time. Thus, on the Little Land, three tank companies were created: the 1-I tank captain Mingaliyev, the 2-I captain Danilchenko and the 3-I captain Kozlov.

However, this operation was not without problems. In the open sea, motorboats burrowed into the black night water, despite the fact that they only walked in calm weather. Tankers clearly felt ill at ease. Thus, for example, with one landing, the driver mechanically rushed from wooden flooring to solid ground with such greed, that he turned the “split” to such an extent that the latter almost lost its progress. To the credit of the motoboots, it is worth clarifying that the tanks entrusted to them never suffered through their fault.

It is difficult to determine exactly which tanks the amphibious group consisted of. In the book of the political department chief of the 5 Guards Tank Brigade, George Kondratenko, it is stated that the first tanks that landed on the Little Land were the T-26. At the same time, at the start of the offensive, T-26 tanks start to appear in materials other than T-70. Other sources also mentioned unsuccessful T-60 tanks. It is quite possible that the entire Malaya Zemlya tank battalion was extremely heterogeneous, since the main criterion for selecting tanks was the weight and again the weight of the combat vehicle, and all the above-mentioned tanks belonged to the type of light.



T-26



T-60



T-70

Despite the complexity of the operation, the landing tanks were never used in the fighting of the landlords until the operation for the complete liberation of Novorossiysk from the German invaders. They played the role of the last trump card, if the Germans tried to repeat the operation “Neptune”, remaining disguised in their caponiers without a single scratch before the beginning of September 1943 of the year.
Author:
34 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 17 July 2017 06: 44
    +7
    Therefore, the command attracted to the solution of the problem of the technical department of the Novorossiysk naval base, headed by Andronik Airapetovich Shakhnazarov. It was these craftsmen who offered to connect two motorboats with a rigid mount, turning them into a kind of catamaran. On top of that there should be a log flooring, on which the tank went. At that time, Rear Admiral Gennady Nikitich Bachelors in his book "Eternal Flame" called these "catamarans" - "Sparka."
    The decision of the technical department is very reminiscent of the Siebel ferry, the fight with which in the Black Sea was not very successful with us ...
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 17 July 2017 08: 14
      +4
      Unfortunately, it was far from the ZIBEL type ferries both in carrying capacity and in air defense systems!
      In terms of dealing with them - a stable design, anti-aircraft means in abundance, the draft is small.
      It was also written that the Germans drove the civilian population onto these ferries to protect them from attack by our Air Force!
      1. svp67
        svp67 17 July 2017 08: 20
        +3
        Quote: hohol95
        It was also written that the Germans drove the civilian population onto these ferries to protect them from attack by our Air Force!

        Well, maybe something like that happened during the evacuation, although I think that they themselves didn’t have enough places for them, and then there’s an "underdog" to carry ...
        But how these Zibels helped destroy our Eltigen landing is simply a classic.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 17 July 2017 08: 32
          +1
          However, on Ladoga, the Zibels did not flash!
          And a variety of ferries with a few 88mm anti-aircraft guns could fight with destroyers and other smaller vessels
          1. svp67
            svp67 17 July 2017 08: 36
            +4
            Quote: hohol95
            And a variety of ferries with a few 88mm anti-aircraft guns could fight with destroyers and other smaller vessels

            I would be interested to see how they fought with the destroyers ...
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 17 July 2017 08: 43
              +2
              Do not fight! Do not distort! BUT to enter into a firefight and put in shells several could well.
              But in reality it was like this -
              The German surface fleet in the area, consisting mainly of high-speed landing barges, armed with two large-caliber anti-aircraft guns (75 mm - 88 mm) and two or four medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns (20 mm - 37 mm), exceeded firepower and the number of grouping of Soviet patrol and torpedo boats.
              The use of large warships of the Black Sea Fleet in the narrow and shallow Kerch Strait was completely ruled out due to mine danger and the threat of air attacks.
              Large ships (the remaining ones) cherished, and katerniki could not oppose anything!
              And the Air Force fulfilling reports - the headquarters of the 11th assault air division announced the destruction of 26 German airborne infantry battalions, 6 patrol boats, one Zibel ferry and damage to 41 airborne battalions, 11 patrol boats, 4 barges and one TKA during the operation.
              At the same time, a powerful opposition to enemy air defense was noted. As a result, the specific weight of irretrievable combat losses of aviation from German anti-aircraft artillery fire reached enormous values ​​- 80-90% of all losses.
              For example, on December 1, 1943, the 3rd squadron of the 42nd assault aviation regiment of the Black Sea Fleet consisting of 8 crews under the command of Major Commander Kaverzin during a sortie to attack the enemy’s aircraft concentration area was completely destroyed by air defense fire.
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 17 July 2017 19: 08
      0
      It’s a shame to say, but I didn’t read about Siebel at all and I don’t know
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 17 July 2017 07: 58
    +6
    Both barges and two tanks were burned by enemy fire, one tank was destroyed by aircraft, the latter drowned right off the coast.
    ... The sight of the damaged Valentines and Stuarts gave rise to a rumor that a team of English saboteurs had landed. The Germans deployed a tank unit and a mountain rifle regiment to the landing site, which they planned to deploy against a distraction landing under the command of Ts.L. Kunikov. Having received time for a break, the Kunikists were able to maintain their foothold, which then played a huge role in the liberation of Novorossiysk.
    1. svp67
      svp67 17 July 2017 08: 21
      +3
      Quote: parusnik
      Having received time for a break, the Kunikists were able to maintain their foothold, which then played a huge role in the liberation of Novorossiysk.

      It’s good that we realized in time to transfer efforts from the main direction to the secondary one.
  3. Serg65
    Serg65 17 July 2017 10: 34
    +4
    In fact, they were self-propelled, but extremely slow barges. And they were not used from a good life, there was simply no alternative

    According to the Report on hostilities of the 563th separate tank battalion .... "The 3rd binder, when approaching the shore, was towed and, by inertia, stopped 30-40 meters from the shore. Unloading of tanks began directly into the water. 7 successfully managed to unload tanks - 3 tanks stalled when moving on water and only 5 tanks went ashore and, together with the infantry under the command of the commander of the 140th battalion, began to repel enemy counterattacks from the south of Ozereyk. "

    Suartas from the 563rd separate tank battalion, shot down during a landing in the area of ​​Stanichka - South Ozereyka. In the background is a binder (landing barge) with M3 Stuart tanks and trucks that failed to unload.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 17 July 2017 10: 38
      +5
      two questions to the author
      what was ..
      failure of the Kerch-Feodosia operation

      и
      Other sources also mentioned unsuccessful T-60 tanks.

      What was the failure of the light tank T-60?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 17 July 2017 11: 59
        +3
        The theme of a tank landing in southern Ozereyka is interesting, rummaged and found interesting photos ..
        1

        2

        In the bottom picture, the mortal remains of our coastal battery No. 675 for 3 130 mm guns. It was located in the Wide beam, about 6 km, east of South Ozereyevka.
      2. Eastern wind
        18 July 2017 13: 27
        0
        Immediately answer both questions! Spend your school holidays profitably - read.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 18 July 2017 14: 31
          +3
          Quote: East Wind
          I answer both questions at once!

          what And where are the answers?
          Quote: East Wind
          Spend your school holidays to good use - read.

          Hmm, rude and not solid.
          You wrote an article in which you cite some facts that are, to put it mildly, far from reality. Instead of. to confirm their case. you start to be rude ... ayah!
          1. Eastern wind
            18 July 2017 22: 25
            0
            Who told you that I am a "solid" person? I repeat - go read.
          2. Eastern wind
            18 July 2017 22: 31
            0
            Okay, I'm kind today ... By T-60 - https://topwar.ru/14294-t-60-tank-smertnik.html
            For the Kerch operation - https://topwar.ru/88774-pervoe-osvobozhdenie-krym
            a-istoriya-kerchensko-feodosiyskoy-desantnoy-oper
            acii.html
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 19 July 2017 09: 39
              +3
              Quote: East Wind
              Okay, I'm good today

              Oh thank you, God grant you, uncle, health!
              Quote: East Wind
              T-60 - https://topwar.ru/14294-t-60-tank-smertnik.html

              wassat As a truthful source, do you give personal opinion and conclusions of Mr. Baryatinsky?
              Nearly six thousand T-60s literally burned in the crucible of war

              This alone puts an end to his fabrications! Until the 43rd year, 5920 tanks were produced, some of these machines were used in the flesh until the 46th year as reconnaissance tanks, tractors, training vehicles, and BM-8-24 self-propelled rocket launchers. The T-60 was a tank of its time, the machine was easy to manufacture and cheap - this is what is needed to quickly saturate the tank units remaining by December 41 with virtually no tanks. It was the T-60s that played a big role in the battle for Moscow, in Operation Iskra!
              Quote: East Wind
              For the Kerch operation - https://topwar.ru/88774-pervoe-osvobozhdenie-krym
              a-istoriya-kerchensko-feodosiyskoy-desantnoy-oper
              acii.html

              bully Uncle, are you reading anything besides Military Review? As a result of the Kerch-Feodosia landing operation, the troops of the Caucasian Front liberated the entire Kerch Peninsula, and where is the failure of the landing operation? You can talk about the failure of the Crimean front, but not about the landing operation!
              Now directly about the 563rd OTB ...
              for the landing of Lend-Lease British “Valentines” (presumably Mk III) and American M-3L “General Stuart” in the infamous South Ozereyka

              Personally for you, uncle! The 563rd Special Detachment was formed in June of the 42nd Sumgait Tank Camp, and from August 31, took part in the defense of Mozdok and Nalchik as part of the 37th Army. The British “Valentines” and the American M3 “General Stuart” were in service with the battalion. In the early days of December, the 563rd SDB was removed from the front and transferred to the Tuapse region, there was completely rearmament on the M3 "Stuart", so there were no "Valentines" at the South Ozereyka!
              As for the "boulders" - these self-propelled landing barges were at one time specially built for the landing of the Special Black Sea Division on the shores of the Bosphorus and for the times of the First World War they were not even a bad landing craft.
              Eastern wind, I'm sorry, but you wrote an article for the "History" section, not for the "News" branch! I am very sure that your next articles will be more interesting and of high quality.
              Good luck in the literary field! hi
              1. Eastern wind
                19 July 2017 16: 40
                0
                Okay, I am still good today ... So I suggest you argue about the composition of the tank group with Georgy Kondratenko, the direct participant, who later wrote his memoirs. However, in other sources also the presence of "Valentine" is disputed, therefore I indicated - presumably.
  4. Monarchist
    Monarchist 17 July 2017 19: 23
    0
    Once, in his youth, he read an article in the newspaper "Tanks on the Small Earth" or something similar. Someone asked if there were tanks on the Malaya Zemlya and in the editorial office found the participants of this landing. If my memory serves me, and with my age such “joys” began, they used: T26, T60 and “Valentine” (a couple).
    Once upon a time I came across a publication: the most used in the T60, T70 landing. Karpov gives the order of Stalin: to stop the production of T60, send them to secondary areas and to the western regiments, and use American tanks instead
    1. Velizariy
      Velizariy 18 July 2017 09: 54
      0
      My grandfather with sorrow recalled the "Small Land" ... He was picked up from the water by a wounded man because of that, then he admitted that he waved his midshipman ... and the privates, to put it mildly, did not pull everyone out ...
    2. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 18 July 2017 21: 51
      0
      Karpov, which writer? Well, they found a specialist in World War II! The T-60 had an 20-mm cannon whose action on the target was unsatisfactory. The only advantage is low weight.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 17 November 2017 13: 40
        0
        Quote: Aviator_

        0
        Aviator_ July 18, 2017 21:51 p.m. ↑
        Karpov, which writer?

        As far as I know, Karpov is a front-line soldier and a Hero of the Soviet Union
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 17 November 2017 20: 33
          0
          [/ Quote]
          As far as I know, Karpov is a front-line soldier and a Hero of the Soviet Union [quote]

          This did not save him from senility and literary trash. What can I say, even the "real person" I respected before - Alexei Maresyev, being the chairman of the committee of World War II veterans, called in 1996 to vote for EBN
          1. Krasnoyarsk
            Krasnoyarsk 18 November 2017 18: 56
            0
            Quote: Aviator_

            As far as I know, Karpov is a front-line soldier and a Hero of the Soviet Union

            This did not save him from senility and literary trash. What can I say, even the "real person" I respected before - Alexei Maresyev, being the chairman of the committee of World War II veterans, called in 1996 to vote for EBN

            Oh, how many front-line soldiers you would know, how many “Afghans” supported both the Maidan and the pig! A horse on four legs and then stumbles.
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 18 November 2017 19: 35
              0
              I know. Life is not perfect. Even Christ had an apostle who betrayed him.
              1. Krasnoyarsk
                Krasnoyarsk 19 November 2017 14: 22
                0
                Quote: Aviator_
                I know. Life is not perfect. Even Christ had an apostle who betrayed him.

                That's it. Se la vie, as the ancient Zulus said.
                1. Aviator_
                  Aviator_ 19 November 2017 15: 10
                  +1
                  Betrayal will remain treason forever, as the famous Zulu Bismarck Chuck Zulu said. (He lived during the time of Pushkin and increased the territory of his country once in 10). Therefore, the name of Judah became a household name, although he made a commercial transaction for financial reward, and many of the above - for free. The essence is unchanged.
                  1. Krasnoyarsk
                    Krasnoyarsk 20 November 2017 13: 32
                    0
                    Aviator. Excuse me, dear, from your post, except that - = Betrayal remains a betrayal forever = with which, of course, I agree, I did not understand anything more. Alas for me, wretched.
                    1. Aviator_
                      Aviator_ 20 November 2017 21: 11
                      +1
                      I explain more specifically: Maresyev and similar former Heroes who campaigned for EBN are traitors. It is now clear?
                      1. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 21 November 2017 09: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Aviator_
                        It is now clear?

                        More than. Now let's get it right. 1979 I got demobilized, got married. 1980. It was necessary to buy household appliances. No problem. I just went to the store and bought: a color TV, a fridge, a washing machine, etc. The choice was awesome. 1987. I am returning from Chernobyl. And ... I’m going to another district of the city to queue up (!!!) for the purchase of a vacuum cleaner (!) In the stores there was no household appliances from the word at all. For brevity, I will not talk about food, clothing and shoes. The question is - where did everything go? Are the plants stopped? Duck no, worked at full capacity. I know from my factory. Could Maresyev and others like him (I will not say the former, because they really are heroes) understand that this whole deficit was created deliberately to undermine the authority of Soviet power. So that during Ch, no one, or no one at all, would defend this power. Which happened later. So we are a kind of traitor. We did not defend YOUR power. So what if we did not vote for Yeltsin? As always, people do not vote for someone, but against something. So Maresyev did not vote for Yeltsin, but against the poor life of his military twin cities. It seems to me.
  5. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 21 November 2017 20: 44
    +1
    Krasnoyarsk,
    I can understand when they voted for EBN, when he defiantly "fought" against the privileges of the party nomenclature, portraying a "fighter for national happiness" brought several boxes with disposable syringes from Spain, well, etc. His combat brothers voted to save the USSR on 17 on March 1991 of the year. Personally, he (Maresyev) could vote for anyone, but use his status to campaign for EBN in 1996, when it became clear that we have no and will not have “developed capitalism” - this is a betrayal of our whole life. Being determines consciousness, recently Tereshkova was pushing the renaming of the Yaroslavl district center into a pre-revolutionary name, it’s good that it didn’t.
    1. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 3 December 2017 21: 00
      0
      = Personally, he (Maresyev) could vote for anyone, but use his status to campaign for EBN in 1996, when it became clear that we have no and will not have “developed capitalism” - this is a betrayal of our whole life. = I can’t argue with you, I must admit that here you are right. The most amazing thing is that there is no explanation for this. Rather there is, but it is purely mine, personal: - People of a similar type, like our heroes, Maresiev, Tereshkova, never had their own opinions. Rather, their opinion ALWAYS coincided with the "party line", read - the authorities. This can explain the fact that in March of the 91st these people voted for the preservation of the USSR, and on December 1 of the 91st they voted for the "non-fallibility" of Ukraine. Why did it happen? Because the authorities, through the media, intelligibly explained to them that for centuries Russia had robbed, oppressed and prevented Ukraine from developing. What exactly is Russia to blame for all the troubles of Ukraine. I have witnessed all this. The conclusion is that those who have the media have power. Who has the power, the one and the media.
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 3 December 2017 21: 04
      0
      Aviator.
      It so happened that my post was without an address. And to attract your attention I add an address.
    3. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 3 December 2017 21: 25
      +1
      Quote: Aviator_
      Krasnoyarsk,
      . Personally, he (Maresyev) could vote for anyone, but use his status to campaign for EBN in 1996, when it became clear that we have no and will not have “developed capitalism” —this is a betrayal of our whole life. .

      I can not agree with you. All right. But why do they do that? Is there an explanation for this? As in my opinion, there is only one explanation for this; - Our heroes with you, Maresyevs, Tereshkovs and others like them, never had their own opinion. Rather, it was, but miraculously always coincided with the "party line", read the authorities. After all, why did they, in March of the 91st, voted for the preservation of the USSR, and already on December 1 of that same 91st, voted for "non-wintering"? Yes, because the media from August 91st to December 91st poured so much dirt on Russia that you wonder how people could believe all this. And after all, they believed the same. They believed that Russia had spread rot and exploitation of Ukraine in every way, that it had plundered it for centuries and prevented it from developing, that if it had not been for the machinations of Russia, Ukraine would have been the most developed state in Europe. I witnessed all this insanity. Therefore, I draw a simple conclusion - whoever has the media has the power. But whoever has the power, the one who has the media.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 3 December 2017 22: 52
        0
        Unfortunately, your thesis about the media is absolutely true. Even Napoleon believed that the opposition newspaper was equal to a full-fledged division.