On the role of the Soviet Navy in the Great Patriotic War


My attention was drawn to an article by the authorship of the well-known to us Alexander Timokhin, but on a different resource. And the topic that Timokhin touched on the one hand is very interesting, on the other - it is just as controversial.


Was the Soviet fleet useless in World War II.

In order not to cite Timokhin’s entire article and disassemble it completely, I just briefly go over where I agree, but where I don’t agree ... We’ll talk in detail, especially since I do not agree with all Timokhin’s thoughts. On the basis of, I’ll say right away, my work “The military way of the Soviet naval fleet in the Great Patriotic War. ” Naturally, the Soviet edition.

And I consider it necessary to begin with a historical retreat. A retreat is very necessary, and if Timokhin begins in the 20s of the last century, then I believe that we need to look a lot earlier.

What was the fleet in TOY Russia? It was the focus of education and smart people. This was true not only for officers, although the naval ones lifted their noses in front of the land, but everything was fair. For on the one hand there is an equestrian regiment, and on the other a battleship. There is a difference.


Only artillerymen could compete with the naval, because in the imperial army tanks not at all, but aviation was in its infancy. So the warship was the most complex mechanism.

That is precisely why sailors became an effective force of the revolution, and precisely because of this, the fleet so quickly sprouted the seeds of free-thinking, for there were almost no fools there. And therefore, at first, sailors-agitators were listened to and trusted, well, well, a man from the fleet was at least intelligent and trained in the business.

And although during the First World War the Russian fleet did not particularly shine, did not participate in major battles, but the same German blood was drunk. And even when the fleet of the Russian republic, thoroughly shaken by agitation, took the battle in the Strait of Moonsund, let's say bluntly: the Germans won the victory at great cost.


But it should be noted that as a result of the October Revolution it was the fleet that simply suffered huge losses. A large number of competent officers emigrated abroad, and sailors scattered along the fronts of the Civil War.

And I completely agree with Timokhin that in the twenties the Russian fleet was a sad sight. There were ships, but there were absolutely no personnel capable of making a fleet of ships.

Being familiar with the works of Boris Borisovich Gervais, I will say that Timokhin somewhat exaggerates the significance of Gervais' works in general and the role of the professor in the development of the Soviet fleet strategy in particular. Yes, the works of Gervais were largely fundamental, but there were simply no others!

And yes, Professor Gervais was not subjected to any repression, he didn’t lose his posts, in 1928-1931 he was the head of the Naval Academy, then he became the head of the department at two (Military Political and Military Engineering) academies. The decline in 1931 was caused by a state of health, and not repression, which Gervais proved in 1934, having died at the age of 56 years. Although it is worth noting that in 1930 Boris Borisovich was arrested, but in just 2 weeks it was found out that the allegations were false.

In fact, it is difficult to say how much the fleet could get an impetus in development, but at the turn of the 20s and 30s, unfortunately, the Soviet fleet was in a state of severe crisis, both in building new ships and in training personnel.

Further, our roads, perhaps, diverge. The opponent begins with many assumptions and conjectures, as a result of which they draw a not quite correct and clear picture on the subject “But if ...”

Of course, nowhere without Stalin, a bloody tyrant who began to "restore order" through repression.

Yes, list mess with the commanders of the Navy looks intimidating.

Viktorov, Mikhail Vladimirovich (August 15 - December 30, 1937).
Smirnov, Peter Alexandrovich (December 30, 1937 - June 30, 1938).
Smirnov-Svetlovsky, Peter Ivanovich (acting June 30 - September 8, 1938).
Frinovsky, Mikhail Petrovich (September 8, 1938 - March 20, 1939).

Yes, all four were shot in the years 1938-1940, but here, too, must be watched carefully, because Frinovsky and Smirnov were the organizers and the main executors of the shooting purges in the fleet. For which they deservedly and got theirs in 1940.

Yes, Kuznetsov got a very sad economy, with personnel shortages and complete devastation in shipbuilding and ship repair. But most sadly, no one really knew what to do with this fleet.

Let's look objectively. And do not poke at all the holes of Stalin. The fleet suffered the greatest losses not at the end of the 30s, but much earlier. When the revolution broke out and with a sailor's hands a very large number of naval officers were destroyed. Yes, they were royal officers, white bone and all that. But forgive me, the so-called “krasvenoormory" could only rally well, but with the understanding of how to command the ship, it was sad for them.


Those who were not withdrawn to consumption in 1917-1918, who were lucky, went abroad. Who was not lucky - there were purges in the 20s and in 1932-1933. “White bone” was cut out, I would say, with rapture.

And the main problem is not that there was no one to command the ships wisely, no one to TEACH how to command.

Weeds can only produce weeds. But we will return to this. In the meantime, a few considerations gleaned from Zhukov in "Memoirs and Reflections." Georgy Konstantinovich was a man, to put it mildly, a land man, and in fact did not mention naval affairs. But he can be read in the second volume that Stalin, as it were, was not a dock in the maritime business, but rather the opposite.

I allow myself to quote Timokhin.

“Alas, he (Stalin) tried to“ solve the problem ”by bringing down a new wave of repression on the fleet. If, until 1938, with the cessation of ideological insanity, the fleet would have been able to restore combat efficiency in a few years, then by 1939 there were not enough personnel for this. Experienced commanders, for example, simply had nowhere to take. ”

Figures from official sources (for example, a certificate by E. A. Schadenko sent to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1940, containing information on the number of people dismissed from the Red Army without the Air Force) that all modern researchers refer to stories army and navy (Ukolov, Ivkin, Meltiukhov, Souvenir, Pechenkin, Cherushev, Lazarev) say that during the years 1937-1939, 28 685 officers were dismissed from the army and navy.

The figure is large, but, unfortunately, the army and the navy are not divided in it, and it is impossible to say anything about how trained the officers were. However, this figure is everything: those dismissed for political reasons, for denunciations, for drunkenness, embezzlement, and so on. And by the way, a lot of officers returned back in 1941. I hope this does not require special confirmation.

Some researchers give the fleet a figure from 3 to 4 thousand dismissed. I do not presume to judge truthfulness, but it seems to be true.

Moving on.

“Until the end of 1940, the military-political leadership had doubts as to who we would still be fighting with: Britain or Germany. On land, military leaders failed to predict the nature of a future war. Even after the German invasion, hardly anyone could predict that almost all fleet bases would be either captured by the enemy during ground attacks or blocked by him. ”

Well, honestly, hands are down. What kind of war with Britain could be discussed if at the famous military headquarters game in December 1940 - January 1941, where Zhukov played for the “Western” and completely defeated the “Eastern” (“clever” Kuznetsov and Pavlov), under the “Western” Did you mean the Third Reich?

“But the loss of the naval bases that were captured by the enemy, in many ways, entailed such an unsuccessful course of the war for the fleet. The army had a reserve territory for the retreat, factories far behind, the ability to lose millions, but still recover and drive the enemy back. The fleet had to "drive back" without recovering. It is in this form that the fleet approached the war. ”

The fleet approached the war in a sad state. There were no naval commanders, no commanders, no one. There was no headquarters capable of planning a more or less decent operation. And this was shown by the war in the early days.

The main problem is that the comrades Soviet admirals were incapable of tactical planning from the word "completely." And there is no particular need to prove anything here; it’s enough to recall the most famous milestones of the initial period of the war.

But let's first think about the role of the fleet. As it is seen, well, from the couch.

1. Fighting enemy fleets.
2. Violation of enemy transport communications.
3. Support for the ground forces.
4. Support for landing operations.

That's enough.

Item 1.

There was no battle with the enemy fleets. Just because there was no one to fight in the Black Sea (three Romanian destroyers and one submarine do not count), the appearance of the Germans in the Baltic was episodic, in the Pacific (thank God) there was no war with the Japanese, and when it started, Japan no longer had a fleet as such.

Only the Northern Fleet remains, where yes, once there was a battle between Soviet and German destroyers. Plus the sinking of the German Mist and Alexander Sibiryakov by the German ships.

On the role of the Soviet Navy in the Great Patriotic War

All, more, our surface ships did not come into contact with the enemy.

Item 2.

I believe that here our fleets have shown utter impotence.

By the beginning of the war, about a thousand ships of various classes were part of the USSR Navy. Among them - 3 battleships, 8 cruisers, 54 leaders and a destroyer, 287 torpedo boats, 212 submarines. 2,5 thousand aviation units and 260 coastal defense batteries.

Power? Power.

Throughout the war, quite calmly, German and Swedish ore carriers carried ore for the Reich along the Baltic and North Seas. And the Baltic Fleet was completely unable to do anything about it. If the formidable force of the DCBF blocked the flow of ore from Sweden to Germany, the war would end in 1943.

But the Baltic Fleet was able only at the beginning of the war, having suffered huge losses, to leave the Baltic to Kronstadt and there to stand under German bombs as targets. Yes, divers tried to do something. And how many of them died at one Porkkala-Udd barrier, I don’t even want to remember now, because this is a tragedy that should be discussed separately.

The Black Sea Fleet was not very different from the Baltic. How many of our soldiers were thrown in the same abandoned Sevastopol, which is now proudly called the "city of glory", but forgive me, how many thousands of soldiers are left there ...


The abandonment of Odessa and Sevastopol cannot be called a shame for the Black Sea Fleet. And this despite the fact that two years later the war turned back, and the situation repeated itself only for the Germans. Only when the Soviet command threw soldiers fighting to the end in Sevastopol, the Germans captured 78 thousand people. And in 1944, the Germans, in turn, left about 61 thousand people to give up.

The figures are approximately equal, but we had the Black Sea Fleet, and the Germans had a Romanian naval division. The Romanian naval division at the beginning of the war had 2 auxiliary cruisers, 4 destroyers, 3 destroyers, 1 submarine, 3 gunboats, 3 torpedo boats, 13 minesweepers and several mine-layers.

The data on the BSF are simply embarrassing. Including because at the time, the so-called "raiding operations" cost the fleet several for the simply lost ships. But we had materials about this in due time.

Item 3.

Support for ground forces. Such, say, an occupation. In our case, shooting at squares. Without any adjustment with the help of aviation, just throwing shells into the distance, as it mostly happened.

In itself, a rather stupid occupation, just a waste of the resource of tools. I won’t say anything on this topic at all, I’ll just say that the offensive operations of the Americans in the Pacific Islands, in conditions of complete superiority in aviation and, accordingly, the possibility of adjustment, using ships, each of which was a head taller than the ancient Russian dreadnought of the tsar’s still built , did not give much results.

The earth can be plowed with shells of large caliber as much as you like, but it has been proven that there is little benefit from this.

Of course, one can say about such a gesture of despair as delivering replenishment to besieged Sevastopol on warships. You can, but I won’t say anything. Gasoline in ballast tanks of submarines, infantry on the decks of cruisers and destroyers ... The Japanese also had the Tokyo Express at the end of the war. About the same success.

Item 4.

Landing forces. So much has been written about them, so much is given honor to the paratrooper heroes, there is nothing special to add. The easiest operation. The ships approached, shot along the shore, landed troops and left.

How many of these landings died, history knows perfectly well.


Of course, we need to get out of the situation and show that not everything was so bad. This is exactly what they did in Soviet times, verbally speaking about some events and completely hushing up others.

Therefore, we were very thoroughly informed about the heroic affairs of submariners and katernikov, but we did not know at all what contribution our battleships, cruisers, leaders and destroyers made to the victory.

I will make a reservation, there are no questions to the destroyers of the Northern Fleet. Worked like a damn.

The remaining ships coped very well with the role of targets for German pilots and worked as floating batteries. No more. Someone was lucky, probably, as the "Red Caucasus", entrusted with the role of transport.

Yes, it can be said for a long time that even there, on land, the fleet provided such great support, diverting the enemy’s forces, threatening and so on.

Quote again.

“And what prevented the Germans from requisitioning dozens of steamboats and barges, and then in 1942 helping their troops in the Caucasus with a series of landings from the sea?” And the fact that they would meet with Soviet cruisers and destroyers. "

This is hard to believe in 1942. And the Germans, calmly chasing our ships with not so large masses of aircraft, without meeting much resistance, knew this very well.

What's the secret?

The secret is the incompetence of Stalin.

Yes, Joseph Vissarionovich was not an omniscient person. And in matters of the sea I didn’t really think. Therefore, he was simply forced to trust his admirals. Verified party, so to speak, comrades. Probably almost trustworthy, but thinking in maritime affairs at about the level of Comrade Stalin.

And some (on the Black Sea) were still cowards. An incompetent coward is generally an explosive mixture.

And when in 1941-1942 the comrade admirals began to destroy large and expensive ships at an accelerated pace (some raiding operations were worth something), then Comrade Stalin did the only thing he could in this situation: he ordered the battleships and cruisers to be driven to distant corners and not to touch.


“Marat” did not help much, but something remained on the Black Sea.

In fact, the losses for the fleet, which did not conduct active hostilities, are simply enormous.

Battleship - 1 irrevocably (out of 3 available).
Heavy cruiser - 1 (raised and rebuilt) out of 1 available.
Light cruisers - 2 irrevocably (out of 8 available).
Leaders of destroyers - 3 irrevocably (out of 6 available).
Destroyers - 29 irrevocably (out of 57 available).

The American and British ships (battleship, cruiser) I did not count, because they did not fight.

I repeat: for a fleet that did not fight, the losses are enormous. And all this thanks to the red admirals, who, in theory, were to repeat the path of the royal land soldiers. But if Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Malinovsky became real commanders, then such an effect did not happen with admirals.

And from here the Tallinn crossing full of tragedy, which cost many people and ships, the Baltic Fleet’s seat in Kronstadt, the complete inability to combat operations on the Black Sea ...

Alexander Timokhin is trying his best to justify the inaction of the naval command, seeking arguments in favor of the usefulness of the fleet, but ...

No, you can talk about how the fleet, with its actions, distracted somewhere some German reserves from the directions of the main attack, inflicted some kind of damage ...

“So the events began on the Black Sea that many modern historians do not see point blank - the continuous and systematic impact of the fleet on the course of hostilities on earth. The continuous delays of the Germans and their allies and their loss of pace. ”

Indeed, with regard to the Black Sea Fleet, I do not see any merit at point blank range. Ships sitting in Poti, Batumi and Sukhumi, incapable of anything. What they “influenced” there, I do not know. The fights were somewhat aloof.

“The fleet with its amphibious assault forces consistently turned out to be the straw that broke the back of the Germans. Yes, he was on auxiliary roles compared to the army, but without this help it is not known how everything would end with the army. ”

Would end the same. There really is no desire to talk about landings, yes, this is the only thing the Black Sea Fleet was capable of (for example, the Baltic Fleet was not fit for it), but how many people died in these landings, how many operations were unsuccessful ...

“The fleet also seriously damaged the communications of the Germans in the Arctic, because their troops were largely supplied with coastal vessels by sea, and not by land, almost completely devoid of roads. The fleet, although with small forces, played an important role in the fact that the blitzkrieg in the Arctic stalled. The straw broke the ridge in the north. "

This is generally some kind of an alternative story has gone. Blitzkrieg in the Arctic, German troops in the Arctic, coastal vessels supplying these troops ... I will not comment on this fantasy. In fact, the Germans very successfully harmed us in the Arctic.

That is what the whole war in the North could not do with German submarines - that was. The fact that they could not do anything with Admiral Scheer was.


The Northern Fleet was very busy in escorting convoys of caravans, this is undoubtedly a huge contribution to the victory. And my opinion is that the smallest Northern Fleet in its composition brought much more benefit than the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet combined.

So, by and large, the landing and the escort of the northern convoys - that’s all that the naval fleet of a thousand warships turned out to be capable of.

The conclusions that Timokhin made, oddly enough, but I almost support.

“The Great Patriotic War shows two things. The first is that even in a land war, the role of the fleet is very large. ”

I agree. A fleet, if there is one, if sensible naval commanders are at the helm, is strength. The British, Americans, Japanese have shown it in all its glory. Alas, we had ships, but there were no commanders.

“The second is that for the full realization of the combat potential of even a small fleet, a sane theory of its combat use is needed, a well-built command, careful and thorough preparation for the war. Alas, this was not before the Great Patriotic War, and the fleet did not show what it could. ”

I agree again. That's just preparation was not immediately before the war, but it never was. There was no one to cook, as I said. Hence the overt inability of the naval command precisely to plan and implement plans, which ultimately resulted in complete nonsense - the submission of the fleets to the fronts.

What this led to in Crimea, I think, is not necessary to repeat.

Here is the result. The Soviet Navy during the years of World War II turned out to be a completely useless formation by 90% due to the fact that the fleet did not have normal commanders.

We managed to grow and train individual ship commanders. Managed to prepare a certain number of crews. Top-level commanders - sorry, it didn’t work out. And therefore, a full-fledged fleet did not work out. Alas.

And here is what I would like to say as a result.

Such material as Timokhin wrote, of course, has the right to life. Let him be somewhat ... fantastic. But my opinion is that it’s just not worth wasting time trying to show that not everything is as bad as it seems.

Our fleet was not bad, it was disgusting up there.

Which completely does not humiliate, but on the contrary, even magnifies the exploits of sailors. You should not write about supposedly extremely useful landings in general terms, you need to talk about people who went into battle as part of the landing groups. About the Black Sea submariners, choking on gasoline vapors in their boats, turned into tankers. About the crews of the "sevens" and "novices" looking out for German torpedo bombers in the gray northern sky. About yesterday's fishermen looking for German submarines instead of cod. About the commandors of the Aurora, who did not disgrace the flag of the ship in the last battle.

Yes, in the Great Patriotic War, unfortunately, we did not have a fleet as such. And there were no real naval commanders. But there were people of the fleet, faithful to their work, bold, decisive, proactive. Yes, at lower levels in the hierarchy, but there were! That's what we need to talk about today. To remember.

And the last one. It seems to me that for a person who claims to tell or analyze the events of that war, the use of the reduction of the Second World War is not very beautiful. I would say that it is unworthy of a Russian person.

There was a Great Patriotic War. There are still veterans of World War II. Do not turn the Great Patriotic War into the Second World War. Who wants to - check, I and the Second World War is the only way I write. With a capital letter. It is respecting those who fought at her theaters.

They say our story must be respected. It will even be included in the constitution. Laughter laughs, but let's respect our past without constitutions. Just because it is our past with you. There was a lot of everything in it, but we are simply obliged to respect. And people and events. And do it as honestly and openly as possible.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

492 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Operator 21 May 2020 18: 21 New
    • 22
    • 16
    +6
    The last time the domestic fleet showed its combat effectiveness in battles with the Turkish fleet in the Black Sea 170 years ago. Since then, the Russian / Soviet fleet has demonstrated its utter impotence during the Russo-Japanese, First and Second World Wars. The reason is simple as a nail - cargo cult and idolatry overseas, which still reign in the leadership of the Russian fleet.
    1. Grandfather 21 May 2020 19: 16 New
      • 6
      • 7
      -1
      Do not turn the Great Patriotic War into the Second World War. Who wants to - check, I and the Second World War is the only way I write. With a capital letter. It is respecting those who fought on her theaters.
      Come on Roman, then it's not about the theaters, but about the places of military operations or battles. well, to be consistent .. for .. the theater is the theater ...hi
      1. Snail N9 21 May 2020 20: 11 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Actually, about how they actually fought, it’s not bad, it’s written by all the "registered patriots" of the unloved, Vladimir Beshanov. Shirokorad A.B wrote interestingly about the fleet, in particular, his book “Admiral Oktyabrsky against Mussolini” was interesting — when I read it, I honestly went crazy from the mess that was going on in the minds of the then “military leaders” .... , and his book "Tragedies of the Sevastopol Fortress" is also interesting ....
      2. Nikolai Korovin 21 May 2020 21: 50 New
        • 14
        • 1
        +13
        Theater of War is a standard staff expression commonly accepted in military literature. It would be better, of course, to say - on the fronts and fleets.
        “- We are announcing an ultimatum to you!” “And what is this?” Asked Mishka Kvakin. “This is a parliamentary expression. They will be beaten.”
        Felik Mokuchi Russian language!
    2. Borik 21 May 2020 19: 57 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      That's right, all the significant victories of our fleet took place in the sailing era. And in the era of steam and armor there were several small local victories and this is also true. And our fleet got not only from the enemy but also from mediocre leadership. He was reborn three times like a phoenix from the ashes, and now his fourth attempt is to be reborn, and we hope that she succeeds.
      And I also want to ask the author of this article about which two light cruisers he writes about irretrievable losses, I know that Chervona Ukraine died, or he added on the Comintern, which was listed by the Ministry of Health and even the Marat Lux somehow irretrievable losses do not want to record.
      1. Aviator_ 21 May 2020 22: 00 New
        • 18
        • 3
        +15
        The novel, probably, has in mind the Maxim Gorky bombed on a mine (23.06.1941) and the post-war bombing of Kirov (17.10.1945). The examples are absolutely incorrect, since Gorky was put into operation by August 2, 1941, and the post-war bombing of Kirov in general has nothing to do with combat losses. Again, the author is convinced that the school for training naval officers was destroyed during the revolution, but is modestly silent about the "victories" of the Russian fleet during the Republic of Ingushetia in the armored era. The Tsushima disgrace, too, the Bolsheviks organized? And the chapel ruined? It seems that the Bolsheviks didn’t have much to ruin.
    3. Civil 21 May 2020 20: 02 New
      • 6
      • 8
      -2
      It is probably better to direct these huge financial resources to aviation, since for so many years it has not been possible with the surface fleet above all. Aviation and underwater missile carriers. There is no money for more. With tears in his eyes naturally. crying
    4. Mavrikiy 22 May 2020 07: 04 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      The last time the domestic fleet showed its combat effectiveness in battles with the Turkish fleet in the Black Sea 170 years ago.

      Well, you, we had a successful naval commander of the Black Sea Fleet Kolchak. repeat
      1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 10: 51 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        Did he catch Geben? Well, at least Breslau? Or the Bosphorus captured?
        1. Mavrikiy 22 May 2020 10: 57 New
          • 6
          • 6
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Did he catch Geben? Well, at least Breslau? Or the Bosphorus captured?

          No, what's the difference? He is the royal admiral and the icon of the liberals ... request
        2. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 27 New
          • 8
          • 2
          +6
          German melted completely extinguished.
          1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 51 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -4
            What are you talking about?
            1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 48 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Do you know that the Germans conducted 8 submarines on the Black Sea in WWI?
              1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 13: 05 New
                • 2
                • 5
                -3
                I am in the know, and waiting for drop dead stories ....
                1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 24 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  So what happened to them?
                  1. Rakovor 22 May 2020 13: 34 New
                    • 3
                    • 3
                    0
                    Alexander, it makes no sense to throw the beads you know before whom.))
                2. Dr. Frankenstucker 23 May 2020 14: 35 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Well, the drop dead story is that our submariners in the World Cup were much more successful in terms of tonnage and losses than the Kaiser ones)
              2. Dr. Frankenstucker 22 May 2020 14: 17 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                the Constantinople flotilla, it seems, included 12 submarines of the Kaiserlich marina, formally included in the Austro-Hungarian Navy. and, accordingly, those flying the flag of the Twin.
                “Completely extinguished” - you are all the same too. During the command of Kolchak, four German boats were lost, and the "submerged completely" submarine in November 1918, when the Entente was commissioned in Sevastopol.
                1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 22: 05 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Eight of them were there, the Black Sea Fleet launched an active mining campaign, and the Germans, having lost 4 boats, drove the rest to the base and did not try to fight them anymore.
                  The only example in history of the complete neutralization of submarine forces, by the way.
                  1. Dr. Frankenstucker 23 May 2020 12: 46 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Well, not that they didn’t try at all) Of the rather sluggish Black Sea campaign, the 1917th, of course, was the most empty. Only Kurt Schwartz in his U-42 ​​thousand four armored vehicles sent to the bottom, and that’s all. He also managed to drop spies and fire from his 8.8 Tuapse. Given that his “sewing machine” baby UB was a coastal boat, Schwartz was a rather brave commander)
                    In general, crawling on the World Cup for the Kaiserlich marina was not a matter of pride. Gibson and Prendergast do not distinguish it at all in a separate campaign, uniting in the Mediterranean, emnip.
                    1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 21 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      But they threw eight units there!
                      And do not allocate in a separate campaign because der non-management kicked them into the room and remember about this Teutonic pride does not allow.
                      If we had happened in 1944 to stop somewhere not very far from the border and not to go further (for example, we would not want to) in the world, we would not know anything about the battle for Moscow, nor about Stalingrad, nor about Kursk. And would not want to know.
          2. ser56 22 May 2020 13: 38 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            you can add brilliantly organized landing operations in the Caucasus and especially note the EDB Rostislav ... hi
        3. Catfish 23 May 2020 07: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          What would he catch them at their speeds? Even “Goeben” was constantly detached from the “Empress”, not to mention the “Breslau”. And the Bosphorus could have been captured if the coup didn’t happen in St. Petersburg, but ... history has no subjunctive mood, which was - it was.
          1. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 09: 01 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            The admiral, together with the headquarters, was unable to solve the Pythagorean theorem?
            1. Catfish 23 May 2020 09: 51 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              And did they have time for this, or did they always know when and at what point they would meet the battlecruiser?
              1. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 10: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                They knew. The cruiser will return to the Bosphorus ..... it is necessary to dance from here
                1. Catfish 23 May 2020 10: 58 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  But Souchon did not suspect that they knew about it?
                  1. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 11: 58 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    There are no other options. In real life, Kolchak and K chose the worst version of the chase ...
                    1. Catfish 23 May 2020 12: 49 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Judging by the results, not the best, but probably just proceeded from their capabilities. They did not run from the enemy; rather, the enemy ran away from them. Yes, at the same time remember the story of the breakthrough of the German cruisers in the Bosphorus, the British also failed. And "Goeben" was a tenacious cattle, how many during the war did he catch galvanic shock on board? And nothing, lived to see the Second World War.
        4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 May 2020 12: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Did he catch Geben? Well, at least Breslau? Or the Bosphorus captured?

          No, but in general, the Black Sea Fleet fought in the WWII exemplary.
          1. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 13: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Eberhard, despite the fact that his spreads, won better than our dick. And yes, in general, I agree that they fought well, but without a spark ..
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 May 2020 13: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Eberhard, despite the fact that his spreads, won better than our dick.

              Yes, I would not say ... Many things, such as the constant support of the land flank of the army, landings and much more were precisely under Kolchak. In general, as for me - a completely sensible admiral. I am neither inclined to demonize nor praise him, but the man was quite in his place (as opposed to where he later suffered)
              1. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 14: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                We can judge his tactical and operational talents by the Norrköping operation, where he steered Personally.
                So what was the challenge ...
                Based on this information, the headquarters of the Baltic Fleet Commander developed the “Operation Plan No. 12”, approved by the Baltic Fleet Commander Admiral V. A. Kanin on May 26 [June 8], 1916. The "special forces" formed to solve the task were instructed to "conduct an inspection of the Landsort - Gotland area - the northern tip of the island of Eland with the aim of destroying the patrol and patrol vessels and escorts usually located in this area and capture or destruction of enemy commercial ships, the caravan of which, in particular, with a large load of iron ore should leave from Landsport south at 19-20 hours on May 28 "


                And now what is really done.
                The sunken ship Hermann trap. Completing your task completely by the way. The convoy was quite safe, while Kolchak and K recalled how to use torpedoes according to the rules of the mine service and left for Swedish tortodes. Paragraph. No comments. The fulfillment of the assigned combat mission is disrupted. The gasket I saw the chances to cut off the convoy and strike at the vehicles were.
                Against the background of the battles conducted by Prince Trubetskoy, the Admiral looks simply ridiculous. Let me remind you - a day attack by old destroyers on Geben, an attack by a covered Hamidiye convoy and 2 EMs, when the escort was driven away by the convoy and was mostly destroyed, the sinking of Turkish CL, etc.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 May 2020 14: 48 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  We can judge his tactical and operational talents by the Norrköping operation, where he steered Personally.

                  We can.
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  The convoy was quite safe, while Kolchak and K recalled how to use torpedoes according to the rules of the mine service and left for Swedish tortodes. Paragraph. No comments.

                  But in vain. In fact, Kolchak made 2 mistakes. The first - instead of catching up and drowning transports, got involved in a battle with guard ships. But I would not begin to bake him for that, especially since here he acted according to the order: Trukhachev’s instructions. In addition, to ignore armed transport and to run / attack transports is such an activity. Yes, there is an opinion that it was necessary to do this, but on such transports guns of 105 mm and higher are often placed (on Germany there were 4 * 105 mm) hit from which, with luck, can cause severe damage to the destroyer and slow down its course.
                  The second mistake was torpedo shooting from close range, but it was in the dark, and there it was not so easy to estimate the distance to the target ship.
                  And finally, I prefer to judge the admiral by the totality of his operations, and not by one
                  1. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 14: 56 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And what operations do you think can be credited to him as a plus.

                    but it was in the dark, and there it is not so easy to estimate the distance to the target ship.


                    Normally, all the more so at short distances. The nights of the summer Baltic were fairly light fog. Most of the fog and drizzle at dawn ...

                    Incidentally, it can be said that Nagumo also made two mistakes with Midway.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 May 2020 16: 21 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      And what operations do you think can be credited to him as a plus.

                      His command at the World Cup, as I wrote above.
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      Normally, all the more so at short distances.

                      At sea with distances it’s generally difficult, and even in the dark ...
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      Incidentally, it can be said that Nagumo also made two mistakes with Midway.

                      Strictly speaking, with a somewhat adequate preparation of the Americans, with the initial data that they had, the compound had to be destroyed in the early hours of the morning and without options. Without any mistakes from the Japanese side :))))
                      1. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 17: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        At sea with distances it’s generally difficult, and even in the dark ...

                        Fine. Trust me. And it's not about the radar at all ... And in the case under discussion, the launch was point blank with one and a half cables, as far as I remember, that is, the goals were seen perfectly. Again, this is the Baltic. St. Petersburg white nights. Do you remember?
                        His command at the World Cup

                        Wait. If you are about the so-called landing. Then it goes on all the same with regard to the organization and protection of the military convoy. The detachment in the Caucasus acted as far as I remember from 1915. Tactical landings have already landed .. If you are aware of the death of 4 submarines in land mines, of these, in the area of ​​intense productions, the Bosphorus perished 2 offhand, one more from the Crimea, the fourth from Varna. Strictly speaking, the death in the fall of 4 German boats with Kolchak’s activities cannot be unambiguously connected ....... And we shouldn’t forget about the death of Mary when Kolchak was a comforter
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 May 2020 19: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        And in the case under discussion, the launch was point blank with one and a half cables, as far as I remember, that is, the goals were seen perfectly.

                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Wait. If you are about the so-called landing.

                        I will not argue. The topic is certainly interesting, there is something to talk about, but now I'm not ready to get involved in a lengthy discussion on this issue hi
          2. ban
            ban 25 May 2020 20: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            That's what he was nicknamed Gebengard
            1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 20: 15 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Admiral more jealously guarded Goeben, and moreover about .... l the whole dreadnought. With his luck in the regiment and naval commanders, it’s clearly not worth breaking up ... That is what he actually proved.

              As one British pepper said there - do not tell me about the talents of this admiral, tell me if he is lucky?
              1. ban
                ban 26 May 2020 00: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Count how many times Geben from the Bosphorus leaned out under Goebengard and Kolchak?
    5. fighter angel 22 May 2020 12: 33 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Right! He himself became an instrument, he himself pointed and fired! He drove the Germans out of the water, on a small destroyer! Yes, and the song of the group "Lube"! You will not say anything- "Admiral" !!!
      1. Catfish 23 May 2020 09: 55 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Alexey hi If you are talking about a movie, then it sucks. From a cannon from a coal destroyer, light up a shell in the Roon armored pipe and thereby force the Germans to turn away ... Even the alternative specialists did not think of such nonsense. I’m silent that they were filming there for Kolchak’s personal life.
  2. Demagogue 22 May 2020 20: 15 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    This is your untruth. There was no impotence in Russian-Japanese. Do not forget that in 30 years the Japanese will encroach on world hegemony. It was a very serious opponent. And at the initial stage they fought with them on equal terms. While there were Poltava, and not defective Borodino. And it was a mistake to keep part of the fleet in the yard, and part in Europe. The fleet should be one fist. The fleet in Arthur didn’t help in any way, and come to Tsushima for 6 more battleships, and normal, the alignment would be different.
    1. hohol95 22 May 2020 21: 15 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      This is your untruth. There was no impotence in Russian-Japanese. Do not forget that in 30 years the Japanese will encroach on world hegemony.

      How then to explain the loss in the war? If you add all the factors into one "SUM"? And the result is "political and military insolvency (to put it mildly)" ...
      1. Demagogue 22 May 2020 21: 22 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        The reason for the defeat is the inadequacy of part of the country's leadership. Underestimation of threats. They did not take into account the factor of remoteness of the military theater, the strength and aggression of the enemy, etc. But mind you, we fought in Russian-Japanese in Manchuria, and in the WWII in the Carpathians and in Poland. The adversary did not have to slow down the cadets near Moscow.
        1. hohol95 22 May 2020 21: 27 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          The adversary did not have to slow down the cadets near Moscow.

          Reservists in Manchuria had to stop the RESERVES ...
          The reservists did not hold the Mosin rifle in their hands (they also served with “wings” or “berdanks”). Regular troops in the Far East was the bare minimum. The Winter Palace then looked not at the East, but at the West!
          And there were even fewer roads than now.
          And, how not to call it "political and military insolvency (to put it mildly)"?
          1. Demagogue 22 May 2020 21: 37 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Socrates has long noticed that any power is incompetent. And then a number of factors are already involved, such as economic, personnel, etc. Yes, they fled to the PMW with sticks, and not just a mosquito, to German machine guns. And they also ran in the wow. From replacing the king with a conditionally elected figure, the people are not better organized. In terms of organization, we always lost. This is the quality of our staff.
            1. hohol95 22 May 2020 21: 44 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              And they also ran in the wow. From replacing the king with a conditionally elected figure, the people are not better organized. In terms of organization, we always lost. This is the quality of our staff.

              Interesting "demagoguery" ...
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 May 2020 13: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Demagogue
      There was no Russian-Japanese impotence. Do not forget that in 30 years the Japanese will encroach on world hegemony. It was a very serious opponent.

      All right. Firstly, the Japanese had serious experience of a war at sea (with China) and made many conclusions for themselves. Secondly, they fought on British technology, and the British taught them.
      Quote: Demagogue
      While there were Poltava, and not defective Borodino.

      And here I do not know where you suffered. If we look at the ships, it was Poltava that was flawed against the background of Borodino, but not vice versa
      Quote: Demagogue
      And it was a mistake to keep part of the fleet in the yard, and part in Europe

      This was not a mistake at all - the fleet was needed in the Far East, but could receive the necessary maintenance only in the Baltic. Admirals understood and rebuilt Vladivostok so that it could become the base of the powerful Pacific Fleet, but did not have time, as always
      1. Demagogue 23 May 2020 13: 52 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        And here I do not know where you suffered. If we look at the ships, it was Poltava that was flawed against the background of Borodino, but not vice versa


        Formally, yes. But in fact, Borodino has a weak design. They could not use their speed, and Poltava's armor is better. I would put Nikolai 1 in charge, the Japanese would have to chew him longer. It is a pity that they didn’t put 8 mm in Poltava in the end. There would be an option like Indiana or Iowa.
        But Borodino must be compared with classmates, with the same Maines among the Americans.

        Sending a truncated fleet to the Far East until Arthur is ready is crazy.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 May 2020 14: 07 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Demagogue
          Formally, yes.

          Yes, not formally, but actually :)))
          Quote: Demagogue
          But in fact, Borodino has a weak design.

          It seems that we will now lead one discussion in two different branches :))) I answered you on this topic in the article "Slander against Mikasa", let's probably continue there?
  • Sorry, but it seems to me incorrect to discuss an article that most of us have not read.
    It may turn out like in that joke:
    “And what did they find in this Beatles?” And they fake, and burr, and do not know the words ...
    - Have you heard them, in general?! ...
    - No, but Gogi sang to me ...
    1. Doctor 21 May 2020 18: 59 New
      • 13
      • 3
      +10
      Sorry, but it seems to me incorrect to discuss an article that most of us have not read.

      This article has a link to the TU article. I read. Earnestly.
      Timokhin uses the principle - imagine that there is no fleet at all.
      And he parses specific operations with his participation, imagining what would happen without a fleet.
      I found this very convincing:

      For example, would Leningrad be kept without the Ladoga flotilla? The answer is no, the city would have fallen without it.
      This is completely unambiguous, since it was precisely the combat activity of the flotilla that did not allow completely cutting off communications on Ladoga in the summer.
      Few people remember this, but on Lake Ladoga there were even battles with boats and small ships of the enemy, and the most successful Soviet landing operation in terms of the ratio of its losses and enemy losses in the entire war was Tuloksinskaya - on Ladoga.


      If you so argue, then without the Ladoga flotilla, Leningrad will end, and without Leningrad, Moscow will end, and without Moscow ...

      Maybe the fleet (in the form of the Ladoga flotilla) saved the country from destruction.
      1. Alexey RA 21 May 2020 19: 19 New
        • 24
        • 1
        +23
        Quote: Arzt
        Maybe the fleet (in the form of the Ladoga flotilla) saved the country from destruction.

        There is one subtle point here ... unlike the pre-war fleets and flotillas, the KLF was mobilization, formed already during the war and equipped for the most part with mobilized vessels. The core of the flotilla - the “Ladoga armadillos” - were former dirt-picking scows (greetings from the Civil War). Minesweepers and SKR - former tugboats. Of the large special-purpose ships, the flotilla received one Soviet-built TFR and one experimental vessel (the former Siberian Shooter mine cruiser, built in 1906), which became the KL.
        So Leningrad on Ladoga was saved not by the personnel fleet, but by mobilizers.
        1. Doctor 21 May 2020 19: 25 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          So Leningrad on Ladoga was saved not by the personnel fleet, but by mobilizers.

          But is the role of the flotilla in the defense of Leningrad really so great?
          1. Alexey RA 21 May 2020 19: 35 New
            • 15
            • 0
            +15
            Quote: Arzt
            So Leningrad on Ladoga was saved not by the personnel fleet, but by mobilizers.

            But is the role of the flotilla in the defense of Leningrad really so great?

            Supply of the city and evacuation of the population, covering large and small routes with water and air (moreover, flotilla ships often performed two tasks at once - transportation and covering), support for the army’s lakeside flank. If there were no flotillas, the very same Italian TCAs would make our transport fleet on Ladoga a happy life.
            Moreover, all the forces of the flotilla - from the flagship to the boats - fought on Ladoga.
            1. Doctor 21 May 2020 20: 16 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Supply of the city and evacuation of the population, covering large and small routes with water and air (moreover, flotilla ships often performed two tasks at once - transportation and covering), support for the army’s lakeside flank. If there were no flotillas, the very same Italian TCAs would make our transport fleet on Ladoga a happy life.
              Moreover, all the forces of the flotilla - from the flagship to the boats - fought on Ladoga.

              Yes, not weak. I read now about the Ladoga Flotilla, there was a concrete hack, moreover with the Finnish one.
              It is misleading that Ladoga is a lake. And the fact that this lake is the size of the Sea of ​​Azov or the English Channel from Calais to Cherbourg is somehow forgotten.
              We, it turns out there were even submarines, and the enemy had 21 BDBs, a gunboat, 8 landing, 6 minesweepers, 5 torpedo boats and up to 60 little things. Plus aviation and transports.
              This is a strategic thing Ladoga, interestingly now there is something there.
              1. Van 16 22 May 2020 04: 53 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                If I’m not mistaken, even in the days of Peter the Great Ladoga was called the “Devil's Sea”, which is very unpredictable and treacherous.
        2. LeonidL 22 May 2020 00: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Plus MO boats, patrol, torpedo boats and even one submarine!
          1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 09: 36 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: LeonidL
            Plus MO boats, patrol, torpedo boats and even one submarine!

            Two submarines: M-77 and M-79. Transferred from Leningrad by rail in 1943, were used for reconnaissance.
            Plus in 1944, M-90, M-96 and M-102 (covering the Tuloksinskaya landing operation) and Shch-307, Shch-309 and Shch-310 (combat training) switched to Ladoga.
            1. LeonidL 23 May 2020 05: 54 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Thank. I did not know about the second. Well, the fact that in the 44th ... well, it was already the rear.
        3. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 10: 54 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          There are memoirs of a former officer of the RIF and then of the Soviet cavalry mob mobilized at the beginning of the Second World War who fought exactly at the Ladoga Flotilla and participated in battles.
        4. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 28 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Commanding staff and staffs from where?
          1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 11: 56 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Commanding staff and staffs from where?

            Yes, the staff was personnel. Although the same commander of the KL division, N.Yu. Ozarovsky, before the war, was the head of the historical department in the journal Marine Bulletin (I know who he was before his arrest in 1938 wink ).
            That’s the fate of man: he fought in the Civil on the Volga and Caspian flotillas from mobilized ships, and in the Great Patriotic War he had to fight in the same Ladoga flotilla. And in 1938 he walked around the edge - they could have made contact with the enemy of the people Raskolnikov, with whom Ozarovsky had a midshipman practice and under whose command he served on the Volga Flotilla.
            1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 17 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Yes, the staff was personnel.


              So this is the meaning of the Navy as a type of aircraft. If there were no fleet, headquarters, military professionals, there would be no Road of Life. There would be no defense of Sevastopol, landing, evacuation of Odessa.
              The ships themselves are secondary here, we need a system, and although it’s not bad, it was there.
              1. ser56 22 May 2020 13: 49 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                timokhin-aa I read your article, which the author "criticizes". The article is reasonable, the hysteria of the author of the opus in question is not clear, is it an order? request
                1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 51 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  People usually have a persistent set of stereotypes for which they are ready to cling to the last.
    2. Undecim 21 May 2020 19: 18 New
      • 22
      • 1
      +21
      The article is easily opened by reference and does not take much time to read. An article typical of Timokhin, well, you can say it is soundly written, written, a lot of facts, easy to read. Well, a creative style typical of this author, which can be summarized as follows: "If the facts do not correspond to the theory, the worse for the facts." That is, Alexander begins to write an article with ready-made conclusions, under which the facts are selected or interpreted.
      Therefore, for example, the author focuses on what an outstanding naval doctrine was formulated for the USSR by Boris Borisovich Gervais, but he completely “forgets” to consider the question of whether the USSR could build an appropriate fleet under this doctrine.
      Or, let’s say, it “corrects” the facts somewhat in its favor, for example: “And if we didn’t have the Pacific Fleet, then the Americans would have landed on the Kuril Islands and, possibly, on South Sakhalin. And, apparently, until today days would have remained there. " In fact, the Allies agreed that the South Kuril Islands and Sakhalin would withdraw to the USSR at the Yalta Conference, and the presence of the Pacific Fleet in the USSR did not play any role here, it is not even ridiculous to contrast its capabilities to the US Navy. Moreover, the Americans handed over to the Pacific Fleet 1945 ships and vessels under the Project Hula plan - 149 patrol frigates, 28 minesweepers, 24 large landing ships, 30 auxiliary motor minesweepers, 31 submarine hunters and four floating workshops.
      And in general, I think the discussion around whether the Soviet fleet was useful or useless during the Great Patriotic War was extremely provocative. It would be much more useful to simply objectively cover the combat activities of the fleet in the indicated period, not contrasting obverse and reverse, as the author does, but simply showing both obverse and reverse.
      1. Alexey RA 21 May 2020 19: 39 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        Quote: Undecim
        Therefore, for example, the author focuses on what an outstanding naval doctrine was formulated for the USSR by Boris Borisovich Gervais, but he completely “forgets” to consider the question of whether the USSR could build an appropriate fleet under this doctrine.

        Something immediately “First listener” Sobolev remembered: smile
        The founder met neophytes here in all the splendor of his teachings. The naval minds, having fallen into the academy, blinked their eyes: from the bitter reality of the Russian fleet barely getting on their feet, they were miraculously transferred to the fairy-tale kingdom of the triumphant doctrine of "sea ownership". Here, at the academy, the seas gravitating towards Russia were already conquered. Black and Baltic, in the necklace of first-class ports and sea fortresses, were teeming with dreadnoughts, cruisers (linear, armored and light), torrents of destroyers roamed the Russian seas, wondering if anyone had poked their nose where the Andreev flag reigns, which is “inseparable owned "even the Pacific Ocean (where in fact there were barely a dozen lousy destroyers who survived the Japanese defeat). It was a hot dream of young Russia, a fantastic parade of shipbuilding programs, for the implementation of which the Maritime Ministry only requested money from the mean State Duma. The fleet, which owned the seas, had not even been laid down yet, but in the naval wars played on the cards in the classrooms of the academy, where operations, grandiose in scope, were developed, it shook the oceans. This was called the "naval game." It would be more correct to call it a children's game in boats.
        1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 10: 57 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          And then it turned out that ships and boats do not know how to get out of guns. But such trifles are right ... Compared to the idea of ​​a "Balanced Fleet" .. Hmm.
      2. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 17 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        But could under this doctrine of the USSR could build the appropriate fleet.


        Could not, but could use the existing one. But this was not.
        1. Undecim 22 May 2020 12: 39 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Could not, but could use the existing one.
          As one stupid man said, when the wind does not blow, and the weather vane on the roof has its own character.
          The Soviet fleet in all naval theaters from the first day of the war acted as the enemy allowed it. Considering the ship’s composition at the time of the outbreak of hostilities, as well as the general situation and the course of hostilities, even with the most talented command, there is no significant difference in the results.
          1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 51 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            The Soviet fleet in all naval theaters from the first day of the war acted as the enemy allowed it.


            No, this is not true; it was quite possible to provide reconnaissance at sea and withdraw some of the forces before June 22.
            1. Undecim 22 May 2020 13: 00 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Well, what would the conclusion of a part of the forces in the sea affect? The only thing that could have been achieved was to lose them immediately on the first day of the war.
              1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 05 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                For example, thin out minzags. Or do not let them work at all.
                1. Undecim 22 May 2020 13: 20 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Until June 22, when is it? 1st, 10th, 20th? After all, the exact time of the outbreak of hostilities at that time did not know. It would be logical to keep some patrol forces in areas of probable minefields, but they, firstly, had to have, secondly, organize air cover and anti-aircraft defense. There were problems with this and the other, and the Germans would obviously start their actions not by setting up minefields from the evening of June 21, but by neutralizing the forces deployed at sea. What ended the confrontation of the same KBF with German aircraft, we know. But they could pull up the submarines.
                  So that would have drowned these your forces withdrawn into the sea ahead of time. And then all the same would carry out mine production.
                  1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 41 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    It would be logical to keep some patrol forces in areas of probable minefields


                    Here. And always.

                    And a little bit near the Finnish harbors.

                    but they, in the first place, had to be had, in the second place, to organize a cover from the air and PLO. There were problems with this and the other, and the Germans would obviously start their actions not by setting up minefields from the evening of June 21, but by neutralizing the forces deployed at sea.


                    Even that would be better than what happened, and this is obvious.
                    Regarding the patrol forces - anything from the radio, which is not a pity to lose. So much for the patrol forces. that the Japanese watched the entrance to Tsushima? That could also be done approximately.
                    1. Undecim 22 May 2020 13: 46 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      It would not fundamentally decide. Well, the Germans would put up barriers a day or two later, what would it change?
                      1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 49 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        These are speculations that are strictly probabilistic in nature. And if a couple of minzags managed to sink? Would nothing have changed too? There were seven of them, plus two Finnish.
                        In any case, the fleet would know about the mines before they were put up.
                      2. Undecim 22 May 2020 14: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        These are speculations that are strictly probabilistic in nature.
                        All that did not take place in history is the essence of speculations that are probabilistic in nature. You were the first to start by “launching the fleets” in the sea on June 21, 1941. I just continued.
                      3. LeonidL 23 May 2020 06: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        If yes, if I had been with my grandmother ... then it would have been not my grandmother, but my grandfather ... Now, if I had been there in the 41st current "theoreticians", for example Timokhin! Oh then hold on to Tirpitz and Eugen! ... True, the theorists of the sofas never fleet fleets, did not serve on ships, and they gain knowledge as a result of persistent self-education, and not then perseverance in naval schools. What is ours, what is Shirokorad, what are all sorts of other things up to and including Svanidzev ... Only now, time is irreversible and the popodians act only in movies and science fiction books.
          2. LeonidL 23 May 2020 06: 02 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Read the story - they deduced, tried on the second day the EMs blew up, then ran a few EM adversaries searched, but did not grow together, did not find. They even suspected the presence in the KBF headquarters of an “anti-Shtirlitsa” with a walkie-talkie. Like the Soviet ships leaving, the Germans were hiding from fear ... Even Admiral Drozd (I think he was a worthy man and admiral) came out, ran, found the tail of the convoy ... they shot, did not shoot, and fled to the Base. It seems that everything is being put out to sea ... At the Black Sea Fleet, leaders, armchairs and the same EMs were withdrawn ... climbed into the minefield without reconnaissance, lost the leader ... Well, there was no one to fight especially at sea ... shelling the coast ... It was. But these are not sea battles! Alas.
  • Grandfather 21 May 2020 19: 21 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    “And what did they find in this Beatles?” And they fake, and burr, and do not know the words ...

    I "sing" and I’m not worried ... it’s just a good song, and I’m singing Makara, grew up on his songs, although we have different political views ... I don’t sing Kirkorov and I don’t sing ...
    1. So you are the very Gogi? !!!)) laughing
  • Oleg Zorin 21 May 2020 21: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    No, but who prevents to read?
    1. And who is stopping you from printing the TU article here on VO? Read and discuss. Moreover, Timokhin is not a stranger to VO.
  • Nikolai Korovin 21 May 2020 22: 26 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Well, Gogi may not be so wrong. I heard the same thing about Caruso. Only Gogi did not hum, but this is not the point.
  • Senior seaman 22 May 2020 10: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    Sorry, but it seems to me incorrect to discuss an article that most of us have not read.

    How to say. Tmokhin has already cited most of the theses: https://topwar.ru/152300-realnyj-vklad-kakuju-rol-vmf-sygral-v-velikoj-otechestvennoj-vojne.html
  • knn54 21 May 2020 18: 44 New
    • 20
    • 3
    +17
    1.Chi fleet, chi not fleet.
    2. The former fleet.
    3. The fleet itself.
    4. The same fleet.
    I agree with the author. I just want to add a few points.
    1. The Dnieper, Danube and Volga flotillas showed themselves well.
    2. The elite of the Russian fleet almost died in the battle of Tsushima.
    3. The Germans did not in vain spend huge sums on cocaine for sailors of the main base of the BF-Helsingfors (Helsinki). A considerable part of the sailors of battleships and cruisers became drug addicts. Therefore, only destroyers fought in the Baltic.
    And what is done to the officers after the February revolution in the Baltic is better not to remember.
    4. The ground units were replenished by more than 250000 sailors. And this was the MOST essential assistance to the fleet.
    1. Alexey RA 21 May 2020 19: 05 New
      • 16
      • 0
      +16
      Quote: knn54
      1. The Dnieper, Danube and Volga flotillas showed themselves well.

      In the first place, perhaps, the Ladoga Flotilla. Anti-landing operation, landing operation, classic sea lake battle. They even managed to use submarines on the lake.
      But the main thing is the adjusted supply of Leningrad and the evacuation of residents. Moreover, from the Leningrad side of Ladoga, it was necessary to start from scratch, because there were no normal ports on the piece of shore left in Soviet hands.
      1. alstr 21 May 2020 21: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You can say even more. They are still gone.
        1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 09: 50 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: alstr
          You can say even more. They are still gone.

          So now they are not needed - Shlisselburg and Neva are ours. smile
          And then there was a real fifth point: the Neva was blocked, there was no way to reach the river port, Shlisselburg was occupied by the Germans, the Ladoga Canal was also cut. Go ahead, comrades, start navigating in the fall - having a merchant fleet for the most part designed for a canal, and not for an open lake. And the ports, at the entrance to which the depths are such that the ships have to be either partially unloaded at the roadstead, or pushed into the port by tugboats from acceleration.
          1. alstr 22 May 2020 11: 44 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I mean, everything was built in very uncomfortable places. As they say, they chose "Best of Worst"
    2. Mikhail3 21 May 2020 19: 06 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The Germans made morphists and cocainists their entire army in World War I. So they understood the matter, right.
      1. fighter angel 22 May 2020 12: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Still - did not understand!
        In World War II, they made their panzer and Luftwaffe consumers of pervetin, outbuilding chocolate and amphetamines ...
      2. PilotS37 22 May 2020 21: 04 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Mikhail3
        The Germans made morphists and cocainists their entire army in World War I. So they understood the matter, right.

        Well, heroin is a cough medicine for children - It was launched for sale by the German company Bayer in 1898 and was sold until 1913.
        You see, WHO voted for Hitler in 1933?
        1. Mikhail3 24 May 2020 11: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It doesn’t matter, it doesn’t apply to the topic, and you dragged it simply because you wanted to trump the "fried fact". The fact is very, very long time foul. The topic is related to the fact that the Germans in World War I deliberately put their army in a dope, to raise the fighting qualities. They collected and systematized the material obtained, and very competently applied nonsense further, both to raise their fighting efficiency and to destroy someone else's. Drug addicts did not vote for Hitler, they died before the age of 33, and whoever did not die was unlikely to reach the polling station b.
      3. LeonidL 23 May 2020 06: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In the second - they also hooked everyone on drugs - they gave out Peretin tablets (?), It seems - for days on end, they could not stand in one eye ...
    3. Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 20: 27 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      In February-April 1917, about 80 officers were killed, died, and went missing.
    4. Nikolai Korovin 21 May 2020 23: 19 New
      • 8
      • 11
      -3
      1. “Glory” and “Citizen-Tsesarevich” with the support of the old “Bayan” and “Bogatyr”, as well as destroyers, well shook half of the Gochseeflotte in Moonsund in 1917.
      2. The hero of the Soviet Union, the cautorang Lunin torpedoed the German battleship Tirpitz in full view of the entire German squadron, which considered it to have been blown up by a mine, after which the latter did not take part in the hostilities until the end of the war - it was repaired and then sunk in Norwegian fjord by english aviation. The entire English fleet had previously attacked the Bismarck, an analogue of Tirpitz for 2000 miles, suffered heavy losses, and put it to the bottom a couple of hundred miles from Brest, only when he shot all the shells and torpedoes.
      3. The breakthrough from Tallinn to Kronstadt, with full air supremacy of German aviation, cannot be considered a shame. As a result, the available KBF forces fulfilled their task - they kept Kronstadt under the overwhelming superiority of the enemy forces.
      4. The KChF evacuated first from Odessa, then from Sevastopol, during the defense of both hero cities, had a significant impact on the Romanian and German troops. The landing parties supported by the KChF were by no means useless. In 1942, the landing was very successful, and the loss of the Kerch Peninsula led to errors precisely on the ground command, or rather, Comrade. Mehlis crushed Kozlov, the front commander, and, presumably, his voluntarism thwarted the deblockade of Sevastopol, which was still possible. Landing forces during the final liberation of Crimea were also of great importance.
      5. Some are somewhat confused with the Ladoga Flotilla. The decisive battle on Ladoga - the battle for Fr. Dry, capturing that, the Germans and Finns would block the road of life. For several hours, 1 minesweeper, to which 1 MO joined, and an island garrison with three guns held the island against the enemy’s overwhelming forces and inflicted huge losses on it. The approach of the main forces of the flotilla and an air strike led to the complete defeat of the flotilla of more than 30 enemy ships. Only a few ships reached Sortavala. This is just an epic feat - there is no other word. The loss of the island would lead to the closure of the "Road of Life" and the fall of Leningrad.
      6. The role of the Northern Fleet in the protection of Arctic convoys is not to be repeated.
      7. The "same fleet", of course, did not participate in the hostilities against Germany and its European satellites, so it is not worth making claims against it.
      8. It would be foolish to deny the facts of reprisals against officers in the Baltic Fleet in 1917 — quite numerous facts have taken place, especially in Kronstadt. But still there was no general extermination. This is a clear exaggeration. As for the "first listener," comrade Sobolev is a fairly engaged writer, although, of course, his “Overhaul” is somewhat more objective than the “1st Rank Captain” Novikov-Priboy, whose Tsushima, however, is very objective when compared, for example, with the level of objectivity works of Solzhenitsyn. But still there are obvious mistakes.
      9. To read articles of this kind, weakly based on facts, and more appealing to emotions such as "stupid bosses overwhelmed with corpses," is rather annoying.
      1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 10: 18 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Nikolai Korovin
        1. “Glory” and “Citizen-Tsesarevich” with the support of the old “Bayan” and “Bogatyr”, as well as destroyers, well shook half of the Gochseeflotte in Moonsund in 1917.

        Yeah ... "Glory" is lost, the archipelago is lost. Well shook, what really there.
        Quote: Nikolai Korovin
        2. The hero of the Soviet Union, the cautorang Lunin torpedoed the German battleship Tirpitz in full view of the entire German squadron, which considered it to have been blown up by a mine, after which the latter did not take part in the hostilities until the end of the war - it was repaired and then sunk in Norwegian fjord by english aviation.

        Yeah ... but in the "Citronella" apparently the ghost of "Tirpitz" participated. smile
        Yes, and where can I find the documents of the ships of the German squadron about the Tirpitz bombing in a mine?
        Quote: Nikolai Korovin
        For several hours, 1 minesweeper, to which 1 MO joined, and an island garrison with three guns held the island against the enemy’s overwhelming forces and inflicted huge losses on it. The approach of the main forces of the flotilla and an air strike led to the complete defeat of the flotilla of more than 30 enemy ships. Only a few ships reached Sortavala.

        The losses of the Luftwaffe flotilla on Ladoga have long been known - of the 16 ferries participating in the operation, four (2 heavy and 2 light) and one landing boat went into irrevocability. One of the ferries was restored - and he fought on our side as a DB-51.
        Moreover, the lake itself turned out to be the worst enemy - an hour after the start of the operation, 5 out of 11 artillery ferries were sitting on stones. The Germans managed to pull out two of them, but three had to be abandoned. Another ferry (heavy, No. 21) was lost in battle with the forces of the Ladoga Flotilla - due to the damage received from the CL artillery fire, it fell behind and was abandoned by the team. The abandoned ferry was shot by KL Nora.
        Quote: Nikolai Korovin
        The loss of the island would lead to the closure of the "Road of Life" and the fall of Leningrad.

        It is unlikely. The island itself is small, 35 km from it to Novaya Ladoga. The Germans would have simply been bombed, because the island’s size doesn’t provide normal air defense on it, and the ferries in Autumn Ladoga will not last long.
        And the Sukho Island did not block the Small Route.
        1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 00 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          And where is Sukho a good description of the battle?
          1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 12: 01 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            And where is Sukho a good description of the battle?

            Goncharov has a good description of the entire operation, including preparation for it, in a series of articles on Warspot. First part:
            https://warspot.ru/13806-ladoga-1942-nesostoyavsheesya-nastuplenie-nemtsev
            The following parts are linked at the bottom of the article.
            And yes, the comments on articles for are traditionally encouraging - there the information is no less interesting. smile
            1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 12: 05 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Thank you .... I left to read
            2. ser56 22 May 2020 13: 54 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              possible in the novel Baltic Sky repeat
      2. alstr 22 May 2020 11: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        By the way, everyone forgets about the Little Way of Life (Oranienbaum bridgehead) and about the supply and evacuation of troops from Peninsula Hanko.
  • lelik613 21 May 2020 18: 45 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Again, I would like to know the reason for the "legendary" Admiral KUznetsov. What naval battle did he win, or at least draw? "Give an answer, no answer."
    1. Grandfather 21 May 2020 19: 24 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      Quote: lelik613
      Again, I would like to know the reason for the "legendary" Admiral KUznetsov.

      Well, firstly, the only one, secondly, I went to Syria myself ... (well, I drowned a couple of planes, it doesn’t count), thirdly, with the "dock" of the incident ... Cho is not a legend? and for the money too ...
      1. The leader of the Redskins 21 May 2020 19: 29 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        Anecdote:
        - Grandfather! Tell me how you shot down two planes in the war!
        - Well, let's say I didn’t knock it down, but it didn’t refuel ....
      2. lelik613 21 May 2020 19: 58 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        It’s not as if about iron, but about the one who was demoted for the drowned Novorossiysk.
        1. Serg65 22 May 2020 11: 45 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: lelik613
          about the one who was drowned for the drowned Novorossiysk.

          Did he drown Novorossiysk too?
          1. lelik613 23 May 2020 09: 08 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Well, if he won the war at sea by himself, then he drowned too. In any proceeding ... it is written: "Non-compliance Combat manuals, job descriptions and orders of the ministry. It’s not a matter of explosion (although this is already an occasion for organizational conclusions), but the drowning of a battleship in command of a swine and the most vile death of half the crew. If "Mr. Minister" did not consider it necessary to be fired from the service for the unprivileged command of the Black Sea Fleet, then who is the doctor What did he have to answer?
            1. Serg65 25 May 2020 09: 00 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: lelik613
              Well, if he won the war at sea himself

              How can you win what was not? In what battle did the enemy fleet attack the Soviet fleet?
              Quote: lelik613
              the drowning of a battleship in command of pigs and the most vile death of half the crew

              Now the most interesting thing ... after the disaster, Vice Admiral Parkhomenko, directly responsible for the deaths of people and the ship, was demoted in one rank, removed from office, but a year later the first deputy commander of the Pacific Fleet! MEMBER of the Military Council of the Black Sea Fleet, Vice Admiral Kulakov, this abomination that Kuznetsov so hated by you in the 42nd saved from shooting, Kulakov, who is no less to blame for the deaths of people and the ship, in 1965 becomes a Hero of the Soviet Union! Vice Admiral Gorshkov, being the commander of the Black Sea Fleet from 1951 to July 1955, did not show the proper measures for the full clearance of the Sevastopol Bay, did not take the proper measures to comply with the Naval Charter with the Black Sea Fleet commanding staff, did not take the necessary measures to increase the professional qualities of his subordinates, being the actual Commander-in-Chief The Soviet Navy since July 1955, after 3 months, hid behind the back of sick Kuznetsov, the same Kuznetsov who had twice saved Sergei Georgievich from execution! After a year, Gorshkov without remorse becomes the Commander of the Navy of the USSR! Kuznetsov is to blame, I do not argue, but why was he the only one injured for the deaths of people and the ship? Moreover, the commission of inquiry did not find even indirect fault of Kuznetsov!
              Quote: lelik613
              who is the doctor that he had to answer?

              Doctors to him Hero of the Soviet Union Zhukov and Hero of the Soviet Union Khrushchev!
              1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 10: 14 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Add to the piggy bank of human meanness, pensions were poor and admirals. Kuznetsov, being already sick, was pulling children to a rear-admiral's retirement, but someone remembered him and was seriously ill.
                And despite the fact that Gorshkov was twice offered to assist in the restoration of Kuznetsov in his former military rank, Gorshkov did everything to prevent this from happening. Like this.
                1. Serg65 25 May 2020 11: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  Gorshkov did everything to prevent this from happening. Like this.

                  Gorshkov had no time for Kuznetsov, Peters grew up with Gorshkov’s granddaughters and this fool with the lordly habits had to be admitted to the admirals, but it didn’t work out .. they cut the captain Petya Gorshkov in a drunken brawl at the beer house on Bolshaya Morskaya Sevastopol. Yes, and Petkin dad and his mistress fled to America.
    2. Serg65 22 May 2020 11: 43 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: lelik613
      Again, I would like to know the reason for the "legendary" admiral KUznetsov

      The reason for Kuznetsov's legendary nature is that in two years he gave the fleet at least some kind of divine appearance, because, unlike the ground forces, June 22 was not a surprise to the fleet!
      1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 19 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Except the Baltic. But there, I personally am inclined to see the objective difficulties that faced the headquarters of the Tributz, together with its shortcomings as a commander.
        1. Serg65 22 May 2020 12: 30 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Except the Baltic.

          Alexander, how many ships in the Baltic Sea died in the early hours of June 22nd?
          1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 32 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Not at all, but soon three were blown up by mines, the installation of which the fleet even discovered at night, but could not stop.
            Despite the fact that the course of hostilities to the command was approximately clear before the war, there are documents on this topic.

            There is no theory of combat use, no fleet. The Baltic Fleet was strong enough to prevent mining on the scale in which it was. But to do this, another country was needed, albeit with the same available forces.
            1. Serg65 22 May 2020 12: 45 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              but soon three were blown up by mines

              Now imagine the situation, at night from unidentified ships they throw something at sea, the patrol ship commander reports .... there are some types, they throw something at sea, longitude ... latitude .... The headquarters operator accepted and sits turnip cards ... report back? Accused of alarmism! Do not report? Well, a couple of days I’ll clap my lips, for that I’ll stay alive! Is Tributz and even more so Kuznetsov to blame for this?
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The Baltic Fleet was strong enough to prevent mining on the scale in which it was.

              Could anyone allow this to him? Tributs not Essen, adventurism and decisiveness were repulsed from him thoroughly!
              1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 56 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                At 2.00, MBR-2 discovered the fact of a mine setting and fired at the German minzag. If the BF ships were in the sea then, everything would have turned out differently.
                The war began on June 21, Sergei, in the Baltic, in the evening, and not on the 22nd, historians lie.

                Tributs not Essen, adventurism and decisiveness were repulsed from him thoroughly!


                Plus, they overloaded the headquarters with the tasks of controlling ground forces, and Tributs had to use his car as a means of communication when the war was already going on.
                I’m just writing about this.
                The army and the General Staff are to blame for the misfortunes of the Baltic Fleet by 50%, the rest are personal failures overloaded with the tasks of the Tributs and his officers.
                And the previous years, when the correct orientation of combat training was impossible to even hint at, so as not to get up against the wall.
                The result was logical.
            2. LeonidL 23 May 2020 06: 17 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              You are right, Alexander! “Barns” - ICBMs not only recorded minefields on June 21, but even the Germans fired at them! They passed intelligence ... well, so far the encryption, decryption, verification - double-checking ... and there already arrived on June 22nd.
              1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 14 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                So the Germans also shot from the barns.
      2. lelik613 23 May 2020 10: 45 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Performance of official duties is not always a sign of genius. I asked for clarification in which naval battle he won (at least rowboats)?
    3. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 12: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: lelik613
      Again, I would like to know the reason for the "legendary" Admiral KUznetsov.

      He, together with Gorshkov, managed to smash EM “Resolute” on the stones - the first EM Pacific Fleet - and for that he had nothing (moreover, two years later Kuznetsov became deputy commissar of the Navy of the USSR).
      For 1937 - a legendary act. smile
      1. Serg65 22 May 2020 12: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        For 1937 - a legendary act

        Welcome Alexander hi . Well, here is one of two things, either to shoot, or leave the fleet without any more adequate commanders at all! But the most interesting is not how ..
        Quote: Alexey RA
        He, together with Gorshkov, managed to smash EM “Resolute” on the stones - the first EM Pacific Fleet - and for that he had nothing (moreover, two years later Kuznetsov became deputy commissar of the Navy of the USSR).

        Another interesting thing, shortly before this, during the Black Sea maneuvers Gorshkov drowned a submarine and rescued him from execution again, Kuznetsov! But the bogusman and the scammer Oktyabrsky after the incident of 37 years in the Far East, became the commander of the Black Sea Fleet and how much the same Kuznetsov did not try to remove him from the fleet, he couldn’t ... he only got a hat for it .. that's with regards
        Joseph Vissarionovich was not an omniscient person. And in matters of the sea I didn’t really think. Therefore, he was simply forced to trust his admirals. Verified party, so to speak, comrades.
        R. Skomorokhov
      2. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 15: 03 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        And Oktyabrsky, when he was then the commander of the Amur Flotilla and being a member of the dismantling commission, immediately joyfully offered to put Sergei Georgievich against the wall. We had wonderful relations with our admirals.
        October was truly unsinkable ...
        1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 15: 45 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          And Oktyabrsky, when he was then the commander of the Amur Flotilla and being a member of the dismantling commission, immediately joyfully offered to put Sergei Georgievich against the wall. We had wonderful relations with our admirals.

          And do not say - just remember the relationship of the same Gorshkov and Kuznetsov who saved him in 1938 after 1956. smile
          1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 15: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            But it was just mean ...
            At least because of the financial situation. I will not talk about the moral aspects of such ...
        2. lelik613 23 May 2020 10: 56 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Actually, there was also a court of honor and a party organization, in the end, dismissed after losing confidence. It’s just that Stalin knew his people well hindenburg and treated with truly incredible patience.
  • illi 21 May 2020 18: 49 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    But what about the fact that until 43 the Germans had overwhelming superiority in the air? As if the Second World War proved that a fleet without aircraft is nothing. Especially in puddles like the Black and especially the Baltic Sea.
  • Engineer 21 May 2020 18: 57 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Just being quite a clever person, Alexander generates pearls as soon as he touches the marine theme
    And the Northern Fleet responsible for the success of the Northern Convoys
    And the strategic importance of those unfortunate landings of several hundred people whom this Northern Fleet landed
    And the Kerch-Feodosia operation is impossible for him without the Black Sea Fleet
    And the BSF is not guilty of non-evacuation of Sevastopol. Generally
    And this is:
    And what prevented the Germans from requisitioning dozens of steamboats and barges, and then in 1942 helping their troops in the Caucasus with a series of landings from the sea? And the fact that they would meet with Soviet cruisers and destroyers.

    And such
    The fleet, with its amphibious assault forces, turned out to be the straw that broke the back of the Germans. Yes, he was on auxiliary roles in comparison with the army, but without this help it is not known how everything would end with the army.

    Generally unknown yeah
    DO NOT take this seriously. But there is no crime in this. Everyone has their own weaknesses.
    1. Alexey RA 21 May 2020 19: 29 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      Quote: Engineer
      And the strategic importance of those unfortunate landings of several hundred people whom this Northern Fleet landed

      In 1941, the significance of the SF landings (for all their small numbers) was truly strategic - they slowed down Dietl and made it possible for ours to defend Murmansk.
      Quote: Engineer
      And the BSF is not guilty of non-evacuation of Sevastopol. Generally

      But by the summer of 1942 there was no Black Sea fleet. The Black Sea Flotilla remained of the fleet - without a rear or repair. sad
      1. Engineer 21 May 2020 19: 38 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        In 1941, the importance of the SF landings (for all their scarcity) was truly strategic

        There was a complex of factors. But even if one goes from the opposite, the fleet is not needed for this. Flotillas are enough for the eyes.
        And by the summer of 1942 there was no Black Sea Fleet.

        And the Black Sea Fleet in this. certainly not to blame. It was a year ago, but not now.
        Already discussed this. Defenders of the fleet wriggled in their ears
        The Crimean front was somehow evacuated, albeit in half.
        1. Alexey RA 21 May 2020 19: 49 New
          • 11
          • 0
          +11
          Quote: Engineer
          And the Black Sea Fleet in this. certainly not to blame. It was a year ago, but not now.

          And, excuse me, how to maintain the technical condition of ships without repair facilities? You remember the epic Kama Sutra with the repair of the Black Sea Fleet cruisers in the 5000-t floating dock - extremities on weight, the line of the shafts is verified with a mirror, etc.
          And where did these powers go? Who is to blame for the abandonment of Nikolaev and the impossibility of repair in Sevastopol and the ports of the Sea of ​​Azov? Really this fleet left Nikolaev and moved the front line so that even in Novorossiysk and Tuapse it was possible at any moment to get hit by backlash?
          Quote: Engineer
          The Crimean front was somehow evacuated, albeit in half.

          If Sevastopol was on the shore of the Kerch Strait - and it would have been evacuated.
          But the whole problem was that in the dark, it was impossible to get to Sevastopol, load and go beyond the radius of backlashes. And in the afternoon flew 8 air corps, which drowned everything. Even Tashkent got backlash - already in Novorossiysk.
          1. Engineer 21 May 2020 20: 04 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            It's my fault, I began to replace the topic of the dispute).
            The use of the navy was minimal. Mosquitoes held on. Mobilized civil courts. Canned everywhere. Ladoga flotilla, well done
            Tsimes is that mosquitoes Timokhin hate. And he doesn’t even remember civilians
            1. knn54 21 May 2020 21: 13 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              About the "mosquitoes".
              Tupolev torpedo boats of the reed type could operate with torpedoes when the sea level was up to 2 points, and stay in the sea - up to 3 points. Therefore, their range depended only on the weather.
              On such boats, grooved SLTs were installed, not tube ones.
              They fired torpedoes back, and the boats, at the time of the volley, should have a speed of at least 17 knots, which should go and turn away from their own torpedoes.
              At the same time, there is also a loss in accuracy.
              The Germans in the late 20s and early 30s willingly shared their best practices.
              But for some reason our admirals were not interested in torpedo boats.
              As a result, a constant loss to the German keel boats that operated throughout the Black Sea.
              During the period 1942-1944, not a single German torpedo boat was sunk at sea.
              1. Engineer 21 May 2020 21: 18 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                German boats need German engines. There is either a refusal from redanny boats in general or copy the British MTB
              2. Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 22: 02 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                On our theater? Actually, the German TKA was sunk at the Black Sea Fleet. I don’t remember the fire of the 30th RAP fighter in the sea on the go ...

                Essentially, I’ll tell us the Italian TCAs would be more suitable, especially since it would have been more appropriate to spend deficient aluminum on boats, especially given the associated problems with corrosion ...
              3. Alex013 22 May 2020 13: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Germans were also active throughout the Black Sea. Moreover, practically air defense and fire support ships, with weapons from 20 mm machine guns to the famous 88 mm. 700 pieces were produced, but how many of them acted on the Black Sea is not known. In the Baltic and Ladoga, too, by the way.
          2. Macsen_wledig 21 May 2020 20: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Even Tashkent got backlash - already in Novorossiysk.

            Yes, in general, they got him into the sea - only a miracle saved him.
            I think you remember this photo ...
            1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 10: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              Yes, in general, they got him into the sea - only a miracle saved him.

              Yeah ... two big holes in the starboard casing below the waterline, more than 1900 tons of intake water were received, the buoyancy reserve was lost by 45%, only the feed level mechanisms were in operation.
              Approaching the leader, we saw that the bow of the ship plunged into the water at the level of the deck of the forecastle. Strongly rose feed. On the starboard side, in the stern area, there is a big hole. People are crowded in Utah, so there’s nowhere to even place the wounded. The same goes for add-ons, rosters and bridges. The speed is small. Dense smoke comes from the chimneys.
              © Vorkov
              If there were no calm and "pawns" and Black Sea Fleet ships that came to the rescue, LD would not have reached the base.
              1. ser56 22 May 2020 14: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                and pawns to help

                the question is why pawns did not cover the passage ... request
        2. Serg65 22 May 2020 11: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Engineer
          Black Sea Fleet in this. certainly not to blame.

          Of course to blame! The fleet is to blame for the fact that the aviation of the Crimean Front remained on Taman, the fleet is to blame for the fact that Kozlov did not bother to reinforce the 44th army with air defense, as a result of which the German aviation blocked the port of Feodosia, due to which the same 44 army left Theodosius and rolled back to the Ak-Manai positions!
          Quote: Engineer
          then the fleet is not needed for this. Flotillas are enough for the eyes.

          And there was essentially a flotilla, only modern specialists-historians ask from this flotilla as from a real fleet!
        3. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 20 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          There was a complex of factors. But even if one goes from the opposite, the fleet is not needed for this. Flotillas are enough for the eyes.


          So SF was a flotilla in fact.
      2. Marine engineer 21 May 2020 22: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        “And by the summer of 1942 there was no Black Sea Fleet. The Black Sea Flotilla remained of the fleet - without a rear or repair. ”
    2. WapentakeLokki 21 May 2020 21: 47 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      ... I would like to recall the British fleet in WW II .. namely, the Dynamo operation .. (.. yeah, the same Dunkirk .. when everyone joined the evacuation of infantry from the beaches .. from yachts to EM ..) or Crete when the fleet again came to evacuate the hp .... and everything under the blows of backlash ... you see no parallels with Sevastopol ??? .. and that absolutely nothing ... Com Fleet of Meterania Sir Cunningham somehow had a place to say .. ships they build years, but traditions (TRADITIONS Karl) are formed over centuries .. and what traditions could be in the Navy of the Red Army for the 20th year of Soviet power ??? ... if any initiative was knocked out of the subordinates and cultivated .. and somehow which didn’t work out .. yes, on land whom the composition changed ... but not on the fleet .. and the same Tributs and Ivanov-Oktyabrsky also ruined the fleet in 1943 as they did in 1941 .. the paradox is how much you spent on the fleet on the eve of the Great As a result, the World War II (World War II) was merged ... just like on land ... and God forbid that conclusions were drawn .. (.. and judging by Kuzi’s last trip to Sriyu .. we’ll not talk about sad things)
      Py.Sy ... during the whole war, none of the EM fleets (that 7 that 7U that Noviki) never went on a TD attack .. but they carried torpedo tubes throughout the war .. even the Black Sea EMs in transitions to Sevastopol under the backlash .. well, it didn’t occur to any clever man to remove 2x3 TD apparatus and put in their place at least 85 mm anti-aircraft guns .. and who is to blame for this ??? Comrade Stalin forbade ???
      1. Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 22: 05 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        if any initiative was completely knocked out of the subordinates and cultivated .. and somehow it didn’t work out.


        You say that you would think that the Russian imperial fleet was more effective, it acted in the mass initiative and was eager for battle no matter what !!!?
      2. Macsen_wledig 21 May 2020 22: 20 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: WapentakeLokki
        ... you see no parallels with Sevastopol ??? .. and that absolutely no ...

        Remind me the width of the English Channel and the distance from Novorossiysk to Sevastopol ...
        1. Engineer 22 May 2020 09: 28 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          It is better to compare the distance of Novorossiysk-Sevastopol and Sevastopol-Constanta. And events 42 and 44. Here is a parallel so parallel.
      3. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 10: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: WapentakeLokki
        ... I would like to recall the British fleet in WW II .. namely, the Dynamo operation .. (.. yeah, the same Dunkirk .. when everyone joined the evacuation of infantry from the beaches .. from yachts to EM ..) or Crete when the fleet again came to evacuate the hp .... and everything under the blows of backlash ... you see no parallels with Sevastopol ???

        The point is small - somewhere to find airdromes near Sevastopol for an entire air group of fighters. that will cover the evacuation. Otherwise, the closest parallel will not be Dunkirk, but Crete.
        When there were airfields to cover the route, there was a normal evacuation of Odessa.
        And yes the king has a lot. And the Black Sea Fleet cash ships - that's all there is and what will be until the end of the war. For its shipbuilding and ship repair are in the occupied territories.
        Quote: WapentakeLokki
        .. well, it didn’t occur to any clever man to remove 2x3 TD apparatus and put in their place at least 85 mm anti-aircraft guns .. and who is to blame for this ??? Comrade Stalin forbade ???

        The air defense of the ship is effective as much as the effective MPOZO. And with the MPOASO for EM, the USSR was all bad:
        The first Soyuz-7U MPUZO system was installed literally on the eve of the war - in June 1941, on the Black Sea destroyer "Capable". It included a sufficiently advanced Soyuz anti-aircraft firing machine (according to the principle of operation - an analogue of the CAC-2, but intended for firing at air targets), the Giro vertical and the stabilized sighting post SVP-1. Although the system acted in one plane and was ineffective in the fight against diving bombers, it significantly strengthened the air defense of the ship. In 1942, Soyuz-7U (with the replacement of the unsuccessful SVP-1 with the new SVP-29) was mounted on two more destroyers - the Black Sea Svobodny and the Baltic Strog. And that’s all.
        © S. A. Balakin. "Smart" and others. Project 7U destroyers.
        And without the SUAO 85-mm anti-aircraft gun is only a means to occupy the crew with something.
    3. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And the Northern Fleet responsible for the success of the Northern Convoys

      Interesting. Really to what extent? Coastal IA at a small distance from the coast? I agree. PL in matters of operational cover of convoys. The Germans had to consider yes ..... Bombers bombing enemy air bases? Well, drop by drop. They burned the Junkers there, the FAB500 was well attached to the barracks, and there the fuel and lubricant storage flew up into the air. All this undermined the enemy. Surface ships? Hmm ... Wouldn’t the British have managed? For them, it was much more important to prevent the enemy mine installations near Murmansk and Arkhangelsk and the regular trawling of the fairways in my opinion.
      1. Engineer 22 May 2020 11: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So this is not a question for me. Alexander will look at the light, ask
      2. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 28 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Surface ships? Hmm ...


        And what kind of NK were there? Minuscule. And this minuscule kept his piece of the route of the convoys. He even participated in the battle with the Z-26 once.
        You do not want to understand that the fleet is not only a “ship against a ship”. This and

        Coastal IA at a small distance from the coast? I agree. PL in matters of operational cover of convoys. The Germans had to consider yes ..... Bombers bombing enemy air bases? Well, drop by drop. They burned the Junkers there, the FAB500 was well attached to the barracks, and there the fuel and lubricant storage flew up into the air. All this undermined the enemy.


        And the landings. You can not understand the meaning of the landings.
        1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 12: 36 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          You do not want to understand that the fleet is not only


          For tactical landings, in principle, the fleet is not needed. We recall the Germans with their sapper flotillas and so on.
          1. Serg65 22 May 2020 12: 47 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            For tactical landings, in principle, the fleet is not needed.

            Would a flotilla overpower a landing party in Feodosia?
          2. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 50 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Wrong, we need people who know how to organize all this, but they do not grow in army headquarters, at least some kind of art support is needed from the sea, and it was on the same Northern Fleet, you need the ability to drive ships in a detachment, remove troops from the coast under fire and much more that the Germans never had to do.
        2. ser56 22 May 2020 14: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          You can not understand the meaning of the landings.

          and shipping, not only Lend-Lease, but also in the Arctic ...
  • Mikhail3 21 May 2020 19: 02 New
    • 12
    • 6
    +6
    Well, the "naval revolution" rushed not from the mind, but from well-fed boredom. That is, it was the crews of the ships that for years heroically stood at the walls, without going to sea. After the revolution, the fleet chochom recorded in his supporters Trotsky. So after Trotsky the fleet was cleaned so that it was scary to remember. Not surprisingly, the fleet simply did not have any real specialists or competent officers. Accordingly, the sailors were strong, resilient (illiterate officers still reached the relentless physical training), highly motivated, since political work was very successful, plus traditions, but completely unprepared professionally. In land operations, people showed the highest heroism and the best fighting qualities, bowing to the ground ...
    But the main impact on the War, and on the world before it (and after it) was, of course, metal. An indescribable amount of steel was untalented in ships and ships, which the USSR absolutely, absolutely, did not need at all! Our happiness was that the Americans supplied steel relatively inexpensively, because we had our own in the sea, as if there was nowhere else to put it.
    Even if our sailors were all great pros, and the command personnel are built of Nelson and Macaroons, where would you get huge amounts of fuel and lubricants? With tanks, or something, merge? And what kind of operations could the fleet carry out? To compare in impact on the enemy with tank armies?
    So I completely agree with the author. We had such a fleet that it would be better if it weren’t.
    1. Serg65 22 May 2020 13: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail3
      it was the crews of the ships that for years heroically stood at the walls, not going out to sea

      They themselves did not want to go out?
      Quote: Mikhail3
      After the revolution, the fleet chochom recorded in his supporters Trotsky

      laughing Are there any facts? Or maybe everything is different? The sailors realized that they were thrown to put it mildly and they did not like it much ... as a result, the rebellious Kronstadt, where Trotsky did not smell!
      Quote: Mikhail3
      but completely unprepared professionally

      Well then! But I'm wondering ... but where did Comrade Stalin look? And what kind of enemy did he come up with to build cruisers and battleships? What kind of enemy, who adopted the shipbuilding program? Oh, this is Comrade. Stalin himself ... oh yay !!!! And why suddenly comrade Stalin was so preoccupied with the fleet ???? Do not tell me, Michael?
      1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 15: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Stalin needed battleships purely for political purposes, in my opinion this is obvious ...
        1. Serg65 25 May 2020 09: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Did the fleet need these battleships?
          1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 10: 03 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            From a military point of view, having another European war on its nose, which Stalin himself said in 1931, of course, he didn’t need ...
            The fleet really needed basic and raid minesweepers in commodity quantities, coastal gunboats like a skerry monitor, wooden and steel patrol and torpedo seagoing boats, well, small patrol ships / Big hunters, and transport and landing barges like royal bombs with a bow ramp ...
            On the other hand, let's say wanted battleships. It was necessary to build the first cruiser pr.26 restoring the competence of the shipbuilding industry, then lay the "battlecruisers" (I'm talking about Kronstadt) and lay the battleships no earlier than launching the Kronstadt.
            The destroyers had to be built according to the type of Leningrad and not crammed into the non-crammed. I'm about sevens if that.
            1. Serg65 25 May 2020 10: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              The fleet really needed basic and raid minesweepers in commodity quantities, coastal gunboats like a skerry monitor, wooden and steel patrol and torpedo seagoing boats, well, small patrol ships / Big hunters, and transport and landing barges like royal bombs with a bow ramp ...

              All of the above is necessary from the point of view of the modern layman, in the 36th year what nobody would know in 5 years!
              1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 11: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                All of the above is necessary from the point of view of a modern layman,
                It’s certainly not close and the need for
                base and raid minesweepers,

                wooden and steel patrol and torpedo sailing boats,

                and transport and landing barges of the royal kingpin type with a bow ramp ...

                and even in
                coastal gunboats as a "skerry monitor",

                directly derived from the experience of the WWII, and the civil war in Russia. I emphasize this is the real experience of wars of both the world war, including foreign war, and civil war. What can I say if, already in 1931, the General Staff requires the RKKF to build landing ships. But the command of the RKKF wants something strange.
                what will happen in 5 years no one knew!


                Stalin more than bluntly declared that no more than 10 years remained before the World War.
                1. Serg65 25 May 2020 13: 12 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  But the command of the RKKF wants something strange.

                  And what did the RKKF want?
                  1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 19: 43 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    To build hundreds of small submarines of little use, and senseless hundreds of torpedo boats of the Sh-4 and G-5 type, which could not even be stored in water ... Aluminum is eaten by sea water
      2. Mikhail3 22 May 2020 15: 27 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Serg65
        They themselves did not want to go out?

        Well and all the rest. Depressing is the habit of the guilty to seek everywhere. I don’t blame the Soviet fleet for anything! And I don’t blame the Russian. Not the Navy, all this is guilt and forgery. The fleet itself could do what it could. The ambush was much higher ... it is sad that people paid with such mistakes.
    2. max702 22 May 2020 14: 41 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      I support categorically! Spend the funds that were flown into the fleet for aviation and ground forces, then there would be no talk of any blockade of Leningrad as well as other defeats at the initial stage of the war .. For even the Wehrmacht could not grind such a quantity with any mediocre command of our troops ..Something on this topic here at VO was already butting but the flotophiles even had eyes in their eyes all God's dew .. today, too, there was an appeal to step on the same rake to the AUG. Minesweepers, corvettes, frigates and multi-purpose submarines .. EVERYTHING! The rest is in the Strategic Missile Forces, VKS and SV .. The fleet has always been a black hole in our country for which a simple infantry Vanya paid for it with blood.
      1. bk0010 22 May 2020 15: 58 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: max702
        To spend the funds that were flushed into the fleet for aviation and ground forces, then there would be no talk of any blockade of Leningrad, as well as other defeats at the initial stage of the war ..
        What to spend on? All that was - worked in full growth. They built without interruption everything that they knew how to build. The trouble was that not all that was needed was able to build. And they did not immediately learn to use what they have. Do you think there were few tanks? Dohrena. And the planes too. And the Germans didn’t destroy most of them: did they hear about the tank pogrom near Brody? So: three quarters of the loss was that the tanks did not reach the battlefield, broke down and were abandoned. The story is similar with airplanes: in the absence of any sensible aviation control (I’m not talking about radars), the life of the airplanes was burned while trying to cover our troops (airplanes were barraging at the front line in the hope of spotting the Germans). Well, let's say you somehow managed to develop industry and rivet twice as much technology of all kinds. Well, it will turn out the same crap as with the tank corps: huge formations that they could neither manage nor supply properly. And there are no crews for them. They spent metal on the fleet. The fleet did not have time to build, the ships were dismantled for metal with the outbreak of war. Spent only the labor of shipyards.
        1. max702 22 May 2020 20: 11 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          All that you wrote is understandable .. But instead of factories working for the fleet, they would work for NE and aviation .. And just the products they released would prevent such a catastrophic situation .. At least what do you say, but if you have one instead the regiment’s battalion is always more likely! Spent money on the fleet both material and human, but the sense is zero! Maybe the tankers and artillery with infantry just did not have enough competent and qualified personnel that the fleet took? didn’t you think about it? In vain! And there it is in everything, it’s not only resources in iron and people, but also in scientific research potential! You see, someone sensible busy with naval issues would bring to mind the oil filter for the V-2 and now the tanks do not get up for this reason, but go into battle, also in aviation and everywhere .. The fleet consumed all the best but with ZERO return. .Today the same picture! That's what depresses most!
          1. bk0010 22 May 2020 21: 18 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: max702
            Though you say, but if you have a regiment instead of one such battalion, then there is always a better chance!
            More, but not enough. The problem of the outbreak of war in the USSR was not that much was missing, but that they could not stop the blitzkrieg (nobody knew how, by the way, even the Germans themselves could not stop our blitzkrieg in 44). In this situation, surrounded, without fuel, spare parts and shells, not a battalion would remain, but a regiment, and that’s all. The idea of ​​mobile defense could help, but it completely contradicted the basic idea of ​​"standing to death." And while the Germans themselves did not turn off the blitzkrieg because of the decision to take something (Moscow, Stalingrad), the mass of troops and equipment did not help much: it was not where it was needed or not in the state that was required.
            Quote: max702
            Spent money on the fleet both material and human, but the sense is zero!
            Not really spent, not in time. If you look, the big ships were old, the same Marat - 1914, the October Revolution - 1914, and so on. Torpedo boats, yes - built. And submarines too. But they are not too expensive. Before they had time to invest in the fleet, the war began.
            Quote: max702
            Maybe the tankers and artillery with infantry just did not have enough competent and qualified personnel that the fleet took? didn’t you think about it?
            And then by. There are not very many people in the fleet (to put it mildly). During the war, a bunch of sailors went from ships to the infantry.
            Quote: max702
            And there it is in everything, it’s not only resources in iron and people, but also in scientific research potential! You see, someone sensible busy with naval issues would bring to mind the oil filter for the V-2 and now the tanks do not get up for this reason, but go into battle, as well as in aviation and everywhere ..
            No. The navy has its own specifics. The fact that they did not help the design of the land explorers (and vice versa) is perhaps even a plus.
            1. max702 23 May 2020 17: 25 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              For all questions, you simply do not want to admit the obvious .. The sailors were skilled military personnel? Yes! Would they be able to prove themselves in aviation, artillery, tanks, infantry? YES! And what about the fact that they were kicked out of useless EXPANDING ships into the infantry for which they were not prepared to put it mildly .. Only because their potential was consumed by the fleet, and in the infantry they were insured to the extent that no one was preparing for this service, and despite on this, the sailors were the most combat-ready units at the beginning .. But what if this human material were initially prepared to be trained for THESE tasks? What would be the effect then? Would you take Kiev? Or an eagle? Would there be a blockade of Leningrad? Would you hand over the Crimea? In the same way, in scientific activity, the fleet is that such a polar discipline is direct than the same SV? There isn’t the same thing with its specifics .. That is, the scientific staff would be able to successfully solve problems in favor of the ground forces and aviation .. Finish pulling the owl on the globe, the fleet was not needed for the USSR premature a burden which, in addition to enormous losses, did not give anything to the country, and this is exactly what the article is about ..
              1. bk0010 23 May 2020 18: 25 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: max702
                Were the sailors skilled military personnel? Yes!
                Skilled sailors.
                Quote: max702
                Would they be able to prove themselves in aviation, artillery, tanks, infantry? YES!
                No. They would have to be completely retrained. Even for artillery. Now, if you do not train them at all in the Navy, then the meaning appears.
                Quote: max702
                And what about the fact that they were kicked out of useless EXPENSIVE ships into infantry for which they were not prepared to put it mildly ..
                The ships were not completely useless (they could have been used much more efficiently, yes), but the king paid for them.
                Quote: max702
                Would you take Kiev? Or an eagle? Would there be a blockade of Leningrad? Would you hand over the Crimea?
                Yes. Nothing would have changed. There are few sailors. They have no cure for blitzkrieg.
                Quote: max702
                In the same way, in scientific activity, the fleet is that such a polar discipline is direct than the same SV? There isn’t the same thing with its specifics .. That is, the scientific staff would be able to successfully solve problems in favor of the ground forces and aviation .. Finish pulling the owl on the globe, the fleet was not needed for the USSR premature a burden which, in addition to enormous losses, did not give anything to the country, and this is exactly what the article is about ..
                Again, if people can’t be prepared for the fleet at all, then yes, it makes sense. Reprofiling the navy did not make sense. What losses did the fleet of the USSR bring? The USSR did not manage to build anything special. Just look at the list of ships adjusted to 41 years. The plans were grandiose, yes, but they don’t ask for big plans. What he built was used to its full potential.
        2. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 13: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          To begin with, there was a jamb with cars, there wasn’t a powerful triaxle in the series with a load capacity of 7-9 tons. A program of a larger fleet for such a car factory could easily be replaced. This is for example. The absence of 1941-20 mm anti-aircraft towed and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns in large numbers by 23 was also worth changing in a large fleet. This is for example.
          1. bk0010 25 May 2020 13: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            So there was no big fleet, I’m talking about that. There were all kinds of dreams about the super fleet, there were remnants of the fleet of the Russian Empire and every ship trifle that really was already built in the USSR, but which did not require a lot of money and worked out its own.
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            A program of a larger fleet at such a car factory would easily be replaced.
            That's just the shipyard (already existing) can not build trucks.
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            The absence of 1941-20 mm anti-aircraft towed and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns in large numbers by 23 was also worth changing in a large fleet.
            No questions. Even the fleet with air defense had a complete seam, which during the Second World War reduced the usefulness of the fleet at times. Only no one has changed.
      2. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 22: 11 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        By the end of the fall of 1941, the Red Army lost more than 20000 tanks. Do you think 25000 would do better? Well think.
        1. max702 23 May 2020 17: 14 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Yes, it’s better maybe the Germans wouldn’t have enough shells like Moscow they still wouldn’t have taken, but here you look in Smolensk they would have slowed down .. And 5000 tanks, in exchange for the cost of the fleet, you are very cunning .. There’s 40, and 000 in the ranks would be .. The fleet is an expensive thing ..
          1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 21: 34 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            This is nothing more than speculation. But the fact that the Germans without a fleet would have one army more during the battle for Moscow is a fact. The fact that they would not have lost almost a month in the advance to Murmansk without landing in Litsa is a fact.
            The fact that the Oranienbaum bridgehead would not have been possible to hold, that if the Leningrad deblocked, it would have been necessary to advance not from two directions, but from one, and get Verdun there, that if Novorossiysk was liberated from two directions, it would have to attack, with an additional third at a critical moment battles, and from the same one to get Verdun there - the fact that with the liberation of Crimea would have to fight with 9 divisions, and not the 5th - a fact.
            Read some books or something ...
            1. max702 24 May 2020 16: 11 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Here you are just speculating and doing .. Without the cost of the fleet, the army would be clearly stronger and as a result, the Germans would not shine. Why lift the siege of Leningrad if the siege were not reached? Or heroically liberate Novorossiysk if they couldn’t capture him? And so on all counts ..
              1. timokhin-aa 24 May 2020 22: 22 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                The Red Army, and so was more numerous than the Wehrmacht, an extra dozen divisions would not have decided anything, they are not at all a fact that under the conditions of communications it would have been possible to enter the battle.
                In addition, you forget that the resources spent on ships can not simply be taken and converted into tanks and trucks.
                And it would also be nice for you to study what forces solved the tasks in the landing operations and to estimate what these forces could solve on the ground.
                For example, a critical delay for the Germans on the offensive on Murmansk was provided by several battalions. And what would they decide in a stupid frontal counterattack?
          2. ban
            ban 25 May 2020 23: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            But somehow the person considered (the order in the tank troops?) That instead of 3 4 thousand useless, in general, a dozen Kirovs could be built, and to them another 50 sevens
  • Alexey RA 21 May 2020 19: 11 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    The abandonment of Odessa and Sevastopol cannot be called a shame for the Black Sea Fleet.

    And why is the evacuation of Odessa carried out almost without losses so shameful?

    As for Sevastopol, you see what the matter is ... the fleet - it is not fighting in a vacuum. If the army surrendered all shipbuilding and all major ship-repairing capacities on the Black Sea, if the army managed to lose all airfields from which it was possible to cover the route to Sevastopol, then what should the fleet do? Due to the loss of ship repair, the fleet of the Black Sea Fleet narrowed to 1 LC, 1-2 KR, 4-6 EM and LD. And now we will throw these powerful forces into the work area of ​​the 8th air corps ... who said Verp a year earlier?

    In the Baltic, the situation is the same: the army surrendered the entire coast with bases and airfields. Do you want to know what will happen if you slip into the Baltic Fleet? Pedestal and other Maltese KOH to help you - the stage of approach to Malta.
    1. Octopus 21 May 2020 19: 44 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Alexey RA
      In the Baltic, the situation is the same: the army surrendered the entire coast with bases and airfields. Do you want to know what will happen if you slip into the Baltic Fleet? Pedestal and other Maltese KOH to help you - the stage of approach to Malta.

      Well, that’s enough.

      In Malta, the situation has never been so one-goal.
    2. illi 21 May 2020 20: 08 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      Damn well, you can certainly pull an owl on the globe. But, the fate of the fleet was decided not on the sea, but on land and in the sky. Could the fleet hold the coast and resist in the air, without ground forces? No! And therefore everything else is demagogy. The fleet did everything in its power, but frankly, in the Russian fateful wars, its role is deeply secondary.
      1. Engineer 21 May 2020 20: 49 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Well, since the Second World War lesson tells us that the success of the fleet is a function of the success of the army, it means that the fleet should have been planned and fought in the interests of the army and only the army. Forget about dominance at sea dearly beloved by the sailors of the sea. Sailors were useful and necessary on watchdogs, minesweepers, hunters, as non-salaries, armored boats. Extremely needed on mobilized civilian vessels as signalmen, radio operators, anti-aircraft gunners. But not on the destroyers of the Italian dizign and super-light cruisers with battleships in addition. Turn the fleet into a flotilla and subdue boots. Command, security structures - to the infantry. Less cost, same result.
        1. Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 21: 00 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          The most needed ships for the Second World War in 1941, in my opinion,
          - a coastal gunboat something like a skerry monitor with 2-3 76 mm guns in offshore installations with the Geisler launcher arr. 1928.
          - The basic minesweeper, one hundred and one hundred and fifty tons in / and ...
          - A patrol boat of the BMO / MO-4 type with automatic artillery, at least with 2-3 mm guns instead of DShK.
          - Wooden TKA D-3 in commodity quantities.
          Perhaps this is the main thing ....
          1. Engineer 21 May 2020 21: 02 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            I agree, although not 100%
            Only here is bad luck, these are all “mosquito forces” against which Alexander Timokhin announced a crusade
            ZY Point three in the field of artillery is fantastic for me.
            1. Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 21: 11 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Comrade Timokhin is fundamentally wrong.
              If something the Soviet naval commanders could adequately cope with, this is a mosquito fleet. There, and many battles with ships and boats of the enemy were welcome. But with the artifact of 20 mm - 76 mm, we and the CCP for them had a problem against the background of billions swollen in Big fleet
              In artillery, this is not science fiction; as a result, let's say organizational problems. Even ShVAKs would be quite out of place. By the way, they really put them on boats themselves
              1. Engineer 21 May 2020 21: 15 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Comrade Timokhin is fundamentally wrong.
                If something the Soviet naval commanders could adequately cope with, this is a mosquito fleet.

                It’s you who just finely swim / walk, and your comrade thinks globally

                The best thematic joke on the VO was about the construction of an aircraft carrier for 300 thousand tons with a crew of 50000 from the members of the song and dance ensemble of the Moscow Region, led by three honored topwar admirals. Alexander was among them. Author seems Operator
          2. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 10: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            - a coastal gunboat something like a skerry monitor with 2-3 76 mm guns in offshore installations with the Geisler launcher arr. 1928.
            - The basic minesweeper, one hundred and one hundred and fifty tons in / and ...
            - A patrol boat of the BMO / MO-4 type with automatic artillery, at least with 2-3 mm guns instead of DShK.

            That is what came to life in real life according to the results of the first year of the war in the Baltic. smile
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            at least with 2-3 20 mm automatic machines instead of DShK.

            And here is an ambush - we do not have a 20-mm cartridge for an anti-aircraft machine gun. As early as 20, the 1936-mm ShVAK machine gun was found unsuitable for air defense - since due to the weak cartridge and light short projectile quickly losing its initial speed, its effective range was less than that of the 12,7-mm machine gun.
            So I would put on a 23 mm caliber. smile
            1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              As early as 20, the 1936-mm ShVAK machine gun was found unsuitable for air defense - because due to the weak cartridge and light short projectile quickly losing its initial speed, its effective range is less than that of the 12,7-mm machine gun.


              Having a ShVAK anti-aircraft gun is better than a DShK for shells have a more destructive effect. And by the way, in 1942-1944, I already came across references to anti-aircraft companies in the Red Army military air defense, each of which had 12 ShVAKs ...

              So I would put on a 23 mm caliber.

              Of course.
              what they came to in real life according to the results of the first year of the war in the Baltic.

              Only implementation was bad, no really bad ...
              1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 12: 13 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Having a ShVAK anti-aircraft gun is better than a DShK for shells have a more destructive effect.

                If they explode. For already at a distance of 1000 m, the speed of the ShVAK projectile is at the limit for cocking the fuse - 346 m / s. smile
                Due to the fact that the ShVAK automation was originally designed for a 12,7 mm caliber, it was necessary to use an extremely light weight shell (20 grams against the normal weight for this caliber of 91-125 grams) and a short length for using a 150 mm cartridge. As a result, the projectile received reduced ballistic qualities, leading to a rapid loss of initial velocity.
                (...)
                Given that the existing MG-3 fuse acts on the skin of the aircraft at final speeds of at least 300-350 m / s, and also that successful hit by aircraft can be expected at flight times not exceeding 2-2,5 seconds, it should be considered that the maximum distance of actual anti-aircraft fire for 20 mm ShVAK is 1000 m, and for 12,7 mm ShVAK it is about 1500 meters.
                For anti-aircraft defense, this distance is unsatisfactory.

                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Only implementation was bad, no really bad ...

                What they could in the conditions of the blockade, they did it.
                By the way, do not be blockades - the same BMO might not appear. For at first they wanted to build something MO-4-like, but there were no wood experts in the city. So we had to make a steel case, and there was found thin armor.
                1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 12: 18 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  In my opinion, the MO-4 has a wooden case is not a problem, they often showed excellent survivability. What was missing in my opinion was that automatic guns with at least some kind of protection for military vehicles, albeit of the parapet type. As for the power plant, it seems to me that it was not the third main engine that was needed, but the economical engine motor on the middle shaft, albeit the ZiS-5
                  1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 13: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    In my opinion, the MO-4 has a wooden case is not a problem, they often showed excellent survivability.

                    The problem was that the crews did not demonstrate such survivability. Not for nothing that the MO-4 reservation kit included the protection of the bridge.
                    .
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    What was missing in my opinion was that automatic guns with at least some kind of protection for military vehicles, albeit of the parapet type.

                    The problem of the MO-4 was the lack of reserve displacement - even had to remove the shields from 45 mm. For a midge, even an airlikon was considered heavy.
                    1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 14: 06 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      You Sutormina read both books on MO?
                      MO is a border patrol boat.
                      And there the problem is not the lack of a reserve in / and, but rather a problem with stability ...
                      In general, the problem was that the RKKF was not nearly puzzled by the creation of such boats .... The fleet essentially saved the NKVD maritime guard, when 80% of the built MO / SKA mobilization joined the fleet .... Yes, and those built for the fleet were already built after the Finnish, as far as I remember, when the People’s Commissariat of the Navy finally saw the light ... And they fussed. BUT it was late. Time was flushed down the toilet.
                      1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 16: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        MO is a border patrol boat.

                        This is an attempt to make a universal boat - one project for the fleet and for border guards. Like any station wagon, the resulting result did not suit either the Navy or the NKVD. For the border guards, the main criticism was poor maneuverability at low speed - landing a security team with the Ministry of Defense was extremely difficult.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        The fleet was essentially saved by the NKVD maritime security guard, when 80% of the built MO / SKA merged into the fleet by mobilization .... And the ones built for the fleet were built after the Finnish one, as far as I remember, when the Navy's People’s Commissariat finally saw the light ...

                        Not certainly in that way. MO-2, MO-3 really came from the NKVD. But the MO-4 was built already for the NKVD and for the fleet (since 1937).
                      2. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 17: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This does not change the total number of boats coming from the border guard.
      2. Serg65 22 May 2020 13: 20 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        Sailors were useful and necessary on watchdogs, minesweepers, hunters, as non-salaries, armored boats. Extremely needed on mobilized civilian vessels as signalmen, radio operators, anti-aircraft gunners.

        Joseph Vissarionovich thought exactly the same way until Franco made a rebellion in Spain, but when the Italians and Germans began to slow down and even drown our transport ships, it immediately became clear that the tanks and planes were not able to secure the safe passage of our merchant ships to Barcelona and needed a fleet his mother ... and everything was fine ... damn Spaniards!
        !
        Quote: Engineer
        Less cost, same result.

        History has long denied this!
    3. Mikhail3 22 May 2020 08: 48 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      That is right. In the sky. The anti-aircraft gunners did not have the math to calculate the lead by diving, so at the beginning of the war the Germans rolled out all life as they wanted. A small question - what, didn’t the warship carry anti-aircraft artillery, which was supposed to protect it? Once the naval officers were angry noble mathematicians. Once upon a time ...
      And you are right about the role of the fleet. Just if it were ten times less than what it was, and the country would have been significantly easier. And there would be more tanks, and tractors, and therefore - bread.
  • Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 22: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Remember the organization and the losses during the Tallinn transition. And after that, do not talk about the army ...
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 10: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      Remember the organization and the losses during the Tallinn transition.

      At the time of its holding, the KBF obeyed the army. The southern fairway was closed by army order.
      And the transition was made after the army left the only place from which the fighters could cover KOH.
      1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 36 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        It is useless; we are dealing with religious dogma.
        1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 45 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          You correctly said about yourself - your religious dogma is everything ...
          1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 30 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            So what's with the subordination of the Baltic Fleet?
      2. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 50 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        So again, is it that the army in every possible way pulled out the Tributs from the naval commander from the hands of the BUMS-37? She didn’t let him read the paragraph “organization of breaking the blockade,” she twisted her arms, and demanded to break through a bunch of small detachments, but she forced Tributz to abandon the convoy and drag him to Kronstadt. Yes, if that is the reason for most of the losses - mines. And then, and with a significant margin, enemy aircraft
  • ser56 22 May 2020 14: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And why is the evacuation of Odessa carried out almost without losses so shameful?

    and to keep which was not possible - the enemy in the Crimea already ... request
  • 2 Level Advisor 21 May 2020 19: 31 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Yes, the benefits of the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet are not to say that it was a lot like the fleet .. BUT .. Let's think about it .. Even taking into account the knowledge of history .. And what could they do, even with the brilliant naval commander? Any ideas?
    In the Baltic? They were really locked up and there were no options for access to the open space .. What could they do?
    At the Black Sea Fleet? and with whom it was necessary to fight battleships there? With Romanian barges? Is there any certainty that if there weren’t the Black Sea Fleet, at sea the fascist ships wouldn’t do what they want?
    Total. Yes, even if Nakhimov was in the BF, if you put the Black Sea Fleet then, nothing would have changed much, it just happened ..
    1. Falcon5555 21 May 2020 20: 53 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      At the Black Sea Fleet, many operations were mediocre, and some were meaningless. From the loss, and the enemy does little harm. The Baltic Fleet, when it was not locked in Kronstadt, that is, at the beginning and closer to the end of the war, also did not act very fruitfully. For example, it is believed that evacuation from Tallinn could have been carried out with less loss. It would be possible to more actively hinder Germany’s trade with Sweden and Germany’s communications with Kurland in 44-45. The Nazis smuggled a million tons per month to Kurland at the end of 44 years!
      1. 2 Level Advisor 21 May 2020 23: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So I'm not a bit about what happened, but about what could be ..
        1. On the Baltic Fleet with those bases and the situation (everything is mined, small and everywhere enemy aircraft and in the reach of artillery), in general, I think a large fleet was not needed, it was doomed in advance, sooner or later, even if they lost less during the transition. unless to go to the lakes ..
        2. at the Black Sea Fleet - yes .. it’s all so .. it’s just that there can’t be any special combat tasks, except for the blockade of the Romanians .. and the blockade of the Romanians is again a swarm of aircraft from the coast, they would have sunk everyone .. But why were these operations carried out? I don’t know .. maybe because they tried to use it at least somehow (they didn’t think of it better).
        1. Falcon5555 22 May 2020 00: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          1. On the Baltic Fleet with those bases and the situation (everything is mined, finely and everywhere enemy aircraft and in the reach of artillery),

          Is it about moving from Tallinn? There, yes, it was hard. There is one controversial version of how losses could be reduced, but post-factum is easy to reason about.
          The battleships (those that were) and the cruisers would not be in the way for artillery shelling of Courland in 44-45. (of course, while maintaining dominance in the air and in the presence of strong air defense on the ships, which was not there, but had to be), in order to save more soldiers' lives. There, during the storming of Courland, it seems, close to a hundred thousand died. She was stormed many times, stormed ... Destroyers and submarines (and aircraft) could block communication with Germany. She had to be blocked from the sea and that’s all, but she wasn’t blocked and stormed.
          1. alstr 22 May 2020 11: 59 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            In order to shell something, you need to exit at least to the Gulf of Finland normally. And there everything in the mines was dotted so that they still find "gifts". And only after 15 years the Gulf of Finland became unlimited navigable - and that’s because all expiration dates of mines have expired (by the way, mines are still floating up).
            But battleships are difficult to pass along skerries.
            1. Falcon5555 22 May 2020 14: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What does it mean to get out at least into the Gulf of Finland normally? They were in the Gulf of Finland when they lifted the blockade.
              1. alstr 22 May 2020 15: 17 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                They were in Kronstadt.
                The exit of large ships further was almost impossible due to the lack of minesweepers. They were barely enough to trawl the raid and the Sea Canal.
                Shipping for several years after the war on the Gulf of Finland was discontinued. Then they could only walk along the fairway. And only after 15 years the restrictions were removed.
                1. Falcon5555 22 May 2020 15: 53 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  For the first time I hear. I doubt it.
                  1. alstr 22 May 2020 17: 05 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    In what? What a long trawl.
                    Here is a quote:
                    “The main volume of combat trawling operations was carried out in the post-war period. Combat trawling continued until 1957, and all the waters of Estonia became open for swimming and fishing only in 1963. The enemy’s mine weapons hidden in the depths continued to destroy ships and after May 9, 1945 ships, their crews. Mines exploded both in trawls and under ships, increasing the account of combat losses of the Great Patriotic War in ships and people (in the period after May 9, 1945, 29 of our minesweepers blew up during minesweeping on mines. 17 of them sank with uh cottages). "
          2. Serg65 22 May 2020 13: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Falcon5555
            Destroyers and submarines (and aircraft) could block communication with Germany.

            But what prevented the destroyers from blocking these messages?
            Quote: Falcon5555
            She had to be blocked from the sea and that’s all, but she wasn’t blocked and stormed.

            the fleet operated only by submarines, torpedo boats and aircraft. In 1941 alone, the Baltic Fleet lost 23 destroyers and 27 submarines!
            1. alstr 22 May 2020 15: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And how many are left by then? And what can be done with them?
    2. bk0010 21 May 2020 22: 03 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: 2 level advisor
      They were really locked and there were no options for access to the open ..
      A genius would simply not let me lock.
      Quote: 2 level advisor
      Is there any certainty that if there weren’t the Black Sea Fleet, at sea the fascist ships wouldn’t do what they want?
      Which ones? There seemed to be only 4 of them, and not battleships at all.
      Quote: 2 level advisor
      Yes, even if Nakhimov was in the BF, if you put the Black Sea Fleet, nothing would have changed much
      Everything would have changed. The simplest thing: the admiral would say that the fleet takes on the fight against a hypothetical enemy landing. All ground troops scattered across the peninsula, who were waiting for the enemy landing, sent to the throat of Crimea - to the dig. And the Germans generally cannot enter the territory of Crimea. Well, or enter significantly later. Or look into Constanta, in the light, so to speak. This would distract not only the Romanians, but also the Germans to all kinds of events.
      1. 2 Level Advisor 21 May 2020 23: 52 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: bk0010
        A genius would simply not let me lock.

        1. Above in the commentary I already noted about the BF, (everything is mined, small and everywhere enemy aircraft and in the reach of artillery) you can’t solve with genius, this is an initially losing situation .. The question is more - why did it happen ..
        Quote: bk0010
        Which ones? There seemed to be only 4 of them, and not battleships at all.

        2. Perhaps I incomprehensibly wrote .. I will explain. If the fleet there weren’t quite enemy ships, it would very likely not be 4, but 34 would be there .. The article sounded that if the Black Sea Fleet weren’t, nothing would have changed ..
        Quote: bk0010
        an admiral would say that the fleet takes on the fight against a hypothetical enemy landing. All ground troops scattered across the peninsula, who were waiting for the enemy landing, sent to the throat of Crimea - to the dig. And the Germans generally cannot enter the territory of Crimea. Well, or enter significantly later. Or look into Constanta, in the light, so to speak.

        About Constanta wrote above. under the dominance of aviation - madness .. the talent of the naval commander, against the dominance of aviation will not help .. but in general they went more than once, slightly successful ..
        That's what I agree with, if you didn’t defend the coast, maybe the Germans would have been detained longer .. But .. You know examples in history when (even without the North and East of Crimea (2500 km with them) a coastline of about 1000 km can be guaranteed to defend against the landing? And not really even a large fleet? Yes, and especially the Nazis did not make sense the main operation without heavy equipment, to do the landing .. Unless auxiliary ..
        Understand, I do not consider the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet to be good naval commanders .. No .. I agree with the assessment that they were “satisfactory” at best. I mean that in that situation, they would not have been able to do much more .. And when evaluating do not forget about enemy aircraft ..
        1. bk0010 22 May 2020 00: 18 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: 2 level advisor
          1. Above in komente already noted about the BF, (everything is finely mined and everywhere enemy aircraft and in the reach of artillery)
          That could be mined and not allowed. Field artillery versus ship artillery? Let them try. Here is aviation - yes, but our basic aviation is nearby.
          Quote: 2 level advisor
          Do you know examples in history when (even without the North and East of Crimea (with them 2500 km) the coastline, about 1000 km long, can be guaranteed to be defended from the landing? And not so much with a large fleet?
          Yes, this is just this case: there was nothing to land on (there were 4 pieces of warships (well, the maxim was twice as many)), there was also no one to land, too - everyone was at the front.
          Quote: 2 level advisor
          I mean that in that situation, they would have been unable to much more ..
          Could. At a minimum, do not mine your water area in the absence of enemy ships in the Black Sea. A lot of ours were blown up on these mines.
          1. Serg65 22 May 2020 13: 55 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: bk0010
            That could be mined and not allowed.

            It would be possible if at least one of the clever heads with sleepers and stars in the eyelets came up with the idea that Gogland should be left behind, and not abandoned!
            Quote: bk0010
            there was nothing to land

            Only from all Moscow headquarters was there a stream of information about the preparation of Germans and Romanians for landing in Crimea from day to day!
            Quote: bk0010
            At a minimum, do not mine your water area in the absence of enemy ships in the Black Sea.

            There is a plan of action at the hour of H and you are obliged to fulfill it otherwise arrest and accusation of treason! And in this Russian in white it is written where, how much and when to put up defensive minefields! ALL!
            1. bk0010 22 May 2020 16: 04 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Serg65
              There is a plan of action at the hour of H and you are obliged to fulfill it otherwise arrest and accusation of treason! And in this Russian in white it is written where, how much and when to put up defensive minefields! ALL!
              Well, are we talking about genius? The genius would answer, something like, that the mines were spent for offensive mining in the region of Constanta, and he would accuse the novices of cowardice and panic.
              1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 17: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And I would be right by the way
            2. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 18: 45 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Serg65
              It would be possible if at least one of the clever heads with sleepers and stars in the eyelets came up with the idea that Gogland should be left behind, and not abandoned!

              So a month later, in January 1942, they returned him back. That's just the Finns did not agree with this - and they threw three of their own against one of our battalions. The second time ours tried to return the island in April 1942 - but they reached only the Big Tyuters, stormed it, but unsuccessfully.
              The KBF with the islands did not work out at all - Somers also could not recapture.
      2. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 22 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        The simplest thing: the admiral would say that the fleet takes on the fight against a hypothetical enemy landing. All ground troops scattered across the peninsula, who were waiting for the enemy landing, sent to the throat of Crimea - to the dig. And the Germans generally cannot enter the territory of Crimea.

        +100500
  • Sailor 21 May 2020 19: 40 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Yes, the Black Sea Fleet commander, Admiral Oktyabrsky, was mildly incompetent, and made a big contribution to the fact that we left Crimea and, most importantly, Sevastopol, despite the unceasing heroism and death of our soldiers and sailors and the death of ships and boats.
  • Newone 21 May 2020 19: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author of this
  • Macsen_wledig 21 May 2020 20: 03 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Throughout the war, quite calmly, German and Swedish ore carriers carried ore for the Reich along the Baltic and North Seas. And the Baltic Fleet was completely unable to do anything about it. If the formidable force of the DCBF blocked the flow of ore from Sweden to Germany, the war would end in 1943.

    The Black Sea Fleet was not very different from the Baltic. How many of our soldiers were thrown in the same abandoned Sevastopol, which is now proudly called the "city of glory", but forgive me, how many thousands of soldiers are left there ...

    I would like to see the author’s plans for the operations that he did not indicate:
    - KBF surface forces operations on German communications in the Baltic
    - Operation of the Black Sea Fleet to evacuate the garrison of Sevastopol in late June 1942.


    Support for ground forces. Such, say, an occupation. In our case, shooting at squares. Without any adjustment with the help of aviation, just throwing shells into the distance, as it mostly happened.

    Proofs will be? :)


    Heavy cruiser - 1 (raised and rebuilt) out of 1 available.
    Light cruisers - 2 irrevocably (out of 8 available).

    1. Did I miss something in the history of “Petropavlovsk” - “Tallinn”?
    2. And what is the second KRL: "Aurora" or "Comintern"?

    Z.Y. However, I do not hope for answers: the author published the article and immediately forgot about it, taking up the next "imperishable" ... :)
    1. Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 22: 09 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Proofs will be? :)

      Platonov. Naval weapons. There are these numbers ..
      1. Macsen_wledig 21 May 2020 22: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        Platonov. Naval weapons. There are these numbers ..

        What are these?
        I am interested in where the author came from that the fire was fought without adjustment ...
        In raiding operations, this is natural, but in defense or landing corps very much used.
        1. Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 22: 17 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          You asked - I answered, you forgot what you asked? About shooting without adjustment if that. Section II, artillery, interest is ....
          Really surface ships, ships fired disgustingly.
      2. Newone 24 May 2020 01: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "near Leningrad, firing on areas without short range
        fire distillations accounted for 74% in 1941, 65% in 1942, 48% in 1943, and
        25% in 1944. "
        Mostly by area, yeah ....
        1. Cyril G ... 24 May 2020 11: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Your right to believe even in dancing green men, and Platonov wrote a study on the basis of shooting reports ... And he knew what he was writing about.
          1. Newone 24 May 2020 13: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I quoted Platonov, if that.
            48% in 43 and 25% in 44 somehow do not resemble "mainly by area"
            And one more thing: during counter-battery combat, firing is carried out on the areas SUDDENLY.
            1. Cyril G ... 24 May 2020 14: 06 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Shooting again without adjustment is equivalent to shooting squares. I have indicated interest. What is incomprehensible in the fact that the BF 3/4 firing conducted in 1941 in the areas, over time, the situation began to improve? Everything was much worse with the Black Sea Fleet. Counter-battery struggle over areas without adjustment makes no sense at all.
  • Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 20: 23 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Neither Mr. Skomorokhov nor Comrade Timokhin wrote about the real effectiveness of the operations of the fleet in the Second World War. Incidentally, with the real history of the understanding of the operations of the fleet in the Second World War, it is very bad. And if there were no comrades Morozov, Kuznetsov and other ascetics, we would not have imagined the essence of what was happening.

    In anti-ship operations over the sea, aviation showed the highest performance, then submariners, then torpedo boats with a significant margin, then coastal artillery, in the last place surface ships (TFR and EM) .....
  • Force multiplier 21 May 2020 20: 28 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Timokhin is absolutely right. And this despite the fact that in his article the argument is quite superficial. For example, he rightly sees the role of the Ladoga Flotilla in the defense of Leningrad but does not mention the key role of artillery of ships and coastal batteries of the KBF. Tallinn and the evacuation of Hanko are also a plus for the KBF. Because even in the case of Tallinn, the alternative is between bringing half of the evacuees to Leningrad (according to the most pessimistic estimates) and not bringing anyone and letting them die or be captured. Losses? And who did not have them?
    In the post-Soviet space there is an amazing paradoxical assessment of the effectiveness of the RKKF, the roots of which, apparently, are in the 90s and the writings of I. Bunich. Now, if, for example, it is mentioned that the British, to whom the author of the article for some reason experiences piety, lost many ships in the evacuation of Greece and Crete, not all were evacuated, 10 thousand were taken prisoner. So what? What are the ratings? "Heroic evacuation. Real sea wolves, sensible naval commanders, It takes three years to build a ship ..." and so on.
    If it comes to Tallinn, begins "Tragedy! Disaster !!!!! Admirals were peasants from the plow, clawed their cabbage soup, and even cowards." Some loss of the destroyer at Constanta or elsewhere, swells to the scale of Tsushima. And then, as a rule, two interconnected conclusions follow. 1st, as in this article - The Fleet was useless. And then its logical continuation - Fleet Yes "Russia does not need a fleet" is also useless. And these conclusions, not only in the heads of the masses, but also in the heads of the leaders of the country and the fleet, this is exactly what the “Atlantic” states are most interested in
    1. illi 21 May 2020 20: 50 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The fleet was useless. And then its logical continuation - the Fleet is useless and "Russia does not need a fleet."
      Well, then which side to look at. If we consider the fateful war for Russia, the Great Patriotic War, the civil war and the WWII, with Napoleon, with the Swedes under Peter, with the Poles during the time of troubles, with the Tatars and Mongols. That fleet is either secondary or non-existent. The most serious role under Peter in the Northern War.
      If we consider other wars, for territory, influence, etc. Then the role of the fleet is higher, but success is not very good. The Turks and Swedes defeated, but other more serious rivals beat us. Here from the last Japanese and Crimean.
      1. Force multiplier 21 May 2020 21: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In world wars of the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR, respectively. took part in the coalition, which had global dominance at sea. In both wars, the “Atlantic” states received the main fruits of victory. Dominance at sea means world leadership. And the lesson of these wars for Russia - either Russia will pay for the leadership of the "allies" with its blood, or it itself will become a great sea power
        1. illi 22 May 2020 16: 37 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          World domination was given not by abstract naval leadership, but by the colony. The resources of which brought economic power. Part of these resources went to maintain marine power. During the expansion of the Baltic Sea under Peter, and later during the expansion against the Turks on the Black Sea, Russia created the necessary fleet there, which played a role in the expansion. Why did Russia at that time and now need a strong ocean fleet, in the absence of overseas colonies? And what chiches to build and maintain? Russia had huge open and weakly protected land spaces for expansion, for this a strong land army was needed. We have always been puffed up to have a fleet at the level of marine colonial powers, to the detriment of land forces. The result was both in the Crimean and PMV. When the fleet didn’t show itself and the ground forces were underfunded. So, specifically for our country, leadership has always been given by land forces, even when you are in the center of Eurasia
          1. Force multiplier 22 May 2020 17: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, before it was politically framed as a colony. Now it’s different, but the essence is the same. This is unlimited access to resources around the world and their control. And here's how to get and hold it without sea power?
            leadership has always been given by land forces, even if you are in the center of Eurasia

            This is regional leadership. But Russia has the potential for global leadership, and an ocean fleet is needed to achieve it.
            1. illi 26 May 2020 17: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              All this blah blah blah. No one is creating a powerful fleet for an incomprehensible global leadership. And moreover, in the modern world you kill at least all the funds for the fleet; it does not give any leadership without other more important factors. Well, suppose we build 100 destroyers and 20 aircraft carriers, so what? How will he bring us leadership? We’ll start a war with the United States, or we’ll go to Brazil for resources. Will we bomb terrorists from aircraft carriers?
              In general, in the modern world, Google gives much more in world domination than the entire American fleet.
      2. ban
        ban 25 May 2020 23: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Petropavlovsk, for example
    2. Avior 21 May 2020 22: 57 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      . in the case of Tallinn, the alternative between bringing half of the evacuees to Leningrad (according to the most pessimistic estimates) and not bringing anyone and letting them die

      Don't you know that in the middle of the passage the fleet gained speed and left for Kronstadt, leaving the transports? In reality, they could not bring anyone, saving, as they say, the cruiser Kirov, for whom Tributz was responsible.
      1. Force multiplier 22 May 2020 11: 48 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Indeed, they write this. You practically quote Bunich's Tallinn Transition, and it is this point of view that has become dominant in the public mind. He has such an argument - here in Dunkirk, British ships did not abandon transports, and brought home 300+ thousand, and Soviet ships abandoned during the transition from Tallinn, and as a result a catastrophe.
        It is easy to see that Dunkirk and Tallinn are incomparable. The British had much more strength and means. The number of ships and vessels was disproportionately greater than that which the KBF possessed. In Dunkirk, the British had superiority in the air both over Dunkirk itself and over the routes (Which did not stop them from incurring losses as a result of enemy aircraft). The distance that the English ships had to cover was negligible in absolute terms, and even more so compared to the ships and transports of the Baltic Fleet. The English destroyers in Dunkirk did not accompany low-speed transports or small vessels, but darted back and forth between Dover and Dunkirk at maximum speed evacuating the troops. The transports, and even less the small ships, the English ships “abandoned”, leaving them to themselves. In Dunkirk, the British did not have to go through minefields.
        Bunich was silent, but what exactly could help Kirov and a handful of destroyers (some of which have already been damaged and which, unlike the cruiser, at that time did not have enough anti-aircraft weapons) to vehicles that actually followed individually and stretched for tens of miles. Follow the 10 nodal move with any of the major transports, depriving yourself of the advantages of high speed and maneuverability and putting yourself under attack? But convoys of transport ships were already guarded by patrol ships, minesweepers, etc.
        1. alstr 22 May 2020 12: 04 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The only mistake that could really be corrected in that situation and of those situation data was to allow the submarines to go to Kronstadt on their own underwater.
          And so several submarines were blown up by mines.
          ALL. The rest is our aftertaste.
          1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 15: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is not so, of course. Tributs was obliged to fulfill the requirement of the Naval Forces Combat Charter (BUMS-37) in terms of organizing the breaking of the blockade. And organize a breakthrough by joint forces
        2. Avior 22 May 2020 12: 05 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          first you write something about the merits of the fleet in the transition, and then you suddenly prove that in fact the fleet could not supposedly do anything.
          Of course, in both cases they are wrong.
          Guard convoy - one of the main tasks of the fleet, he simply neglected it.
  • bubalik 21 May 2020 20: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    there was no one to fight on the Black Sea (three Romanian destroyers and one request the submarine does not count)

    U-9,U-18,U-19,U-20,U-23 и U-24.
  • Sergey Valov 21 May 2020 21: 29 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    The low effectiveness of the RKKF, in my opinion, was laid before the war. Firstly, against whom was the fleet built? In the Black Sea it is clear Turkey, with its Goeben. All other options are from the evil one. I’m silent about the Pacific Ocean, there, up to parity with Japan, it was like before the moon. Baltic Against the British, hopelessness will crush anyone, and somehow unrealistic somehow. Against the Germans - similarly, the German fleet literally in a few years surpassed the KBF. The Northern Fleet is full of misunderstandings. The second is what they built. Cruisers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, torpedo boats. But the real workers in the form of watchdogs and minesweepers were somehow left for later, which in the Second World War fell into full swing. The type of ships also touches - almost useless babies and torpedo boats were massively built. The almost complete absence of a repair base in the north made the fleet incapable, and this was with its scanty composition. The mobilization of civilian ships at the beginning of the war was horrific - at first, experienced crews were drafted into the army, then the ships were equipped with mobilized amateurs. HP preparation there was one more, there were many ships, few of them were ready for combat. Etc. The admirals, in my opinion, simply did not understand how to fight them.
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 11: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      But the real workers in the form of watchdogs and minesweepers were somehow left for later, which in the Second World War fell into full swing.

      So the small fleet was planned to be mobilized. And in real life they got it - minesweepers and TFR from tugboats, TFR from the fishing fleet. It’s just that the USSR did not work out with equipment and weapons for the mobilization variants of ships.
      And one should not think that the mobilization fleet is the lot of the poor. The great and mighty Royal Navy, with the outbreak of war, likewise “shaved” civilian trawlers into anti-submarine defense and actively used them even in the defense of the Metropolis. That's just they armed them better - right up to the “ASDIC”.
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      The type of ships also touches - almost useless babies and torpedo boats were massively built.

      Mayo sho mayo. smile
      The problem of the "babies" and the TCA is that they were built for one, and used for another. All this trifle was designed and built for base defense, like mobile torpedo batteries. And they tried to use them to work on communications.
      1. Sergey Valov 22 May 2020 13: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        “The USSR simply did not work out with equipment and weapons for the mobilization versions of ships”
        It’s the same as mobilizing conscripts to send them to the front and not giving them weapons. Plus get unprepared hp all levels - from sailor to ship commander. As for the British, they, too, were not preparing for the war they were in, and this is not an example to follow.
        “They were built for one, but used for another”
        We are talking about this, the theoretical justification of the construction of the fleet was absolutely erroneous.
  • Cyril G ... 21 May 2020 22: 28 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    It was the focus of education and smart people. This did not only concern officers, although the naval ones lifted their noses in front of the land,


    Is it you for a moment about those who have lost their temper and almost with a dry score lost the Russo-Japanese War? Strong! If I remember correctly the artillery Russian ships were able to sink 3 small destroyers! Do you want to remember how many of our ships were sunk by the enemy with artillery? Only during the daytime battle near Tsushima, the enemy sank 4 squadron battleships, completing defeat at night with attacks of light forces and in the morning forcing the surrender of the fleet. . And before that there was Port Arthur. Alas.
    1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 10: 49 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      And the sentence to the officer corps of the RIF is the phrase of the British naval attache, as far as I remember, said before the REV. When I read it many years ago there was a certain shock. There, at the beginning, he says that they are literate educated, well-known composers and writers came out of their midst, then they read a lot, but they are not interested in naval affairs and do not read anything on the topic. This is the reality unfortunately.
  • Vladimir1155 21 May 2020 22: 47 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Dear Roman Skomorokhov, he is absolutely right, the surface fleet has shown itself poorly in the Great Patriotic War, as well as in the Russo-Japanese and World War I too. The reason is the emphasis on surface ships of large displacement, and neglect of coastal aviation and submarines. Large ships are advantageous to admirals and shipbuilders, the first get numerous subordinates, the second cut money. In the Baltic, the fleet is generally not operational due to the narrowness and smallness of the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic, Caspian and Japanese Sea are generally small and the fleet is not needed on it. At the same time, there are not enough ships in Kamchatka and the Northern Fleet, so if the war starts then everything will be as before, meaningless fleet, losses are meaningless ... that is, in the same puddle, for the fourth time .... there are no planes again, there are no minesweepers, the submarines are insufficient ... but the continuous blast along the AB and battleship destroyers, and the creeping process of turning frigates into battleships ...... history teaches that it does not teach anything.
  • con_nick 21 May 2020 23: 01 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Thanks a good article.
    Worthy of the fleet and could not be to the Second World War, purely theoretically. The fleet is not an army, for 5 years it will not work. Well, look, the Krondstat uprising is the 21st year, after which the last personnel of the fleet ceased to exist. So we need new ones. We take a report from the 22nd year, the officer graduated from the school as a young lieutenant. Although it is correct to take not an issue, but an admission in the 22nd. But to hell with him, even so. In the 25th he is a lieutenant, in the 28th art. lieutenant, in the 31st - cap. lieutenant, and so on, by the 40th year he is captain of the first rank, this is the maximum. The officers for admiralty positions, in theory, should either not be at all, or on the fingers of one hand to count, as in general it was in reality.
    At a lower level, there really were many sensible sailors, and if the leadership above corresponded, as was the case in the north, then something worked. And that, then the titles were different, but the essence is the same.
    About the exploits. Our cinema directly touches me - when they come up with some imaginary feats, for the Navy in particular, so far-fetched when there is truth that speaks of the heroism of Russian / Soviet sailors better than any fiction:
    [i
    ] This was the ONLY admiral of the USSR, awarded the highest order of the British Empire during the war. The worst thing is that the admiral died on June 21, 1983 at the hands of professional award-winning captors. The Trafalgar Cross also disappeared. "From the Golden Star of the Hero of the deceased admiral, thief Kalinin ordered himself a signet on his ring finger ....
    That's how we crap everything that the fathers won .....
    [I]
    https://george-rooke.livejournal.com/248313.html
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 11: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: con_nick
      Well, look, the Krondstat uprising is the 21st year, after which the last personnel of the fleet ceased to exist. So we need new ones. We take a report from the 22nd year, the officer graduated from the school as a young lieutenant. Although it is correct to take not an issue, but an admission in the 22nd. But to hell with him, even so. In the 25th he is a lieutenant, in the 28th art. lieutenant, in the 31st - cap. lieutenant, and so on, by the 40th year he is captain of the first rank, this is the maximum.

      As for the last fleet frames that have ceased to exist, this is still an exaggeration. EMNIP, in Sobolev's stories the confrontation of old specialists and new commanders, which went on throughout the 20s, was described. But in the 30s - that's it, the specialists disappear, almost all the colors remain with rare interspersed officers of the old school.
      1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 15: 24 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Former RIF officers served in the Navy.

        According to the admirals of the RKKF
        For 1941-45 .. - indicated are those who were in the war on the fleets on business trips ...

        Akulin M.V. - Head of the Naval Aviation Administration, since 1942 deputy chairman of the state procurement commission in the USA
        Alafuzov V.A. - Head of the OU, Deputy Head of the State School of Music, Acting Head of the State Medical School, since 1943 - Head of the Pacific Fleet. In 1942 - on the Volga and the Caspian, including Staringrad, then on the Black Sea Fleet, in 1945 - on the Oder in Berlin
        Bezpalychev K. A. - the flagship leader of the practice of cadets on the Baltic Fleet, Northern Fleet and Black Sea Fleet
        Belli V.A. - in 1942-43. - Head of practice for students of the VMA team fact-finding at the Northern Fleet and the Baltic Fleet
        Berg A.I. - since 1943 - deputy commissar of the electronics industry, deputy chairman of the council on radar at the GKO
        Bogolepov V.P. - Chief of Staff of the Ward of the Ladoga Naval Forces, Head of the 1st Division of the Main Directorate of Naval Forces, Chief of Staff of the Yokogan Naval Forces, Chief of Staff of the Belomorsky VF
        Bologov N.A. - at the commander-in-chief of the North-West direction and at the headquarters of whom MOLOR, senior naval chief Kuibysheva, head of the international legal department
        Brykin A.E. - as part of the vm mission in the UK. deputy head of mission
        Vekman A.K. - Senior Editor of the Special Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Navy, Chairman of the Standing Skerry Commission at the Main Directorate of the Navy
        Vlasov V.G. - Deputy Chief of NTK Navy
        Galerkin B.G. - head of the group of experts under the head of the engineering defense of Leningrad, member of the commission on the construction of defense structures under the Armed Forces of the Lfr
        Galler L. M. - Deputy People's Commissar for the Navy, in fact, acting 1st Deputy Commissar of the Navy
        Georgiadi I.A. - deputy chief of Upr VMUZ Navy
        Gladkov M.P. - head of the department of naval vessels and harbors of the Navy, head of the department for the recall of ships and harbors of the Navy
        Demin L.A. - editor, chief editor of the Sea Atlas
        Dmitriev K.G. - Senior Commissioner, Deputy Chairman of the CPC at the Navy NK, Assistant Chief of the Department of Ship-lifting and Ass Navy Operations on Rivers
        Dobrotvorsky Yu. A. - member of the commission for summarizing the experience of using torpedo weapons on business trips to the Northern Fleet and Bfl
        Egorov V. Ye. - expert consultant on reconnaissance of the defensive lines of Stalingrad, defense organization of the Astrakhan naval base and the Volga delta
        Eliseev A. B. Vrid Commander of the Baltic Region of the BF, Commander of the Defense of the Moonsund Islands, Commandant of the VMK Kronstadt, Assistant to the Commander of the Baltic Fleet for the BF, Commander of the NIMAP
        Zubov N. N. - deputy chief of the Icebreaking detachment of BelVMB, for assignments under the Armed Forces of the Northern Fleet, assistant in the scientific part of the authorized GKO for sea shipping in the White Sea
        Ivanov V.I. - Commander of the Kronstadt High Command and Head of the Kronstadt Garrison, commander of the Arkhangelsk LC
        Isakov I.S. - Chief of the State Navy Main Naval School, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the North Caucasus Command
        Kitkin P.P. - at the disposal of the Armed Forces of the Baltic Fleet, senior engineer of the torpedo group, commander of the Svir SS, miner, senior design engineer of NIMTI
        Kozlov A. D. - Head of the Cartographic Department of NIGISHI of the Navy, Head of the Inspection Division of the Main Directorate of the Navy
        Korshunov L.A. - Head of the Navy Navy Scientific and Technical Department, Engineer of the Criminal Code Group in Leningrad, Chief of the Mech Department, Deputy Chief, Leningrad NTK Navy Group
        Kritsky V.F. - Head of TsKB-18 repair and improvement of submarines
        Krylov F. I. - Head of EPRON, management of ship-lifting and ass work on rivers, of the Main Military River Administration of the NKRF
        Kuznetsov A. A. - commander of the White Sea naval base, commander of the EON BF, deputy head of the department of ship-raising and ass work of the naval department, for the head of the ship-raising and ass work on the rivers
        Kurdyukov A.I. - head of the department of the technical department of the Northern Fleet, deputy head of the maintenance department, rear of the Northern Fleet for armaments, chief of the Department of clothing and skipper-economic supply of the Navy
        Lavrov A.M. - chief editor of the editorial staff of the GU Navy
        Nesvitsky N.N. - Deputy Chairman of the PKK NK Navy, commander of the 2nd OVSK in Kazan, OVSRK in Komsomolsk-on-Amur
        Pavlovich N. B. - on business trips on the assignment of the General Staff to the Northern Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, chief of the field headquarters for the Northern Fleet in 1944
        Pustovalov A. I. - on a business trip to the Black Sea Fleet in 1941
        Rally Yu.F. - Chief of the Navy Directorate of the Navy, Commander of the Eastern Position and Mine Defense. chief of staff, com squadron, Kronshtadtsky MPA BF
        Rudnitsky M. A. - chief builder of submarines at factory No. 194
        Savin A.N. - deputy chief of naval command of the Navy
        Samoilov K. I. - com. MOLOR
        Snezhinsky V. A. - chief of the department of the Naval Forces Naval Forces, senior editor of the Sea Atlas, chief editor of the special manuals for the Naval Forces
        Stavitsky S.P. - Deputy Deputy for Marine Affairs at the Commander-in-Chief of the North-West Direction
        Stepanov G. A. - command of BelFL, freak of the chief of the State Navy Marine Naval School, head of the UVMUZ - senior naval commander in Leningrad
        Stetsenko I. Ya. - Head of the Technical Department of the Black Sea Fleet
        Tomashevich A.V. - at the headquarters of the commander-in-chief of the troops of the North-Western direction, at NIMTI, UBP Navy
        Trainin P.A. - Commander of the Riga Naval Forces, Baltic Naval Forces, Commander of the Ladoga VfL, Chief of Staff of Volzhsky Vfl, Chief of Staff of Tuapse Naval Forces, Commander of Kerchinsky Naval Forces, Deputy Commander of Volzhsky Vfl, Commander of DBK, Commander of naval group under the commander of the North Caucasus, 3rd Ukrainian fronts. Head of the trawling department
        Unkovsky V. A. - on a business trip to the Federation Council in 1943
        Khoroshkhin B.V. - Commander of the OVR GB BF, Commander of the Ladoga Vfl, commander of the DBK, the trawling brigade and deputy of the Volga Vfl
        Chernyshev V.F. - Chief of Staff, MOLOR
        Shvede E. Ye. - expert consultant on reconnaissance of the defensive lines of Stalingrad, defense organization of the Astrakhan naval base and the Volga delta, hydrographic support of the Northern Fleet operations
        Sheltinga Yu. V. - chief of department, deputy chief of UBP Navy, commander of the detachment of the Criminal Code
  • Comrade 22 May 2020 00: 34 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    There was no battle with the enemy fleets. Only the Northern Fleet remains, where yes, once there was a battle between Soviet and German destroyers.

    Submarines do not count? We look at the trophies (not counting the merchant and fishing vessels, as well as the enemy’s military tankers) of our submarines in the Northern Fleet (data confirmed by the German side).
    November 1941, XNUMX
    - big submarine hunter Uj 1708
    November 1942, XNUMX
    - patrol ship NM-01 "Vandale"
    November 1943, XNUMX
    - patrol ship B 6115
    - patrol ship B 5909
    - patrol ship NKi 09
    - submarine hunter Uj 108
    - submarine hunter B 612
    - submarine hunter Uj 1217
    - submarine hunter Uj 1214
    - submarine U 639
    November 1944, XNUMX
    - minesweeper M 346
    - patrol ship B 6112
    - submarine hunter Uj 1209
    - submarine hunter Uj 1220
    - submarine hunter Uj 1219
    1. LeonidL 22 May 2020 01: 10 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      With all due respect to the heroic affairs of the Navy in the Great Patriotic War (WWII) listed by you against the backdrop of losses from the Allied fleets ... Even Norway in the 1940s managed to sink the larger ships, the cruiser, EM, etc. You are mostly mob-ersatz. The EM raids by Admiral Drozd did not work. Unfortunately. Well, what you and Timokhin listed in the comments to the previous article is about how to pass off the drowning of a Georgian boat (with known problems) or a battle at the Kerch bridge with two armored ships and a tug of the Ukrainian Armed Forces ...
      The last truly naval battle of the Russian Imperial Navy is Mozund. Then alas ... the most successful "lake battle" of the Moscow Region, SK and TK with the German BDB on Ladoga off the island of Dago. During the Second World War, the Navy of the USSR did everything possible for him ... taking into account all the factors listed by Roman. I do not agree with the belittling role of naval artillery, they didn’t hit the squares, but with the help of ejected naval correction posts, using air correctors ... The Navy did everything it could to provide land flanks, escort convoys, transport everything and everything, and land landing ... but nothing more.
      1. Comrade 22 May 2020 01: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: LeonidL
        Norway in 1940, those few days before the surrender, managed to sink larger vessels - cruiser, EM

        The cruiser Prinz Eugen was sunk not by ships, but by a coastal battery. The ships of Norway did not sink anything.
        We also had coastal batteries, alas, the German heavy cruisers did not fit them.
        With all due respect to the heroic affairs of the Navy in the Great Patriotic War (WWII) listed by you against the backdrop of losses from the Allied fleets

        Everything is relative.
        Since you are comparing the losses of the German fleet on the Western and Eastern front, is it worth it, objectivity for the sake of, compare the fleets of the British and Americans with the Soviet fleet? What do you think?
        1. Andy 22 May 2020 06: 34 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Comrade
          The cruiser Prinz Eugen was sunk not by ships, but by a coastal battery. The ships of Norway did not sink anything.

          it was a blucher, not an eugen
        2. LeonidL 22 May 2020 06: 34 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          You are right if you compare everything at once in a heap. But ... on the Black Sea the overwhelming superiority of the Black Sea Fleet over everything that floated under German, Romanian, Bulgarian flags. Americans and British were not there. The High Sea Fleet did not appear in the Baltic until the 43rd and then only periodically, in fact, the battleship of the old German “Schleswig (?)” There in the 41st escaped from a submarine strike due to malfunction of the torpedo tubes and again the German cruisers and battleships appeared only in the 45th. In the 41st there were several attempts to use the “light forces” against the Germans, the most successful campaign under the command of Drozd ... but even then to no avail. There were no Americans or British in the Baltic ... the advantage of the RKKF in the 41st was overwhelming, but ... Roman was right in saying that in reality sea battles (not battles) were conducted only by the Northern Fleet in conditions of many times superior enemy forces!
          Now about the losses. If you look at the statistics on the losses of the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet in battles with Germans and Finns, then unfortunately it is worth noting that our MO, SK, BKR, and so on in terms of performance characteristics lost to the German “counterparties” - high-speed landing barges (BDBs) with their two 88-mm anti-aircraft guns and 20-mm machine guns, snorkel boats (TC) and in collisions suffered significant losses. I keep silent about aviation, alas, but the Black Sea Fleet lost dominance at sea under the dominance of the Germans in the air. That is why Stalin simply banned the exit without his permission into the sea of ​​large ships.
          I sincerely admire and bow before the courage of the Soviet sailors, but ... there were no sea battles. And I am inclined to the point of view of Roman, the skill and training of admirals (perhaps with the exception of Kuznetsov) did not meet the courage and training of the Red Navy, middle and senior commanders during the Second World War. But ... it's easy to say in 2020, in hindsight. Therefore, it is better to adhere to the story that Soviet historians wrote, without going into details.
          But the Navy of the USSR also never participated in naval battles or battles! He won the military-political battles by his very presence! (Recall the famous dictum of Nelson). In the USSR, the dream of the Big Fleet was realized, huge amounts of money were spent ... there was not enough infrastructure and the ships were hanging out on barrels, wasting motor resources and stuff, stuff, including crew health. But it all ended ... sadly.
          The Russian fleet was lucky - on its account two victories were won - over the Georgian boat, and over two armored shocks and a tugboat of some incomprehensible formation. But this, alas, does not pull on Jutland. Although better than nothing. My opinion is the main victory of the Russian Navy - in preventing war. And sea battles, let them be the lot of kids and adult callousing fingers on the keys of computers.
        3. LeonidL 22 May 2020 06: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Comrade
          The cruiser Prinz Eugen was sunk not by ships, but by a coastal battery. The ships of Norway did not sink anything.
          We also had coastal batteries, alas, the German heavy cruisers did not fit them.

          You are confusing something! The heavy cruiser Blucher was sunk - artillery fire and torpedoes of the Norwegian fleet’s coastal batteries, the heavy cruiser Lutsev received three hits of 150-mm shells, the minesweeper R 17 was sunk by the minstack Truggwason, the same minzag art covered two destroyers with fire Albatross "(sank, running into a cliff) and" Condor ", the guard patrols drove off the" rumbots ", not letting the troops land, 210mm the coastal battery covered the Karlsruhe cruiser and forced them to leave ... the Norwegian destroyer Storm hit a torpedo in the cruiser Kenisberg ... but the torpedo didn’t explode, ato coastal battery Ogosta one 210-mm shell in the side, "Bremse" was hit in the tank, on the Norwegian mines blew up and sank military transport "Sao Paulo". I think the list is quite impressive. The “Prince” was sunk in the wrong place and not then ... look carefully at least on Wiki.
          1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Soviet berbateri sunk if sclerosis of 11-12 ships and Axis ships doesn’t fail me.
      2. Andy 22 May 2020 06: 33 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: LeonidL
        Then, alas ... the most successful "lake battle" of the Moscow Region, SK and TK with the German BDB on Ladoga off the island of Dago.

        Dago o Hiiumaa (estonia). how did he get to Ladoga?
        1. LeonidL 22 May 2020 07: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You're right! I confess, mixed up - Dry! Artificial island with a lighthouse. The Germans did not take it with the Finns and Italians. Battery 100 mm, boats MO, SK, TK ... against BDB, Italian and Finnish. This is a heroic episode!
      3. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Then, alas ... the most successful "lake battle" of the Moscow Region, SK and TK with the German BDB on Ladoga off the island of Dago.


        The defeat of the Chinese flotilla in 1929. Fight on the island of Nerve detachment of BF boats (TCA and skerry monitors) against 2 German destroyers. The result was sunk T-31, ours did not suffer losses in boats.

        During the Second World War, the Navy of the USSR did everything possible for him ... taking into account all the factors listed by Roman. I do not agree with the diminution of the role of naval artillery, they did not hit the squares, but with the use of ejected ship adjustment posts, with the use of aircraft correctors ...


        Ships fired mainly on squares. The situation was corrected in the BF by the 44th year already.
        The numbers are as follows.
        During the defense of Sevastopol the ships conducted 407 firing, of which 25%, with the use of corpses, the rest without adjustment ..
        Near Leningrad
        Without adjustment, in 1941, 75% of firing was carried out, in 1942 - 65% of firing, in 1943 - 45% of firing, in 1944 - 25% of firing.
        And indeed, who needs to be in order to know your place to the nearest meter, and often the enemy, solving the same combat task from year to year, not to achieve the very perfection that is remembered when speaking about the defense of Leningrad.
      4. Sergey S. 22 May 2020 18: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: LeonidL
        on Lake Ladoga on the island of Dago.

        At the artificial island-lighthouse Suho - with emphasis on the first syllable.
        1. LeonidL 23 May 2020 05: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Thanks again! Look a little ahead - repented. Made a reservation.
      5. ban
        ban 25 May 2020 23: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        By the way, from the above Comrade, 3 big hunters of special construction, the British submariners have no such trophies
    2. aglet 22 May 2020 15: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      all these boats do not pull half the cruiser
      1. LeonidL 23 May 2020 05: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, really, and if we take into account that the Norwegian warships took part in almost all the operations of the English fleet, including the Overlord. Well, it’s not serious to write about two destroyers and a dozen - two watchtowers, minesweepers converted from civilian and fishing vessels ... It’s better to talk about BDB, snorkel boats - more worthy opponents. Well, it didn’t work out, the German battleships didn’t fit under the guns of the Soviet coastal batteries, and when they came up and supported the 45th Courland group, the Soviet surface fleet, alas, didn’t respond to the call ... but the aircraft and submarines did a great job.
  • Sergey S. 22 May 2020 01: 02 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    I really do not want to discuss extremes, but ... I have to. I will be extremely brief.
    The fleet approached the war in a sad state. There were no naval commanders, no commanders, no one. There was no headquarters capable of planning a more or less decent operation. And this was shown by the war in the early days.

    If not for the last short sentence, gritting his teeth, he would have agreed. But the preparedness system introduced by N.G. Kuznetsov, the fleet saved it on the first day of the war. The Germans had not yet reached, and they were already being led by radars, and searchlights and anti-aircraft gunners were at combat posts ...
    The main problem is that the comrades Soviet admirals were incapable of tactical planning from the word "completely."

    But what about the operations of the beginning of the war in the terrible conditions of the retreat and loss of bases: the landing in Grigoryevka, the evacuation of the Primorye Army from Odessa, the Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation, the defense of Leningrad directly and the maintenance of the "Road of Life" on Ladoga.
    There was no battle with the enemy fleets.

    The sailors regret it .... But there are completely different reasons. War is not a game of naval combat. And the farther, the more important is the participation of the fleet in army operations. But there were rearguard battles for bases, often surrounded, These are Odessa, Tallinn, Hanko, Sevastopol ... Leningrad and Oranienbaum bridgehead ... And if there were direct attacks of the enemy fleet, our sailors would not hide.
    Throughout the war, quite calmly, German and Swedish ore carriers carried ore for the Reich along the Baltic and North Seas. And the Baltic Fleet was completely unable to do anything about it. If the formidable force of the DCBF blocked the flow of ore from Sweden to Germany, the war would end in 1943.

    This is a fantastic fairy tale. It’s even inconvenient to explain that in the conditions of complete domination in the air in 1941 of enemy aviation, it was impossible to act in the areas where the enemy was based ... Although they tried to act as much as possible ... But the trouble was, neutral ships could not be attacked ... This is a disaster, not the fault of sailors.
    Support for ground forces. Such, say, an occupation. In our case, shooting at squares. Without any adjustment with the help of aviation, just throwing shells into the distance, as it mostly happened.
    .
    In itself, a rather stupid occupation, just a waste of the resource of tools.

    Such cases, of course, were ... But the counter-battery artillery struggle of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet saved Leningrad from destruction. Moreover, the consumption of shells in the artillery strike was 3-5 shells per barrel, that is, in some cases, the first still flies, and the last also flies ... If you need examples, type "Barbakadze" in the search ...
    Yes, Joseph Vissarionovich was not an omniscient person. And in matters of the sea I didn’t really think. Therefore, he was simply forced to trust his admirals. Verified party, so to speak, comrades. Probably almost trustworthy, but thinking in maritime affairs at about the level of Comrade Stalin.
    ... And some (on the Black Sea) were still cowards.

    They washed Stalin ... And that’s good ... The admiral’s failure is common. On average, about half of the admirals mentioned in military history are losers ... In the Russo-Japanese War, almost all of our admirals were losers ... And in 1945, did the losers also command the fleet? And if not in military affairs, then where else is it fair that the end justifies the means?
    I repeat: for a fleet that did not fight, the losses are enormous.

    It’s dishonest to say that about the fleet. I consider it pointless to refute this.
    And from here the Tallinn crossing full of tragedy, which cost many people and ships, the Baltic Fleet’s seat in Kronstadt, the complete inability to combat operations on the Black Sea ...

    This is all a consequence of the loss of bases and the complete loss of coast with airfields.
    A fleet, if there is one, if sensible naval commanders are at the helm, is strength. The British, Americans, Japanese have shown it in all its glory. Alas, we had ships, but there were no commanders.

    That is, ours turned out to be worse than the Japanese ... We arrived ... Maybe we compare the incomparable, round with hot or with green?
    That's just preparation was not immediately before the war, but it never was. There was no one to cook, as I said. Hence the overt inability of the naval command precisely to plan and implement plans, which ultimately resulted in complete nonsense - the submission of the fleets to the fronts.

    Operational submission of fleets to fronts, districts, ... Is this not an ultramodern understanding of capabilities, goals and objectives?
    The Soviet Navy during the years of World War II turned out to be a completely useless formation by 90% due to the fact that the fleet did not have normal commanders.

    Very rude and past the target. That is, what is written is completely incorrect, and the idea that the fleet was used in an unforeseen way did not sound.
    You should not write about supposedly extremely useful landings in general terms, you need to talk about people who went into battle as part of the landing groups. About the Black Sea submariners, choking on gasoline vapors in their boats, turned into tankers. About the crews of the "sevens" and "novices" looking out for German torpedo bombers in the gray northern sky. About yesterday's fishermen looking for German submarines instead of cod. About the commandors of the Aurora, who did not disgrace the flag of the ship in the last battle.

    Could you, looking into the eyes of “people who went into battle as part of the landing groups, say that“ the landing was supposedly extremely useful? ”Imagine how they explained the fallacy of your thesis ...
    Do not turn the Great Patriotic War into the Second World War.
    ... let's respect our past without constitutions.

    Here I fully support!
    Himself warps.
  • Graz 22 May 2020 05: 11 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    our fleet was always inferior to our potential enemies in quality and quantity, and only thanks to the dedication and genius of many naval commanders brought out wars and sometimes brought victories, although there were also enough defeats
    1. lelik613 22 May 2020 06: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Just do not need about genius and dedication, do not disgrace.
      1. Graz 22 May 2020 06: 17 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        you don’t know history and therefore do not disgrace yourself
        I will only remind you of the brig Mercury, Ushakov, Count Orlov, Nakhimov who acted with less force than the enemy and won, the Black Sea battleships that forced Geben to retreat. about the wars with the Swedes on the water
        1. LeonidL 22 May 2020 07: 11 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Maxim, you’re right, of course, but there’s some kind of unpleasant precipitate from the actions of the admirals of the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet during the Second World War ... The Tallinn crossing, the incidents of Sevastopol with ammunition, "raids" ... By the way, the Baltic EMs also tried to send them into raids ... with the same result.
        2. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 11: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Graz
          I will remind you only about the brig Mercury

          Mercury to the genius of many naval commanders has no relation. Rather, it is a question for the very same naval commanders - why did the slow-moving brig appear in the group of ships sent for reconnaissance? After all, the Black Sea Fleet had normal walkers - the “Standart” and “Orpheus” who walked with it calmly broke away from the enemy.
          Quote: Graz
          Nakhimov who acted with less force than the enemy

          Ahem ... six battleships, including three hundred and twenty-gun monsters, and two frigates - against seven frigates and three corvettes. Somehow does not pull on less power.
          1. LeonidL 23 May 2020 05: 40 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Maxim! Who is arguing? I called the last naval battle of the surface of the Imperial Russian Navy - Mozund. You give excellent examples before.
        3. Sergey S. 22 May 2020 19: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Graz
          ... Nakhimov who acted with less force than the enemy and won ...

          P.S. Nakhimov is very respected, or rather, I love.
          But if you are hinting at the Sinop battle, then P.S. Nakhimov had a significant advantage.
        4. lelik613 23 May 2020 12: 15 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          I ask once, call the battle at sea, which Kuznetsov won (even on toy steamers). By the way, yes, to Ushakov, Count Orlov, our Nakhimov legendary not a relative or even namesake and brig Mercury also did not command.
  • Unknown 22 May 2020 08: 01 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    the author is right, our admirals did not show themselves very well during the Second World War. The main question is what kind of war at sea our fleets were preparing for. in the Baltic, they believed that it would be, Germany and Finland, well, they assumed that the Swedes would not stand aside. Therefore, after the reunification of the Baltic republics, they began to urgently strengthen the islands, Saremaa and Hiiumaa, as well as Osmusaar, with coastal artillery batteries, which played a role in 1941. airfields were also built. so it’s impossible to say that the Soviet leadership was not engaged in the fleet. but with regards to the admirals, then of course not. the tribune on the spot by the KBF commander was out of place. It wasn’t even a difficult year for us, when the general situation at the front was not in our favor, and all the naval forces were lost, and after that and the islands in the Gulf of Finland were they left, which the fleet then tried to recapture for the entire 41 years, without success on our part, in the victorious 42-44 years, it could not cut the so-called Germans, the Courland Express, and they transferred their units to Germany until the end of the war , the same 45-tank SS corps, when they launched a counterattack in Pomerania, thereby delaying the end of the wars until May. I don’t even want to talk about the Black Sea Fleet, and the Admiral of October, after he got on the plane and flew away, leaving thousands of sailors and soldiers to their fate in SEVASTOPOL. This already speaks of him as a man. the captain is the last to leave the sinking ship. moreover, the torn evacuation of troops from the Kerch Peninsula does not add laurels. the only one who looks positive is the admiral’s head with the Federation Council, although the fleet is small there, but there are more successes.
  • Severok 22 May 2020 09: 18 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    This is what Roman gave ... Frankly, I did not expect such an awkward pearl from him. I wish Roman more to work out sources about the Soviet Navy during the Great Patriotic War. And then he has only two surface clashes at the theater of the Northern Fleet. This statement is at least half true, and at most false. And the role of the Navy in the period 1941-1945 is much wider than he was able to discern through the slots of information that he so absurdly used, essentially slandering the Soviet Navy.
  • Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 11: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And without the SuAO 85 mm anti-aircraft gun


    It would not be worse. It would be better. And this is a fact, because all this would play to increase the density of fire, which in turn reduces the effectiveness of bomb attacks.
  • Serg65 22 May 2020 12: 07 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    What is this article about? The fact that Timokhin sees the significance of the Soviet fleet in the Great Patriotic War through the prism of his fantasies? Well, Alexander has such a style! The fact that all admirals are enemies of the people and deceived Comrade Stalin? Well, if so, then Comrade. Stalin was deceived not only by the admirals, but also by the whole generals, including the marshals! The fact that Mr. Skomrokhov wants to convince us that Comrade Was Stalin gullible and naive? So this is not true! So why did Mr. Skomorokhov pile up this garden in the form of a historical monograph? Mr. Skomorokhov, I beg you, explain to me, the old collective farmer, the essence of your theses?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 12: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Aviator_
    The Tsushima disgrace, too, the Bolsheviks organized?

    and it was about the Bolsheviks or the Navy? who has something to hurt,
  • Kostadinov 22 May 2020 12: 48 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In fact, the losses for the fleet, which did not conduct active hostilities, are simply enormous.

    The Soviet fleet fought very actively and has strategic successes. 1) Successful defense of Talin, Hanko, Odessa, Sevastopol, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Eto beat one of the main factors in the failure of the blitzkrieg.
    Leningrad defended not only the artillery of the fleet, but also decisively beat the use of Ladoga’s flotilla.
    In Stalingrad, the decisive beat was the use of the Volga flotolia. Large ships, battleships and cruisers, shot more than one set of ammunition in the German army. They fired more, on the main front and against the main enemy than most other similar ships in the world.
    2) The Black Sea Fleet successfully blocked the retreat of the German fleet across the Danube and led to its complete elimination on the Black Sea.
    3) The KBF submarines stopped the delivery of Swedish ore in Germany in October 1944.
    This is only the main achievements of the Soviet fleet in that war.
    Battleship - 1 irrevocably (out of 3 available).
    Heavy cruiser - 1 (raised and rebuilt) out of 1 available.
    Light cruisers - 2 irrevocably (out of 8 available).
    Leaders of destroyers - 3 irrevocably (out of 6 available).
    Destroyers - 29 irrevocably (out of 57 available).
    The American and British ships (battleship, cruiser) I did not count, because they did not fight.
    I repeat: for a fleet that did not fight, the losses are enormous. And all this thanks to the red admirals,

    1. Losses are minimal - 1 battleship is severely damaged (not lost forever as it shot a lot after its "irretrievable loss").
    Heavy cruisers did not beat (Talin floating battery).
    Light cruisers - 1 old cruiser is lost forever.
    This is all the losses of large armored artillery ships after at least two years under the blows of German aircraft at sea. German surface ships and boats sank only one destroyer.
    2. Ships due to the division of the Italian fleet cannot be called American and British. They did not actively fight, but this does not mean that they should not be counted.
    I repeat: for the fleet, the Kotor fought so much and such losses were inflicted on the enemy and the Kotor was more than two years under the blows of his aircraft - the losses are minimal thanks to the Red Admirals. They can’t even be fed to compare with the royal admirals with their Tsushima and losses in the First World War.
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker 22 May 2020 15: 47 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The Soviet fleet fought very actively and has strategic successes.


      strategic ??? Is this a joke?
      1. Sergey S. 22 May 2020 19: 28 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Dr. Frankenstucker
        strategic ??? Is this a joke?

        By the degree of influence on the plans of the enemy - YES.
        In the north-west, the fascist was stopped by Leningrad, which was defended solely by naval artillery - naval, coastal and railway.

        And Sevastopol, held by the fleet until the depletion of human and technical resources was actually depleted, delayed Hitler’s southern shock fist - Manstein’s army for 8 months.
        By the way. after Sevastopol, it took her more than 2 months before she was able to resume offensive operations ... And then - “They fought for their homeland” and a breakthrough to Stalingrad.

        By the way, the fleet also excelled near Moscow ... the Pacific Marines!

        So in the first year of the war there was no such strategic aviation, wherever the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Fleet played a crucial role.
    2. LeonidL 23 May 2020 05: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You are comparing the incomparable! We are talking about naval battles, what Timokhin so graciously described with the help of foreign admirals as "supremacy at sea", and now we are all trying to explain in a row that there were no RKKF battles for the whole war! T e there were no battles of ships of the first rank, but where there the first even EM actually fought several battles in the SF. They fought bravely and valiantly MO, TK, SK, minesweepers, armored boats, monitors with well-armed, high-speed landing barges, olympic snorkel boats ... But this is not about that. So you can go along the path of Timokhin and call the battles for supremacy at sea the sinking (with problems) of one Georgian boat and the capture by the border guards of a Ukrainian squadron of two armored ships and a tugboat! Formally, everything is true - domination has been achieved ... but some kind of tiny.
      1. Newone 24 May 2020 01: 58 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        There was no naval battle because the enemy was afraid to lose them. So the Germans very persistently asked the Italians to send battleships to the Black Sea.
        1. LeonidL 24 May 2020 07: 05 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Well, of course, the German was afraid of the RKKF !!!! Already funny! The British with their Grand Fleet were not very afraid, the Americans were not afraid at all, but on the Black Sea they wanted to hide behind the Italians. And in the Baltic, for the Finns hiding from the BF?
          1. Newone 24 May 2020 14: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes.
            Would not be afraid - conducted naval landing operations. But something bothered them.
            1. LeonidL 24 May 2020 19: 53 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Conducted, alas. for example, in the Crimea a landing was landed in the rear of the Crimean Front in the 42nd ... even the flamethrower tanks that were at the disposal of the defending did not help ... But the fleet did not come to the rescue.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 12: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Borik
    Yes, and the Marat lk somehow does not want to write down irretrievable losses.

    the workers of the Kronstadt repair plant and the surviving sailors partially restored the fighting efficiency of the ship. i.e., had no move, could only shoot. the effectiveness of such firing is mentioned above. Three gun turrets and anti-aircraft guns continued to be used until the end of the siege of Leningrad. Note, without the bow, torn off by the explosion of an air bomb.
    On May 31, 1943, his former name "Petropavlovsk" was returned to the battleship.
    November 28, 1950 "Petropavlovsk" was reclassified to a non-self-propelled artillery training ship
    1. Newone 24 May 2020 14: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The effectiveness of art shooting was such that the counter-battery fight near Leningrad of the RKKF was won by the Germans.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 12: 57 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Serg65
    Mr. Skomorokhov, I beg you, explain to me, the old collective farmer, the essence of your theses?

    the essence is very simple - the fleet had no meaning in that war. One battleship stood like a tank corps, but brought no military benefits, practically none. is it hard to understand the old collective farmer?
    1. prodi 23 May 2020 09: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Fair. The question can be posed as follows: how much more powerful the German fleet really threatened (and harmed) the USSR in the most epic war
    2. Newone 24 May 2020 14: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The fleet fulfilled the tasks assigned to it: preventing the enemy’s landing and providing their own landing forces, supporting their troops with artillery fire (won counter-battery battle near Leningrad).
    3. Serg65 25 May 2020 09: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      the fleet had no sense in that war

      Those. The meaning of that war and what kind of war it would be understood were still in the 36th year?
      Quote: aglet
      one battleship stood like a tank corps, but did not bring any military benefits, practically none.

      Well, the tsar was still building these battleships and he didn’t even know about tank corps! In the 41st in the Red Army there were 30 mechanized corps, do not tell me where they went after two months of the war? But 2 battleships helped with their art to gain a foothold, draping right from Prussia to the 8th Army on the Oranienbaum bridgehead!
      1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 10: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        30 fur cases only on paper, and Paper will endure everything. And even the first stage of the MK was not properly staffed. And the first MK as well as the western districts as a whole still played a role. Hitler reached Moscow in tanks longer than his ideological predecessor was walking ...
        1. Serg65 25 May 2020 11: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          And the first MK as well as the western districts as a whole still played a role.

          I do not deny it! Just as Odessa stayed for two months, this is a great merit of the fleet! Like Sevastopol, for the evil of October, lasted almost a year, and this is the merit of the fleet! But it turns out that the very existence of the fleet allowed the Germans to reach Moscow! Is this not absurd? Or is it so fashionable now to rewrite History?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 12: 58 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    . [/ quote] Well, you, we had a successful naval commander, Black Sea Fleet Kolchak. repeat[/ Quote]
    performed by Khabensky
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 02 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    German melted completely extinguished

    where did he find him?
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 22: 23 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      And you do not know that in the First World War the Germans on the Black Sea had submarines?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: illi
    But what about the fact that until 43 the Germans had overwhelming superiority in the air? As if the Second World War proved that a fleet without aircraft is nothing. Especially in puddles like the Black and especially the Baltic Sea

    this overwhelming superiority was organized in the right directions, the Black Sea did not enter there. and who should organize competent air defense in the fleet? Pushkin, or October or tribut?
    1. Sergey S. 22 May 2020 19: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      and who should organize competent air defense in the fleet? Pushkin, or October or tribut?

      The characters you named could do something.
      But the industry struggled to cope with current orders ....
      In general, the question is in the competence of non-combat officers, GUK.
      By the way, there too. like some of our comrades were preparing for a general battle. The plans were, I.V. They made a suggestion to Stalin ...
      So much armor steel is dead ....
      And the need to urgently strengthen air defense systems only with the outbreak of war was realized ...

      We are lucky that Himler did not allow the subordination of aviation units to the German naval command ....
      An alternative story can be composed endlessly, but I see no point in this.
      As they could, they fought.
      What they did, they did.
      They laid down their lives, their eternal memory.
      They reached Berlin, and according to the Spree too, eternal glory to them!
    2. Serg65 25 May 2020 09: 33 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: aglet
      and who should organize competent air defense in the fleet? Pushkin, or October or tribut?

      Do not believe it, Stalin!
  • ser56 22 May 2020 13: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    so, for the author - the Japanese sank 8 Soviet ships and detained 178 ...
    http://www.observer.materik.ru/observer/N6_2010/050_057.pdf
    1. ser56 22 May 2020 13: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      sorry - this is for another article repeat
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 22 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Quote: Serg65
    The reason for Kuznetsov’s legend is that in two years he gave the fleet at least some kind of divine appearance

    Do you mean the uniform of the sailors? and the fact that cruisers and battleships were drowned by aviation alone, and not at all in the heavy forces, and in the campaign and at the bases, whose merit is that of the green men? or the shameful transition of the Baltic Fleet from Tallinn to Kronstadt, 320 km, 15000 people who died, "5 destroyers, 2 submarines, 3 patrol ships, 2 minesweepers, 1 gunboat, 2 patrol boats, 1 torpedo boat, 2 border boats and Hiiusaar trap. 18 transports and 25 auxiliary vessels were sunk "this is all from mines, and from aviation. "The losses of the Germans amounted to 3 aircraft. Not a single Finnish boat was sunk. The enemy had no other naval forces at sea." the Baltic Fleet, which has stood in Kronstadt all the time, locked up by minami, is this also its legend?
    1. Serg65 25 May 2020 10: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      Do you mean the uniform of the sailors?

      I mean yours this ...
      let's respect our past without constitutions. Just because it is our past with you. There was a lot of everything in it, but we are simply obliged to respect. And people and events. And do it as honestly and openly as possible

      the sailors' uniform was invented even under Tsar Gorokh and still hasn’t changed much ..
      Quote: aglet
      the fact that cruisers and battleships were drowned by aircraft alone, and not at all heavy, and in the campaign and at the bases, whose merit is this?

      This is a merit of the Worker of the Peasant Red Army and those 30 mechanized corps that perished in the first months of the war and gave 3/4 of the European territory of the USSR to the enemy!
      And besides the enemy aircraft, were there also enemy ships? And where did you get the sunken cruisers and battleships ??? Laurels of a boy Kolya do not give rest?
      Quote: aglet
      shameful transition of the Baltic fleet from tallinn to kronstadt

      Roman, why is he shameful? Well, besides the losses you listed. What exactly is it shameful for?
      Quote: aglet
      the Baltic Fleet, which has stood in Kronstadt all the time, locked up by minami, is this also its legend?

      The Baltic Fleet also fought for Leningrad, like the entire Leningrad Front! And do not you pour it with mud !!! What do you specifically want to achieve, Roman? What Russian fleet is not needed? For God's sake, collect hundreds of thousands of signatures and force Putin to destroy the fleet, business then!
      1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 11: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What exactly is it shameful for?

        The inadequacy of the organization of the transition and the flight of Tributs and K. For what it was necessary in the same place in Kronstadt of this non-comrade and to shoot at the end of the pier ...
        1. Serg65 25 May 2020 12: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Inadequate transition arrangements

          The organization essentially ended with the beginning of the movement of ships. If the military marched in a wake formation, the civilians immediately rushed into the crowd, and therefore the worn fairway was narrow for them. Then, before the fear of death, the lowest human feelings worked! The same departure of minesweepers on the second day of the campaign.
          1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 12: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            This is also the direct fault of Komflot.
            But this is not the main thing - the Komflot and its headquarters even bothered to read the combat charter of the MC - 1937 regarding the “Breakthrough of the blockade”
            “You do not know how to do it right, do it according to the charter” (p.) - the rest is babbling.
            "Katukov’s brigade is fighting according to the charter" - an assessment by the General Staff of the participation in the battles of the tank brigade of Katukov.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 27 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And by the summer of 1942 there was no Black Sea Fleet. The Black Sea Flotilla remained of the fleet - without a rear or repair

    but where did the whole fleet go? heroically fell in battle with the battleships of the Germans? and the commander, meanwhile, was the whole October Admiral. and the rear of the fleet, too, were sweat, Sukhumi, Batumi. could continue to squander further, but the Black Sea is very small
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 19: 27 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: aglet
      but where did the whole fleet go? heroically fell in battle with the battleships of the Germans?

      If a cow is milked more and less fed, then it will die. smile
      If you deprive the fleet of ship repair and stuff it instead of a full-fledged base at the ports of the Caucasian coast, while continuing to demand combat work from it as a full-fledged fleet, then the ships will simply become a joke due to a technical malfunction or the need to repair combat damage.
      Quote: aglet
      and the rear of the fleet, too, were sweat, Sukhumi, Batumi.

      Chic rear. And how was it with shipyards, dry docks, mechanical workshops?
      Here’s the damaged “KirKav” in Tuapse - the “base” couldn’t even put plasters on the holes. what repair is there.
      In Tuapse, emergency personnel and technical equipment of the Tuapse Naval Base rescue team were connected to emergency operations. Within two weeks in this port, we carried out all possible, in the conditions of the ship being afloat, to check the condition of damaged compartments and the hull, to search for places of water supply, their sealing and sequential, compartment by compartment, pumping water. Divers found five holes: on the starboard side with dimensions of 0,8 x 0,7 m (128 shp), 1,5 x 1,0 (small rudder balloon exit in the region of 122-125 shp), 4,0 x 3,5 m (122-125 sp); on the left - 1,5 x 0,1 m (121-123 bp), 1,0 x 0,75 m (125-127 bp).
      Four patches were placed on the holes to block them all, and on top of the wooden frames were pressed against the skin with the curved surfaces of the bars. Due to the incorrect determination of the divers working in extremely muddy water, the location and number of breaks in the casing, the installation of these adhesives was not accurate enough, and they did not solve the tasks assigned to them. Water from the hull was continuously pumped out by ship sumps, as well as two motor pumps with a total water supply of 400 t / h, tug pumps SP-16 and rescue pumps Shakhtar with a total water supply of 2000 t / h.

      And here is the repair of "KirKava" in Poti in 1942.

      No, the ship with the dock does not sink - they repair the aft end.

      Half-submerged dock, nasal tip in the water - well, ideal repair conditions. And yes - this is one of the two floating docks left by the Black Sea Fleet. To properly repair the CR, you need to dock these docks. In this case, to carry out a full docking of a ship larger than 10 kt, the rear is generally not capable.
  • ser56 22 May 2020 13: 36 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    To analyze in detail the author’s nonsense, laziness, it seems he started a company to discredit the RKKF ... request
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 36 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Nikolai Korovin
    2. Hero of the Soviet Union cautorang Lunin torpedoed the German battleship Tirpitz in full view of the entire German squadron,

    "there is no record of hits in the preserved logbooks of Tirpitsa and other squadron ships (the fact of the attack is not reflected at all in them, the Germans did not find it, why didn’t they chase the submarine. after the attack, the squadron continued to move at high speed for several hours after returning the ship’s repair was not carried out, there are no references to the attack in the ship’s crew’s recollections. The Tirpitz documents about Operation Horse Riding do not contain any mention of Lunin’s attack. "
    1. Sergey S. 22 May 2020 20: 00 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: aglet
      The Tirpitz documents on Operation Horse Riding do not contain any mention of Lunin’s attack. "

      Your German truth refutes itself.
      Lunin shot from a fairly close range. And the noise of torpedoes, if it didn’t get anywhere, the Germans should have heard and made a corresponding entry in the magazines.
      But the Germans did not record. So, it was extremely unprofitable for them.
      This is what gives reason to believe that the Hero of the Soviet Union Nikolai Alexandrovich Lunin still got ...
      1. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 12: 17 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Sergey S.
        This is what gives reason to believe that the Hero of the Soviet Union Nikolai Alexandrovich Lunin still got ...

        And information about this was completely cleaned from all ship and shore documents, and at least in three departments - the armed forces, security and the party. And from the documents of the British intelligence services, closely monitoring the situation in Norway and the lines of communication of the German Navy command there, they also cleaned it.
        Yes, this information was also cleared from the memory of all crew members. smile
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 44 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Really this fleet left Nikolaev and moved the front line

    and the fleet, too, if you value his role so much, then appreciate his military merits
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Engineer
    And the BSF is not guilty of non-evacuation of Sevastopol. Generally

    read how the Germans from the Crimea evacuated
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 51 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    In 1941, the importance of the SF landing

    the importance of the SF landings was greatly exaggerated - the fleet provided only landing, and infantry and border guards fought there
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 19: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      the importance of the SF landings was greatly exaggerated - the fleet provided only landing, and infantry and border guards fought there

      That is, without a fleet of landings there simply would not have been. Unless the infantry and border guards would learn to walk the sea like a dry land. smile
      Plus for the fleet, artillery support for the landing and the coastal flank of the army.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 53 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And in the afternoon flew 8 air corps, which drowned everything. Even Tashkent got backlash - already in Novorossiysk.

    and the sailors in the air defense had only three lines, and Lewis
    1. 16329 23 May 2020 16: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In any case, there were no decent anti-aircraft guns on Soviet ships, by the way, as in the ground forces, especially at the beginning of the war.
      The consequence of the passion for universal tools in the 30s
      By the way, many 45 mm universal naval guns are still preserved in museums.
      They were the basis of the armament of the mobilized civilian fleet and boats such as MO
      By the way, German submarines since 1943 armed with anti-aircraft guns manufactured under license from the Swiss company Oerlikon
  • aglet 22 May 2020 13: 55 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Really this fleet left Nikolaev and moved the front line so that even in Novorossiysk and Tuapse it was possible at any moment to get hit by backlash?

    and what, the fleet can’t protect its base? There were not only Berdanki there, at the local watchmen
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 19: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      and what, the fleet can’t protect its base?

      Nikolaev was not the base of the fleet. This is CVD, and not even on the coast.
      And in Novorossiysk air defense was presented almost exclusively by NWA:
      As of January 1, 1942, the air defense assets of the Novorossiysk Naval Base included: 29 85 mm, 12 76,2 mm (model 1931/38), 14 76,2 mm (model 1915/28 years) guns, four 37-mm anti-aircraft guns, four M-4 anti-aircraft machine guns, 29 searchlights, a separate communications company and the RUS-2 radar station. In April 1942, the air defense of the base was strengthened by the 2nd division of the 454th anti-aircraft artillery regiment (12 76,2 mm guns of the 1931/38 model).
    2. Sergey S. 22 May 2020 20: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: aglet
      and what, the fleet can’t protect its base? There were not only Berdanki there, at the local watchmen

      Is that jokes like that, or is it mockery?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 01 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Engineer
    German boats need German engines. There is either a refusal from redanny boats in general or copy the British MTB

    and what stood on them? steam engine factory red lapotnik, or am-34 aircraft engines?
    1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 17: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It is not necessary to understand that the edited boat is adequately behaving only in calm. This could also be realized by building and testing the Firstborn, and then the Sh-4 series. Not to mention the vile hulls of the float type .... And the fact that the boats had to be constantly lifted ashore ...
      A series of torpedo boats with a wooden hull built by British Power Boats consisted of 18 units (MTV-1 - MTV-12, MTV-14 - MTV-19), commissioned in 1936 -1939 In 1940, MTV-1 - MTV-5 were converted into minesweepers. During the war 10 boats were killed. TTX boats: standard displacement - 18 tons, a total of 20 tons; length - 18,4 m.: width - 4,2 m.; draft - 0,9 m; power plant - 3 gasoline engines, power - 1,7 thousand hp; maximum speed - 35 knots .; fuel reserve - 4,4 thousand liters. gasoline; cruising range - 500 miles; crew - 10 people. Armament: 2x1 - 450 mm torpedo tubes; 2x4 or 2x2 - 7,7 mm machine gun; 6 deep bombs.


      We could not build this? With our completely adequate wooden shipbuilding experience, which by then had been restarted and built boats KM and SKA for the NKVD? For example, at the former Zolotov factory.
      1. bk0010 22 May 2020 21: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        We could not build this?
        At one time, England was very frightened by the RKKF (Kronstadt Wake-up), the only means that we could quickly oppose to the English Armada were super-fast torpedo boats, which, by the way, we were hit hard, which impressed us. Therefore, they built precisely what they built, and not what was then needed. Who knew that we would not fight against England, but against Germany.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 05 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa

    No, this is not true; it was quite possible to provide reconnaissance at sea and withdraw some forces before June 22

    Well, yes, it could. why didn’t you?
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 22: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      At the beginning of Skomorokhov’s article there is a link, it says why they didn’t.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 11 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Alex013
    Germans were also active throughout the Black Sea

    BDB, this is a high-speed landing barge, with the appropriate weapons, and very few pieces. for the fleet, nothing. nothing for aviation. these are perhaps the only German warships on the Black Sea. and they did not swim all over the sea, but within Odessa, Sevastopol, maybe kerch, I’m not sure
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 19: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      BDB, this is a high-speed landing barge, with the appropriate weapons, and very few pieces. for the fleet, nothing. nothing for aviation.

      Just for our aviation, the BDB was the most unpleasant goal - anti-aircraft weapons like the "half-cruiser" with small dimensions and high maneuverability. Torpers fall away immediately - too little draft of the target and too much MZA. It’s also difficult for attack aircraft - the radius is small, plus 20 mm and especially 37 mm armor does not hold.
      Admittedly, German BDBs are maneuverable, low-sided, having 20 mm armor around the engine and steering compartments, as well as powerful anti-aircraft fire weapons (two universal guns of 75 mm or 88 mm caliber and two or four anti-aircraft 20 mm or 37 mm machine guns ), were a serious opponent for the crew of IL-2. When attacking the BDB, attack pilots required great skill and iron endurance. The strong air defense of the BDB groups demanded skillful anti-aircraft maneuver from the attack pilots, and the strong resistance of the Luftwaffe fighters required a secretive approach to the target and reliable cover for the attack aircraft by their fighters.
      (...)
      An analysis of combat experience shows that under typical attack conditions, the probability of a single-engine IL-2 airborne assault defeat when the standard attack aircraft ammunition (4 ROFS-132, 6 FAB-50), taking into account the return fire of the air defense barge’s means, is not more than 0,2. At the same time, it was taken into account that the fire from the guns does not ensure the defeat of the BDB, but affects the efficiency of the anti-aircraft crew of the barge and defeats the personnel and cargo on the deck.
      That is, for guaranteed drowning of one BDB in typical combat conditions, it is necessary to allocate an outfit of forces at least 8-10 Il-2. However, in this case, at least one Il-2 went astray, and 2-4 were damaged by anti-aircraft artillery fire.
      © Perov / Rastrenin
      Quote: aglet
      and they did not swim all over the sea, but within Odessa, Sevastopol, maybe kerch, I’m not sure

      BDB walked along the entire coast occupied by the Germans.
      On May 30, the 6th IL-2 of the 47th cap (the leader is the commander Mr. V.K. Kunyakh), accompanied by 8 Yak-1, attacked Anapa at a distance of 2–3 km from the shore, 3 BDBs with ammunition and troops covered by 8 Bf 109 and 12 Fw 190.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    Of course to blame! It is the fleet that is to blame for the fact that the aviation of the Crimean Front remained on Taman

    the composition of the air force of the Black Sea Fleet and the location based on June 22, 1941:

    Air Force Department of the Black Sea Fleet - Sevastopol
    62nd IAB (Yevpatoriya): 8th IAP (Yevpatoriya), 9th IAP (Ochakov), 32nd IAP (Yevpatoriya), 7th IAP (since July) 18th OAO (Yevpatoriya)
    63rd BAB (Sarabuz): 2nd MTAP (Karagoz), 40th BAP (Sarabuz), 78th OSBAE (Odessa)
    119th MCI - aero. Musk deer (Ochakov)
    16th OMRAE (Poti), 45th OMRAE (Kerch), 65th OMRAE (UAE VU) (Sevastopol)
    80th OMRAE (Sevastopol), 82nd OMRAE (Odessa), 83rd OMRA (Gelendzhik), 98th OMRAO (Sevastopol)
    3rd SURAP (Dzhankoy) - disbanded in August
    70th OKORAE (Odessa), 87th OIAE (Nikolaev), 93rd OIAE (Kerch), 96th OIAE (Izmail)
    OKA (Sevastopol), OSANAZ - since August
    Special (Black Sea) transport detachment of the Civil Air Fleet (Sochi)
    this, if you do not understand, aviation Black Sea Fleet. what are the goats to blame for? You can search how many planes were there and what they fought
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 19: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      what are the goats to blame for? You can search how many planes were there and what they fought

      And what does 1941 have to do with it? We are talking about the summer of 1942, when Kozlov surrendered the Kerch Peninsula, depriving the route of air cover to Sevastopol.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 19 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    You say that you would think that the Russian imperial fleet was more effective, it acted in the mass initiative and was eager for battle no matter what !!!?

    Well, as it were, it seems so
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    “The point is small - somewhere to find airdromes near Sevastopol for an entire air group of fighters that will cover the evacuation.”
    why exactly under Sevastopol? from Sevastopol to Taman - 300 km. it's all about desire and skill
    1. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 12: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      why exactly under Sevastopol? from Sevastopol to Taman - 300 km. it's all about desire and skill

      - Well, you're a communist!
      And he machineed up the machine gun again ...

      Long-range fighters will not make any desire or skill out of Jacob and Ishakov. The same I-16 has a combat radius of 150-160 km.
      And Pe-2s will not help here - the Germans worked on our ships under the guise of the 109s.
      In short, Verp in all its glory. Only without the Lend-Lease R-40.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 26 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And the landings. You can not understand the meaning of the landings.

    sf did not participate in the landings, he only delivered them
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 22: 28 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The most stupid thing I read on the marine theme. The fleet did not participate in the landings; he only delivered them. Incredible.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 30 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Serg65
    Would a flotilla overpower a landing party in Feodosia?

    2 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 52 patrol and torpedo boats are a whole fleet. just pulls on the flotilla
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 33 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Serg65
    But where did Comrade Stalin look?

    and where does Comrade Stalin? in those days he did not solve these issues
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 34 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    If Sevastopol was on the shore of the Kerch Strait - and it would have been evacuated.

    as the sun-faced one said, if my grandmother
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Serg65
    Are there any facts? Or maybe everything is different?

    Trotsky’s guards and bodyguards were from sailors. Remember the song, with a naval detachment, comrade Trotsky .. well, etc.
    1. 16329 23 May 2020 17: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But what about the Latvians?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 49 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    And after that, do not talk about the army ...

    and the army, moreover, this fleet passed, it’s not the Vanka-platoon commander
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 51 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And the transition was made after the army left the only place from which the fighters could cover KOH.

    The KBF had its own aviation - 300 km, not a distance for the aircraft
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 19: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      The KBF had its own aviation - 300 km, not a distance for the aircraft

      The main fighter of the KBF is I-16. The combat radius is 150-160 km.
      "Ishak" even with the PTB (rare at that time) barely reached the Hanko one way.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 14: 58 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    At the time of its holding, the KBF obeyed the army

    did you come up with it now, or did you know all your life? read it- https://maxpark.com/community/4375/content/1910994
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 20: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      did you come up with it now, or did you know all your life?

      On June 27.06, the KBF was subordinated in operational terms to the Military Council of the Northern Fleet.

      14.07 Baltic Fleet operational subordination to the Military Council of the Northern Front became directly subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief of the Northwest Command (SPZ). Admiral I.S. Isakov, the head of the Navy’s Main Naval Artillery School, was appointed deputy commander-in-chief of the Special Forces Forces in the naval part, and a naval group subordinate to him was created at the headquarters of the Special Forces.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 15: 04 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    If the army surrendered all shipbuilding and all major ship-repairing capacities in the Black Sea, if the army managed to lose all airfields

    if Chosevastopol is the base of the fleet, in which all of the above existed. and in general, to protect the fleet with the army is that, kindergarten, pants on the straps?
    1. Alexey RA 22 May 2020 20: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: aglet
      if Chosevastopol is the base of the fleet, in which all of the above existed. and in general, to protect the fleet with the army is that, kindergarten, pants on the straps?

      Can you remind me how much land forces the Black Sea Fleet had? And in general - how did it happen that the enemy forces ended up in the southern part of Crimea? wink
      And yes - the army was responsible for the defense of the Crimea, to which the fleet was quickly subordinated. Not the army - the fleet, but the fleet - the army.
      Crimea was defended by the 51st Separate Army (commander Colonel General F.I. Kuznetsov, then - Lieutenant General P.I. Batov). In operational terms, the Headquarters subordinated to it the Black Sea Fleet and the Azov Flotilla that was part of it (commander of the flotilla captain 1st rank A.P. Alexandrov, then Rear Admiral S.G. Gorshkov)
      © Red Banner Black Sea Fleet. - M .: Military Publishing House, 1987.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 15: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    In 1941 alone, the Baltic Fleet lost 23 destroyers and 27 submarines!

    and how many German ships were sunk in the year 41?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 15: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: bk0010
    Field artillery versus ship artillery? Let them try

    during the Tallinn crossing, ships fired from the coast with machine guns
  • sevtrash 22 May 2020 15: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The level of the armed forces is determined by the economic development of the state. This also applies to the material and technical base and military personnel. The level of the economy determines the level of funds for education, medicine, culture - all that on the basis of which a person is formed capable of highly qualified activities. The economy is everything, it is primary. See who is in the lead of scientific and technological progress and their level of GDP, PPP.
    And then - the commanders. And to command what and by whom?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 15: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: vladimir1155
    The reason is the emphasis on surface ships of large displacement, and neglect of coastal aviation and submarines.

    at that time, everyone had it
  • 5-9
    5-9 22 May 2020 15: 23 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The actions of the Soviet fleet are exactly in the tradition of the imperial, the main characteristics are lack of initiative and timidity (to lose a ship isn’t a regiment of dying infantry) .... Turks, Swedes even - were tormented more than once .. because they were even worse. The fleet is a very expensive thing that must be dealt with systematically. The cost / result criterion in both world wars is near-zero ....
  • aglet 22 May 2020 15: 38 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Sergey S.
    It’s dishonest to say that about the fleet. I consider it pointless to refute this.

    maybe there is nothing to refute? or fleet fought?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 15: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Severok
    essentially slandered the Navy of the USSR.

    Do you have something to refute? not only propaganda, but at least at the parity of sunk ships and ships?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 15: 44 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Graz
    you don’t know history and therefore do not disgrace yourself
    I will only remind you of the brig Mercury, Ushakov, Count Orlov, Nakhimov who acted with less force than the enemy and won, the Black Sea battleships that forced Geben to retreat. about the wars with the Swedes on the water

    as well as the campaign of Svyatoslav against the Khazars. come back, we are talking about the Soviet navy and its role in the war
  • aglet 22 May 2020 15: 48 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Unknown
    I don’t even want to talk about the Black Sea Fleet, and the Admiral of October, after he got on the plane and flew away, leaving thousands of sailors and soldiers to their fate in SEVASTOPOL.

    did he fly away? it’s unlikely that he had the whole fleet, sailed away, I suppose
    1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 16: 03 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Actually, he flew away on the eve of the fall of Sevastopol, along with his faithful accomplice Kulakov ....
      Person was incidentally just as unsinkable.
      1. aglet 22 May 2020 16: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I will know, thanks
  • NF68 22 May 2020 16: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The Germans locked the Baltic Fleet of the USSR in the beginning of the war with the USSR in the Gulf of Finland-greetings to Russian minefields of the First World War. The Germans didn’t like that very much and the Germans didn’t want to step on the same rake a second time after 27 years. Otherwise, supplies of iron ore from Sweden to Germany would be in jeopardy. The Black Sea Fleet of the USSR was constantly threatened by a massive German strike because of the weak air defense of ships and naval fighter aircraft. The geographical position of the USSR also played a small role. On the other hand, if the USSR spent more on the Navy in the prewar years, this would negatively affect the ground forces and the Red Army aviation, and the main events during the Second World War still took place on land and over land.
  • Kostadinov 22 May 2020 17: 18 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: aglet
    Quote: Serg65
    In 1941 alone, the Baltic Fleet lost 23 destroyers and 27 submarines!

    and how many German ships were sunk in the year 41?

    In 41 Germans in the Baltic, 3 very large minzags were lost, and their Finney allies lost one of the two battleships Ilmarinen.
    The Soviet fleet did not lose such ships in 1945.
  • Kostadinov 22 May 2020 17: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Dr. Frankenstucker
    Quote: Kostadinov
    The Soviet fleet fought very actively and has strategic successes.


    strategic ??? Is this a joke?

    Blitzkrieg in 1941 was first stopped at Leningrad, and in the long run a considerable merit of the art of the Baltic Fleet.
    Without artillery and sailors of the fleet, and then without supplies through Ladoga, Leningrad cannot be beaten. Doesn’t it seem like strategic success? Which of the other fleets of the anti-Hitler coalition shot so much and inflicted such losses on the German ground forces. When you are in summer 1941–1942, it’s a good joke when you are bombarded with 130-305 mm artillery.
  • Sergey Zhikharev 22 May 2020 17: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The Soviet fleet did not show itself during the Second World War. Further (in the comments) are thoughts that the Russian fleet has not shown itself. And the current fleet of the Russian Federation is not particularly good. Therefore, the country (from Stalin to Putin) needs to pay more attention to tanks, artillery, aircraft, missiles. Well, the Soviet fleet did not show itself, and the current one does not show ....
    But did the German fleet perform well? What is the hero