Military Review

Facts and figures: what is more valuable?

81
Sea historical excrement is dedicated ...

Random link when searching brought me to a very interesting forum. A forum discussing the topics of Ekho Moskvy radio broadcasts. Well, we know whose echo it is, and to hell with it. And on this forum I got acquainted with the next rezunovets. Cattle, I must say, prepared, reasoning their conclusions, and so on. But something about something washed washed.

Mr. Rezun on the forum is called assault-50. At the end of the material, as expected, I will provide a link to his material, who wants to - get acquainted. The material is old, but has something to do with my articles, and besides, it is very high-quality fabricated. And, using this “material” as an example, I want to show HOW history is being remade. That is, how the facts are distorted so that everything looks believable.

I quote this:
“What are the losses of our fleet? During the Great Patriotic War (from June 22, 1941 to May 09, 1945), the Soviet Navy irretrievably lost the following ships of the main classes (in the fleets).

Northern Fleet:
destroyers: "Swift", "Smash", "Active";
submarines: K-1, K-2, K-3, K-22, K-23, D-3, U-401, U-402, U-403, U-421, U-422, C-54 , C-55, M-106, M-108, M-121, M-122, M-172, M-173, M-174, M-175, M-176, L-16 (11 October 1942 of the year the Northern Fleet was torpedoed in the Pacific either by the Japanese submarine I-25, or by the American submarine S-31), B-1 (former British S-21; 27 July 1944 of the year left the English naval base Scapa Flow, heading to the Soviet port of Polar, but the next day was mistakenly sunk by an English patrol plane);
special guard patrol ships: "Brilliant", "Pearl".



Baltic Fleet:
battleship "Marat" (September 23, 1941 attacked on the inner raid of Kronstadt German aviation, lost the bow on the 52nd frame along with the gun turret and all bow superstructures, the power plant was completely out of order, sank in shallow water on the upper deck, raised on September 17, 1942, the “stump” without bow was put into operation in mid-1943 years as a non-self-propelled floating artillery battery "Petropavlovsk". The loss was never officially recognized and continued to be considered a full-fledged battleship in Soviet public documents);
destroyers: "Yakov Sverdlov", "Volodarsky", "Artyom", "Engels", "Lenin", "Karl Marx", "Kalinin", "Angry", "Proud", "Sharp-witted", "Brave", " Severe "," stately "," fast "," angry ";
submarines: П-1, П-2 (damaged by German aviation, decommissioned), П-3 (damaged by German aviation, decommissioned), L-1, L-2, W-301, W-302, W-304, S -305, U-306, U-308, U-311, U-317, U-319, U-320, U-322, U-323, U-324, U-405, U-406, U-408 , W-411, C-1, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, M -71, M-72, M-74, M-78, M-80, M-81, M-83, M-94, M-95, M-96, M-97, M-98, M-99 , M-103, Ronis (formerly Latvian), Spidola (formerly Latvian), Kalev (formerly Estonian);
special patrol ships: “The Tempest”, “Cyclone”, “Purga”, “Snow”, “Coral” (formerly Lithuanian), “Virsaitis” (formerly Latvian).

Black Sea Fleet:
light cruisers: Chervona Ukraina, Komintern (outdated, commissioned in 1908, actually an artillery training ship);
the leaders of the destroyers: "Moscow", "Kharkov", "Tashkent" (formerly Italian);
destroyers: "Frunze", "Dzerzhinsky", "Shaumyan", "Fast", "Merciless", "Impeccable", "Vigilant", "Intelligent", "Able", "Perfect", "Free";
submarines: A-1, A-3, D-4, D-6, L-6, L-23, L-24, L-25, W-203, W-204, W-206, W-208 , U-210, U-211, U-212, U-213, U-214, U-216, C-32, C-34, M-31, M-33, M-34, M-36, M -51, M-58, M-59, M-60, M-118, TS-2 (formerly Romanian S-2).

In addition to the above mentioned once and for all dead, there were still sunk (usually in shallow water), but then raised and had time to re-enter service until the end of the war. These include the following ships of the main classes:
in the Northern Fleet - patrol ship of a special construction "Smerch";
in the Baltic Fleet - the heavy cruiser Tallinn (in fact, the unfinished Lutz obtained from 1940 from Germany, rarely used during the war as a self-propelled floating artillery battery), the destroyer Minsk destroyer, the destroyer destroyer Stereguschy built "Whirlwind".

During the war, almost all other (not sunk) Soviet surface ships of the main classes suffered damage of varying degrees of severity, including very serious ones. For example, in the Baltic near the light cruiser "Maxim Gorky" the bow was torn off, and on the Black Sea near the light cruiser "Molotov" - feed.

It is safe to say that all the Soviet main combat surface ships and submarines that were available would have been guaranteed to be destroyed during the four years of the war if they were used with proper intensity (say, like the British), and were not defended in the ports - away from the zone active fighting. This is especially characteristic of the Baltic Fleet, which was distinguished during the war by its rare mediocrity. The Black Sea Fleet acted a little better, but even the Northern Fleet, which stood out against their background in the advantageous direction, did not avoid an epidemic in the final year and a half of evading their direct duties (if you recall how, in the last months of the war, German submarines swept off its surface ships with extraordinary ease high seas on coastal bases). True, the sad results did not in the least prevent distributing ranks and awards and receiving Heroes of the Soviet Union on every trifling occasion. And compose "heroic" stories.

Declared in various Soviet official and semi-official publications as allegedly destroyed by the influence of the Soviet weapons German training artillery ship "Schleswig-Holstein" (the old battleship, in the Soviet publications designated by the OCs as "bat"); marked in the secret "Handbook ..." by 26 of the year) have no relation to the Soviet military efforts at sea, and the German training artillery ship "Schlesien" (the old battleship, in Soviet publications is designated as "battleship") and the German unfinished heavy cruiser "Zeidlits "(in the" Directory ... "from X NUMX of the year is listed as destroyed by the "cruiser", in other Soviet books - now destroyed, then damaged) are only indirectly. The real fate of each of these ships is well known.

Schleswig-Holstein in December 1944 was heavily damaged by British aviation, which made several raids on Gotenhafen, where the ship was at that time. He sat on the ground, then was raised and towed to Danzig. Here 21 March 1945 of the year and was flooded by his crew, pre-exploded the most important elements of the equipment of the ship.

"Schlesien" first hit a mine of unidentified accessories, and then underwent several raids of Soviet aircraft and received new damage. The 04 of May 1945, shortly before the capture of Swinemünde by Soviet troops, was blown up by the crew and flooded on the upper deck on the roadstead of this port.

"Seidlits" (part of the Kriegsmarine never entered) for the 1942 year was ready at 90 percent, and in 1942, they began to rebuild it into an aircraft carrier. In 1943, the hull (without superstructures) was towed to the wall of the Shikhau shipyard in Pillau (now the Russian Baltiysk). At the beginning of 1944, turned into a blockhash. (Blockhead - the hull of the vessel used in the port or on the roadstead as a floating warehouse or dwelling.) 09 on April 1945 of the year was damaged (moderately) during a Soviet air raid on the port and the next day was flooded by order of the shipyard administration.

In addition to surface ships, the Soviet can record at their own expense German submarines U9, U78, U144, U250, U362, U639 and the Italian ultra-small ("dwarf") submarine CB-5 that were reliably destroyed during the Great Patriotic War. Controversially supposedly Soviet armed forces sunk German U286 submarines (unlikely), U344 (possible), U387 (very possible), U585 (unlikely), U679 (very possible). For unknown reasons, the German U367, U479, U676, and U745 submarines were killed in the zone of the Soviet fleet. When Soviet ground forces approached their home ports, their crews flooded German U18 submarines (previously damaged by Soviet aircraft), U19, U20, U23, U24 (previously damaged by Soviet aircraft), U763 (previously damaged by British aircraft). The destruction of German submarines U7, U345, U382, U446, U580, U583, U702, U803, U854, U1000, U2331, U2342, is a Soviet propaganda propaganda claimed by the Soviet armed forces.

For acquaintance with the Soviet propaganda style of work, I will cite an excerpt from the book of a group of authors with titles ranging from candidate of military-marine sciences to candidate of historical sciences "Twice Red Banner Baltic Fleet", Military Publishing House, Moscow, 1990 year. Summing up the war in the Baltic, this book, on the 278 page, "voiced" the official Soviet version of the German losses to the Finns and the sea losses (I quote): "Among the dissimilar forces of the Baltic Fleet were the 2 battleship, the coastal defense battleship, the 3 cruiser, 16 destroyers, 18 patrol ships, 16 submarines, 59 minesweepers, 41 airborne artillery ship. " (end of quoting). Pay attention - this is only on the Baltic. The names and numbers of the destroyed ships and submarines are not given in the book, with the exception of the Schleswig-Holstein and Schleszien and Orion, Niobe and Zeidlitz cruisers already mentioned above. It is incredible that the historical department of the USSR Navy Headquarters, under whose leadership such books were produced, did not know a single name and not a single crew number of at least one of the ships drowned by "valiant Baltic" ships, from squadron destroyers, before 1990? ! Then how do we know who and how much they drowned ?! ”

Here is such parsley. That is, the Soviet Navy sucks, and Kriegsmarine taxis. On paper, everything looks quite meaningful, if not for a couple of moments.

The moment the first. Notice how the author presents the statistics. In the confrontation of the two sides are considered the loss of the Soviet Navy and the confirmed VICTORY of the Soviet fleet. That is, we consider EVERYTHING, and for the Germans, only that 100% is ditched by our sailors. I do not know about you, but I find it more than strange. What do we compare? To count victories - count on both sides. To count losses is similar. And so, sorry, another nonsense comes out. Yes, and with a specific purpose.

Facts and figures: what is more valuable?
The girl looks at the destroyer of the Northern Fleet "Smashing" in the harbor


At the very first paragraph of our losses is the EM "Smashing". I had the honor to write about the tragedy of this ship, and I, as the author, wonder why in the context of the article the northern seas are enlisted as allies of the Germans?

Further. The German destroyers Z-35 and Z-36, which in December 1944 exploded in the Gulf of Finland and drowned.

Funny, right? Our destroyer who sank because of the storm is a loss. Yes, this is definitely the loss of our battle fleet by our fleet. And the two Germans who blew up on mines are not a loss of nichrome, so they are not considered. In, arithmetic, right?

An amusing approach: a Soviet ship that hit a mine is a ship SINGLELY hit by a German mine. Or Finnish. The German ship is in question. Well, can not a German destroyer fly into a Soviet mine in any way, right?
With regard to these two utopians, I will give this example.

I quote Sergey Patyanin and Miroslav Morozov "German destroyers of the Second World War:" On the eve of his (exit), Kote held a short meeting, at which he gave a number of instructions, which later played an extremely negative role. First, all subordinate ships were forbidden to use radio equipment, including the VHF range, and radar equipment.They could only exchange light signals, which was not quite suitable for the night time in the winter period. Secondly, the fleet headquarters Lee took full responsibility for the chart pad that under the disciplined German Navy led to the fact that it did not lead the rest of the navigators destroyers.

The flotilla went to sea in December 7.00 11. At first the weather was pretty good, but then it deteriorated noticeably - low clouds hung over the sea, it started to rain. Visibility at times dropped so much that neighboring ships could see each other only from the flames coming out of the chimneys. For one and a half hours with 16.25, destroyers could observe Faro’s lighthouse on the northern tip of Fr. Gotland, but none of the navigators (perhaps with the exception of the flagship) tried to establish the true place. ”
And it seems that because of this, the whole detachment climbed into its minefield and left two destroyers there.

And right there I have a lot of questions:
1. Was the commander of the group Kote an idiot? Because as soon as an idiot can give such an order - do not use radars. No comments at all.
2. Does the exchange of light signals not suitable at night?
3. Were the German navigators morons who scored on their duties and did not bother to determine the location of the ship, watching the lighthouse for an hour and a half?
4. Taking into account p.3, where did the Germans get that they are in their field? Yes, there it says in the text that the navigator took the coordinates on one destroyer. Mines are torn, ships are sinking, and he, a poor fellow, does his job with a steady hand. Khira Reich, what can I say ... A true Aryan with a Nordic character, since he was able to do this. Previously, it was simply impossible to do, but now, regardless of the difficulties ... In short, the Soviet Information Bureau smokes nervously on the sidelines.

Okay, I’m ready to believe that pedantic and trained German navigators paved the way around the pack of “Belomor”, sailed with the radar turned off, didn’t determine their place because they made the course for them at headquarters (delirium!) ... Sorry I do not believe. What so gallant representatives Kriegsmarine floated closing their eyes on their own minefield ... Brad. And even if it is not nonsense, if all this is true, you can be glad for the death of a crowd of sheep. But personally, I think that they were blown up not by their mines. And all this nonsense was invented by them and fed to us. This is easier than to admit that they ran into our mines. Another question is, will they eat everything?

The history of the destroyers T-22, T-30, T-32 is written as a carbon copy. All the same: turned off radar, lack of communication, etc. Well, the fact was added that the mines were installed from the landing barges, without special binding, so that the theoretical and actual finding of the minefield might not be the same ... It was not until 1944 that the Germans knew where their minefield was? Oops ... Okay, drove by. But T-32 did not drown after activating two minutes (turned out to be strong), our aircraft finished off in half a day. And also does not count.

More about a couple of their fellows.
T-31. Drowned TK Senior Lieutenant Taronenko and Lieutenant Bushuyev. The German admiral F. Ruge claims that "the Russians attacked bravely, and their tactics were good." Probably two torpedoes hit the T-31, and he quickly sank 20 June in 0 hours 03 minutes at the point with coordinates 60 ° 16′N, 28 ° 17′O. Crew loss accounted for 82 man. Part of the survivors was raised aboard Soviet boats (6 people), 86 rescued by Finnish boats (including the commander of the destroyer captain-lieutenant Peter Pirkham). The Finns have seen, the Germans have seen ... who do not need - he did not see.

T-34. On the morning of November 20 1944, the T-34 conducted firing at the Hessen target ship, an explosion thundered under his keel. The stern part was destroyed, but a number of structural elements on the starboard side survived. Soon the destroyer lay on the port side and sank. 67 seamen were killed along with the ship. The place of death is the area of ​​Cape Ancona at the coordinates of 54 ° 40'N, 13 ° 29'О. The cause of death is an explosion on a mine set by the submarine "L-3" (captain of the 3 rank, VN Konovalov). (No, mine was definitely English ... or Martian).

T-36. 4 May 1945 g. Goes out to sea with the floating base "Yagd" and a group of destroyers. The goal is to move from Swinemünde to Copenhagen. The destroyer returned to Swinemünde after a blast on a British aircraft mine. One turbine failed. The destroyer discovered 6 Soviet aircraft, it was the IL-2 from the 7 Guards assault regiment of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet. During the attack, "T-36" was fired cannon-machine-gun fire, and then bombs were dropped on it. Several bombs fell into the destroyer, large losses occurred among the crew, and the ship sank.
Here is such a strange statistic.

About "Schlesien" I just keep quiet. Drowned and good. And who he was in life - the battleship, battleship, training ship or minesweeper - personally, I don't care how they call him. The essence is exclusively in the negative of four 280-mm guns that beat on our troops. And the fact that a start was made by an “unidentified mine” - excuse me, but who prevented me from going and establishing her nationality? Oh, her absence? So what are the problems ??? Aviation affiliation installed? Great, who is the last - that and dad.

Next, about submarines. Everything is clear, if our submarine went missing or it was blown up by mines - this is 100% German mine. And if something happened to a German submarine, that’s anything but our mines and ships.

About our submarines I have already said enough. But for the Germans I will argue slightly.

U286. (in the opinion of that author, unlikely). Probably because our Karl Liebknecht shot and threw bombs at her. 22 April 1945 of the Northern Fleet squadron Karl Liebknecht, commanded by Lieutenant Commander KD Staritsyn, while in the guard of the convoy, with the help of a hydroacoustic station, he found a submarine and dropped all the depth stock on it bombs. Four minutes later, the boat emerged with a strongly raised stern in 45-50 m from the side of the destroyer. Her cabin was broken, the periscopes were bent, the antennas were cut off. She was fired at by guns and machine guns, and she immediately sank. It is believed that so died U-286. Sank or plunged after it was thrown to the surface by an explosion - what's the difference? The fact that she didn’t contact her anymore. I suspect the sailors from the destroyer also didn’t care about the number of the submarine, they did their job. But I feel sorry for them.

German submarine U-250 (type VII-C) in dry dock in Kronstadt. 30 was sunk on June 1944 of the year in the Bjorke-Zunda area by the depth charges of the MO-103 submarine hunter (commander senior lieutenant AP Kolenko). X-NUMX crew members "U-46" died. Six, including the commander managed to save. 250 September 14, the submarine was raised, towed to Koivisto, and then to Kronstadt where it was docked


U344 (possible), 22.8.1944 destroyer "Daring" about the seal bow bent?

U387 (very possible), a thorough comparison of domestic and foreign sources suggests that only the survivor "Zhivuchy" can claim victory, 8 December 1944, he rammed an unknown submarine, which can be identified as U-387. Yes, you can identify it, because there was no more news from her either. Not the Martians dragged ...

U585 (unlikely), March 30 1942, the Thunderstorm destroyer (commander of 2 rank 2, A.I. Turin) found the submarine and attacked it, dropping 9 large and 8 small depth charges. At the dive site of the submarine surfaced debris, paper, oil stains appeared. Presumably, it was a submarine U-585.

U679 (very possible). January 9 This submarine, located in the Baltic Sea northeast of Pakri Lighthouse, was attacked and, possibly, destroyed by the depth bombs of the MO-1945 submarine hunter. Officially confirmed by the enemy.
It turns out that the MO-124 account is already the second problem: according to a number of 26 sources, December 1944 of the year he sank the U-2342 submarine of the XXIII series. The Germans, she is listed as dead on a mine.

For unknown reasons, German U-boats were killed in the area of ​​the Soviet fleet.
U367. The most likely cause of death of the submarine - minefield, delivered by the Soviet submarine L-21.

U479. Officially, the Germans "went missing." According to our data - it was rammed by the Soviet submarine "Lembit". Although, our historians note that Lembit has no traces of such a ram. Yes, the incident with the damage of the nose of the submarine was, but agreed on the opinion that it was not a German submarine.

U676. Mines
U745. Mines
U-416. The reason for her death of 12 December 1944 of the year is also attributed to mines. Perhaps it was a mine, exhibited by the Soviet submarine L-3.

A little different arithmetic. In general, the approach that “the Germans were great, our wooon how many lost, the Germans were great, and ours are not, because they drowned so little”, to put it mildly, it is biased. And roughly speaking ...

If we take the losses of our submarines on the same Baltic, then 4 boats were lost from the actions of the German fleet and 5 from the actions of the Finns and Swedes. The rest - the same mines, aircraft, in two cases, land artillery. But we are talking about all 46 ... And then, again, about accuracy and honesty. Our submarines that were blown up in the roadstead of Tallinn are a loss, but the German ships that were finished by our aircraft and that were flooded by crews are not. Strange ...

It is indisputable (and in this I agree with the excreters) that in our fleet headquarters we had ... not very smart men. Which did not really understand how you can use combat surface ships, except in the role of floating artillery batteries. And the submarines shoved through the nets and mines, instead of taking and breaking the setting of these mines. As in 1918 on the same Baltic. Just do not compare the crews of those years, because there were more problems in 1918. And in the Great Patriotic War could well happen. Because the fleet was quite impressive. And two battleships (albeit old ones, like mammoth excrement) could well disperse German minelayers. About the herd of cruisers, I am silent. And about the morale of the sailors, too. Instead, the fleet was locked in a puddle, the sailors were sent to the front, they were fired from guns somewhere at the accumulations of troops. I personally am very skeptical of such shooting. Especially when I read how the “Parisian Commune” on the Black Sea in 6 — a point storm led fire to the area of ​​Old Crimea ...

Nowadays, many writers are prone to generalizations. Knocked into the head to someone in Ukraine to make another statement on the topic "Russia - the enemy of Ukraine No. XXUMX" - it means that all Ukrainians consider us enemies. And in this way a lot of things are considered. "Stalin (Zhukov, Konev, the list is long) won the war with pure blood ..." And when was the war with candies won?
For such historical excrementators, who can easily operate with numbers, it seems that war seems to be a computer strategy. There is a headquarters moving the figures back and forth, and there are figures. Ships, submarines, aircraft, tanks, no more. And so the war is going on, all according to Hasek: “Di стеrste column marshirt ...”
And, starting from tsiferok, high-intelligence conclusions are made, such as the one I quoted. All that can be said to such (without the use of appropriate vocabulary) historical geek is only one thing: “Do you yourself imagine what you are croaking about?”.
Of course he is. It was he who blindly (without radar and computers) calculated the combat course of the submarine and successfully hit three out of three torpedoes. For him it was not a problem to lay bombs on the deck of a ship moving and firing from all anti-aircraft barrels. He can do everything. Therefore, he dares to evaluate the actions of others. And for some reason, such evolutionary errors are becoming more and more. The aforementioned assault is resting compared to other history buffs. With affectionate description of the performance characteristics and the actions of the German ships, hanging themselves on the title of the Reich ... But I still come back to them. There is something to talk about.

Probably, to the great surprise of such excreters, I will report the following: the navy is not only admirals. And not only ships. It is also people.
These are people of the fleet who gave themselves to the fleet despite the most idiotic orders from above. Sailors, mechanics, torpedoists, gunners, signalmen, signalmen ... hundreds of thousands. It was they who inflicted damage on the enemy, and not your colleagues, armchair warriors. And inflicted in the end. Yes, the fleet was nothing more than an assistant to the ground forces in this war, mostly, yes, due to the limitations and stupidity of its leaders. But he was a fleet. On the contrary, at the beginning of the century, were there intelligent and experienced generals and admirals in the army and navy? Were What could they do when the army and navy collapsed due to the propaganda of the European Bolsheviks? Never mind! Hence morality — a general without an army — is an empty place. Conversely, an army, even without a general, is an army. And the fleet without admiral is also a fleet. What, in fact, was proven during the Great Patriotic War. The fleet was, and fought the enemy, and inflicted damage no less.

In the old days there was a saying: “I have the honor!”. By saying this, he made it clear that he had the presence (estate, possession) of this very honor. Well, I can not understand why the opposite is happening. Why did the honor of German sailors and submariners raped our Internet (and not only) hacks?

http://www.nazireich.net.
http://www.forum-tvs.ru/index.php?showtopic=59806
Achkasov, V.I., Basov A.V., Sumin A.I. and others.
"The Battle Way of the Soviet Navy"
S. Patyanin and M. Morozov "German destroyers of the Second World War"
Author:
81 comment
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. altman
    altman 4 December 2012 08: 13
    +7
    Well-reasoned article .. I just disagree with one thing, the withdrawal of battleships and cruisers in order to prevent the Germans from placing minefields and network barriers is a natural suicide. They would have been destroyed almost immediately by aircraft. We must not forget that the entire coast of the Baltic was occupied by the enemy, and accordingly the ships would have come under artillery fire. You shouldn't forget about torpedo boats and submarines either, and the exit of a full-fledged squadron with minesweepers and destroyers generally looks a bit absurd. No one would ever return from Dumpling Soup.
    1. Dimych
      Dimych 4 December 2012 08: 47
      +3
      I completely agree. Without reliable air cover, the entire fleet would remain there. Remember the transition from Tallinn.
      1. vyatom
        vyatom 4 December 2012 11: 07
        +2
        Yes. The only competent naval commander is Admiral Golovko in the SF. He told these rams that large ships and most of the boats should be moved north. Did not listen. And what they got in the end. Zilch in the Baltic and the Black Sea. With huge superiority at sea - we were due to the stupidity and cowardice of all tributs, October, etc. in deep w. The Germans and Finns did not even have a serious fleet there.
        And if there weren’t the British in the Mediterranean Sea, and the Germans brought the Vichy and Italian fleets to the Black Sea?
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 4 December 2012 12: 15
          +2
          Leader "Tashkent" (former Italian)


          The Italian flag never flew over "Tashkent". The ship was built in Livorno by Soviet order for the USSR Navy.
          1. Roman Skomorokhov
            4 December 2012 13: 35
            +2
            Yes, this is another stone in the garden of those whom I quoted.
            1. Ross
              Ross 5 December 2012 12: 57
              0
              Good article. One can feel the nervous strain of the opponent of Roman, as if there is nothing other than to humiliate his own. Therefore, even if partially truthful material, but a spoon of hatred (not just a lie) all his material, this Rezun 2, poisoned.
        2. Egen
          Egen 12 December 2012 06: 52
          0
          Quote: vyatom
          Zilch in the Baltic and Black Sea

          I do not quite agree. In the Baltic, without the support of anti-aircraft and naval artillery of the fleet’s ships, Leningrad would probably be very bad. What do battleships do on the SF? Hiding like German? It wouldn’t work out. Well, the destroyers yes, they would have come in handy on the SF, there was little sense from them on the BF.

          Quote: vyatom
          The Germans and Finns didn’t even have a serious fleet there.

          Again, don't tell. The fleet is not only surface ships, why do you forget about aviation, who sank the Marat? Albeit not naval aviation, but acting in the interests of the fleet.

          Quote: vyatom
          Germans brought Vichy and Italian fleets to the Black Sea

          What should they do there when the whole sea is blocked by aviation? At the Black Sea Fleet, the fleet was of great use while Sevastopol was. And from the ships of the fleet as bringing up reinforcements and from coastal batteries - this is also a fleet! And when they rolled back to the Caucasian ports (this was not the fault of the fleet, the Germans were stronger on land), then the meaning of naval operations disappeared. Although ours went to the opposite Bulgarian shores, there was no efficiency to introduce heavy ships for the Germans. They would not have pushed their way to Novorossiysk by sea anyway. And this is a "+" for our fleet
      2. Roman Skomorokhov
        4 December 2012 13: 35
        +2
        61th Fighter Aviation Brigade of the Baltic Fleet Air Force (Colonel A.M. Morozov)
        5th Baltic Fleet Air Force Fighter Aviation Regiment
        11th Baltic Fleet Air Force Fighter Aviation Regiment
        13th Baltic Fleet Air Force Fighter Aviation Regiment
        21th Baltic Fleet Air Force Fighter Aviation Regiment
        71th Baltic Fleet Air Force Fighter Aviation Regiment
        12 Separate Fighter Squadron of the Baltic Air Force
        13 Separate Fighter Squadron of the Baltic Air Force
        104-I separate air squadron of the Baltic Fleet Air Force

        13th Fighter Aviation Regiment of the Baltic Fleet Air Force (commander - Lieutenant Colonel I. G. Romanenko)
        71th Fighter Aviation Regiment of the Baltic Fleet Air Force (commander - Lieutenant Colonel A.V. Koronets)

        99 AND-153;
        182 AND-16;
        32 AND-15;
        32 MIG-3;
        8 Yak-1;

        I agree that I-15 and I-153 are rubbish, but the rest ... Moreover, everything was based under Peter.
        1. KuigoroZHIK
          KuigoroZHIK 4 December 2012 13: 53
          0
          Thank you very much, Roman!
        2. altman
          altman 4 December 2012 15: 34
          +1
          all this covered Peter .. and not completely successfully .. and how would they act when covering ships .. how much time and not the limit of flight range .. don’t think that stupid and limited people were sitting in the KBF headquarters ..
      3. Rink
        Rink 4 December 2012 16: 57
        +1
        Thanks a lot to the author!
        Skomorokhov Roman (Banshee) - respect and respect !!!

        Rezun is a very smart bastard, so skillfully mixes his shit with real facts that a lot of honest people are being led to his "revelations" and consider this concoction to be a real, truthful description of those events.

        Exposing such liars on a mission is many times more difficult.
        You are doing a great and important thing.
        A bow!
    2. seafarer
      seafarer 4 December 2012 21: 07
      +1
      I do not think that the author of the article forgot about covering the ships with aviation. In addition, this is not an alternative strategy proposal, but rather a polemic.
      But it is still worth remembering about 3 (it seems) convoys for the evacuation of the Gangut garrison in November-December 1941, when the Germans closed the ring around Leningrad, when both coasts of the Gulf of Finland were occupied by the Germans.
      The dumpling was smaller than in 1942-43, but still enough, + ice, limited maneuver. as far as one can judge, these convoys were most competently prepared and provided for the entire war: preliminary bombing of airfields, fighter cover for ships to Lavensari-Seskar, preliminary marching of fairways in our zone (however, this was done constantly). And it’s not worth talking about the complexity of organizing an ice convoy + trawling.
      All this suggests that while the main goal was to preserve warships during the Tallinn crossing, during the evacuation of Gangut the main thing was the removal of fired soldiers and garrison stocks to Leningrad, which the Baltic Fleet dealt with honor with honor.
      But was it possible or impossible to prevent the complete blockade of the Baltic Fleet in the Marquise Pool with the help of nets and minefields in 1942 - this is a complex issue. I think that still NO. Indeed, in 1914-16, the Baltic Fleet, having an undeniable advantage over the German one (in the Baltic), could not prevent the German minefields even in the region of the Central Mine and Artillery position, from which, by the way, the entire strategy of the Baltic Fleet’s actions in WWII was built.
    3. Egen
      Egen 12 December 2012 06: 38
      0
      Yes, this is not suicide, but a crime! Our admirals were not so stupid :) "Yamato" is an exception due to the samurai spirit :) And our ships probably played a decisive role in the land defense of Leningrad - both with their anti-aircraft guns and artillery.
  2. ICT
    ICT 4 December 2012 08: 14
    +2
    I won’t talk about our losses (because there is no generalized data), but on the losses of the Germans in the north

    there is such a sign 23 / 73 --- warships, 74 / 94 --- merchant fleet (data from 41 to 44 years)

    in the numerators, data confirmed by the Germans themselves or other foreign sources, in the denominator of the loss requiring additional confirmation

    so the problem of estimating losses is not new, so that at least a viewing time machine is needed to eliminate it
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 09: 12
      0
      Not the fact that a time machine will help!
  3. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 08: 17
    +2
    For a long time the propaganda created a gracious sleek picture of military history, when our people are smart and skillful, they make the enemy at a time, but only because of some misunderstandings that fought near its capital or on the banks of the Volga. After some time, the pendulum swung in a completely different direction - ours were sirs and wretches, they didn’t know a damn thing except paving corpses in several rows, and we should only be glad that civilized conquerors, carriers of Western culture did not throw them into the Pacific Ocean ...
    In principle, everything is clear why this happened in historical science, it seems - there is nothing good in the first case. nor, moreover, in the second! So enthusiasts have to poke around in documents, compare and analyze ...
    I don’t quite agree with the details in some details, but I liked the material - thanks again to the author!
    By the way, about the columns, this is not with Hasek, this is with Leo Nikolayevich ...
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 4 December 2012 12: 40
      +6
      They love extreme points of view in our country. And they like to look for the guilty (To whom Rurik is to blame, to whom is Peter, to whom is Stalin and Zhukov ...). And the truth - as always - is something in between. There were mistakes with defeats, but there were victories. After all, who won the war? And to say that they won only by quantity is stupid. A primitive example, but still. The Kwantung army and the Chinese ... there were many of the latter, but they didn’t crush something. The more monstrous you lie, the sooner they will believe you.
      In the Soviet years, attempts were made to create a "popular print" of the war. But this is differently better than the nonsense that is pouring out now with tubs. "official" history textbooks are just numbers without sane points of view (and this is at best). An assessment of events is being drawn from the Rezuns and Suvorovs more and more often. Actually, we have adopted the relevant legislation. It's time to apply if they see the grounds ...
  4. Fox
    Fox 4 December 2012 09: 07
    0
    The article is normal, and the "work" of the rezunov is not of interest to those who are not very distant, to those who feel good in the warm shit ... or are paid.
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 09: 12
      +1
      You need to get acquainted with the point of view. which you don’t like - there are no fools either ...
  5. serezhasoldatow
    serezhasoldatow 4 December 2012 09: 37
    +2
    They are not fools. Thanks to them, many of our younger generation do not know what we defended in 1941-45. They do not crawl further than discos, and when they see memorable places of the war years, they change radically. It's just that Echo of Moscow should be ranked among foreign agents. Genetically, the defense will work and they won't listen to such scribblers.
  6. DYMITRY
    DYMITRY 4 December 2012 09: 44
    +2
    I will add one more fact of distortion with a resunoid:
    Marat is stubbornly referred to as a battleship, while his practically the same age as Schleswig-Holstein is sometimes an battleship or a training ship, and his affiliation with battleships is fiercely dismissed. Although in the Kriegsmarine manual it is called: "Schleswig-Holstein" pre-dreadnought battleship
    Meanwhile, Marat was launched only five years later than the German. It’s another matter that Marat’s armament was modernized by 1940; no information was found on the rearmament of the German. But IMHO - this is the problem of the Germans !!!
  7. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 10: 06
    +1
    Marat, after all, is a real dreadnought, and Schleswig-Holstein is an armadillo of pure water, and several years is a long time for the period under consideration!
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 22: 36
      +1
      And which wise guy set a minus? You don’t even know that? So go at least to Wiki to see ...
  8. valokordin
    valokordin 4 December 2012 10: 16
    +3
    I agree with the author almost, with the exception of his zaological anti-Sovietism, listen to the white emigrant, the USSR armed forces had qualified military leaders, including the Admirals, calling their orders idiotic is too much, but an army without a commander is a crowd. Before the revolution, military leaders were also skilled, white bone. Eurobolsheviks, nothing to do with it. These literate captains and admirals were killed by class hatred. Read how the officers with the cattle-sailors treated, and those officers who did not scoff at them remained untouched. So, in search of the truth, in nurturing the Soviet naval commanders, you have not gone far from Rezun, that is, from Suvorov. Remember, who shoots into the past from a gun, receives a response from a gun.
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 10: 23
      0
      Maybe I read something inattentively, but somehow did not notice zoological anti-Sovietism ...
      If we touch on the topic of leadership, then I do not recall much success with the Russian fleet in the same Baltic, in contrast to operations on the Black Sea ...
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 22: 38
        0
        What LGBT representative is hanging around and minus posts in a row?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2012 10: 24
      +2
      Quote: valokordin
      in the armed forces of the USSR were qualified military leaders, including the Admirals, call them idiotic orders too

      Call admirals by name, please. And at the same time - successful offshore operations, they carried out
    3. vyatom
      vyatom 4 December 2012 11: 14
      +1
      I do not agree.
      When in the Baltic, the admiral gives the order to pick up the alcohol and food set for the sailors of the boat and send it to the admiral's table. And Marinesco sent him and gave everything to the sailors. Do stories need to know this part of a public school? I think it is necessary.
      And such pseudo rednecks of admirals were full then, and now there are enough. I know personally. Is it necessary to say that a certain admiral is engaged in theft, having forgotten about the honor of his uniform? I think it is necessary. To say that he is greedy and stupid, and became an admiral only by patronage? I think it is necessary. Because in the case of hostilities, such ones lead to defeat and large losses.
      But we already passed this in the 41st year.
      1. Roman Skomorokhov
        4 December 2012 13: 44
        -1
        Quote: valokordin
        zaological anti-Sovietism


        In Russian, if, probably, zoological?

        Quote: valokordin
        listen to the white emigrant


        As if I could not be, alas. They are already in the bulk ...

        Quote: valokordin
        So in search of the truth, in nurturing the Soviet naval commanders, you have not gone far from Rezun, that is, from Suvorov


        Well, how would it be worth supporting with facts.
        1. Colonel
          Colonel 4 December 2012 21: 12
          0
          Read how the officers treated the cattle cattle, and those officers who did not scoff at them remained untouched

          Valokordin, you know, I trust Pikul's "Moonzund" more than Novikov-Priboi's "Tsushima".
        2. gusev_sa
          gusev_sa 4 December 2012 21: 21
          -1
          I think that "cattle" definition is suitable for you, as well as for various cuttings and salted beef.
          Pay attention to how this buffooner spat, he spat at the residentist, like mine. And at the end he poured shit on the Red Fleet. He’s a sort of Volodarsky, they say they won against the command. All the bosses are fools, but the sailors are brave. Bullshit.
          By the way, who is this buffoon, what is his reason to consider himself an "expert"? Who do you work for as a cattle?
      2. Egen
        Egen 12 December 2012 06: 30
        0
        I don’t know about such a case. Where can I read?
        And how much alcohol was there? :) But I know that many submariners have been demoted for drunkenness :)
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2012 10: 22
    +12
    I liked the article and did not like it, so I will refrain from the pros / cons.
    In terms of losses, I completely agree with the article’s logic. Rezunoidov himself beat sneakers at every opportunity. For Nehru.
    And what about the actions of our fleet in WWII ... that the fleet itself, to put it mildly, did not show, is obvious. And you really should not compare the combat readiness of the German and Soviet fleets, because the Germans fought at sea incomparably better. And the author also distorts.
    Take the actions of the Italian fleet in WWII. Two Italian battleships in battle with the English Worspite get 1 (in words - ONE hit) after which the Italian fleet runs in front of a squadron of Englishmen that is much inferior in size. A pair of British X-NUMX six-inch missiles hunt a convoy in front of two heavy cruisers, Admiral Brivonesi, who actually had to guard this convoy, but he does not dare to interfere ... In another episode, several air cruisers with their 6-mm guns fight with the latest Italian battleship - and drive it away. And how many times the Italians, having a significant superiority in the forces did not dare to engage in battle with the ships of the royal fleet?
    A shame? A shame. The mediocre actions of the Italian sailors deserve the lowest marks, and according to the results of the WWII, the Italian fleet has become deservedly the object of eternal ridicule.
    But along with this - there was, after all, the "alley of death" when the allied forces crushed 60% of all ships sent to supply Africa corps - but the Italian sailors went ahead over and over again, died, but delivered cargo. There were also desperate daredevil saboteurs who blew up 2 British battleships in Alexandria ... There were hand-crafted boatmen who nailed down the heavy "York" ...
    War is a very scary but multifaceted thing. In terms of combat effectiveness, our Navy really showed itself in WWII from the worst side. There were many reasons for this, the main one being the utter lack of readiness of the command staff. Half of the commanders of the ships - "from peasants" more or less sensible, were immediately promoted, not allowing them to "get out" the necessary experience ... as a result, the commanders did not correspond to their positions. The outright cowardice of admirals ... I'm not talking about personal courage, of course, but personal courage and the courage of a commander are completely different things. This is a fact - and you don't have to swear with the words "you weren't there, you don't know anything"
    And the feat of those who fought must be honored. The feat of the Shchuk crews, who exchanged their lives for the lives of the enemy (the loss of our Sh-type submarines to German transports is practically one to one) The feat of Sibiryakov, who fought with the Sheer ... bloody battles of our boat boats ... my topmast bombing is already a feat in itself) ... The crew of the "blue cruiser" ...
    You can say that our fleet was ineffective. We can not say that our sailors were cowards and stupid
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 4 December 2012 12: 27
      -2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      A shame? A shame. The mediocre actions of Italian sailors deserve the lowest rating, and according to the results of WWII

      Not always. In the battle of Matapan, the Italians acted faithfully and did everything possible to save the squadron. Alas, they literally lacked luck - the decked Swordfish broke through in the dark and dropped the fatal torpedo.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      the Italian fleet has deservedly become the object of eternal ridicule.

      The explosion of the battleship "Novorossiysk", 1955 - laugh?

      The Italians had their trump card - combat swimmers and sea sabotage of the "Black Prince" Valerio Borghese.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2012 14: 59
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Not always. In the battle of Matapan, the Italians acted correctly and did everything possible to save the squadron.

        And what did the Italians do "right" at Matapan? Possessing superiority in speed, they could neither complete the combat mission, nor escape from the much less fast British, or, having a clear advantage in cruisers and destroyers, impose a naval battle on the British?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The explosion of the battleship "Novorossiysk", 1955 - laugh?
        The Italians had their trump card - combat swimmers and sea sabotage of the "Black Prince" Valerio Borghese.

        First of all - again they caught batthert and ran to write the answer without reading the commentary to the end? I wrote Russian on white
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But along with this - there was, after all, the "alley of death" when the allied forces crushed 60% of all ships sent to supply Africa corps - but the Italian sailors went ahead over and over again, died, but delivered cargo. There were desperate daredevils, saboteurs who blew up the British battleship 2 in Alexandria... There were handy cutters who nailed the heavy "York" ...

        Secondly, that the death of Novorossiysk was the work of the Borghese — did the prince himself whisper it to you, or what? That Novorossiysk is lost as a result of sabotage is only a hypothesis, and one of many.
        Thirdly, it should be understood that the cowardice of the Italian admirals cannot be compensated for by the valor of combat swimmers. The admirals — all of Ricciardi and the other Campiones there — are all by themselves, and the Borghese and his swimmers are themselves. Learn to separate flies from cutlets, and not try to measure the average temperature in the hospital
    2. 8 company
      8 company 4 December 2012 12: 30
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      You can say that our fleet was ineffective. We can not say that our sailors were cowards and stupid


      I agree. And our submariners did not have such a large flow of ships as between the USA and England, where Doenitz's "wolf packs" were frolicking.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 4 December 2012 12: 57
        -3
        Quote: Company 8
        And our submariners did not have such a large flow of ships as between the United States and England, where Doenitz's "wolf packs" were frolicking.


        The German raider Cormoran (a civilian ship with 6 cannons) fiercely sank Allied ships off the coast of Australia 12 miles off its coast until it was intercepted by the Australian cruiser Sydney. In an unequal battle with a real warship, "Cormoran" managed to kill the Australian. After the battle, the Germans sank their heavily damaged ship and surrendered to the Australian authorities. And from the crew of the cruiser "Sydney" not a single sailor escaped, the remains of the ship are still being searched.

        The Northern Fleet (will not let you down!) Until the last days of the war could not stop the Germans exporting nickel ore from Kirkenes (200 km from Severomorsk).
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 13: 00
          +3
          And what is there to compare? You would think that someone would have managed to achieve more in those skerries! It’s not to act on the high seas ...
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 4 December 2012 13: 07
            -4
            Quote: Brother Sarich
            You would think that someone would be able to achieve more in those skerries! It’s not on the high seas...

            The catch is that the Germans calmly exported nickel from Kirkenes by transport until the end of the war. across the open sea.

            Kirkenes was 200 km from the Northern Fleet Main Base
            1. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 13: 22
              +2
              Suppose this was not entirely true - with the open sea, we walked along the coast ...
              And what would you like with such limited powers? Are you carefully avoiding the specifics of the theater?
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 4 December 2012 13: 37
                -4
                Quote: Brother Sarich
                And what would you like with such limited powers

                a dozen destroyers, three dozen submarines, torpedo boats, naval and land aviation are quite enough. to act on the 150 km distance.
                Quote: Brother Sarich
                Are you carefully avoiding the specifics of the theater?

                Show you the map of the death of the convoy PQ-17?

                Quote: Brother Sarich
                Suppose this was not entirely true - with the open sea, we walked along the coast ...


                We will not assume anything, there are obvious things:
                for example, a map - the ships calmly loaded ore at the Kirkenes berths, crawled out to the Varanger Fjord (this is not a sker! this is a huge bay) and calmly went to Cape Nordkap, bypassing Norway (Varde, Vads, etc.)

                All this disgrace occurred in 150 km from the Main base of the Northern Fleet.
                1. vyatom
                  vyatom 4 December 2012 13: 59
                  0
                  What is a skerry? We call it a lip, for norgs - a fjord
                  1. Brother Sarych
                    Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 18: 58
                    0
                    Skerries (Nor. Sker - rock in the sea) is an archipelago consisting of small rocky islands separated by narrow straits and covering a significant part of the coastal sea strip, bordering the shores of the fjord type. Each of these islets is individually called a "skher."
                2. Brother Sarych
                  Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 15: 03
                  +2
                  Forces absolutely not enough, for that matter!
                  Maybe it’s a straight line about 15 km, but Rybachy needs to bend around, and this noticeably lengthens the path, then it’s not very comfortable for boats on the sea to go most of the year, and the boats didn’t act at such range ...
                  The Germans also had forces - to protect the convoys ...
                  And where does the defeat of the convoy PQ-17? Remember what forces were attracted for this, how many submarines and aircraft ... And in the open sea it is always easier to attack - and it’s easier to notice, and the attacked have nowhere to hide ...
                3. SIT
                  SIT 5 December 2012 00: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  the ships calmly loaded ore at the quays of Kirkenes, crawled out to the Varanger Fjord (this is not a sker! this is a huge bay) and calmly sailed to Cape Nordkapp, bypassing Norway (Varde, Vads, etc.)

                  The next time you are in Kirkenes, right from the port, go up the track for runners and cyclists (in winter there is a ski track lit 17 km) into the hills. On the left will be the remains of the German battery, and a little further than the airfield. There were stukas based in the war. What are the destroyers? At such a distance from their airfield, the Germans could launch battleships to the bottom, and the destroyers had no chance at all.
                4. postman
                  postman 5 December 2012 14: 51
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  a dozen destroyers, three dozen submarines, torpedo boats, naval and land aviation are quite enough. to act on the 150 km distance.

                  Well, the truth was opposed to them:
                  -Till July 11, 1941 the limited forces of the former Norwegian fleet and small Finnish 2 patrol boats and a converted patrol ship, 2 armed steamships
                  -From July 11, 1941, the 6th German flotilla of destroyers of 5 destroyers arrived in the North, then 2 submarines and a mine layer
                  - since March 1942, at the bases of Norway, the battleship Tirpitz, the heavy cruisers Admiral Scheer, Lutzov, Admiral Hipper, the light cruiser Cologne, two destroyer flotilla, 20 submarines, 5th air fleet ( 500 la) with 1943 added: 45-50 patrol ships and minesweepers and 35 patrol boats. For air defense convoys used landing barges type "F", with reinforced anti-aircraft weapons.
                  The airfields of Banak, Hebukten and Luostari, Tromso and the land base of Bardufoss and since 1943 Swartnes.
                  The runways of all enemy airfields had a hard surface, which guaranteed their operation by airplanes with maximum combat load at any time of the year.
                  In Northern Finland there were a number of small landing sites: Mayatalo, Nautsi and Salmijärvi.
                  Confronted:
                  - in the fall of 1941 they were transferred to the North from Leningrad polel submarines of type "K" and "L" and two types of "C" to 9 available.
                  -1943 added four boats of type “C” and one of type “L” (from the Pacific Fleet), four boats of type “C” and two types of “M” (transferred to the North by inland waterways)
                  -Aviation until 1942 about 116, since 1942 naval aviation -284 aircraft
                  (26 torpedo bombers, 20 bombers and 68 reconnaissance, the rest fighters), since the summer of 1943, Hurricane, I-153, I-16 fighters (with low efficiency) were used as fighter-bombers
                  torpedo boats until August 1941, type 5 “D-3”, since August 5 more have been added (along inland waterways) and patrol boats of type “MO-4” and 7 patrol boats (converted civilian)
                  - destroyers “Thundering” and “Terrible”, “Reasonable”, “Baku”) total 8) and English (occasionally): cruiser “Kenya”, destroyers “Interpid” and “Bedouin”
                  -By 1945, the Northern Fleet included the battleship Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, 17 destroyers (9 delivered by Lend-Lease), 51 patrol boats, 45 submarine hunters, 43 minesweepers, 56 torpedo boats, 42 submarines , 718 aircraft of various classes

                  Until 1944 there was practically nothing to resist.

                  fighting in 1944
                  Since 1944, the R-40 Kittyhawk fighters have been actively and successfully used as fighter-bombers.
            2. vyatom
              vyatom 4 December 2012 13: 43
              +4
              Yes, they did not carry calmly. They drowned them constantly. And katerniki and submariners, and torpedo bombers. Learn the story.
              1. postman
                postman 5 December 2012 12: 37
                0
                Quote: vyatom
                They drowned them constantly. And katerniki and submariners, and torpedo bombers.

                June 27, 1941 (this is the first attack of a Soviet submarine in the Second World War until 1941 September 22; XNUMX torpedo attacks, only four vehicles were sunk.
                The low efficiency of submarines has led to the fact that in August 1941 the People's Commissar of the Navy N.G. Kuznetsov in a special directive demanded more activity from submariners.
                The reasons:
                commanders were forbidden to dive in areas where the depths exceeded the working depth of the submarines (after the death of Shch-424 (20.10.1939/1/13.11.1940) and D-XNUMX (XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX)). And in the Barents Sea, training grounds with such depths simply did not exist, in the summer months the whole team went to the shallow White Sea to work out the tasks of combat training. It was allowed to simplify training torpedo attacks: to carry out in daylight, to shoot single torpedoes at a motionless target, often imitating the release of a torpedo by an air bubble.
                The disadvantage of our submarines was the lack of sonar and radar stations, and periscope antennas appeared on seven submarines only in the middle 1944 year.
                - lack of preparedness for submarine commanders
                -lack of experience in managing the submarine deployed at sea at the headquarters of the fleet.
                The first two-torpedo salvo on September 26, the commander of the D-3 submarine, captain-lieutenant F.V. Konstantinov (until this date, when launching the attack, they fired one torpedo each).
                The first time (in February 1943) was an attempt was made use submarines in a tactical group (previously the Positional method).

                During the war years, submarines of the Northern Fleet made about 400 military campaigns, performing 260 torpedo attacks, of which 94 were single torpedoes, and the rest were salvo. At the same time, 674 torpedoes were fired. Due to the lack of radar, only 45 attacks were carried out in the dark. As a result, 22 major vehicles, 7 drifterbots and motorbots, 8 submarine hunters, 6 patrol ships, 1 submarine and 1 minesweeper were sunk. In this case, 21 submarines were lost.
        2. vyatom
          vyatom 4 December 2012 13: 41
          +6
          He stopped transporting ore after the Petsamo-Kirkines operation. Where we were advancing, but the Germans had more casualties than ours (historical fact).
          And our fleet constantly drowned German transport, and if at one time the fleet that had been locked in the Baltic and the Black Sea was partially moved to the north, then supplies would be completely stopped. Let's not forget that the main forces of the Kriegsmarine were still in the north (hunting for convoys of the allies and covering up their own). And the Northern Fleet was underestimated before the war, which recognized not only Kuznetsov, but also Stalin. The experience of World War I was not taken into account.
          But the Northern Fleet really did not disappoint. No need for sarcasm. Or polish turnips.
        3. askold
          askold 4 December 2012 19: 26
          0
          Found, found a darling seem in 2008 or 2009. 150 km from the coast at a depth of 2,5 km.
        4. rexby63
          rexby63 5 December 2012 08: 36
          0
          The Northern Fleet (will not let you down!) Until the last days of the war could not stop the Germans exporting nickel ore from Kirkenes (200 km from Severomorsk).


          This is a claim to aviation
    3. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 13: 02
      0
      I would not say that Italians are just such an object for ridicule - that they could, they did!
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 4 December 2012 13: 16
        -1
        Quote: Brother Sarich
        I would not say that Italians are just such an object for ridicule - that they could, they did!


        And they did! For example, they sank the British cruiser York, damaged two battleships during a raid on Alexandria, etc. The submarine Valerio Borghese drowned British ships with a total displacement of 75 brt. (000 times more than Marinesco)

        The successes are more than modest compared to the Kriegsmarine or the Imperial Japanese Navy. But comparing the Regia Marina with the actions of the Soviet Navy is generally meaningless - there is even nothing to compare there.
        1. vyatom
          vyatom 4 December 2012 14: 07
          0
          The USSR fought mainly on land. Here, our successes are an order of magnitude greater than that of naval powers.
          The Germans became famous only in the underwater war, and that only because there were many convoys. They attacked unarmed vehicles. But then they were all killed like goldfinches. Shameful and cruel to them. Almost the entire German submarine fleet lay at the bottom by the 45th year.
          The Japanese became famous only for the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor. But then their successes ended. They could not compete with the real sea powers: Britain and the States.
          1. Nu daaaa ...
            Nu daaaa ... 4 December 2012 14: 33
            -1
            "... The Germans became famous only in submarine warfare ..."

            Neuzheli? A srazhenia b Danish Strait? Or drowning HMS Glorious?
          2. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 5 December 2012 09: 09
            -1
            Quote: vyatom
            The Japanese became famous only for the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor

            That really
            Fight at about. Savo, pogrom in the Java Sea, battle in the Coral Sea, etc. there are dozens of glorious episodes
            Quote: vyatom
            They could not compete with the real sea powers: Britain and the States.

            These burned.
            Here the author meticulously calculates the German submarines drowned by the Soviet Navy. 5 pieces - 10 pieces -46 pieces. All this does not matter at all: 700 German submarines rest at the bottom of the Atlantic. Who drowned them?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2012 15: 02
        +1
        Yes, but in general, their military fleet is probably the most ineffective fleet in the history of WWII.
    4. Roman Skomorokhov
      4 December 2012 13: 50
      +2
      Well, you give a comparison of the Italians and the British. The analogy between ours and Italians suggests itself, and here I completely disagree with you. Yes, Italians had certain moments when they were handsome. But for the most part, their sailors did not shine with a manifestation of high military spirit and valor. Unlike ours. Here, as it were, the comparison is inappropriate.
      Further. In the Mediterranean, battles were fought between ship formations. And in the Baltic - alas. The main part of the war fell precisely on aviation and submariners, and large ships were used as floating batteries.
      I understand you, but still not a very true comparison.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2012 17: 12
        +1
        Quote: Banshee
        I understand you, but still not a very true comparison.

        You get it right - I didn’t undertake to compare the Italian and Soviet fleets, but just wanted to show with some example that the dullness and cowardice of some can easily go hand in hand with the dedication and valor of others
        Just the Italian fleet is a very prominent and illustrative example.
    5. wax
      wax 4 December 2012 22: 13
      0
      In the Second World War, the fate of the Fatherland was decided on land, and in terribly exhausting battles. The fleet was supposed to help land and close the coast. Our fleet adequately coped with this task. The USA and England, on the contrary, had a large, one might even say, predominant naval component in the battles. The Germans, claiming world domination, were supposed to have a more developed than the Soviet fleet. Even now, since we are not aggressors, we have a different fleet composition than the main geopolitical adversary of the United States. And there was no point in tearing to create a fleet similar to the United States, and even this is beyond our strength. But we need to protect the country from the sea and provide a retaliatory strike from submarines. Well, to be able to demonstrate their presence in sensitive parts of the oceans for us.
    6. Egen
      Egen 12 December 2012 06: 28
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      our navy really showed itself in the navy from the worst side

      Well, don't tell me. Of course, about "unavailability", etc. you're right. I can also add, "a place for a heroic deed appears when someone's wrongdoing." The problems you listed are characteristic not only of the navy, but also of the entire army and the country.
      But there was a feat. Can not argue. Isn't that efficiency? And you judge only by the number of people drowned, although below you yourself talk about the feat. And what other results could be with the complete superiority of the enemy? What have we drowned few German ships? So there were few of them in our theater, they fought mainly with aviation. Reflecting air attacks and shelling ground positions is also a war, even though you are standing frozen in ice. Without a fleet, Leningrad would not be able to withstand. I was in Leningrad for the first time at the end of the 70's, at that time there were guided tours. I saw with my own eyes how close the Germans came, Piskarevsky cemetery. Really scary. How they kept the city — if we discard all the desk arguments — is unclear, it's just fantastic! And you say - the fleet fought badly ... Not in one number of victories. You need to evaluate by location, capabilities and the enemy.
  10. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 4 December 2012 12: 30
    -10
    During the war, the Soviet Navy did not sink a single enemy warship larger than a destroyer.

    The top ten victories of Soviet submariners look very original:

    1. "Goya" (April 17, 1945, 6332 refugees from Prussia were killed);
    2. "Wilhelm Gustlov" (January 30, 1945, 5384 refugees from Prussia were killed);
    3. "Salzburg" (October 1, 1942, 2100 Soviet prisoners of war were killed);
    4. "Hindenburg" (November 19, 1942, 800 Soviet prisoners of war were killed);
    5. "Taityo-Maru" (August 22, 1945, 780 refugees from South Sakhalin were killed);
    6. "Struma" (February 24, 1942, 768 refugees from the countries of South-Eastern Europe died in Palestine);
    7. "Ogasawara-Maru" (August 22, 1945, 545 refugees from South Sakhalin were killed);
    8. "Nordstern" (October 6, 1944, 531 refugees from the Baltic states to Germany died);
    9. "Göttingen" (23 February 1945, about 500 refugees from Prussia and wounded German soldiers were killed);
    10. "Sonnewijk" (October 8, 1944, 448 refugees from the Baltic states to Germany were killed).
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 13: 01
      +3
      Whoever could, they drowned! I see no particular reason to be ashamed of something - this is not a hospital ship to drown in broad daylight ...
      1. Nu daaaa ...
        Nu daaaa ... 4 December 2012 13: 11
        -5
        ... this is not a hospital ship to drown in broad daylight ... ???

        "Wilhelm Gustlov" - floating hospital since 1940

        Thus, as part of Operation Hannibal on January 22, 1945, Wilhelm Gustloff in the port of Gdynia (then called the Germans Gotenhafen (German: Gotenhafen)) began to take refugees on board. submariners, several hundred women from the naval auxiliary division and almost a thousand wounded soldiers.Later, when tens of thousands of people gathered at the port and the situation became complicated, they started letting everyone in, giving women and children an advantage
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 13: 27
          +4
          Why so lie? The hospital service ended in the same 40th year, and for the next 4 years he was assigned to the submarine school and thereby lost the status of a hospital ship!
          1. Nu daaaa ...
            Nu daaaa ... 4 December 2012 13: 46
            -7
            Tak net prychin togda govorit pro "hospital ship in broad daylight" ...

            Despite the fact that the transport had the distinguishing marks of a medical vessel, “Armenia” violated this status, as it was armed with four 21-K anti-aircraft guns. In addition to the wounded and refugees, on board were military personnel and employees of the NKVD. The ship was accompanied by two armed boats and two I-153 fighters. In this regard, “Armenia” was a “military” “legitimate” from the point of view of international law.


            Because the Wilhelm Gustloff had been fitted with anti-aircraft guns it was not marked as a hospital ship


            Sindrom "naši razvedchiki i nemetskie shpiony"?
            1. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 15: 16
              +4
              Nobody saw those guns in Armenia, for that matter! And in Wiki, in this case, gossip, sorry, hypothesis is simply retold ...
        2. Roman Skomorokhov
          4 December 2012 13: 28
          +6
          There are two points:
          1. "Gustlov" did not bear the identification marks of a hospital ship.
          2. It is unlikely that with the almost complete absence of directories from our sailors, Marinesco knew (at least approximately) who he was shooting at. Yes, and what can be seen in the periscope at night? I saw a hefty ship with security ... got.
          1. Igarr
            Igarr 4 December 2012 14: 04
            +7
            Well, Roman.
            You are burning with anger against the site discussing "Echo of Moscow" ...
            and here, without departing from the cash register - you are the samplers.
            How valiant Soviet submariners drown exclusively refugees.
            About the fact that the pirate raider "Cormoran" managed to shoot Sydney ... and the Germans, respectively, are heroes ... of an unequal battle ... from behind and with a sledgehammer on the head.
            And our dead Sibiryakov with a 76-mm cannon against "Admiral Count Scheer" - so, an episode ... Didn't shoot Scheer? So there is nothing to talk about.
            ...
            Well, they feel sick from the Russian, sick.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 5 December 2012 09: 11
              -3
              Quote: Igarr
              And our dead Sibiryakov with a 76-mm cannon against "Admiral Count Scheer" - so, an episode ... Didn’t shoot Sheer? So there’s nothing to talk about.

              Naturally. No victory - nothing to talk about
              What did you want? Do nothing and gain glory?
    2. 8 company
      8 company 4 December 2012 15: 43
      +9
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The ten largest victories of Soviet submariners look very original: 1. "Goya" (April 17, 1945, 6332 refugees from Prussia were killed);


      Well ridiculed)) I imagine: a Soviet submarine emerges at the side of a German ship and Marinesco shouts from below in a shout:
      “Hey, do you have refugees on board?”
      Above:
      “But if there is, then you won’t drown?”
      Marinesco:
      - Well, like, we won’t ...
      Above:
      - Well then there is.
      Marinesco:
      - Well, I’ll look for someone without refugees ... wink
      1. Kars
        Kars 4 December 2012 16: 07
        +5
        Quote: Company 8
        at the side of a German ship and Marinesco from below shouts in a shout:
        “Hey, do you have refugees on board?”


        Meanwhile, on board the convoy destroyers and hunters, the Germans drink schnapps and play on lip peas.

        And something I don’t remember that the same Fritz would stop the flag of the red cross.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 5 December 2012 09: 13
          -2
          Quote: Kars
          Meanwhile, on board the convoy destroyers and hunters, the Germans drink schnapps and play on lip peas.

          And something I don’t remember that the same Fritz would stop the flag of the red cross.


          It's not about the red cross. The fact is that besides the Goya and other transports, Soviet submariners have no other major victories.
          Neither Royal Oak, nor Atago, nor Shinano ...
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 5 December 2012 09: 40
            0
            But what can you do if there were no such goals? It seems that I fell into the sight of Tirpitz, so they tried to shoot, or they hit, or not ...
            Someone proves that this was not and could not be, someone - that was, that's how anyone likes it ...
            In general, large enemy ships in our theaters only fell in raids - no matter who said what, but the USSR was a land power, and the fleet always performed only an auxiliary role ...
    3. ICT
      ICT 4 December 2012 18: 51
      -2



      the bombing of Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, this is a war above all else dust
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 4 December 2012 20: 21
        +1
        Um ... And the bombing of Stalingrad? And the almost complete destruction of Kharkov? and German concentration camps - is it dust too?
        1. ICT
          ICT 4 December 2012 21: 06
          0
          hungry LENINGRAD, ...... the list goes on for us no, for the enemy yes
    4. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 4 December 2012 23: 14
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      "Wilhelm Gustlov" (January 30, 1945, 5384 refugees from Prussia were killed)

      Officers who were assigned to the submarine fleet completed an additional 12-week training course, during which exercises at sea alternated with theoretical exercises. The schools had simulators equipped with everything necessary for future officers to gain skills in conducting underwater attacks while simulating the passage of enemy convoys. To proceed to the next stage of training, the candidate had to complete 15 successful attacks. The most successful and promising candidates were often immediately assigned to combat submarines to improve their professional level under the guidance of an experienced commander. The rest, after graduation, were sent to master attack techniques from underwater position to combat training flotillas - in the 23rd in Danzig
      "Wilhelm Gustlov" left the Danzin Bay during the time when Soviet troops were approaching Danzig. It can be assumed that the refugees were the service personnel of the submarine training base, the teaching staff and their families. Everyone is considered a refugee. Gustav's order was not weak, but the evacuation operation was stupid, the British appreciated the attack of Marinescu.
    5. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 4 December 2012 23: 38
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      "Wilhelm Gustlov" (January 30, 1945, 5384 refugees from Prussia were killed);

      Officers who were assigned to the submarine fleet completed an additional 12-week training course, during which exercises at sea alternated with theoretical exercises. The schools had simulators equipped with everything necessary for future officers to gain skills in conducting underwater attacks while simulating the passage of enemy convoys. To proceed to the next stage of training, the candidate had to complete 15 successful attacks. The most successful and promising candidates were often immediately assigned to combat submarines to improve their professional level under the guidance of an experienced commander. The rest, after graduation, were sent to master attack techniques from underwater position to combat training flotillas - in the 23rd in Danzig
      "Wilhelm Gustlov" came out of the Danzig Bay with a strong security order, it can be assumed that the teaching staff of the base and service personnel and their families were refugees. The evacuation operation was carried out stupidly, Marinesco took advantage of the fact that Gustov broke away from the warrant and attacked, the British highly appreciated the actions of Marinesco. Video about the training base for German submariners.
  11. Nu daaaa ...
    Nu daaaa ... 4 December 2012 12: 36
    -4
    U479. Officially, the Germans "went missing." According to our data - it was rammed by the Soviet submarine "Lembit". Although, our historians note that Lembit has no traces of such a ram. Yes, the incident with the damage of the nose of the submarine was, but agreed on the opinion that it was not a German submarine.


    Yes, nobody rammed "Lembit", these inventions.
  12. SIT
    SIT 4 December 2012 12: 40
    0
    This is what N.G. Kuznetsov:
    “I remember well the case when, when asked to increase air defense systems on ships, JV Stalin remarked:“ We will not fight off the coast of America ... ”All this was explained, I think, by the fact that he underestimated the danger to ships from the air ...
    It is also striking that the attitude towards this issue has not changed even after World War II.
    Somehow much later we proposed replacing one main-caliber turret with an anti-aircraft gun on some cruisers, which would significantly strengthen the ship's anti-aircraft weapons. But this offer was resolutely rejected. "
    But in the Baltic and especially the Black Sea, the main losses of the fleet were from aviation. If even during the entire defense of Sevastopol, the ships standing in Poti were urgently understaffed with anti-aircraft defense systems and developed an anti-aircraft fire control system based on experience, then it would be possible to at least evacuate everyone from the Sevastopol fortified area and not leave them to die in Chersonesos from wounds without water. Ships simply could not approach Sevastopol, because Germans dominated the air.
    1. washi
      washi 26 January 2013 16: 59
      0
      easy to write off your jambs on the murdered
  13. washi
    washi 4 December 2012 14: 05
    -1
    Amazing Why did the command to transfer to the BG reach the fleet, but not the land explorers? Why didn’t the water-cooled air-defense machine guns be adopted by the Navy? Why was there no interaction between the parts of the fleet? (as an example, the drowning of a submarine at Constanta) Why ammunition was taken from Sevastopol, and then again they tried to be planted. Why didn’t the LK and the fleet cruisers take part in the defensive and offensive operations of the NE? Their Stalin shore or again, stupid command?
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 4 December 2012 15: 17
      0
      How was this not taken? Taken to the best of their abilities and capabilities ...
      1. washi
        washi 26 January 2013 16: 57
        0
        what are the possibilities?
        Instead of shelling the enemy’s positions, they did not skerry and climbed out
  14. zemlyak
    zemlyak 4 December 2012 19: 09
    0
    Swamp them all !!!
  15. Larus
    Larus 4 December 2012 21: 10
    0
    That’s what such pseudo-historians and their helpers don’t write. I’ve read the same one that wrote that if it weren’t for landlis, the USSR would not have won, no matter how good it is, it’s not possible to ascribe the Amer’s ground units to the east front, otherwise it would be impossible to go anywhere without them))) Yes, and about throwing bodies, too, they got the bikes, because. we have the majority of citizens and now lives in the European part of Russia, and then even more so.
  16. Per se.
    Per se. 4 December 2012 22: 10
    0
    I read the article with interest, Banshee, without a doubt, has talent. True, it was rezanul about the Euro Bolsheviks and conclusions about the Soviet admirals and the command in general. The army and navy without commanders and discipline, if not a herd, then simply the armed mass, and the Bolsheviks built a nuclear superpower with an ocean fleet, which everyone had to reckon with, including the United States. A general without an army, respected Banshee, is not an empty place, but at least a military analyst and theorist, a teacher at the academy. In general, for the article, thanks.
    1. Roman Skomorokhov
      5 December 2012 20: 40
      +1
      Well, I agree, it sometimes overlaps with me. I don’t know what about talent, I start looking for it quickly when I read this. Well, sometimes it’s not very ...
      Do not shoot the pianist, he plays as he can.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 6 December 2012 08: 07
        0
        Quote: Banshee
        Do not shoot the pianist, he plays as he can.
        Everything is fine, you write interestingly, such pianists are needed.
      2. Egen
        Egen 12 December 2012 06: 56
        0
        Roman, as always, pleased with cool expressions and decomposition, thanks. Although it was already clear that the article was one-sided, which was a waste of time :)
        Quote: Banshee
        overlaps with me sometimes

        It happens :) But on business :) So - keep up the good work :)
  17. na76
    na76 5 December 2012 10: 50
    +2
    I would like to draw your attention to this point, well, it would be necessary to transfer a large fleet from the Baltic to the north, but if this was done, would we have held Leningrad in winter 41 without these "floating batteries" and without battalions of completely "frostbitten" marines ? And if not? it seems to me that everything is not at all as obvious as it seems ...
    1. Roman Skomorokhov
      5 December 2012 20: 38
      0
      Would not hold.
    2. washi
      washi 26 January 2013 17: 06
      0
      of course. there were enough coastal batteries, especially ALL tanks left St. Petersburg before the arrival of Zhukov. I had to eat less, and morally inspire - pipets to the finals and Norwegians
  18. postman
    postman 5 December 2012 19: 11
    0
    Quote: nae76
    did we hold Leningrad in winter 41 without these "floating batteries"

    and in the September assault:
    For fire assistance, three ship groups were organized: a detachment of ships of the river. Neva, located between the Bolshevik factory and the Ivanovo rapids, a group of ships standing in the Leningrad commercial port, and a group of ships in the area of ​​Kronstadt, Leningrad {165}.
    When repulsing the September assault, naval artillery consumed 25329 shells with a caliber from 406 to 130 mm, and 406-180 mm shells accounted for 23% of this quantity. Naval artillery during this time opened fire 1994 times.

    During 1941-1943 KBF naval artillery destroyed 74 enemy batteries and in 12868 cases forced them to silence.
  19. balyaba
    balyaba 24 December 2012 14: 06
    0
    The author of the article is smart, witty, and sensible ... In a word: keep it up!