L-55 - a training manual for shipbuilders

19 249 31
L-55 - a training manual for shipbuilders
The sinking of the British submarine L-55 by the destroyers Azard and Gavriil in Koporsky Bay. N. V. Bublikov.


During the Civil War, an undeclared Russian-English war was waged in the Baltic. Despite the absence of an official state of war, military actions were carried out: English torpedo boats raided Kronstadt, Soviet destroyers sank English submarines, etc., etc.



But any civil war eventually ends, and the people who came to power on its crest begin to restore what was destroyed during this event. Including - fleet, it is a fragile thing, and in the case of revolutions it ends very quickly. Russia was no exception to the rule and after the Civil War began to put the remaining naval department in order.


Ivan Bubnov, the father of Russian submarines.

Big problems arose with relatively modern projects of ships and submarines. Especially submarines! If the old-fashioned "Noviki" and "Svetlanas" looked pretty good even in World War II, then the "Bars" type submarines could no longer be considered modern, and their creator, the leading specialist in submarine shipbuilding Ivan Bubnov, died of typhus in Petrograd on March 13, 1919. Another specialist of the same level, Stepan Dzhevetsky, emigrated to Paris and did not plan to return. Some of the engineers did not survive the Civil War, some retired... But the Red Navy was lucky, the British submarine L-1919 had been lying at the bottom of Koporye Bay since 55.


L-55 in England

The fact is that the L-55 was the newest: the first submarine of the L type entered service in 1917 (the boats were built by the Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company), and its design absorbed the British combat experience of the First World War. After the war, reducing the ship composition, the British Admiralty kept all the L-type boats in service, which speaks to the perfection of their design. In the autumn of 1926, the boat was hit by the trawl of one of the Soviet minesweepers clearing mines from Koporskaya Bay: the sighting frame from the bow 102-mm gun of the L-55 remained in the trawl.


Minesweeper "Zmey", formerly the yacht "Zarnitsa".

The minesweepers Klyuz and Zmey were tasked with finding the submarine. The search was led by Zmey commander K. L. Nikandrov. Later, the minesweepers found the submarine itself on the bottom in square No. 18 and called in EPRON divers. EPRON diving instructor Khrulenko boarded the submarine and found that it was lying, submerged in the silt up to the rubble rails, with a list to starboard and a trim to the stern, the conning tower hatch was closed. On the starboard side, the diver found a hole measuring 0,6 x 0,6-0,8 meters. After finding an English minesweeper nearby, it became clear that the submarine commander had not taken into account the strong current in Koporskaya Bay, and he had been carried away to the English minefield. Apparently, when attempting to submerge, the boat's left fender hit the mine rigging and pulled a mine that exploded in the area of ​​the bridge. A decision was made: raise it!

The head of the lifting operations was appointed the chief ship engineer of the Southern District of EPRON Timofey Bobritsky. On July 21, 1928, after two months of work, L-55 was raised to the surface from a depth of 32 meters by the rescue vessel Kommuna (the same one that still serves in the Black Sea Fleet) using four steel towels placed under the boat. The boat was towed to Kronstadt, where it was put into dock. Inside the pressure hull, the skeletons of 38 (according to other sources, 34, but there is also information about 42...) submariners were found, and the engineer-mechanic in the diesel compartment was completely preserved - the body was mummified by diesel fuel. The remains, along with three baskets of personal belongings, were sent by the merchant ship Truro (the USSR refused to allow a foreign military ship into its territorial waters), after which they were transferred to the light cruiser Champion at sea and delivered to England.


Transfer of remains to merchant ship Truro.

The L-55 itself was restored and put into service by the Red Navy under the name L-55. The boat took part in the Navy Day parade in 1940 in the Neva on Stalin's personal order - the best friend of Soviet athletes was good at PR! But the most important thing is that it was studied literally screw by screw by Soviet engineers from Boris Malinin's Technical Bureau No. 4. Before the revolution, Boris Mikhailovich participated in the design of "leopards", but then changed the subject matter and by the time the English submarine was raised, he had not been involved in submarine design for 10 years. At the Baltic Shipyard, the drawings were "taken from life" with the L-55. It was a great success that technical descriptions and operating instructions for the machines and mechanisms were found on board. It is interesting that the Baltic Shipyard tried to disown the restoration of the submarine in every possible way - the enterprise had a terrible shortage of qualified personnel. But the matter was declared politically important, and the “Baltics” had to undertake work to restore the submarine, which cost the treasury a tidy sum – 1300000 rubles.


Rally in honor of raising the Soviet naval flag over the L-55

On July 27, 1931, the L-55 was assigned to the Baltic Fleet. In 1934, the "native" Vickers diesel engines were replaced with domestic 42BM6 from the Kolomna Plant. In 1940, the boat was reclassified as an experimental vessel, but during the war it was transferred to the training ship division. From 1943, it was a floating charging station, and in 1944 it was transferred to Hanko, where it provided basing for the Baltic Fleet submarines. But the most interesting thing is that the submarines whose combat work the L-55 provided were its relatives! The solutions spied on the English submarine were used in the design of Soviet submarines of the Shch and L series.


The raised "Englishwoman" in the dock.

For example, the Shchukas received a widened bow copied from the English submarine, which allowed sailors to work with torpedo tubes more conveniently. The torpedo loading device, also copied by Soviet shipbuilders, turned out to be very successful. The Leninets received a Boolean shape of the light hull, which increased the stability and technology of Soviet underwater minelayers. The non-hermetic battery pits, which increased the volume of the bow compartments, were considered interesting. A booster was added to the power supply circuit of Soviet submarines, which ensured voltage stabilization in the circuit.


The fencing of the L-55 wheelhouse (or rather, what remains of it).

But, in addition to what was adopted by the Soviet engineering school, there were also unsuccessful technical solutions on the L-55, the refusal to use which was also useful for the development of submarine shipbuilding in the USSR. For example, the absence of stern torpedo tubes, a high and bulky fencing of the wheelhouse, ship pipelines made of simple iron and subject to corrosion.


Submarine after restoration

At the same time, it cannot be said, as English-language sources sometimes do, that the L-55 became the prototype of some types of Soviet submarines (there are claims that the Shchuka is a 20-meter-shortened L-55, and the Leninets project was also based on it). Individual technical solutions were used, but submarines in the image and likeness of the "Englishwoman" were not built in the USSR.
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. BAI
    0
    27 February 2025 06: 11
    When attempting to submerge, the boat hit the mine rigging with its left fender and pulled in a mine that exploded in the area of ​​the bridge.

    So did she hit a mine or was she sunk by destroyers?
    For a 300 kg mine the hole is small
    1. +2
      27 February 2025 06: 55
      Not all mines were 300 kg.
    2. +4
      27 February 2025 07: 32
      The destroyers drove the boat into a minefield.
    3. +5
      27 February 2025 08: 44
      It was a good beating. The British had 55 kg of explosives in their mines. And it could have caught the fence, for example. But at a shallow depth, most of the energy went up anyway, above the boat.
  2. +3
    27 February 2025 06: 28
    Quote: BAI
    When attempting to submerge, the boat hit the mine rigging with its left fender and pulled in a mine that exploded in the area of ​​the bridge.

    So did she hit a mine or was she sunk by destroyers?
    For a 300 kg mine the hole is small

    On a mine, on a mine. It just happened to coincide with the shot from the destroyer. Where did you get the information about the mass of the mine charge?
    1. 0
      27 February 2025 07: 06
      Quote: Grossvater
      Where did you get the information about the mass of the mine charge?

      There should have been at least 100 kg of explosives.
  3. +9
    27 February 2025 06: 42
    submarines of the Bars type could no longer be considered modern

    And not modern either. Sadly, with quite decent "paper" characteristics, the Bars were very cramped and did not have any survivability whatsoever. There were no transverse bulkheads.
    One of the boats, too lazy to look for which one, sank from a hole the size of a palm. There were no bulkheads, and the tightness did not allow plugging the hole with a plug and a rag.
    In general, this is quite surprising, because Bubnov was a very smart man. Well, and Dzhevetsky's TA were good only on paper. Alas!
    Therefore, the raising of a very good boat was a great success for the Red Army MS. The steel, rather than iron, pipelines, which were often criticized, were a consequence of the mobilization nature of the boat project. The English simply did not intend to exploit them for long.
    The author, obviously dreaming of the laurels of a subverter and despiser of decency, of course, completely by accident, forgot to mention that the bodies of the dead crew members were transferred on board the English vessel with all due military honors. Moreover, the English were offered two options to choose from. Either burial with all honors in a specially equipped cemetery near Leningrad, or transfer on board the English vessel.
    1. +5
      27 February 2025 07: 33
      On paper, Lebedenko's tank looked menacing!
    2. +8
      27 February 2025 08: 17
      The author even included a photo of the transfer of bodies with an orchestra, but why describe the ceremony in detail?
    3. +1
      27 February 2025 09: 24
      There were no bulkheads,
      The first boats did not have replacement tanks, so when the torpedoes were released, part of the crew ran to the bow end to dereflect the boat, and the presence of bulkheads greatly interfered with this. This method was even used during the Great Patriotic War in our fleet when the bow horizontal rudders were damaged. Unfortunately, I don't remember fool the title of the book about the actions of our submarines in the Baltic during the Great Patriotic War, where it was described. The L-55 was also mentioned there.
    4. +5
      27 February 2025 11: 43
      Quote: Grossvater
      One of the boats, I'm too lazy to look for which one, sank from a hole the size of a palm.

      Submarine "Yorsh" / "Rabochiy". On May 22.05.1931, 5, during exercises, it was rammed by its sister submarine "Leopard" / "Krasnoarmeets". The hole "the size of a palm" behind the main ship's highway could not be repaired - and XNUMX minutes later the submarine sank with all crew.
  4. +5
    27 February 2025 07: 00
    The boat took part in the Navy Day parade in 1940 in the Neva

    In 1930m
  5. +5
    27 February 2025 07: 29
    It remains to write an article about the raising of the British torpedo boat in Kronstadt.
    1. +2
      27 February 2025 08: 15
      So, it's already out: https://topwar.ru/253423-anglijskie-predki-sovetskih-torpednyh-katerov.html…
      1. +1
        27 February 2025 11: 49
        So I missed it. I didn't see it.
  6. +1
    27 February 2025 08: 16
    Quote: Puncher
    There should have been at least 100 kg of explosives.

    But not 300. In WWI, the mass of explosives in anchored mines rarely exceeded 100 kg.
  7. 0
    27 February 2025 08: 18
    Quote: hohol95
    It remains to write an article about the raising of the British torpedo boat in Kronstadt.

    I don't remember, I need to reread about the Kronstadt wake-up call. However, familiarization with English gliders certainly played a cruel joke on our designers.
    1. 0
      27 February 2025 11: 20
      This is - yes, one redan is worth something...
      1. +1
        27 February 2025 17: 32
        Too general conclusions have been drawn from a particular case. In the raid on Kronstadt, fast and maneuverable boats turned out to be quite appropriate, especially considering that the base was nearby (this is especially important).
        Perhaps, when repelling a classic attack with a landing of troops near a naval base, they would also be appropriate.
        Otherwise, the meager power reserve and poor seaworthiness made, from a purely engineering point of view, very interesting gliders practically useless.
        Overall, this is one of the rare cases where the right solution would have been cheaper and more technologically advanced. They didn't think it through quite yet.
  8. +1
    27 February 2025 09: 00
    Interesting. But the assertion that Dzhevetsky was a specialist of the same level as Bubnov is too complimentary for Dzhevetsky.
    1. +1
      27 February 2025 18: 59
      But the assertion that Dzhevetsky was a specialist of the same level as Bubnov is overly complimentary to Dzhevetsky.
      Absolutely right. The Bubnov-Galerkin method is still used to calculate the strength of structures, and nothing remains of Dzhevetsky.
      1. +1
        28 February 2025 07: 28
        And the boats designed by Bubnov were significantly more technically advanced than those of Dzhevetsky.
  9. +3
    27 February 2025 09: 32
    There were also some unsuccessful technical solutions on the L-55
    one of these controversial decisions was a detachable lead keel, which was lost when turning the mechanisms on the boat during the blockade of the fleet in Leningrad by one of the very efficient sailors, however, the boat was not damaged by this, and the lead went to the needs of the fleet. I read about this in the last century, but I don't remember the author and the work fool crying
  10. +1
    27 February 2025 12: 09
    Quote: Popandos
    One of these controversial decisions was the detachable lead keel,

    This was not news to our designers. This solution had been used all over the world in the infancy of underwater navigation.
  11. 0
    27 February 2025 12: 10
    Quote: Victor Masyuk
    Interesting. But the assertion that Dzhevetsky was a specialist of the same level as Bubnov is too complimentary for Dzhevetsky.

    These are engineers of different generations. I would refrain from assessments and comparisons.
  12. +1
    27 February 2025 14: 28
    Dear author! Several questions about the submarines of Great Britain and Russia.
    During World War I, the great Britons in 1-1914 transferred two series of E-type submarines to the Baltic, each of which had a Russian navigator assigned to it: E-15; E-1; E-8; E-9; E-18. Did Russian shipbuilders study them?
    On July 28, 1916, the British submarines C-26, C-27, C-32 and C-35 left the base in England and arrived in Arkhangelsk on August 08. In the current branch of the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center, the Krasnaya Kuznitsa plant, the boats were brought into a floating dock to reduce weight: the batteries were removed, some of the mechanisms and part of the light hull were dismantled. Then the boats were loaded onto barges and taken to St. Petersburg. However, all the authors on the Internet describe that the barges went from Sukhona along the canals of the Mariinsky system, probably the authors studied at school a long time ago, and forgot about the Northern Dvina water system (formerly named after Duke Alexander of Württemberg) in 7 locks. Were these boats the subject of study of Russian shipbuilders? After all, three of them survived until the spring of 1918 and were destroyed by their crews in Finland; one was destroyed by a crew in the fall of 1917 in Pärnu.
    Italian coastal defense boats "FIAT" were studied even before the First World War. After all, "Saint George" under the St. Andrew's flag sailed from Genoa to Arkhangelsk in 1, the first Russian submarine to round Europe. The boat did not fight, but worked as a pontoon in the EPRON until the early 1917s. Did our shipbuilders adopt any of the ideas of "FIAT"?
  13. 0
    27 February 2025 15: 08
    "The L-55 was restored and put into service by the Red Navy under the name L-55." Judging by the photo, the Latin "L" remained.
  14. 0
    27 February 2025 21: 16
    Alas, in the KF, only the S and K type submarines could be considered modern at the beginning of WWII... and the M type submarines are completely beyond reason... instead of copying the American AGs, they created "babies" and built hundreds of them, which were at the level of the German small submarines of WWI and worse than the small submarines of WWII...
    1. 0
      28 February 2025 11: 30
      M-type boats are beyond reason
      These submarines were initially created as defective in order to satisfy one single condition - the possibility of transporting these submarines by rail.
  15. 0
    1 March 2025 14: 31
    There was an article about this submarine somewhere in the almanac "Gangut". Isn't that where it came from?
  16. 0
    4 March 2025 21: 36
    Minesweeper "Zmey", formerly the yacht "Zarnitsa"

    Not that "Zarnitsa".
    Two yachts "Zarnitsa" were mixed up - the yacht of the Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich and the yacht of the commandant of the Kronstadt fortress, which became the minesweeper "Zmey".
    https://fleetphoto.ru/vessel/86212/
    http://shipandship.chat.ru/military/c014.htm