Military Review

Attack on Tirpitz. The circumstances of the feat K-21

90



He was the strongest ship in the theater of operations. The lonely ghost of the northern seas, whose name terrified opponents: during the war years, Soviet and British pilots made 700 sorties to the Tirpitsa parking lot. The German battleship for three years fettered the fleet of the metropolis in the North Atlantic, forcing the British to drive squadrons of battleships, aircraft carriers and cruisers along the Norwegian fjords. Submarines were looking for him, he was hunting aviation and special operations forces. Because of him, the convoy PQ-17 was dismissed. The German monster survived the attack of a mini-submarine, and finally was finished off with 5-ton bombs at a parking lot in Tromsø in November 1944. That's what a guy he was!

It was a tiny, half-blind shell, slowly creeping in the thick cold water. Sprayed periscope eyepiece, hydroacoustic seaman and gyrocompass, showing where the north is under this damn water - that’s probably what Nikolai Lunin was guided by when intercepting the German battleship.

Attack on Tirpitz. The circumstances of the feat K-21


Tirpitz was great. Invincible 50000-ton giant with eight 15-inch guns, 320-mm armor belt and speed of 30 + knots.

But the Soviet boat K-21 can not be called an innocent participant in those events. The secretive submarine cruiser is one of the most modern and heavily armed ships in its class, capable of sneaking up on its victim and catching on it with the fangs of 6 nasal and 4 stern torpedo tubes.

Their meeting took place on July 5 1942. In 17: 00, a German squadron comprising the battleship Tirpitz, accompanied by heavy cruisers Admiral Scheer, Admiral Hipper and 9 escort destroyers, was discovered by a Soviet submarine. The events of the following hour formed the basis of the plot of a real naval detective story, which has been for over 70 years for years without leaving the minds of researchers and historians of the Navy.

Did Lunin get into Tirpitz?

After the phase of active maneuvering, the boat was not in the most advantageous position - on diverging courses, at a distance of 18-20 cable from the German squadron. At this point, and produced a four torpedo salvo from the feed apparatus. The target speed was determined in the 22 node, its true course was 60 ° (according to German data, the squadron was going at that moment at a speed of 24 node. The course was 90 °).

The acoustics of the K-21 submarine recorded two separated explosions, and then, when the German squadron was already hiding away, the series of explosions were weaker. N. Lunin suggested that one of the torpedoes hit the battleship, the second to the destroyer, and the series of breaks that followed later - the detonation of depth charges on a sinking ship.

According to German documents, "Tirpitz" and the ships of his escort did not notice the fact of a torpedo attack and did not even see any traces of torpedoes fired. The squadron returned to the base without loss.


K-21

However, three hours later, on 21: 30, the combat campaign was interrupted. German heavy ships lay on the opposite course - the submarines and the Luftwaffe began to search and destroy the ships of the abandoned caravan PQ-17.
These are in brief the raw data of this task.

Today we will not discuss the K-21 maneuvering schemes and its position at the time of the attack of the German battleship - hundreds of articles were written about this, but their authors did not come to a single conclusion. Everything, ultimately, comes down to an assessment of the likelihood of a torpedo entering the battleship.
The explosions heard by the acoustics also cannot be a reliable confirmation of the success of the attack: according to the most realistic version, the torpedoes, after passing the maximum distance, sank and detonated when they hit the rocky bottom. A series of weaker explosions in the distance belongs to depth charges, dropped by the Germans on an unidentified submarine (according to a number it will receive the British submarine HMS Unshaken, which also tried to attack the Tirpitz that day).

Such a quick roll-up of the “Knight's move” operation has a simple explanation: by the evening of 5 July 1942, the Germans received clear evidence that the convoy PQ-17 had ceased to exist. Chasing single vehicles is the lot of submarines and airplanes. Large surface ships immediately lay on the reverse course.

However, this is not so simple. At about the same time, alarming information arrived on board the Tirpitz - the Germans intercepted the K-21 radiogram, in which Nikolai Lunin reported on his meeting with the German squadron and the results of the attack. A report from a Russian submarine, the appearance of a British submarine ... It would be unfair to say that cowardly German sailors began to shake their knees. But the very fact of the appearance of the underwater threat was supposed to alarm the command. And who knows, the Germans would have risked continuing the operation even if the convoy PQ-17 were still moving to the ports of destination guarded by a powerful escort?


Northern Command fleet meets K-21 returning from a campaign


There can be many versions and explanations ...

Instead of all this, I would like to draw attention to a more reliable and obvious fact. For example, on the destructive impact of the warhead torpedoes on the design of the ship.

The Germans could falsify all the journals, with their intrinsic pedantry rewrite payroll and applications for the supply of materials and tools from Germany to repair a damaged ship. Get a non-disclosure subscription from all crews of the squadron. Forge pictures. Let the Fuhrer sleep peacefully - nothing happened to his favorite toy ...

The Germans could falsify any documents. But could they hide the damaged Tirpitz from prying eyes? The Tirpitz home site was monitored daily by British reconnaissance aircraft; The movements of the battleship were monitored by agents of the Norwegian Resistance, directly related to British intelligence.

Was there at least one chance that the Royal Air Force “Mosquito” would not notice the repair work and the appearance of bright multi-colored oil stains spilled from damaged tanks?





The fact that the removal of damage from the torpedo will require large-scale work, no doubt. During World War II, many battleships from different countries were hit by submarines and torpedo bombers. And every time the consequences turned out to be monstrous - from the detonation of the cellars and the instantaneous death of the ship to the torn up sides, bent shafts, jammed steering gears, turbines and mechanisms in the engine room torn from the beds. An 300 underwater explosion kilogram of explosives is not a joke. Without a dry dock is not enough.

The 450-mm torpedo landed on the stern of the starboard side above the outer right propeller (about six meters below the waterline). The 227-kg blast of the torpedo combat charging compartment led to enormous damage: 9 3 hole in 15, intensively flooded corridor of the right outer propeller shaft, deformed and jammed shaft (along with the auxiliary starboard), leaks in longitudinal and transverse bulkheads in the area of ​​the pairs. . Despite the alarm, several watertight hatches and outlets in the damage area were not battened down. The 30: The 3500 battleship stopped: by that time, the XNUMX tons of seawater had penetrated into the stern, the ship had aft aft of about three meters and a roll to starboard at about four and a half degrees.

- the result of a torpedo hit in the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto, 28 March 1941.

Torpedo exploded on the left side in the aft 381-mm turret. The 340 explosive force of kg of TNT pierced a structural underwater protection: a hole of 13x6 meters was formed in the outer skin, and the ship received 2032 tons of seawater and got a list in the amount of three and a half degrees on the starboard and the difference in the stern around 2,2 meter. Several dozen people were killed, about the same number were injured. The list managed to be reduced to one degree, and the trim was not eliminated until it returned to the base.

- the result of the meeting of the "Vittorio Veneto" with the British submarine HMS Urge, 14 December 1941, half-yearly repair is provided.


Battleship "Maryland", damaged by a torpedo at Saipan



The battleship "North Carolyn". The result of a torpedo hit by a Japanese submarine I-19


Incredibly, just three months after the 5 events of July 1942, the Tirpitz also required complex repairs!

23 October 1942 “Tirpitz” moved from Narvik to Trondheim. There also arrived floating workshop "Hauskaran". The Germans built a caisson and over the next three months spent ... preventive replacement of the rudder blade of the battleship. It is time to exclaim "Eureka" and throw the hat up. Did we find evidence of a successful Lunin attack?

Experienced experts and investigators for particularly important cases are asked to keep calm and not to rush to conclusions - to find a connection between the July 5 torpedo attack of July 1942 and the repair work during the autumn-winter period of 1942-43. not so easy. If the torpedo caused damage to the rudders - how did the Tirpitz avoid the repetition of the fate of his fellow Bismarck? Despite the fact that the British 457 mm aviation torpedo Mk XII is just a ridiculous slam against the background of the Soviet combined-cycle 53-38 used by the K-21 boat (weight 1615 kg versus 702 kg, explosive charge 300 kg against 176 kg in Mk XII). Such a thing was supposed to smash the "Tirpitz" all the aft part and damage not only the steering wheel, but also the screws.


Tirpitz returns to base after intercepting PQ-17 convoy


However, it is known that the Tirpitz campaign returned under its own power; the transition to Trondheim also took place on its own. No noticeable repair work was carried out on board the battleship during its stay in Bogen Bay. Oil spots and trim on the stern was observed. Is there a link between the repair and the Lunin torpedo attack? Or repair - a consequence of some other events?

The version with a navigation incident can be discarded as untenable. One glance at the location of the rudder of the battleship is enough to make sure that they can only be damaged if you pre-unlock the hull on the rocks along its entire length. However, there remains a version with damage to the rudders when reversing during mooring - this could happen if all the members of the superlinker crew were drunk as Untermensch.



Could any combat damage have taken place? Alternatively, the rudder feather could have been damaged during one of the numerous bombardments of the battleship parking area:
30-31 March 1941g. - Xnumx “Halifax” raid on Trondheim (to no avail, six shot down);
27-28 April 1941g. - 29 “Halifax” and 11 “Lancaster” raid (to no avail, five shot down);
28-29 April 1941g. - 23 “Halifax” and 11 “Lancaster” raid (to no avail, two shot down);
...

Close breaks of dozens of bombs could not harm the armored monster, but underwater hydrodynamic impacts could well damage the helm drive and mutilate its feather. Finally, the stress of the metal, the cracks and dents that had arisen completed the work that had been started - the ship after six months required difficult repairs. Versions can be many. But none of them is similar to a torpedo hit - the damage should be much more serious than those that led the battleship to a three-month repair in Trondheim.

But what happened to the second torpedo?

Four fired torpedoes, submariners heard two explosions ... To whom did the second torpedo hit?

Official Soviet historiography associated the second explosion with a hit in one of the escort destroyers. But who got a gift from Nikolai Lunin? Is there any evidence of damage to destroyers?

Imagine, there are!

If you follow the combat path of each of the destroyers who took part in Operation Knight's Turn, it turns out that in just 10 days, 15-17 on July 1942, the transfer of destroyers Z-24 and Friedrich In from Norway to Germany took place. With what the transfer of the ships was connected, not reported. Is it really to eliminate combat damage ?!

But here there are a number of questions. Before sailing to their native shores, on July X, the destroyers Z-8 and Friedrich In, with the support of torpedo boats T10 and T24, carried out an operation to transfer the damaged TKR Lutz from Narvik to Trondheim (as was damaged by Lutz) - about this is slightly lower). On this the "wounded animals" did not calm down and carried out another operation to place a minefield in the North Sea (July 7-15, 14)
Something does not seem to ship full in / and a little more than 3000 tons withstood the hit of 533 mm torpedoes, and then quietly "walked" on the northern sea, put mines, and by its own way, bypassing Scandinavia to Germany.

Even huge, well-protected battleships suffered cruelly from torpedoes - what does the little destroyer expect in this case? Even if it does not break in half, the damage will be so strong that it is unlikely that it will hit the sea in a month. You can quickly weld the sheets of damaged plating, but what to do with the bent shafts of the screws and the turbines torn from their seats?



In fact, the Germans had quite good reasons to send their destroyers to Kiel for repairs. Operation Knight didn’t work out from the very beginning - during maneuvering in narrow fjords, the Lutzoff TKR, together with the destroyers Hans Lodi, Karl Halster and Theodore Riedel, flew onto the rocks and were damaged in the underwater part of the hull. Alas, none of these ships are on the “sent for repair to Germany” lists.

Epilogue

Two explosions heard on board the K-21. Suspiciously quick return of the battleship. October translation of Tirpitz to Trondheim. Three-month repair. Caisson. Replacing the steering wheel. Urgent transfer of destroyers from Narvik to Germany. Are there too many matches for normal stories?

There are other "coincidences":

Nikolay Lunin spent during his career only one successful (confirmed) torpedo attack - the transport “Consul Schulte”, 5.02.1942.
The crew of the K-21 had no experience of attacking fast-moving warships.
Attack with maximum distance 18-20 cab. on divergent courses.
How the torpedo, installed at a depth of 2 m, turned out to be at a depth of 5-8 meters (at such depth below the waterline were the rudders). Turbulent screw flows? Let's say ...

Despite all the guesses and coincidences, it is highly likely that the submarine K-21 still missed the target. Further events related to the autumn-winter repair of the battleship also poorly fit into the event canvas with the hit of a torpedo. And who, in this case, hit the second torpedo?

One thing is certain: the K-21 crew demonstrated exceptional courage, for the first time in the Soviet fleet carrying out an attack on such a complex and well-guarded target. Having received the intercepted radiogram of K-21, the officers of the largest ship Kriegsmarine probably experienced unpleasant excitement when they learned that they had been attacked by a Soviet submarine, while the submarine went unnoticed from the German ships.




Damaged "Tirpitz" after surgery "Wolfram." The ship received 14 bombs of medium and large caliber bombs, old wounds spread out from the tremors caused by the beast a little earlier by mini-submarines of the XE series. Clearly visible stains from the oil spread on the water. Repair in full swing, July 1944


The submarine K-21 on the eternal parking in Severomorsk


Based on:
http://www.kbismarck.com
http://www.german-navy.de
http://flot.com
http://submarine-at-war.ru
http://samlib.ru
Author:
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tlauicol
    tlauicol 19 November 2013 09: 12
    0
    this article, yes a week ago! to the anniversary, so to speak :))
    1. I think so
      I think so 8 December 2013 23: 04
      +4
      The article is very weak. No numbers, no links to documents, no even extracts from REAL documents. Only a retelling of some rumors, moreover, coming from unreliable sources ... In general, the article pulls on a real dummy. I read and forgot. The only thing that lays down in my head is that "Soviet history-writing" blah-blah-blah. In general, a typical article obsi.ralov of the Soviet past. In one word - NAVOZ.
  2. Ols76
    Ols76 19 November 2013 09: 38
    +1
    Good article, thanks to the author.
  3. urich
    urich 19 November 2013 09: 46
    10
    And I believe that Lunin got! There is much to write. And so go on a combat attack ... There are many scribbler?
    Lunin GOT to Tirpitz!
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 19 November 2013 14: 51
      +2
      Yeah ... got that you put yourself a bird, but did not cause half the damage. Do not wishful thinking
    2. nnz226
      nnz226 19 November 2013 18: 11
      15
      In the reports of the Sovinformburo, the names of the commanders of the boats (ships, subunits, etc.) were not named, however, when Levitan reported that the Tirpitz was torpedoed by the boat of the Northern Fleet under the command of Comrade L., the Germans were not too lazy, "figured out" who the comrade was L., found his father in the occupied territory and executed. And all for what? If Lunin had missed, then such an operation with the Gestapo, Abwehr, etc. it would not be worth starting, "the game would not be worth the candle." But when you hit - to take revenge - here "everything is in color"!
      1. Kars
        Kars 19 November 2013 18: 14
        +1
        Quote: nnz226
        , "figured out" who comrade L.

        Could you tell me in more detail where they write about this? And how could the Germans, in principle, calculate the Surname? How can you find someone by the surname of a rare name by the way?
        It was the Abwehr agents at the headquarters of the Northern Fleet?
        1. berimor
          berimor 19 November 2013 19: 19
          +5
          In Russian, the word BTW does not exist, but there is an owl BTW and it (the opening word) is highlighted with commas.
          Tired of reading semi-literate comments !!!
          1. ICT
            ICT 19 November 2013 19: 40
            +1
            Quote: berimor
            In Russian, there is no word BTW, but owl BTW, and it (introductory word) is highlighted with commas.
            Tired of reading semi-literate comments !!!


            You are waiting with impatience on the sites of teachers in the Russian language lol
            (there is not always time and desire to check spelling and all the more syntax is richer)
      2. Delta
        Delta 19 November 2013 18: 23
        -1
        Quote: nnz226
        the Germans were not too lazy, "figured out" who Comrade L. was, found his father in the occupied territory and executed him.


        But where does the data on the execution, the Gestapo, the Abwehr come from? can you give a link?
        1. Colonel
          Colonel 19 November 2013 20: 37
          +1
          Look at the Gestapo website.
          1. Delta
            Delta 19 November 2013 21: 54
            0
            Quote: colonel
            Look at the Gestapo website.


            Do you know their address?
            1. carbofo
              carbofo 20 November 2013 13: 50
              +3
              Quote: Delta
              Do you know their address?

              Somewhere in hell!
  4. moremansf
    moremansf 19 November 2013 09: 55
    +3
    Thanks to the author for the article !!! Interesting topic!
  5. Selevc
    Selevc 19 November 2013 09: 58
    +3
    A beautiful "toy" of Hitler and a good target !!! I wonder how much fuel this fool consumed? This is in the very Wehrmacht which sometimes experienced problems with fuel and lubricants ... The Germans drove this toy ship of Hitler, the whole war back and forth - until the British broke it ... :)))
    1. Kubatai
      Kubatai 19 November 2013 10: 52
      +6
      If I am not mistaken, Raeder requested 17 thousand tons of fuel for Operation Knight's Ride (the defeat of the PQ8800 caravan by linear forces) ... Ships are expensive pleasure ...
    2. your1970
      your1970 26 January 2016 14: 15
      0
      The Wehrmacht practically did not use diesel fuel - there were few diesel engines on the land, mainly gasoline engines ...
  6. govoruha-otrok
    govoruha-otrok 19 November 2013 10: 07
    +5
    good article, good photos.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Alexey
    Alexey 19 November 2013 10: 26
    +8
    "How did a torpedo, installed at a depth of 2 m, end up at a depth of 5-8 meters (at such a depth below the waterline there were rudders). Turbulent propellers?"

    The author, if the torpedo hit the steering wheel, then both the steering wheel and the central propeller would be destroyed, as well as the feed rotated. A torpedo could damage the steering wheel by hitting the armored belt with a hydraulic shock. Then indeed the damage would be minimal and damage to 1 rudder (for example, a baller is bent) is quite adequate.
    Py.Sy.: At the expense of a navigational accident. In forward motion it is also possible to damage the steering wheel - this is not necessarily a direct course, movement in circulation is possible.
  9. Vladimir65
    Vladimir65 19 November 2013 10: 39
    +8
    The impression was that the article was written in order to dispel another "Soviet myth" about the courageous attack of a tiny, half-blind shell, the K-21 submarine, under the command of Nikolai Lunin, on the magnificent "Tirpitz", a lone ghost of the northern seas, whose name terrified the enemy ... How could the Soviet sailors oppose something to the German fleet if they "did not know how to fight." So Nikolai Lunin conducted only one successful torpedo attack in his entire career. They ate bread and wasted resources. It's just not clear how the Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War.
    1. Doctorleg
      Doctorleg 19 November 2013 10: 46
      +6
      Quote: Vladimir65
      The impression was that the article was written in order to dispel another "Soviet myth" about the courageous attack of a tiny, half-blind shell, the K-21 submarine, under the command of Nikolai Lunin, on the magnificent "Tirpitz", a lone ghost of the northern seas, whose name terrified the enemy ... How could the Soviet sailors oppose something to the German fleet if they "did not know how to fight." So Nikolai Lunin conducted only one successful torpedo attack in his entire career. They ate bread and wasted resources. It's just not clear how the Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War.

      can you essentially write something? Specifically about the success of Lunin, the fate of Tirpitz. What is the habit of generalizing all the time?
      1. Colonel
        Colonel 19 November 2013 12: 56
        +6
        essentially write

        After the attack on "Tirpitz" the Germans found and hanged Lunin's father.
    2. ICT
      ICT 19 November 2013 12: 06
      13
      Quote: Vladimir65
      The impression was that the article was written in order to dispel another "Soviet myth" about the courageous attack of a tiny, half-blind shell, the K-21 submarine, under the command of Nikolai Lunin, on the magnificent "Tirpitz"


      "Soviet myth" sounds like this
      quote:
      THE COMMANDER OF THE SOVIET SUBMARINE CAPTAIN 2 RANK N.A. Lunin., Having found the squadron, correctly assessed the situation and, going on the attack, fired four torpedoes at the "tirpitz" from a distance of 18 cabs. the K-21 attack ended in vain ...........

      book "Northern Fleet" Voenidat 1966
    3. Walker1975
      Walker1975 19 November 2013 14: 54
      0
      The fact that the Soviet Union defeated Germany in a land war does not in any way alter the fact that German, Japanese, Italian battleships and aircraft carriers were drowned by the British and Americans.
      1. i.xxx-1971
        i.xxx-1971 19 November 2013 21: 26
        +3
        If not for the victory of the Soviet Union, they would still be drowned.
  10. Kars
    Kars 19 November 2013 11: 19
    +4
    The photo just asks for a diorama. Maybe when the fleet decides to try busy.
    1. Fin
      Fin 19 November 2013 16: 16
      +2
      In the photo there are 2 main battery towers, while the Tirpitz had 4. Maybe another ship?
      1. Magellan
        Magellan 19 November 2013 16: 23
        +4
        Quote: Fin
        In the photo there are 2 main battery towers, while the Tirpitz had 4. Maybe another ship?

        Tirpitz, 100%
        Germans knew a lot about disguise
        1. loft79
          loft79 19 November 2013 22: 51
          +2
          Quote: Magellan
          Germans knew a lot about disguise

          You are right.
          Sometimes they even "planted" trees smile
          1. Ramadan
            Ramadan 20 November 2013 01: 19
            +1
            Tricks were animals))))
  11. Fitter65
    Fitter65 19 November 2013 14: 32
    +8
    Quote: Vladimir65
    It’s just not clear how the Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War.

    Constantly reading articles periodically appearing on this site, such as about the effectiveness of Soviet submarines, or Soviet tanks, etc., etc., I ask myself this question. But people with facts, correct documents (in our archives it’s clear what lies bully) who is actually a winner, well, not by the fact of Victory, but by all theoretical calculations. So, look what these barbarians from the USSR did. Not only are the superhumans with their hangers-on, the hackhatchers turned on their side, they also divided Europe after the war as they wanted. Well, and who are the Europeans after that? Personally, my opinion is really non-competitive, in comparison with our grandfathers-winners.
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 19 November 2013 14: 45
      0
      Quote: Fitter65
      like about the effectiveness of Soviet submarines, or Soviet tanks, etc., etc., I ask myself this question. But people with facts, correct documents (in our archives it’s clear what lies) prove who the winner is, actually Well, not in fact of Victory, but in all theoretical calculations

      Those. Are you claiming that the effectiveness of the Red Army and the Navy were high? Little blood on foreign territory ...

      The Germans reached the Volga; 40% of the country's population found themselves in occupation. With the best tanks and strong submarines

      In the history of the Second World War there is something to analyze and there is something to ask questions about.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 19 November 2013 15: 55
        +9
        I argue that they were effective because they could withstand the loss of industrial areas, not a small part of their territory where more than 40% of the population lived, and defeat the enemy. More industrialized France, together with its UK ally, could not do this, especially considering the power of the French fleet in comparison with the Soviet one. Only footnotes on the Russian expanses, autumn thaw, then terrible frosts do not go as fundamental reasons for the failure of the blitzkrieg. There is something to analyze and have in the history of the Great Patriotic War (for some, of course the Second World War) what to ask questions no one argues.
        Not a big digression. In the early 90s in one of the Baltic countries a book (rather a plump magazine) was published about the actions of the FV-190 near Leningrad. The author very well described one battle in which a pair of FV-190s, covering the spotter plane, famously entered into battle with 16 Russian Yaks and LaGGs, however, as the battle began, the Russians raised another 6 or 8 aircraft. They knocked down about 12 "Ivanovs", though they themselves were shot down, one was hit, and the second anti-aircraft gun hit the shell box, which caused the detonation of ammunition, it is true that there was silence with the spotter. This fact is documented. Yes indeed on this day this Luftwaffe unit lost two FV-190s. They were defeated during an emergency landing, the reason for the engine failure. By the way, the FV-190 of the first modifications had such a disease. But p- to Zimin at that time the regiment commander describes this very situation in a different way, with an indication of the time, altitudes of flight, what documents in our archive are true of ours ... For several days in a row, a correction appeared above the front line A tier, accompanied by a pair of fighters. A command to destroy was organized from the top. An ambush of 4 (FOUR) Hurricanes was organized, the regiment was armed with the "Kharitons", they left in advance in the waiting area, when the Germans appeared, a couple on duty began to taxi at the airfield, consisting of 1- Yak (1 plane was left out of order by the regiment that had left for reorganization and was restored) which was piloted by Zimin himself and 1 Khariton. While they were taxiing the ambushes did their job, one pair attacked cover fokkers, the second was shot down by a spotter. According to our documents, the losses of the enemy side are estimated at 2 damaged planes that went down to the front line and one shot down, which fell near the front line, after the battle, the spotter above the front line did not appear in this place ... And who has better efficiency? Those who have 12 shot down by 2 were forced to sit down, or those who knocked down 4-rum 1, and damaged two?
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 19 November 2013 16: 19
          -2
          Quote: Fitter65
          with the loss of industrial areas, not a small part of their territory on which more than 40% of the population lived, to survive and defeat the enemy. More industrialized France

          You are breaking a causal relationship. It’s more correct to ask a question: how and why were these industrial areas lost?

          It is customary to laugh at France and the "frogs" who surrendered in 40 days. From the border to Paris 300 km. From the border of the USSR-3reikh to Minsk was also 300 km. The Germans broke into Minsk in 3 days. USSR only a vast territory and inexhaustible reserves

          Now there is no need to talk about new, non-rolled tanks and problems with the organization of the Red Army. The defeat of the summer of 1941, Rzhev, the Vyazemsky cauldron, Kerch, the Germans on the Volga, the miss of Lunin - these are all links in one chain.

          The Red Army and the Soviet Navy during the war proved to be an exceptionally ineffective mechanism that triumphed only thanks to the inhuman resilience and heroism of ordinary soldiers and the enormous human, industrial and raw materials of the USSR, including foreign supplies. With hellish tension in the rear, people worked in three shifts, driving west an endless stream of equipment and weapons. The geography definitely affected: the Urals - the oprony edge of the state, there were all the zones of action of enemy forces
          1. Ulan
            Ulan 19 November 2013 17: 01
            +6
            How and why these areas were lost, people interested in the topic know. It’s just that you don’t need to discard previous events, starting with the unexpected for all of Europe and the quick defeat of France.
            To reduce the reason for the Victory only to geography, this is excuse stupidity.
            This is just one of the factors that certainly has taken place.
            If the mechanism was resistant, it could not be ineffective. You contradict yourself.
          2. samoletil18
            samoletil18 19 November 2013 22: 35
            +2
            Quote: Magellan
            Quote: Fitter65
            with the loss of industrial areas, not a small part of their territory on which more than 40% of the population lived, to survive and defeat the enemy. More industrialized France

            You are breaking a causal relationship. It’s more correct to ask a question: how and why were these industrial areas lost?

            It is customary to laugh at France and the "frogs" who surrendered in 40 days. From the border to Paris 300 km. From the border of the USSR-3reikh to Minsk was also 300 km. The Germans broke into Minsk in 3 days. USSR only a vast territory and inexhaustible reserves

            Now there is no need to talk about new, non-rolled tanks and problems with the organization of the Red Army. The defeat of the summer of 1941, Rzhev, the Vyazemsky cauldron, Kerch, the Germans on the Volga, the miss of Lunin - these are all links in one chain.

            The Red Army and the Soviet Navy during the war proved to be an exceptionally ineffective mechanism that triumphed only thanks to the inhuman resilience and heroism of ordinary soldiers and the enormous human, industrial and raw materials of the USSR, including foreign supplies. With hellish tension in the rear, people worked in three shifts, driving west an endless stream of equipment and weapons. The geography definitely affected: the Urals - the oprony edge of the state, there were all the zones of action of enemy forces

            The same "paddies" served in the Waffen-SS and in the Wehrmacht. We provided the Germans with a fleet of vehicles (which is very important when preemptive in the strategic deployment of the enemy for successful advancement), complementing the Czech potential. And armored vehicles fought against us not only German and aviation. 170 million Soviet Union versus 400 million Europe. Why, fighting against such a weak enemy, did not they take Moscow in 1941? And about the Volga - on such a huge front it is much easier to choose the direction of the main attack than on such as in France. It was possible to deliver a powerful blow, but its goals were not achieved. they moved to the Volga for too long and the stop of navigation was already too late - a railway was laid behind the Volga.
          3. Selevc
            Selevc 19 November 2013 23: 24
            +2
            Quote: Magellan
            miss Lunin - these are all links of the same chain.
            Yes, in general, it doesn't even matter whether Lunin hit or missed - what matters is that we can be proud of our grandfathers, submariners ... Soviet submariners made their tangible contribution to the common victory ... And from the point of view of combat skill, they can only compete with them. Germans - English, French and Italian "colleagues" smoke quietly on the sidelines :)))
            By the way, can anyone enlighten why neither the English nor the Italian submarines showed themselves in any way during the 2nd World War?
            1. Santa Fe
              20 November 2013 00: 18
              0
              Quote: Selevc
              English, French and Italian "colleagues" smoke quietly on the sidelines

              Are you obviously joking? And why are there no Americans on the list of the best submariners?
              Quote: Selevc
              By the way, can anyone enlighten why neither the English nor the Italian submarines showed themselves in any way during the 2nd World War?

              The Anglican boats had a hard time - the Germans did not have as many developed communications at sea as the Britons themselves. The Mediterranean was tightly blocked by the Luftwaffe. Nevertheless, there is a catch: the torpedo battleship Vitorio Veneto, a dozen German, Japanese and Italian cruisers were sunk. + Million of trade tonnage.
              Among the steep victories - "Donau II" and "Baja Laura" with thousands of soldiers of the 6th Mountain Division. Thus, the British submarine "Trident" prevented the third, general German attack on Murmansk.

              And here is a small but instructive story about Italian submariners:
              The submarine had one 120-mm gun and opened fire first, hitting the sloop with a second projectile, and later it was taken to Aden for repairs.

              In the meantime, the Indian sloop "Hindu" approached the place of the battle, and then the division of new English destroyers. 19-mm 120-mm and 4-102-mm guns, plus a lot of machine guns turned against the only cannon of the boat.

              Captain Pelosi took the fight. He fired all the torpedoes at the destroyers Kingston, Kandahar and Khartoum, while continuing to fire the cannon. The British dodged the torpedoes, but one of the shells hit the Khartoum. Only half an hour after the start of the battle, the boat received a shell in the stern, which damaged the steering gear and wounded Pelosi.

              Some time later, the "Evangelista Toricceli" cannon was destroyed by a direct hit. Having exhausted all possibilities for resistance, the captain ordered the ship to be flooded. The survivors were taken aboard the destroyer Kandahar, and Pelosi was greeted by the British officers with a military greeting. From aboard the destroyer, the Italians watched as the fire on the Khartoum continued to grow.

              It ended with the explosion of ammunition and the death of the destroyer. "Khartoum" (1690 tons, built in 1939) was considered the newest ship. The case when a submarine drowns a destroyer in artillery combat has no analogues in maritime history.
              1. Selevc
                Selevc 20 November 2013 09: 38
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Are you obviously joking? And why are there no Americans on the list of the best submariners?

                There are no Americans - because I was considering a European theater without America and Japan ...
                Anglitsky boats had a hard time - the Germans did not have as many developed communications at sea as the British themselves. Middle-earth tightly overlapped the Luftwaffe.
                I don’t understand this phrase at all !!! What kind of communication? What does Middle-earth tightly overlap? Look at the map of Europe - the Gulf of Finland, the Kola Peninsula, the Exit from the White Sea, the Black Sea ports of the Caucasus, in my opinion it was much easier to block - The most complicated theater of operations - but nonetheless, our boats went on missions throughout the war even in the most difficult years when Ukraine , Crimea and the Baltic states were occupied ... But Britain is surrounded on all sides by the sea - a huge theater of war and nevertheless the Germans hosted the whole war there ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  20 November 2013 15: 16
                  0
                  Quote: Selevc
                  What kind of communication?

                  sea
                  Quote: Selevc
                  Britain is surrounded on all sides by the sea - a huge theater of war and nevertheless the Germans hosted the whole war there ...

                  Giant freight traffic. Incomparable with the lines of Kirkenes-Kiel or Brindisi - Tripoli. Further, the number of large surface ships of the Allies (AB, LC, cr) and the Germans.

                  The Germans had someone to drown. The Britons seemed to be so much less likely. Nevertheless, a millionth of a ton brought + a dozen clear trophies.
                  Quote: Selevc
                  What does Middle-earth tightly overlap?

                  Italy, France, Sardinia, Corsica, Greece and the island of Crete - everywhere there was basic anti-submarine aircraft Luftwaffe and Regia Marina
                  Quote: Selevc
                  The Gulf of Finland, the Kola Peninsula, the exit from the White Sea, the Black Sea ports of the Caucasus, in my opinion it was much easier to block

                  1. I don’t agree about the Kola Bay - there was a lot of freedom in boats in the Arctic. Poor visibility and a polar night are the best helpers. A third of the attacks were carried out insolent, from the surface.
                  2. an exit from the White Sea? what to close? Where was the nearest German airfield? and for what? there was nothing for Soviet boats to do in the White Sea - they were all based to the north, in the Polar.
                  3. the shallow Gulf of Finland, stuffed with mines - the worst theater for the submarine fleet. As a result, the submarines of the Navy of the USSR achieved isolated success, with the highest losses
                  4. Black Sea Fleet - single successes. For different reasons.
                  1. Selevc
                    Selevc 20 November 2013 22: 11
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Giant freight traffic. Incomparable with the lines of Kirkenes-Kiel or Brindisi - Tripoli. Further, the number of large surface ships of the Allies (AB, LC, cr) and the Germans.

                    What can you say - between Sweden and Germany there was a heavy freight flow throughout the war - the lion's share of German iron ore was brought from Sweden, there was also a considerable cargo flow between German and Norwegian ports and between Italy and Libya ... At the beginning of the war, Britain and Germany had approximately the same number of boats - German submarines sank the British battleship already in the first months of the war and subsequently two more aircraft carriers ... British submarines did not sink a single German ship larger than a cruiser - although their bases were located directly near areas where German battleships were active. .. And in the Mediterranean Sea, the British could quite successfully operate the entire war from Gibraltar, from Malta and from Alexandria ... Germany, by the actions of her wolf packs, almost put Britain on the brink of starvation, and Britain, having a solid submarine and the world's best surface fleet, could not even block the Baltic Straits or block Saint Nazaire !!!

                    The effectiveness of the USSR Navy during the Second World War is generally difficult to compare with any other countries, since in the first months of the war more than half of the naval bases were lost ... Nevertheless, the Soviet fleet still operated - and many major bases were lost - Sevastopol, Odessa , Tallinn, Riga and others ...
                    For comparison, Britain throughout the war has not lost a single place of basing and repair of its submarines ...
                    Not everything in the war is measured by the sunk tonnage - naturally, in the Black and Baltic Seas there was no such cargo flow as in the seas of Western Europe ... Therefore, the results are much more modest ... But it is amazing how our submariners fought in the Baltic Sea in 1941-44 in the rear there is only one base - a half-dead city and in front of a powerful strip of nets and mines blocking the exit from the Gulf of Finland ... Our submarines often performed tasks that were not quite characteristic for them - evacuation of the wounded, reconnaissance, escorting of the landing and much more - but it all happened in conditions of total domination of enemy aircraft - on the brink of mortal risk ... There were many losses but there were also daring, masterful attacks, innovative solutions - one Marinesco attack is a vivid example of this ...
                    In my opinion, the main reason for the very modest successes of the submariners of Britain and Italy, with much greater opportunities than the USSR, is their unwillingness to take serious risks !!! They fought the whole war - through the sleeves ...
                    1. Santa Fe
                      21 November 2013 19: 21
                      0
                      Quote: Selevc
                      between Sweden and Germany the whole war was a sickly cargo flow

                      This "not sickly cargo flow" is a trickle against the backdrop of the British-US transatlantic communications. How fast was the transport of the Swedes? Yankees "Liberty" riveted 2770 pieces. +500 Victory. + pre-war merchant fleet of Great Britain and the USA.

                      In addition, Sweden was considered neutral and it was forbidden to drown these vessels
                      Quote: Selevc
                      British submarines did not sink a single German ship larger than the cruiser

                      Hehe, they found something to reproach the British
                      The cruisers were different. There was a light "Karlsruhe" (8000 tons). There were heavy "Takao" and "Ashigara" (16000 tons). Among the three are Italian "Armando Diaz", "Giovanni Bande Nere", "Bolzano" ...
                      Quote: Selevc
                      near areas where German battleships were active ...

                      But what about the mini-submarines undermining the Tirpitz? Or torpedoing "Vittorio Veneto" by the submarine HMS Urge
                      Quote: Selevc
                      the British could quite successfully operate the entire war from Gibraltar, from Malta and from Alexandria ...

                      And it’s nothing that the climate is ideal in Mediterranean and clear water - the boat was viewed at a depth of up to 70 m!
                      Quote: Selevc
                      German submarines in the first months of the war sank the British battleship and subsequently two more aircraft carriers ...

                      But the Germans and Italians did not have aircraft carriers
                      Quote: Selevc
                      Britain throughout the war has not lost a single place of basing and repair of its submarines ...

                      Malta for example
                      Quote: Selevc
                      masterful attacks, non-standard solutions - one Marinesco attack is a vivid example of this ...

                      But what is not a vivid example of the feat of HMS Trident?
                      Quote: Selevc
                      In my opinion, the main reason for the very modest successes of the submariners of Britain and Italy, with much greater opportunities than the USSR, is their unwillingness to take serious risks !!!

                      laughing
                      you have a strange logic. You just admired the exploits of the German seaman

                      219 boats Kriegsmarine surrendered to the Allies. Many aces - Kretschmer, for example, sat until the end of the war in a concentration camp and did not blow a mustache. It turns out that this is not a risk.

                      And the pasta was offended in vain - they would have read about Carlo di Cossato. Or about the feat "Evangelista Torricheli". There were enough heroes everywhere. But the fleet becomes effective with competent command and high-quality training of personnel, which, alas, was critically lacking in the USSR Navy

                      Underwater terminator type "T", UK
                      1. Selevc
                        Selevc 21 November 2013 21: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        This "not sickly cargo flow" is a trickle against the backdrop of the British-US transatlantic communications. How fast was the transport of the Swedes?

                        Exactly - this brook was easier to block than to drown huge Atlantic convoys ...
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But what about the mini-submarines undermining the Tirpitz? Or torpedoing "Vittorio Veneto" by the submarine HMS Urge
                        To torpedo mortify completely different things ... Our Lunin also torpedoed - despite how you deigned to say low training of personnel !!!
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But the Germans and Italians did not have aircraft carriers

                        but there were many battleships, none of which during the entire war, not a single British boat could sink ...
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Malta for example
                        And what did the British lose to Malta? Wow, I discover something new in the Theme of the 2nd World !!!
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But what is not a vivid example of the feat of HMS Trident?
                        I don’t know anything about this - write or give a link ...
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In addition, Sweden was considered neutral and it was forbidden to drown these vessels
                        Nevertheless, both British and Soviet boats acted in Swedish waters - the USSR was in a desperate situation at the beginning of the war - so that it acted adequately against Sweden - since it indirectly took part in the war on the side of the axis countries ...
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And it’s nothing that the climate is ideal in Mediterranean and clear water - the boat was viewed at a depth of up to 70 m!
                        But wasn’t it that German submarines were active there for almost the entire war? And somehow managed to sink the British Barham and Eagle? And the transparency of the water somehow did not bother them ... And this, if the Britons have the strongest naval aviation
                        !!!
                        In general, what can I say in the end - even a little google, I found articles of polar opinions about Soviet submariners - two laudatory and one prosralipolymers ... I do not really believe in modern infe - the Internet will tolerate everything like paper !!! I believe the stories of submarine veterans - people whose entire chest in medals and orders did not receive them just like that and I do not believe that they are capable of lying !!!
                      2. Santa Fe
                        21 November 2013 21: 57
                        -2
                        Quote: Selevc
                        from exactly - this brook was easier to block than to drown huge Atlantic convoys ...

                        Are you able to read and analyze what you read?
                        Sweden was considered neutral and it was forbidden to drown these vessels
                        Quote: Selevc
                        Torpedo mortify completely different things

                        For drowning, these monsters used to take up to 10 torpedo hits. Not a single boat could do this. But to disable for six months - easily.
                        Quote: Selevc
                        Our Lunin also torpedoed

                        Missed.
                        Quote: Selevc
                        but there were a lot of battleships

                        much - how much?))
                        here the Britons had 15 of them, not counting battle cruisers (Repals, Hood, etc. "small things")
                        Quote: Selevc
                        And what did the British lose to Malta?

                        The British lost the base point of the submarine - in the spring of 1942 it was necessary to withdraw the 10th flotilla from Malta.
                        Quote: Selevc
                        But what is not a vivid example of the feat of HMS Trident?

                        sank the Donau II and Baja Laura with thousands of soldiers from the 6th Mountain Division. Thus, the British submarine "Trident" prevented the third, general German attack on Murmansk.
                        Quote: Selevc
                        Nevertheless, both the British and Soviet boats operated in Swedish waters.

                        Isolated cases. Sweden was considered neutral, nobody needed extra problems
                        Quote: Selevc
                        But is there anything that German submarines were actively operating there for almost the entire war?

                        While Germany and pasta had air superiority
                        Quote: Selevc
                        And this, if the Britons have the strongest naval aviation
                        !!!

                        This is the second half of the war
                        Quote: Selevc
                        I believe the stories of submarine veterans - people whose entire chest in medals and orders did not receive them just like that and I do not believe that they are capable of lying !!!

                        In, with what pathos finished!
                        And then it started:
                        from the point of view of combat skill, only the Germans can compete with them - English, French and Italian "colleagues" quietly smoke on the sidelines :)))

                        Blur something blurted. And the evidence, as it turned out, is 0
                      3. Selevc
                        Selevc 22 November 2013 09: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        For drowning, these monsters used to take up to 10 torpedo hits. Not a single boat could do this. But to disable for six months - easily.

                        But the Germans nevertheless did it - and where did this figure of 10 torpedoes come from? Why not 5 or 20? just sucked out of a finger !!!
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Quote: SelevcOur Lunin also torpedoed

                        Where such confidence ? You personally stood next to Lunin at that moment? Or maybe you are Lunin?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        how many?)) the Britons had 15 of them, not counting battle cruisers (Repals, Hood, etc. "small things")

                        Open any info on the German and Italian fleets and check the number of battleships !!! Do not forget that Britain was a world power and these same 15 battleships were deployed around the world ... And German battleships were located in close proximity to the British port in Wilhelmhaven and in the Norwegian and French ports !!! Even by virtue of geography (look at the west coast of Germany) - blocking it with submarines is not a daunting task !!! But this carries a risk that the British submariners did not dare to go through the whole war !!!
                        Blur something blurted. And the evidence, as it turned out, is 0
                        That you did not bring me any significant evidence of the effectiveness of the British fleet !!! And not a single serious proof of the unprofessionalness of Soviet submariners - you just want it so much !!!
                        The British lost the base point of the submarine - in the spring of 1942 it was necessary to withdraw the 10th flotilla from Malta.
                        Malta is actually not even an English colony - the main bases, warehouses, docks and other infrastructure for repair and maintenance of submarines - all this was on the British Isles, which were and are located today right next to the German main naval bases !!!
                      4. Santa Fe
                        22 November 2013 16: 39
                        -1
                        Quote: Selevc
                        But the Germans nevertheless did it -

                        The Germans sank Barham and Royal Oak - World War I LC
                        in those days the requirements for PTZ were different
                        Quote: Selevc
                        and where does this number of 10 torpedoes come from?

                        Musashi and Yamato began to specifically sink and roll over only from the 10th torpedo to the port side.
                        Tirpitsa was smashed three times by the entire hull, but it drowned only after three new hits with 5-ton bombs, which pierced it through and exploded when it hit the bottom
                        Quote: Selevc
                        unin also torpedoed Where such confidence ?

                        Lack of traces of hit. The whole history of WWII testifies - hitting a torpedo led to serious consequences. LK did not sink, but sharply lost its combat readiness and went for a long repair
                        Quote: Selevc
                        Open any info on the German and Italian fleets and check the number of battleships !!!

                        How many battleships did Germany have? (even considering linear CR)
                        At least you can name it?
                        Quote: Selevc
                        That you did not bring me any significant evidence of the effectiveness of the British fleet !!! And not a single serious proof of the unprofessionalness of Soviet submariners - you just want it so much !!!

                        More like a cry of despair
                      5. Selevc
                        Selevc 23 November 2013 18: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        More like a cry of despair

                        These are your examples of the heroism of British and Italian squares more like cries of despair !!!
                        sank the Donau II and Baja Laura with thousands of soldiers from the 6th Mountain Division. Thus, the British submarine "Trident" prevented the third, general German attack on Murmansk.
                        But doesn’t it seem to you that it’s too small for the maritime power No. 1 of which Britain was in those days? What is 6 thousand soldiers for the Korel front?
                        Here is a quote in the topic:
                        In total, 18 infantry divisions, 2 mountain rifle divisions, 3 mountain rifle brigades, 1 cavalry brigade and 2 tank battalions acted against the Red Army. Without taking into account the Finnish Southeast Army (it was not possible to obtain information about its strength), the enemy had 253 thousand personnel, 2300 artillery pieces, 180 tanks and 250 aircraft.

                        And your story about how an Italian submarine sank a destroyer and is completely similar to the army joke of those times !!!
                        The Germans and Italians throughout the war tried to increase their exploits and, on the contrary, belittle the exploits of Soviet sailors !!!
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 19 November 2013 14: 45
    +6
    Again the empty outpourings of the author of the article O. Kaptsov: hit - did not hit, damaged - did not damage ... Let's open a textbook for higher naval schools, naturally, Soviet "History of Naval Art" edited by Admiral S.E. Zakharov, Voenizdat , Moscow, 1969, Read: ... "On July 5, the German squadron was discovered by the K-21 submarine. However, its bold attack was unsuccessful. Having received the appropriate order from the higher command, which intercepted the radio report of the K-21 submarine commander about the attack "Tirpitz", the squadron soon turned on the opposite course and returned to the Altafjord. " Why pound at an open door, may I ask you?
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 19 November 2013 15: 17
      +6
      Quote: okroshka79
      Why burst something in the open door, let me ask you?

      Then, that in the "serious source" cited by you there is a jamb
      Quote: okroshka79
      submarine "K-21" about the attack "Tirpitz", the squadron soon turned on the opposite course and returned to Altafjord "

      After the operation was completed, the Tirpitz squadron returned to no Alta fjord, and to the Bogen Bay (Narvik).

      Between them, the difference of 150 miles is direct (and if by sea - all 300). These are generally two different fjords (Ofot Fjord and Alta Fjord), two different locations

      If Admiral Zakharov did not have enough time / desire / knowledge to check how Bogen is different from the Altai Fjord (by the way, there Tirpitz was not in the fjord itself, but in its branch - Kaa Fjord) - what significant information about the attack on Tirpitz can we talk ??
  • Sour
    Sour 19 November 2013 15: 02
    +6
    Quote: colonel
    After the attack on "Tirpitz" the Germans found and hanged Lunin's father.

    This is evident from the book of Pikul, and nowhere else.
    It is reliably known about Lunin's father that he died (or died) during the occupation. There are no circumstances of death (or death) in the archives. The rest was invented by V. Pikul, who liked to give out his assumptions as facts.
    Is it an interesting situation? The Gestapo learned from somewhere about the fact of torpedoing the "Tirpitz" (which even Hitler did not know, and Pikul agrees with this), and even found out who commanded the Soviet boat, and where the commander's father lived. Everyone knows, only Hitler is in the dark. The discrepancy is more than obvious. But Pikul is full of such inconsistencies, all his writings consist of them.
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 19 November 2013 16: 04
      +7
      But Pikul is full of such inconsistencies, all of his writings consist of them.
      My opinion about the work of V. Pikul is exactly the opposite. But now the conversation is not about that. Pikul fought in the Northern Fleet and his opinion is dearer to me than the opinions of all current "experts" put together. And by the way, I read the information that the British tried to "take away" K-21 souvenirs not only at Pikul's. And now you have a question: why did this article appear? The author finished a titanic work and decided to share? This is not visible from the article (although the photos are excellent). We have an anniversary of something? (launching "Tirpitz" on the water, attacks by Lunin, etc.) no. It's just that the author had a keen desire to open our eyes to another episode of our past. What for??? And in conclusion, a small fragment from Kubatko's book "Hunting for flagships" (by the way, I recommend it)
      This is how it was seen more than 55 years ago ...
      "In time, the movement of the convoy coincided with the beginning of the decisive German offensive in the southern direction of the land front of the USSR in 1942.
      The situation unfavorable for the passage of the convoy also developed on the path of the forthcoming movement. The entire route of the convoy was to be completed under conditions of a round-the-clock polar day, with a noticeably intensified activity of the enemy's air and submarine forces. In addition, the convoy was threatened by a meeting with a strong enemy squadron, consisting of heavy cruisers and destroyers led by the battleship "Tirpitz". In July 1942, large enemy ships were relocated to the northern ports of Norway. The heavy cruisers "Admiral Scheer" and "Liitzow" crossed from Trondheim to the Westfjord. Their further movement into the fjords in the Hammerfest area was supposed. On July 2, British air reconnaissance discovered the exit from Trondheim to the north of the battleship Tirpitz and the cruiser Admiral Scheer, accompanied by six to eight destroyers. The movement of this squadron threatened to intercept and destroy the convoy "PQ-17" and the convoy "QP-13" which was marching towards it from Murmansk.
      On July 5, the Soviet submarine "K-21" under the command of the Hero of the Soviet Union Captain 2nd Rank Lunin, which was in position north of the North Cape, attacked the battleship Tirpitz. The torpedo hit the stern of the ship. After the successful attack of "Tirpitz" by our boat, the ships of the enemy squadron returned to their bases and their subsequent exits to the convoy movement area were not observed ... "

      PS Lunin received the Hero of the Soviet Union even before the attack on Tirpitz. Somehow it does not fit with the fact that
      Nikolai Lunin spent only one successful (confirmed) torpedo attack during his career - the “Consul Schulte” transport,
      1. Kars
        Kars 19 November 2013 16: 12
        +3
        Quote: colonel
        Now you have a question: in connection with what did this article appear? The author finished a titanic work and decided to share?

        I can answer.
        Since he himself was several times .. a victim ..
        The article is a continuation of the controversy that erupted in another article. In the article, the author cited his justification against the version with the hit of Lunin torpedoes. At the same time, not at all begging for the heroism of the Soviet submariners. it is clear and justified that Lunin did not achieve hits in Tirpitz.

        By the way, I’ll throw it in - for fun, we were lucky that the Fritz did not dare to transfer Tirpitz to a calm Baltic. How many problems would the USSR have arranged if the Baltic people could not drown the heavy cruiser Eugen, and he shot all his ammunition over the Soviet troops.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 19 November 2013 16: 06
      +5
      Quote: Sour
      But Pikul is full of such inconsistencies, all of his writings consist of them

      How much does the late Valentin Savich care about you, the great-wise! In his time, there was no Internet or Wikipedia. I myself read and systematized the basic material FORTY years ago. He wrote about the circumstances of the defeat of PQ-17, where he outlined his version of the Tirpitz attack as one of the episodes of the tragedy and nothing more! From 1943 he served as a signalman and helmsman on the destroyer Grozny. Unlike you and me, he knew the naval service not from picture books, but live, from all angles! And he wrote a piercingly sincere work "Requiem for the PQ-17 caravan".
      In the memorable Soviet and early perestroika years, the barbarous scolding of Valentin Savvich Pikul was a sign of good manners in the Soviet-era intelligentsia, which you, the opponent, are now blindly repeating. Compatriots, READ the works of the writer patriot! The friendly groaning of his works, the throwing of his memory with poop, fabrications, burrs with a pack of scribblers and their henchmen is a confirmation of the value of his work for great Russia!
      1. Delta
        Delta 19 November 2013 16: 23
        +1
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        He wrote about the circumstances of the defeat of PQ-17, where he outlined his version of the Tirpitz attack as one of the episodes of the tragedy and nothing more!


        Pikul outlined those versionthat he liked. For mass literature, the norm. For history, it’s bad.

        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        From 1943 he served as a signalman and helmsman on the destroyer Grozny. Unlike you and me, he knew the naval service not from picture books, but live, from all angles!


        service in the position of a steering-signalman makes it possible to correctly assess the use of the fleets of the warring states and the reality of an event?

        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        Compatriots, READ the works of the writer patriot!


        patriot - is not a synonym for specialist


        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        The friendly groaning of his works, the throwing of his memory with poop, fabrications, burrs with a pack of scribblers and their henchmen is a confirmation of the value of his work for great Russia!


        according to this logic, everyone who is scolded is well done)))
        1. Sour
          Sour 19 November 2013 16: 48
          -1
          Quote: Delta
          service in the position of a steering-signalman makes it possible to correctly assess the use of the fleets of the warring states and the reality of an event?

          Well, if he only wrote about the fleet. This helmsman was a jack of all trades. And the novels baked like pancakes, sprinkled more than Tolstoy and Dostoevsky combined.
      2. Sour
        Sour 19 November 2013 16: 40
        -1
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        The friendly groaning of his works, the throwing of his memory with poop, fabrications, burrs with a pack of scribblers and their henchmen is a confirmation of the value of his work for great Russia!

        You consider the cooking of Pikul a historical source, but I see no reason for this. Not the slightest. He was already caught a hundred times in a lie, and this is no secret.
        And do not confuse Pikul's enthusiasm with patriotism. These are different things. Patriotism is love for one’s Fatherland, and not love for Pikul. Moreover, one excludes the other. A fan of lies cannot be a patriot. And Pikul has nothing but lies.
        1. dmb
          dmb 19 November 2013 21: 30
          +3
          Lowly venerable "Sour". Pikul wrote works of art on a historical basis and did not hide it. You blame him indiscriminately, which strongly reminds the current journalistic public, representing the yellow press or state channels, which is actually the same thing. Most likely in you speaks an acute envy of the respect that Pikul enjoys among the majority, not even patriots, but simply decent people (you are not a writer by chance?). As for the historical basis of his works, God forbid you to read as much as Pikul read when writing even a small miniature, including historical documents and memoirs of contemporaries. Unlike you, I say this not "out of the blue", but after reading the same sources (not all of them, of course).
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Ascetic
    Ascetic 19 November 2013 15: 48
    +8
    Lunin's merit in the outcome of the case, favorable for the convoy “PQ-17,” nevertheless exists. The Germans intercepted two radiograms. One of them was sent by Lunin with the K-21, the other from the English submarine, which met the Tirpitz a few hours later (she apparently had the admiralty order to skip the squadron). From these reports it became clear that the location of the ships was known to the enemy. Given Hitler's order to protect large warships, Admiral Raeder decided not to risk it. Tirpitz was discovered and the effect of surprise was lost. The English apparently dropping the convoy on the orders of the Admiralty decided to trap Tirpitz.
    The fact of the slip of our submariners cannot cast a shadow on their heroic actions in that situation. Without hesitation, they went to certain death to block the path of the enemy.

    Full page of the logbook of the submarine "K-21" for August 5, 1942

    From the logbook (KTV) "Tirpitz"
    1. Sour
      Sour 19 November 2013 16: 55
      +1
      I agree with everything except the first line. When 35 out of 22 transports were sunk, this does not in any way lead to a "favorable outcome of the case." In addition, after the order "to disperse the convoy and proceed to Russian ports" there was no point in using large surface ships by the Germans.
  • klim44
    klim44 19 November 2013 16: 55
    +1
    And my question is, where did the rumor come from that Tirpitz is the strongest battleship, at least in the European theater of operations. It seems that the allies as they agreed, the British against the background of their mistakes in the destruction of Bismarck, Our country in connection with the attack, undoubtedly heroic, K-21. After all, with the naked eye it is clear that the Germans themselves did not consider Tirpitz a "wunderwaffle".
    PS. Japanese sailors and aircraft carriers said that there are three of the most useless things in the world - these are the Egyptian pyramids, the Chinese wall and the battleship Yamato.
    1. Sour
      Sour 19 November 2013 17: 56
      +1
      Quote: klim44
      And I have a question, where did the rumor come from that Tirpitz is the strongest battleship, at least on the European Theater.

      American battleships of the South Dakota and New Jersey class were not inferior to the Tirpitz in terms of armor and speed, but they had more powerful weapons.
      The British did not have battleships comparable to the Tirpitz, but the British had many battleships. By the beginning of the war, the Royal Navy had 15 combat-ready battleships in its composition. Among them were quite modern, like 5 battleships of the Prince of Wells class, which were not much inferior to the Tirpitz.
      1. Santa Fe
        19 November 2013 19: 12
        +4
        Quote: Sour
        American battleships of the South Dakota and New Jersey class were not inferior to the Tirpitz in terms of armor and speed, but they had more powerful weapons.

        You are comparing ships of different ages
        "South Dakota" entered service in 1942
        "Iowa" - even later, 1943-44.

        German "Bismarck" and "Tirpitz" were built in 1936. In 1940, the parent was already in service. Tirpitz went into operation in February 1941 At that time they were the strongest and most perfect in the world, and in particular in the Atlantic. Armament - 8 x 380 mm, 12 x 150 mm (the Americans, for example, did not have a medium caliber at all). And the speed! a whopper cut across the seas at 30 knots

        Once, in March 1942, during an unsuccessful interception of the PQ-12 convoy, the Tirpitz was left alone (on esm. It ran out of fuel, they went to base. It could not refill them at sea due to bad weather). One against the entire British squadron. Torpedo bombers from EMNIP "Viktories" tried to attack him - the cunning German cut 29 knots against the wind and just ran away from them (along the way he shot down two)

        For comparison, the South Dakota was rated at 27 knots. However, the ship is also cool, with its own strengths. I even like Iowa better (Dakota was 70 meters shorter)
  • Ulan
    Ulan 19 November 2013 17: 08
    +7
    I was also surprised by the author’s statement that Lunin was a useless submariner and that only one transport was sunk by K-21 under his command.
    Apparently, according to the author, Lunin received the title of Hero of the Soviet Union by pulling, shooting from a slingshot at crows.
    1. Sour
      Sour 19 November 2013 18: 24
      -2
      No, I got it right.
      Until the end of the war, it was believed that Lunin sank 17 transports and ships of the enemy. This is based on his own reports.
      True, after the war it turned out that he had sunk the German steamer Consul Schulte (torpedo attack, February 1942), another German steamer Dune (blown up by a mine put by Lunin, April 1943), as well as the Norwegian unarmed fishing motorboat Freya (sunk from the surface by artillery and machine gun fire, April 1943).
      What other boats Lunin sank, what they were called, and when it was - is unknown. There is no documentary evidence, not counting the reports of Lunin himself). If you know, share it. I will read it with interest.
      1. Colonel
        Colonel 19 November 2013 19: 44
        +5
        Get a star of the Hero of the USSR on the basis of only their reports ???? I don’t even know what to say. He formed his opinion on this subject only on the basis of memoirs. Moreover, I have repeatedly met one and the other point of view
        (hit / missed). I have no access to the archives, but there was a strong opinion Lunin ended up in Tirpitz. And they still cannot forgive him for this. And when strangers throw mud at it, it's understandable, but when their own ... Out of envy or what?
  • Ruslan Bear
    Ruslan Bear 19 November 2013 17: 32
    -1
    granite would be on it
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 19 November 2013 17: 40
    +6
    Where the Tirpitz went after the K-21 attack is no longer so important. But me at the department of tactics of the Navy at ChVVMU them. PS Nakhimov was taught what exactly is in the Alten Fjord. By the way, in some literature on the history of the IUI it is also stated that in the Alten Fjord. But, you obviously know better. This is not the point. I have already stated my position above - the author has transfused from empty to empty. As for Admiral S.E. Zakharov, so he is not an authority for me personally, but the textbook was really written by sailors-scientists, and Admiral Zakharov was hardly well versed in IUI, rather the opposite. And in general, I personally do not like the fact that the ship is named after him, as well as the name of V. Kulakov. But what can you do, times were like that. For those interested, I propose to read the book by K.M.Sergeev "Lunin attacks" Tirpitz ", which, among other interesting things, contains the" Report of the commander and commissar of the submarine "K-21" of the Northern Fleet on the combat actions of the submarine for the period from June 18 to July 9, 1942 of the year"
  • Djozz
    Djozz 19 November 2013 17: 59
    +1
    A. Mukhin has an article on this, where he writes that the stern torpedoes had low-yield explosives, and the bow torpedoes were equipped with hexogen, that is, Lunin hit the Tirpitz's armored part with a torpedo that was ineffective for the battleship. The Duel newspaper, I don't remember the number.
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 November 2013 18: 07
      +3
      Quote: Djozz
      that the stern torpedoes had low power explosives, and the nasal ones were equipped with RDX

      I have never heard that for the same type (feed and bow apparatuses of the same caliber?), The treads had different military equipment.

      Quote: Djozz
      Lunin hit the Tirpitz's armor

      Damage would still be, albeit minor. But then, what is the point of the Germans hiding something? This is only a bonus - the super Tirpitz received two torpedoes and did not even change speed.
      1. Drosselmeyer
        Drosselmeyer 19 November 2013 19: 59
        +1
        In this you are right. There would be Deutsche Wochenschau rumbled in their own news, such a propaganda chance.
    2. Sour
      Sour 19 November 2013 18: 15
      -1
      What low power? TNT, or what? It is not much weaker than hexogen in brisance. Again, where did the second torpedo hit? Lunin claims to be an escort destroyer. But the destroyer from any torpedo would die on the spot. However, there is no information about the dead German destroyers on this day.
      And Mukhin is still a shot. He never bothered to prove himself.
  • Sour
    Sour 19 November 2013 18: 48
    -1
    Quote: Kars
    But then, what is the point of the Germans hiding something?

    Absolutely right.
    Some argue that this was done in order not to anger Hitler. But by that time Germany had lost a lot of warships at sea, and not a single fact was hidden from anyone. But the damage to the "Tirpitz", after which he returned safely and without losses to the base, for some reason was hidden. Completely unconvincing nonsense.
  • Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 19 November 2013 19: 36
    10
    Mr. Kaptsov, in my opinion, reread Miroslav Morozov for the night.
    I have already hesitated for similar citizens to say something, prove something about 05.07.1942/21/XNUMX, and what K-XNUMX did then.
    I can say one thing sincerely and honestly: I am very sorry that, because of my nomadic life in the Russian Federation, I did not keep the issue of the Voin magazine, which my father subscribed to on duty (like Morskoy Sbornik, the Boevaya Vakhta newspaper) , etc. och obligatory things). Why am I sorry? Yes, because there was an article - a study of a submariner, a veteran of the North Sea, who just during the Great Patriotic War served as the commander of a BCh-3-2 on one of the submarines of the USSR Federation Council. The study was just about this attack, diagrams were given, he pointed out there about the hydrological features of the area where our boat and the German squadron met ..........

    In short, Sklifosofsky: this veteran of ours was able to establish that in that campaign "Tirpitz" suffered combat losses, and okay that it would have been, for example, artillerymen or signalmen, NO, after that campaign the German battleship was missing 3 MATROSOV-MOTORISTS. I suppose, dear interlocutors, you will agree with me that on a warship the crew members will not just wander around the forecastle, and excuses, such as "washed away by a wave of three slobs" will not be rolled out here.
    Moreover, our veteran found the family of one of the deceased sailors, since they lived in the German Democratic Republic, and, of course, the sister of that sailor asked a question, they say, maybe you heard something about the circumstances ... So the sister of the deceased sailor revealed that 2 after the war, her brother’s colleague came, and clearly said: we were attacked by a Russian submarine.

    Damn, that’s why in our modern Russian society everything will not outlive in people such a craving for exposing ourselves, huh? Here are the guys who doubt N.A. Lunin, well, you don’t doubt him, you doubt yourself, and you expose yourself stupid !!! Honestly, I want to mate! Do not fear the attacks of German submariners!
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 November 2013 20: 25
      +3
      Quote: Fuzeler
      ET, after that campaign the German battleship was missing 3 Sailors-MOTORISTS.

      And how could our submarine veteran find out if all the magazines were rumored by the Germans to be falsified? HOW? WHERE?
      Quote: Fuzeler
      Moreover, our veteran found the family of one of the dead sailors, since they lived in the German Democratic Republic, and, naturally, the sister of that sailor

      HOW did he find out his last name to find later?
      http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3099218
      there is no accident?
      Quote: Fuzeler
      I saved the issue of the magazine "Warrior",

      Is it really not on the Internet?
      Al: We were attacked by a Russian submarine.

      But how could a German know whose torpedoes could be hit? It’s Russian and not English?
  • freedom2013
    freedom2013 19 November 2013 22: 19
    +3
    Already so much has been written and shot: PROs and CONS !!! Many have questions, but I BELIEVE.
  • chehywed
    chehywed 19 November 2013 22: 45
    +5
    Lunin fell, and only this can explain the inaction of Tirpitz, before the sinking of British aircraft at the end of the 1944 year. But the British, SO wanted to attribute the whole victory to themselves, that they raised such a wave of lies that even the Soviet leadership, who at first believed Lunin's report, doubted it.
    Anecdote
    - Victim, do you recognize in the defendant the person who hijacked your car?
    - After the speech of his lawyer, I’m not at all sure that I had him ...
    1. Santa Fe
      20 November 2013 00: 24
      -2
      Quote: chehywed
      and only this can explain the inaction of Tirpitz

      Take the trouble to at least briefly trace the battle path of Tirpitz. Three tips:
      Operation Source, Operation Wolfram, Operation Sicily

      Read books, learn to analyze events, and no longer disgrace. The same is addressed to the one who put you a plus for your enchanting comment
      1. chehywed
        chehywed 20 November 2013 01: 36
        0
        That's bad luck, except for the operation Source, as the first (?) Successful operation against Tirpitz, the Internet gives out anything, but not about Tirpitz. Share your knowledge of the wisest, so that I could get the smallest before you out of the abyss of the wretched wretchedness ... And at the same time, give me the reason to put it ...
        1. Santa Fe
          20 November 2013 01: 48
          -1
          Quote: chehywed
          , and only this can explain the inaction of Tirpitz

          Korap went on a campaign to Svalbard in September 1943. Tirpitz was on the move until he was hit by mini-submarines (autumn 1943)

          In the spring of 1944, the Royal Air Force Mosquito brought some bad news that the battleship had been restored. Operation Tungsten (Wolfram) was urgently carried out - a raid of the British fleet on the Kaafjord. Tirpitz was again put out of action for six months
          Quote: chehywed
          and only this can explain the inaction of Tirpitz

          The composition of the squadron operation Tungsten.

          ... Her Majesty's Anson and Duke of York battleships, Victories, Furyes aircraft carriers, Sicher, Emperor, Pezuer, Fanser escorts, Belfast and Bellona cruisers , “Royalist”, “Sheffield”, “Jamaica”, the destroyers “Javelin”, “Virago”, “Meteor”, “Swift”, “Vigilant”, “Wakeful”, “Onslot” ... - all about 20 units under the British , Canadian and Polish flags, as well as 2 naval tankers and 13 squadrons of carrier-based aviation.

          And you still wonder why the lonely Tirpitz rarely went to sea! With the multiple advantages of the Royal Navy, Tirpitz had nothing to do at sea.
          In addition, he did not have time to return from repair all the second half of the war - the Britons were hammering him with all available means.
          1. chehywed
            chehywed 20 November 2013 02: 07
            +4
            Oleg, about the operation Sizilien found in Wiki. And even if the Angles do not lie and Tirpitz participated in it, then together with Scharnhorst and a half-dozen destroyers, he does not look lonely. You believe the Anglo-Saxons, and I Lunin. This is like faith in God, that is, there is no evidence ...
            1. Santa Fe
              20 November 2013 02: 21
              -2
              Quote: chehywed
              along with Scharnhorst and half a dozen destroyers, he doesn't look lonely

              This is nothing compared to the British fleet involved in the hunt for Tirpitz.
              Quote: chehywed
              Do you believe the Anglo-Saxons

              Why wouldn’t I believe them?
              They gouged Tirpitz four times before he died
              Quote: chehywed
              that is, no evidence ...

              Those. did the photos of the flattered Maryland and North Caroline surprise you at all?
              1. chehywed
                chehywed 20 November 2013 02: 57
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                This is nothing compared to the British fleet involved in the hunt for Tirpitz.

                The forces involved against Tirpitz (indicated by you) are amazing. And at the same time, Tirpitz (according to the English) and Scharnhorst in September 1943 calmly bombard Svalbard. Not strange?
                Those. did the photos of the flattered Maryland and North Caroline surprise you at all?

                What photos? Even with them and without them it is not clear how the American battleships are tied to Tirpitz and faith.
                1. Santa Fe
                  20 November 2013 15: 32
                  -1
                  Quote: chehywed
                  And at the same time, Tirpitz (according to the English) and Scharnhorst in September 1943 calmly bombard Svalbard. Isn't it strange?

                  Not. Svalbard - literally under the nose.
                  Exit for three days (September 6-9, 1943) and quickly bombard the deserted coast. It was possible.

                  But carrying out major operations, intercepting convoys, "general battle" with the grand fleet - that would be suicide. The same as the Scharnhorst's campaign to Norkap in December 1943.
                  9 x 283 mm barrels of the German battle cruiser against the 10 x 356 mm battleship Duke of York with the support of the cruisers Norfolk, Belfast and Sheffield and 8 destroyers (55 torpedoes were fired at the German)
                  What photos? Even with them and without them it is not clear how the American battleships are tied to Tirpitz and faith.

                  In the article.
                  Stories and photographs of the impact of torpedoes on battleships of the US Navy or Italy. Received such a gift "Tirpitz" - it would not have gotten off with a three-month ersatz-repair of the stern. And I would not return from the campaign. If only in tow
      2. chehywed
        chehywed 21 November 2013 23: 23
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Read books, learn to analyze events, and no longer disgrace

        And to you, with the same end and in the same place. When Lunin attacked Tirpitz, he walked on the 24 nodes and returned to the Altenfjord on 10.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Not. Svalbard - literally under the nose.
        Exit for three days (6-9 September 1943) and quickly bombard uninhabited coast. It was possible

        Despite the fact that the agents and the Allied Air Force literally "did not take their eyes off" from Tirpitz. And what is the point of shelling the LOST coast with a powerful battleship?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The close explosions of dozens of bombs could not harm the armored monster, but underwater hydrodynamic blows could well damage the steering wheel and mutilate its feather.

        But, you are convinced that a hydrodynamic shock from a torpedo with a K-21 is impossible, simply because, in your opinion, Lunin "missed".
        One Lunin torpedo could not stop the Tirpitz. And here, to put it mildly, the selfish interest of the Commander of the German fleet in the North, Rear Admiral Schnywind, who was not profitable to report damage to the Tirpitz. The fact is that after the death of Bismarck, every battleship’s entry into the sea took place only with the personal permission of the Führer. The personal representative of Admiral Raeder in the headquarters was obliged to immediately report to Hitler about every little thing connected with the situation on and around Tirpitz.
        1. Kars
          Kars 21 November 2013 23: 32
          +1
          Quote: chehywed
          And to you, with the same end and in the same place. When Lunin attacked Tirpitz, he walked on the 24 nodes and returned to the Altenfjord on 10.

          Where is it written, or do you mean maneuvering inside the fjords?
          Quote: chehywed
          Despite the fact that the agents and the Allied Air Force literally "did not take their eyes off" from Tirpitz. And what is the point of shelling the LOST coast with a powerful battleship?

          gun testing, crew training, German ships had problems with accuracy.
          Quote: chehywed
          Oh, you are convinced that a hydrodynamic shock from a torpedo with a K-21 is impossible, simply because, in your opinion, Lunin "missed".

          And where could it be? Lunin torpedoes had a contactless fuse?
          Quote: chehywed
          In the north, Rear Admiral Schnyvind, who was not happy to report damage to the Tirpitz.

          Why? And the point is if he succeeds in somehow organizing the repair? Everyone who needs to know about it. Do you think the Gestapo didn’t work inside?
          1. chehywed
            chehywed 22 November 2013 00: 25
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            Where is that written?

            After waiting for the squadron noises to disappear, Lunin surfaced and at 19.09 broadcasted: “Very urgent. In the fleet. Two battleships and eight destroyers at 71 ° 24 'N. sh. and 23 ° 40 'east. etc. " (In D. Irving's book, the time of transmission of this radiogram is indicated at 17.00. This could not have been, since at seventeen o'clock Lunin had not yet found the order.)
            An hour earlier, at 18.16:71 pm, a British reconnaissance aircraft patrolling the North Cape reported on the radio: “Very urgent. By the fleet. Eleven unidentified ships at 34 ° 23010 'N. sh. and 65 'c. e. Course 10 °, speed XNUMX knots. "
            The message of the English pilot is highly noteworthy. Having discovered the German squadron fifteen minutes after the Lunin attack, he reports that its course is only ten knots, while Lunin determined the Tirpitz course to twenty-two knots.

            http://militera.lib.ru/research/tkachev/01.html
            1. Kars
              Kars 22 November 2013 00: 40
              +1
              Quote: chehywed
              http://militera.lib.ru/research/tkachev/01.html

              Quote: chehywed
              Having discovered the German squadron fifteen minutes after the Lunin attack, he reports that its course is only ten knots,

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Emergency message. All ships. Eleven unknown vessels in position 071 o 31 'North, 027o 10' East. Course 065o, ten knots (1816B / 5). handed over by British patrol plane

              And by the way, where is the sinking destroyer in the report of the patrol plane?
              So excuse me. And where do Tkachenko indicate the sources?

              This is all the more likely that the falsification of ship documents was a common occurrence in the navy of Nazi Germany. Damage to ships spoiled the reputation of commanders and commanders, so they tried not to indicate them in the reports.

              By the way, would I even have a couple of examples? Something I didn’t really come across.
            2. Santa Fe
              22 November 2013 00: 41
              0
              Quote: chehywed
              In the book of D. Irving, the transmission time for this radiogram is 17.00. This could not be, because at seventeen hours Lunin had not yet found a warrant

              And maybe it could. Time zones are different))
              Quote: chehywed
              An hour earlier, at 18.16:71 pm, a British reconnaissance aircraft patrolling the North Cape reported on the radio: “Very urgent. By the fleet. Eleven unidentified ships at 34 ° 23010 'N. sh. and 65 'c. e. Course 10 °, speed XNUMX knots. "

              How strange, at 18:01, Lunin fired four torpedoes. Squadron at 22-24 knots After 2,5 minutes I heard explosions. And in just a few minutes, the squadron moves at 10 knots

              By the way, the difference between the given coordinates is 25 km.
              And what about time zones? Take to explore?
        2. Santa Fe
          22 November 2013 00: 21
          0
          Quote: chehywed
          And to you, with the same end and in the same place. When Lunin attacked Tirpitz, he walked on the 24 nodes and returned to the Altenfjord on 10.

          You are funny. We read the well-known debate about 10 nodes, and you think that the problem is resolved. Alas ... there are more questions than answers
          Message Emergency. All ships. Eleven unknown vessels in position 071 o 31 'North, 027o 10' East. Course 065o, ten knots (1816B / 5). handed over a British patrol plane.
          There they still argue about the time when the messages of Lunin, the plane and the boat Anshaykn - greenwich / zone / Moscow were waited. everything is confused. The only thing that is known quite accurately is that by coordinates and time there are no 10 knots. does not work. they’ve been arguing for 70 years (even there the squadron composition was determined differently each time)

          So before you dare, try to get a little deeper into the question.
          Quote: chehywed
          You are convinced that a hydrodynamic shock from a torpedo with a K-21 is impossible, simply because, in your opinion, Lunin "missed".

          If there had been a torpedo explosion, Tirpitsu would have been turned around the entire aft and by a three-month repair without a dry dock he would not have escaped. Yes, and I could not develop any 10 nodes - he would bend the shafts, tear off the screws and rudders.

          Actually, the absence of serious damage (which should certainly have happened) - this is the only reliable evidence. Everything Else - Conjecture and Probability Estimates
          1. chehywed
            chehywed 22 November 2013 00: 44
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            So before you dare

            You are a young man first started.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            If there had been a torpedo explosion, Tirpitsu would have been turned around the entire aft and by a three-month repair without a dry dock he would not have escaped. Yes, and I could not develop any 10 nodes - he would bend the shafts, tear off the screws and rudders.

            Well yes. From a charge blown up by mini-boats:
            ... In 8.12 all four mines worked, each weighing 2 tons
            ... One of the turbines went off the foundation; the artillery tower "C", weighing about 2000 tons, was displaced from the site by an explosion, heard right under it !!!. This breakdown could not be fixed without being sent to the dock, since not a single floating crane could lift this tower. In addition, all rangefinders and fire control devices failed. And although they could be repaired on site, it would take too much time.

            And since all the torpedoes of that time were far from perfect, it is quite possible that a torpedo would explode from K-21 near Tirpitz.
            They still argue about the time when they were waited messages Lunin, plane and boat Anshaykn - greenwich / zone / Moscow. everything is confused. The only thing that is known quite accurately is that there are no 10 nodes in coordinates and time. does not work. that's 70 years of arguing (there even the squadron composition was determined differently each time)

            Well, the Great Koptsov is not subject to doubts and betrayed the ultimate truth that Lunin did not end up in Tirpitz.
            1. Santa Fe
              22 November 2013 01: 08
              +1
              Quote: chehywed
              Well yes. From a charge blown up by mini-boats:

              Well, yes. Bismarck remember what the explosion of an aircraft torpedo in the aft of LK led to
              Quote: chehywed
              At 8.12, all four mines fired, each weighing 2 tons

              there’s such a trick - three mines exploded 200 meters from the LC hull (the Germans managed to deploy the ship), because of which the damage from them was small. The fourth jerked 45 meters under the ship's hull.
              Quote: chehywed
              .One of the turbines left the foundation

              all 3 cars are out of order. The fire control system was broken. 2 towers were jammed. Electrical equipment and radio stations were damaged. The left wheel was crumpled. both seaplanes are ripped off and thrown into the water. Fuel tanks were unstuck, the battleship received 1430 tons of water, and a roll of 5 degrees immediately formed. The battleship is completely out of order for a long time ...

              What a torpedo does with a ship - photos and facts in an article
              Quote: chehywed
              a torpedo explosion from K-21 near Tirpitz is quite possible.

              And what happened to the second?))
              Quote: chehywed
              Well, the Great Koptsov is not subject to doubts and betrayed the ultimate truth that Lunin did not end up in Tirpitz.

              You have some strange perception of information.

              There they still argue about the time when the messages of Lunin, the plane and the boat Anshaykn - greenwich / zone / Moscow were waited. everything is confused. The only thing that is known quite accurately is that by coordinates and time there are no 10 knots. does not work. they’ve been arguing for 70 years (even there the squadron composition was determined differently each time)

              This fragment actually refers to the dispute about the speed of the German squadron. Regarding miss Lunin - the absence of traces of damage to the LC is enough
              1. chehywed
                chehywed 22 November 2013 01: 20
                +1
                Oleg, our argument is endless, because you are confident in your innocence, and I in mine. There is a lot of evidence on your part and on my part. Remember?
                1. Santa Fe
                  22 November 2013 01: 34
                  +1
                  Quote: chehywed
                  Oleg, our argument is endless, because you are confident in your innocence, and I in mine.

                  Federal Law of the Russian Federation of June 29, 2013 N 136-FZ, Moscow "On Amendments to Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in order to counter insulting religious beliefs and feelings of citizens

                  The document proposes a new version of Article 148 of the Criminal Code “Violation of the right to freedom of conscience and religion”. The law provides for punishment of up to three years in prison for public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed with the aim of insulting the religious feelings of believers. A fine of up to 500 thousand rubles is also possible, as well as compulsory and corrective labor.

                  drinks

                  ps / and still it’s worth recognizing - your point of view has practically no evidence
                  1. chehywed
                    chehywed 22 November 2013 01: 37
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    ps / and still it’s worth recognizing - your point of view has practically no evidence

                    like yours ... drinks
          2. chehywed
            chehywed 22 November 2013 00: 55
            0
            .
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            If there had been a torpedo explosion, Tirpitsu would have been turned around the entire aft and by a three-month repair without a dry dock he would not have escaped. Yes, and I could not develop any 10 nodes - he would bend the shafts, tear off the screws and rudders.

            And this is about Bismarck ...
            At night, the planes took off again and found the battleship. There were two hits - one in the armored belt, but the other hit was in the stern, which hurt steering wheels

            And note, from a direct hit in the sistership rudders only hurt.
            1. Santa Fe
              22 November 2013 01: 16
              0
              Quote: chehywed
              And notice from a direct hit in the sistership steering wheels only hurt

              )))
              The torpedo hit the stern, causing severe damage to the steering mechanism and jamming the steering wheels in the 12 deg position. to the left. The Bismarck lost the ability to maneuver and began to describe the circulation. Attempts to restore controllability failed

              And this is the aviation Mk.XII. Warhead - 176 kg (according to other sources 227 kg)
              Lunin fired torpedoes 53-38 with a charge mass of 300 kg
          3. chehywed
            chehywed 22 November 2013 01: 08
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            he would have bent the trees,

            But what is really there, after such an explosion, they would even have fallen with a "swift jack".
  • lesnik
    lesnik 20 November 2013 19: 09
    +3
    I am always amazed at the articles of the author))) I have the opinion that the author is a well-read "mariman" and has never been to the sea, or a person is looking for profit in such articles so that he can get money, another repost of articles under his own opinion
  • Jedi
    Jedi 21 November 2013 10: 05
    -3
    when pikul "artistically invents", without bothering to replace the names of ships and the names of commanders, it can be understood - he was in the service of our party epics in admiral's and general's shoulder straps. I can’t understand one thing - why are the Anglo-American sailors who risked throwing mud on their lives? because they tried for our country and our people ...
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 21 November 2013 18: 38
      +1
      Quote: Jedi
      when pikul "artistically imagines"

      I remind the cool advanced user of the "keyboard": Pikul Valentin Savvich. Surnames Begin with Uppercase letters, if in doubt, go to Word on the Format-Case tab.
      Quote: Jedi
      why then Anglo-American sailors who risked their lives with mud?

      Quote VS Pikul: the title of the work, the chapter where Valentin Savvich "throw mud at" his brave allies? For "" the bazaar must be answered! "
  • Colonel
    Colonel 21 November 2013 13: 52
    +1
    he was in the service of our party epics
    What a unique nonsense you said, this is something !!! And an example of throwing mud at "Anglo-American sailors"? Have you ever read Pikul?
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 21 November 2013 17: 02
    0
    Unfortunately, the staff historiographers of the Navy are still silent on this fact. But surely the intelligence of the Navy went through the German archives after the war and compared it with our data. It is possible that the K-21 torpedoes passed by. But to raise morale, not only we were always in use, let's say: "the corrected victorious report"
  • Realist58
    Realist58 22 November 2013 16: 25
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    And where could it be? Lunin torpedoes had a contactless fuse?

    Weird question. Of course it was (non-contact fuse NVS).
    And it was torpedoes of this type that were in the ammunition of the boat.
    Make yourself a connoisseur, but you don’t know such elementary things.

    BTW. Actually, the principle of operation of this fuse could be the reason that the damage was minor.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 November 2013 16: 47
      0
      Quote: Realist58
      Weird question. Of course it was (non-contact fuse NVS).

      In 1940-1941, the NVS successfully passed tests, on which a large number of 53-38 torpedo shots were fired, after which at 6.1941 it was adopted by the Navy. Due to the fact that during the pre-war tests of the NVS, firing was carried out at non-magnetized ships, doubts soon arose about the reliability of its operation under demagnetized targets. Therefore, in the spring of 1943, the Northern Fleet conducted additional test firing of 53-38 torpedoes from the NVS at the Gromkiy destroyer and the Rosa Luxemburg transport, demagnetized according to the standards existing in the Navy. These tests confirmed that the NVS reliably operates at a distance of up to 2 m from the bottom of a demagnetized ship with a displacement of 2000 to 5000 tons, and the magnetic field strength of a transport with a displacement of more than 5000 tons is sufficient for reliable operation of the NVS at a distance of up to 3 m from the bottom of the vessel. These tests were also of an agitational nature, since the submariners did not really trust the proximity fuses, and, as it turned out after the war, it was quite justified. Only 11 spontaneous explosions of torpedoes with this fuse in a combat situation were documented, in reality there were probably much more of them. It was these explosions that were most often perceived by submarine commanders as confirmation of the success of the attack.
      Quote: Realist58
      Actually, the principle of operation of this fuse could be the reason that the damage was minor.

      What are you saying))
      300 kg of TNT in two meters under the bottom
  • Realist58
    Realist58 23 November 2013 14: 24
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What are you saying))
    300 kg of TNT in two meters under the bottom

    Just not under the bottom)) (you are still a shot) but under the towering part of the stern, there is a magnetic field from a whole destroyer.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 November 2013 14: 35
      0
      Quote: Realist58
      and under the towering part of the stern

      300 under the towering part of the stern)))
      And Tirpitz returned on his own)))

      By the way, who hit the second torpedo?
      1. Realist58
        Realist58 23 November 2013 17: 59
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        300 under the towering part of the stern)))
        And Tirpitz returned on his own)))
        By the way, who hit the second torpedo?


        As far as I remember, you did not know that the USSR had a reliable contactless fuse for torpedoes appeared much earlier. Apparently, such information contradicts your image of the world and blew you up)))))) Head banging on a concrete wall is certainly cool, but extremely unproductive)))))

        If Lunin didn’t hit, then why were four underwater explosions (or at least TWO) not noted in the Tirpitz magazine? They simply could not notice them. Are they there that all the deaf and blind served ??
        1. Santa Fe
          23 November 2013 18: 22
          0
          Quote: Realist58
          and blew you mosk

          It is amazing. Why do patriots hate their native language so much
          Quote: Realist58
          You did not know that the USSR reliable contactless fuse for torpedoes appeared much earlier

          I don’t know about this now

          Only 11 documented spontaneous explosions of torpedoes with this fuse in a combat situation were documented, in reality there were probably many more. It was these explosions that were most often perceived by submarine commanders as confirmation of the success of the attack.
          Quote: Realist58
          Head banging on a concrete wall is certainly cool, but extremely unproductive)))))

          As I understand it, you have lost the desire to carry heresy about the explosion of a torpedo under the "towering part of the stern" and the subsequent "minor damage"
  • Jedi
    Jedi 24 November 2013 09: 32
    -2
    Quote: 11111mail.ru
    Quote VS Pikul: the title of the work, the chapter where Valentin Savvich "throw mud at" his brave allies? For "" the bazaar must be answered! "

    I will not quote Valentin Savvich, there is no "pq-17 requiem" at hand. but the meaning of the book is clear to everyone who has read it: it is about how our Red Navy men famously beat the Nazis on all seas like sidor goats. and the Britons do not know how to fight and only run and hide from the Germans, so this evil convoy was abandoned because the "tirpitz" were afraid ...
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 25 November 2013 22: 28
      0
      Either you haven't read, or you don't know how to read. You don't need "Requiem ..." at hand
  • kbtuy333
    kbtuy333 26 May 2016 15: 33
    0
    I would like to state my thoughts.
    1. There are two facts confirming the parties (radiograms of the British pilot and Lunin about the discovery of the squadron). The pilot radioed about the discovery of the squadron, Lunin also identified in the Tirpitz squadron.
    2. In radiograms, different speeds of the squadron. After the attack of the submarine, the speed dropped by 10 knots.
    They do not go to intercept a convoy at such a speed; they do not leave submarines at such a speed. And after a while, they generally return.
    There is a change in the behavior of the squadron after the attack of the submarine. That is, the impact took place, either from damage or from interception of the radiogram.
    I think that after we intercepted Lunin’s radiogram, we thought about it, and we extinguished the speed so as not to waste fuel, before making a decision (the decision was agreed). After intercepting the pilot’s radiogram and deciphering both radiograms, they were ordered to return. To receive data from the Tirpitz magazine on the speed of return. Well, then we would still have a reason to think about the possible damage to Tirpitz from the Lunin attack.
    The absence of data on damage to Tirpitz from intelligence is stupidly justified in the article. The rat could not enter the parking lot. Even in August 1943, air reconnaissance was asked to be carried out by our pilots (despite the fact that British intelligence was based on our airdrome pilots). But the weather conditions in which it was necessary to fly over the heads of the Fritz in order to photograph something is not for the bravest British pilots in the world. They asked ours to do this, like we don’t know how (they didn’t go below 5000m usually). And Tirpitsa was photographed by our pilot, subsequently by the GSS Leonid Yelkin (at 44 he did not return from the intelligence of the port of Narvik. Eternal memory to him). So getting the data where Tirpitz stands was sooooo hard. If the data were pedestrian intelligence, the planes would not be sent to detect its parking. These data allowed the British to carry out an action to damage Tirpitz with mines.
    My conclusions: the attack of the K-21 submarine ultimately led to the return of the squadron with Tirpitz to the base. And it didn’t matter if there was damage or not, there is a result!
    It’s like for fighter pilots, it’s not important to destroy the enemy’s plane, the main thing is to disrupt the attack, not to let him conduct an attack on his plane or to prevent the bomber from bombing ground troops.
  • Artem Popov
    Artem Popov April 4 2018 12: 42
    0
    Quote: nnz226
    Such a rapid curtailment of the “Horseback Riding” operation has a simple explanation: by the evening of July 5, 1942, the Germans received clear evidence that the PQ-17 convoy ceased to exist.

    No, the operation was canceled after decryption on the battleship (there was its own intelligence service) of the intercepted British radiogram from the Murmansk consulate, in which contacts with the “Tirpitz” were mentioned, and the coordinates of one of the contacts were not the usual English coordinate system, but with the indication of longitude and latitude ( i.e. obviously Soviet forces). In this sense, yes, K-21 has made a significant contribution to the turn of the battleship.
    The Germans did not know about any "ceasing to exist" and could not know at that time. In addition, dispersal is an ordinary tactical step that the Allies used more than once in the Atlantic; cotton propaganda tries to ignore this point blank.
  • Artem Popov
    Artem Popov April 4 2018 12: 45
    0
    Quote: kbtuy333
    In radiograms, different speeds of the squadron

    That would be in 70 years to verify the motion parameters of the target according to the (erroneous) observers when there is a published ship’s logbook ....
  • Artem Popov
    Artem Popov April 4 2018 12: 57
    0
    Quote: Realist58


    As far as I remember, you did not know that the USSR had a reliable contactless fuse for torpedoes appeared much earlier. Apparently, such information contradicts your image of the world and blew you up)))))) Head banging on a concrete wall is certainly cool, but extremely unproductive)))))

    If Lunin didn’t hit, then why were four underwater explosions (or at least TWO) not noted in the Tirpitz magazine? They simply could not notice them. Are they there that all the deaf and blind served ??

    As far as I can see, you don’t even know that 53-38 is a licensed Italian torpedo that could not even be reproduced properly - there was no reliable technology for welding the bottom of the high-pressure tank, as a result, we had to reduce the pressure from 190 to 160 atm, consequence, a decrease in the range of the torpedo. What kind of "non-contact" (demons tortured you) fuse can be talked about, just a torpedo couldn’t be done.

    Yes, everything is simple, they did not hear them, because Lunin took something else for the “explosions of two torpedoes”
  • Murmansk51
    Murmansk51 April 10 2018 21: 32
    0
    I was born in Murmansk in 1957. He studied at MVIMU. My father went to a cadet school in Kron during the war. Flax. And his father. my grandfather served on a torpedo boat (the sample was in the Rosty Museum in Murmansk. According to my father’s stories, they met a boat from a hike. What nobody did know, but after a while the British came to them (their ships were based nearby and asked in great detail ). Our people were silent. That's all I heard from the FATHER. Grandfather died.
  • Fuzelir
    Fuzelir April 11 2018 14: 02
    0
    Reading comments I decided to enter into a conversation .... May the all-seeing eye forgive me my commas!

    1. I understand that such words as “somewhere” and “once” are not serious things, but ... BUT! And what is serious in our life in general, except for utility bills and monthly income?
    Therefore, I want to say that in my time, about 20 years ago, I read one journal that my father was supposed to write out (either the Marine Book or the Warrior, sorry, I don’t remember), and there was an article by a veteran- Severomorets, a participant in the WWII is just about an attack on this German LC. An interesting fact, which I remembered, was that the author was able to establish the loss in personnel of the German military sailors during the operation "Move the horse", and not on the destroyers, but on the flagship. Moreover, the dead were from an electromechanical warhead. In what number I do not remember exactly, like there were three of them.

    2. Honestly, this "cat flicker" is already boring. Fair. He hesitates very much: Lunin didn’t get either, and the “Admiral Scheer” left Dickson with a bad card (“Wunderland”), and we actually lost the Battle of Kursk, and we ate our pilots like chickens, and Marinesko slobber and war criminal (C-13) ...

    3. When I began to seriously study the subject, then of course V.S. Pikul began to cause a maximum smile, BUT
    a) if we touch on the topic of the convoy PQ-17, we will not forget that he served and communicated with those people who participated in providing this caravan, and therefore this work is the most sincere of all that he wrote.
    b) the rest of his books, especially about the 18 century, are valuable not by historical accuracy, but by the desire to interest the reader with the History of their country.

    Something like this.