Military Review

Northern convoys. Part II

71
Northern convoys. Part II



The fate of the convoy "PQ-17" is very dramatic. On June 27, 1942, he left the Icelandic Hwal fiord and went east in an eight-node move. The convoy had 37 transports packed with a wide variety of military cargoes. Their cost was about 700 million dollars. Escort united 19 warships and was concentrated under the command of Captain 3 Rank Brum. In addition, two groups of cover ships followed the escort. The first, Rear Admiral Hamilton, consisting of 4 cruisers and 3 destroyers. And the second - the commander fleet Metropolitan Admiral Tovey, consisting of the battleships “Duke of York” and “Washington”, 2 cruisers, 8 destroyers and the aircraft carrier “Victorios”. The convoy was also accompanied by 11 submarines.

Trouble began even at sea. Above the water surface kept the fog, the court maneuvered blindly. The American ship Richard Bland hit a rock, got a hole and in distress gave a distress signal, breaking the radio silence. After a while, two vehicles damaged their hulls on the floating ice. All 3 vehicles are back. And the secrecy of the exit convoy was violated. It is true to note that the German intelligence network reported on the forthcoming exit of the convoy in early June. He was guarded by German submarines and reconnaissance aircraft.

Despite the preparations of the enemy, the bulk of the way the caravan of ships went unnoticed. And only on July 1, he was discovered by the U-456 submarine, which 2 months ago the Edinburgh cruiser and the plane torpedoed. On the maps of the operational divisions of the fascist fleet, flags indicating submarines began to move, they began to relocate. Behind the caravan, keeping in touch, the “wolf pack”, which gathered up to ten boats, was tied. At the airdromes preparing for flights aviation. Hitler's command declared the convoy "PQ-17" as the main target, it had to be completely destroyed. Massive attacks began after 4 days. The first day, 4 vehicles were carried to the bottom. The situation was heating up. And at the time of critical climax, the incomprehensible happened. From the British Admiralty came urgent secret radiograms: “Cruisers to go west at full speed”; “In connection with the increased threat of surface ships, convoy vessels disperse and make their way to Soviet ports on their own.” The cover ships, following the order, threw the caravan transports to their own devices. With them went 6 destroyers of direct protection.

What happened? The German command, deciding to destroy the convoy, gave the order to prepare for the launch of its largest battleship Tirpitz, the heavy cruisers Admiral Hipper, Lutzov Admiral Scheer and the destroyer group. Receiving this information from intelligence sources and, not wanting to put their fleet at risk, the British Admiralty threw a panicked cry: "Save yourself who can!", Returned the covering forces and took a wait-and-see attitude. The convoy "РQ-17" seemed to play the role of bait.



Further events unfolded as follows. When the Lutz and 3 destroyers hit the cliffs, they were forced to abandon the squadron. The battleship "Tirpitz" in this campaign was attacked by a Soviet submarine "K-21" under the command of Nikolai Lunin. In an effort to avoid further losses, the German fleet command canceled Knights Mov, and ordered the return of surface ships to the bases. Thus, the main forces of the opposing fleets dispersed without a decisive battle, and the disarmed convoy “PQ-17” became easy prey for fascist aircraft and submarines.

The first military loss of the convoy was the ship "Christopher Newport" type "Liberty". He was struck in the engine room torpedo, fired by a German submarine. The lost ship began to helplessly describe the circulation, passing through the sixth and seventh columns of the convoy. Only due to a happy occasion it did not collide with other transports. In the end, the ship turned in the direction opposite to the movement of the caravan, and stopped. The crew of "Christopher Newport" was not particularly waiting for the order to leave the transport: even before the torpedo hit the side of the ship, 4 was ready to descend the boat on the davits. 2 of them were destroyed by the explosion, and the second pair was already moving away from the side.



A completely new transport vessel of the Liberty type with all valuable cargo was thrown in the middle of the sea. A few hours later, he was finished off by a suitable German submarine. So 4 tragically began July - US Independence Day. And most of the ships of this caravan were American.

Early in the morning of July 5, on the horizon, behind the stern of Samuel Chase transport, observers noticed a black dot, which they identified as a German submarine. In 10.00, the submarine has disappeared from view. In 10.30, the captain gave the order: "For the vehicles - full back, the crew - to take seats in the boats". In 10.45, all the lifeboats were lowered and moved away from the vessel. For two hours the sailors were waiting for a torpedo attack. After which the captain decided that the submarine had left their ship alone. In 14.00, all the lifeboats were lifted aboard again. The vessel "Samuel Chase" was one of the few vessels that managed to avoid death in that voyage.

Over the American transport "Alcove Ranger" for a long time circled the German reconnaissance aircraft. The captain of this vessel, the US Navy reserve officer H. Christofsen, ordered to raise an international vault signal, meaning unconditional surrender. He also ordered the American stars and stripes to be lowered, and the sailors would be placed in lifeboats. However, the German plane suddenly disappeared over the horizon. The assistant captain took command of the transport and offered volunteers to continue sailing, and the captain was sent to the lower premises of the vessel for house arrest.

In the holds of the ship "Yelston" were boxes of ammunition and hundreds of tons of explosives. An unknown one that appeared from nowhere, the single Junkers passed over the masts of the ship and dropped one bomb. She did not get into transport, but exploded near the starboard. The cars stopped, the ship stopped. Captain Stenwick ordered the crew to leave the transport. No sooner had the boats moved away from the “Jelston” by a quarter of a mile, as two German submarines almost immediately appeared on the right side of the ship ... A little later, another submarine came up to the surface and fired a torpedo over the ship. The deadly cigar hit the side, the transport tilted slightly, but remained afloat. The second torpedo passed by. The third torpedo landed in the second hold loaded with explosives ... At some point, the sailors in the boats seemed that the torpedo did not explode. But then a blinding flash of blue flame flashed, and then a column of smoke flew up into the sky, up to a height of 600 meters. The heavy steam catapult was thrown off by an explosion on 400 meters. The body of transport broke in half and went to the bottom.



Captain Winston Salem Lovgren could not stand the nerves. Hearing the alarm, he turned his transport to the nearest bay, it turned out to be Obsedya’s lip and, despite the fog, went to the shore. The vessel was thrown onto the sandy coast almost at a right angle and was deeply entrenched. The team removed the bolts from the guns installed on the ship and threw them into the sea. The documents were burned. After that, the sailors loaded the boats with provisions, tobacco and water and headed towards the nearby abandoned lighthouse.



“Winston Salem” was discovered by pilot I. Mazuruk, who made a reconnaissance flight along Novaya Zemlya. Soviet pilot landed near the vessel. Captain Lovgren, who had come to the Soviet crew, was very arrogant: he demanded that a representative of the Soviet government be brought to his island. In response to this, I. Mazuruk presented his badge to the captain of the deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. After that, Lovgren demanded to free him a seat on the plane and deliver it to the United States. He refused to remove the Winston Salem from the shoal and continue to the port of destination. Attempts to appeal to the conscience of this captain replied that he was not interested in the further fate of transport and cargo, as he had already delivered them to the territory of the USSR.

On the way to Novaya Zemlya, the transport ships of the scattered convoy, mostly one by one, became easy prey for Hitler submarines. They were deservedly called “wolf packs” for their tactics. The overall picture of the defeat of the caravan was terrible.

As a result of the actions of the British Admiralty, out of 34 transports, only 11 escaped death. Together with the dead ships, 432 sunk into the abyss tanks, 216 bombers, 3350 cars and about 100 thousand tons of other military cargoes, so necessary for the USSR to fight the fascists. The convoy "PQ-17" killed 153 civilian sailors. And only 7 of them lost their lives before the convoy dispersed.

Over the entire period of the war in the northern convoys, 829 seafarers perished from 90 ships - an average of 9 per ship. In the PQ-17 convoy, the losses were 6 seafarers per vessel. The English historian concludes on this point: “It seems that the crews were more at the crossing of the PQ-17 convoy, than in other convoys, tend to leave their ships.”



The United Kingdom was unable to provide wiring for the PQ-17 convoy, and doomed it to defeat. Churchill naturally took under his protection the Admiralty and the First Sea Lord of Pound. The Prime Minister, who had previously received the nickname “Sly Fox” from Stalin, used the tragedy of the northern convoy as an excuse to stop sending ships to the USSR. In his message to the USSR government, he indicated: “With a feeling of great regret, we came to the conclusion that an attempt to send the next PQ-18 convoy to the Soviet Union would not be able to do you any good, but on the contrary would cause irreparable damage to our common cause.”

The Supreme Commander had a conversation with the People's Commissar of the Navy. “Was it necessary to leave the convoy?” Asked Stalin. Kuznetsov replied that there were no serious reasons for this. The usual caution this time turned into excessive. And England allowed it, despite its overwhelming superiority in forces. Admiral D. Pound did not want to risk British large ships. This was confirmed by Churchill in the above-mentioned letter: "We do not consider it right to risk our fleet of the metropolis east of Bear Island or where it may be attacked by German aircraft based on the coast."

16 July 1942, General Burns, told the Soviet representative: "The governments of the United States and Great Britain have decided to stop the transport of ships to the northern ports of the Soviet Union." Thus, from July to September 1942, England did not send us a single aircraft.

28 July 1942 was investigated at the House of Commons stories convoy "PQ-17". The British side was attended by Foreign Minister A. Eden, the naval minister Alexander and Admiral D. Pound, from the Soviet side - Ambassador I. Maisky, Admiral N. Kharlamov and his assistant N. Morozovsky. The atmosphere was tense and nervous.

During the discussion, Admiral Kharlamov tactfully, but at the same time quite definitely, stated that the Admiralty made a mistake. Admiral Pound blushed and exploded: “How - did you make a mistake? I gave this order personally! What other options were there then? ”To which Ambassador Maysky objected that sometimes even the English admirals make mistakes. Pound boiled over even more irritably and said that tomorrow he would turn to the Prime Minister to appoint Maisky to command the fleet of Great Britain.

But, despite the sharp disagreements, all questions were discussed. The history of the PQ-17 convoy was carefully concealed from the English and American public. It became widely known only after the end of the war.



Here are two more assessments of those events. Over time, Winston Churchill admitted that the tragedy “PQ-17” was “one of the saddest episodes of the Second World War”. And Hitler's Admiral Schmundt noted that the defeat was possible "only because of the incomprehensible decision of the convoy commander to disperse the court."

In the most difficult for the Soviet Union period of summer 1942, the Soviet forces lost supplies of weapons and strategic materials from the allies. The German command pulled the additional forces of the Luftwaffe and the submarine fleet to the north.

Only in the middle of September the convoy “PQ-18” headed east. He counted 40 transports. Considering the sad lessons of the last convoy, the British Admiralty assigned 35 warships, including the cruiser, 20 destroyers, and the aircraft carrier Ewendger to guard. The Germans threw 20 submarines, 90 torpedo bombers and 133 bomber onto the convoy. Fascist destroyers put minefields in the path of ships along the coast of the Kola Peninsula. In the same period, the Soviet Union concentrated 300 aircraft in the North, deployed 5 submarines to combat positions.

Between 13 and 16, September, the PQ-18 convoy was subject to continuous attacks. Fascist torpedo bombers managed to sink 10 transports, submarines - 2. But the enemy suffered significant losses - 30 aircraft and 3 submarines. On the approaches to the White Sea, escort of the convoy filled up the Soviet destroyers 4. Here, German aircraft bombed another transport, but lost 15 aircraft.

On September 19, the PQ-18 convoy approached the mouth of the Dvina and was forced to anchor because of the storm. This wanted to take advantage of the German command, sent to the court 24 "Junkers". All of them were dispersed by the fire of escort ships. No transport was injured. In Arkhangelsk, 149 797 tons of military cargoes were unloaded: tanks, ammunition, food.



Under various pretexts, the British Admiralty again delayed the exit of the next convoy to our country, although in the English and Icelandic ports there were already loaded 40 transports. The movement of caravans resumed only in the last decade of December, when the convoy “JW-51” arrived in Murmansk. (New indices were introduced: for the following to the east, “JW”, to the west - “RA.”) On the first day of the new 1943, “JW-52” went to the east. The January convoy reached its destination without a loss, but the next two lost several ships.

Prime Minister Churchill on March 30 1943 wrote to Stalin:
“President Roosevelt and I are extremely disappointed by the fact that it is necessary to postpone the convoy scheduled for the month of March. If the German fleet had not concentrated its forces in the northern seas, our decisive intention would be to send you another caravan in March and the next one at the beginning of May, with at least thirty transports each. After the beginning of May, we will no longer be able to continue to send you convoys by the northern route, since we will need every escort ship on the Mediterranean Sea. ” Truly, who wants, he is looking for ways, and who does not want, he is looking for pretexts.



In accordance with the program proclaimed by the Western allies, sea transportation ceased for a long period. There was a summer calm in our northern ports. Numerous British representatives sat idle, but some of our own other "work". In the autumn of 1943, Mr. Stalin wrote indignantly to Churchill that the overwhelming majority of the British servicemen were not used properly and were doomed to idleness for a long time. In addition to inappropriate behavior, on the Soviet territory, there were also cases of attempts by British servicemen to incline the Soviet people to espionage activities. Such relationships did not fit into the concept of allies. The British side frankly demonstrated its traditional principle: “Great Britain has no permanent friends, only its own permanent interests.”

The direction of the Allied convoys to the Soviet ports was resumed only in November. Over the winter came the 191 ship. Thanks to a well-designed organization of the escort, only 3 transport was lost. Fascist aviation and the fleet suffered heavy losses, including the battleship Scharnhorst. But then everything repeated, as in previous years. For the long summer months, until September, the British Admiralty ceased transportation.

Transportation in winter 1944-1945 were lethargic. The story of the northern allied convoys does not end there. As if competing with the British Prime Minister Churchill, Truman made his "contribution", who became the president of the United States after the death of F. Roosevelt. Immediately after the end of the war, despite the fact that the agreed supply program for Lend-Lease was not yet completed, he ordered it to stop and unload dozens of transports already prepared for the flight. Western and modern domestic historians often exaggerate the size and importance of lend-lease supplies. For complete clarity, a few numbers should be mentioned. In general, the US spending on Lend-Lease amounted to 46 billion dollars, of which the USSR accounted for 10,8 billion dollars, and the UK accounted for 30,3 billion dollars. Lend-lease deliveries only slightly supplemented military spending. of our country, which reached 485 billion dollars. The share of Lend-lease military equipment supplies of its quantity produced in those years in the USSR was 2,7% for artillery systems, 7% for tanks and 13% for airplanes. In total, the volume of deliveries under Lend-Lease did not exceed 3-4% of USSR products. It should also be remembered that the courts of many countries took part in the northern convoys. Mostly these were American, British, Canadian transports. A significant volume of traffic was carried out by ships under the flag of the USSR. Moreover, the behavior of Soviet crews in a complex and dangerous situation has always been more heroic and responsible. The exploits of the “Old Bolshevik”, “Donbass”, “Azerbaijan”, and “Vanzetti” who followed Soviet ships in convoys are widely known and described in the literature.

And I think the article should be finished with the words of F. Roosevelt: “We never thought that lend-lease supplies were the main factor in the defeat of Germany. This was achieved by the soldiers of the Red Army, who gave their lives and blood in the fight against the common enemy "



Sources:
Suprun M. Lend-Lease and the Northern Convoys, 1941-1945. M .: St. Andrew's flag, 1996. C. 13-26, 43-57, 92-127.
Koryakin V. The War in the Arctic. 1941-1945. M .: Veche, 2013. C. 32-56.
Puzyrev V., Suprun M., Bogatyrev S, Larintsev R., et al. Northern Convoys. M .: Science, 1994, S. 4-32.
Ivanov K. Konvoi to the north of Russia // Sea Fleet. 1986. No.6. C. 50-52.
Roskill S. Fleet and war. M .: Voenizdat, 1967. C. 128-132.
Author:
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. V.ic
    V.ic 16 October 2015 06: 37 New
    14
    В книге "Реквием по каравану PQ-17" В.С.Пикуль делает вывод, что истребление немцами данного конвоя (материальных ресурсов, вооружения, порохов, авиационного бензина)было равнозначно по результатам проигрышу нами крупного сражения на суше.
    1. Kibalchish
      Kibalchish 16 October 2015 08: 11 New
      -6
      Pikul is one more inventor.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 16 October 2015 09: 46 New
        11
        Quote: Kibalchish
        Pikul is one more inventor.

        Reason: where did he lie in the book I mentioned? This is not an accounting report, but the quintessence of his personal impressions as a participant in the war on that theater. It would be advisable to read your answer on the merits of the question, rather than re-singing its denigrants. Read better peer comments on my first statement.
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 16 October 2015 12: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: V.ic
          В книге "Реквием по каравану PQ-17" В.С.Пикуль делает вывод, что истребление немцами данного конвоя (материальных ресурсов, вооружения, порохов, авиационного бензина)было равнозначно по результатам проигрышу нами крупного сражения на суше.

          400 tanks - this is more of the armored division of the Red Army. and for airplanes - approximately air division. But for other resources - another question.
        2. Alex
          Alex 16 October 2015 12: 50 New
          +6
          Quote: V.ic
          Reason: where did he lie in the book I mentioned?
          In the afterword to one of the editions, V. Pikul himself writes that the only fiction in his book was the German submarine (I do not remember its number) and the Soviet minesweeper, who drowned it.

          Do not pay attention, base the language of those wishing enough ...
          1. Germanik
            Germanik 17 October 2015 01: 51 New
            0
            Ralph Zeggers ... that was my captain's name for that submarine.
      2. 89067359490
        89067359490 16 October 2015 12: 27 New
        +9
        Между прочим Пикуль воевал юнгой в годы войны как раз на Северном флоте в качестве рулевого-сигнальщика на эсминце Грозный.И книга "Реквием по каравану PQ-17" написана им во многим по его собственным впечатлениям.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 16 October 2015 13: 15 New
          +7
          Про В.С.Пикуля.Я очень уважаю этого писателя и он пишет правду с минимальным вымыслом.Единствення книга которую не любил сам Валентин Саввич,это книга "Океанский патруль".Первое его произведение.
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 16 October 2015 19: 33 New
            +2
            Quote: Amurets
            Единствення книга которую не любил сам Валентин Саввич,это книга "Океанский патруль".Первое его произведение.

            It’s damp yet, the lively expressive language of the Pikul-master has not fully manifested itself.
          2. Karabanov
            Karabanov 16 October 2015 21: 49 New
            0
            Quote: Amurets
            About V.S.Pikul. I really respect this writer and he writes the truth with minimal fiction.

            При всем моем огромном уважении к Валентину Саввичу, должен заметить что именно в его романе "Реквием каравану PQ-17" как-раз таки много заимствований. И взяты они из романа "Одиссея крейсера «Улисс»", британского писателя Маклина Алистера, бывшего моряка флота Ее Величества, служившего матросом на крейсере и участвовавшим в полярных конвоях.
            Про остальные произведения Пикуля ничего сказать не могу, т.к. он действительно много работал с архивами, ну и для художественности и красочности добавлял вымышленных персонажей (которые впрочем могли существовать под другими именами), как например в "Баязете" поручик Карабанов hi
      3. RONIN-HS
        RONIN-HS 16 October 2015 19: 24 New
        +5
        Pikul is one more inventor..

        В СССР "Реквием конвою PQ-17" была наверное one of the first books about the struggle of the allies against the fascists. For me, this was definitely the first book on this topic. I went to the White and the Barents a bit, theater imaging and I understand how hard it was. In vain you are at Pikul! Many fought against fascism, including and ordinary Americans and the British. good
        1. forwarder
          forwarder 17 October 2015 23: 48 New
          0
          Quote: RONIN-HS
          Many fought against fascism, including and ordinary Americans and British.

          Only the USSR fought against fascism. The rest fought with Nazism.
    2. forwarder
      forwarder 17 October 2015 23: 46 New
      -1
      Quote: V.ic
      В книге "Реквием по каравану PQ-17" В.С.Пикуль делает вывод, что истребление немцами данного конвоя (материальных ресурсов, вооружения, порохов, авиационного бензина)было равнозначно по результатам проигрышу нами крупного сражения на суше.

      A purely Soviet approach. The fact that the Soviet people did not die does not interest him. Only pieces of iron matter.
  2. PlotnikoffDD
    PlotnikoffDD 16 October 2015 07: 05 New
    0
    The Allies did not hesitate to send their people to certain death for the sake of their vile goals.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mera joota
      Mera joota 16 October 2015 12: 02 New
      0
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      The Allies did not hesitate to send their people to certain death for the sake of their vile goals.

      What are you talking about? USSR assistance with machinery, equipment, food, etc. is that a mean goal?
      1. Alex
        Alex 16 October 2015 12: 52 New
        +7
        Quote: Mera Joota
        What are you talking about? USSR assistance with machinery, equipment, food, etc. is that a mean goal?

        Most likely we are talking about the exact opposite: to send people to death only in order to have a reason to stop deliveries.
  3. qwert
    qwert 16 October 2015 07: 20 New
    +9
    Quote: V.ic
    В книге "Реквием по каравану PQ-17" В.С.Пикуль делает вывод, что истребление немцами данного конвоя было равнозначно по результатам проигрышу нами крупного сражения на суше.

    Было такое у него. Ну и в принципе "Вместе с погибшими судами канули в пучину 432 танков, 216 бомбардировщиков, 3350 автомобилей и порядка 100 тыс. т других военных грузов" Под Прохоровкой мы потеряли порядка 500 танков. Так, что действительно разгром конвоя был равен проигрышу в крупной стратегической операции, когда были потери и не было результата.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 16 October 2015 10: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      Under Prokhorovka, we lost about 500 tanks.

      Well, not everything was so sad, part of the beaten equipment was repaired after repair, but from the bottom of the sea to get it ...
      1. Alex
        Alex 16 October 2015 12: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: V.ic
        Well, not everything was so sad, part of the beaten equipment was repaired after repair, but from the bottom of the sea to get it ...

        What is it about: a war without losses is impossible, but just to ruin equipment and substitute it under the blows of people is already, if not meanness, then at least a disaster.
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 16 October 2015 14: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Alex
          just to destroy technology and substitute it under the blows of people is already, if not meanness, then at least a catastrophe.

          Подлость, подлость английская! Британцы показали себя в о всей красе, бросив беззащитные суда на растерзание "волкам Дёница и асам Геринга".
          1. code54
            code54 16 October 2015 19: 00 New
            +2
            So all the ships as well as the cargo were insured, so here the sender side did not lose anything. But people died.
            1. Alex
              Alex 17 October 2015 23: 00 New
              +3
              Quote: code54
              So all the ships as well as the cargo were insured, so here the sender side did not lose anything. But people died.

              And our fighters did not learn either a cartridge or a tank ...
    2. Bronis
      Bronis 16 October 2015 12: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      Было такое у него. Ну и в принципе "Вместе с погибшими судами канули в пучину 432 танков, 216 бомбардировщиков, 3350 автомобилей и порядка 100 тыс. т других военных грузов" Под Прохоровкой мы потеряли порядка 500 танков. Так, что действительно разгром конвоя был равен проигрышу в крупной стратегической операции, когда были потери и не было результата.

      Битва под Прохоровкой - это, пардон, не крупная стратегическая операция. А попытка контрудара в рамках как раз крупной стратегической операции - Курской битвы. и ущерб в технике и авиации в период Курской битвы десятикратно больше. Так что потери PQ-17 высоки но до "стратегических" недотягивают.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 16 October 2015 14: 59 New
        0
        Quote: Bronis
        ак что потери PQ-17 высоки но до "стратегических" недотягивают.

        Вы не правы, стратегия бриттов в том и состояла, чтобы ручеёк помощи "Советам" совсем иссяк. То, что взяла морская пучина это были только прямые потери, а недопоставка вооружения и материальных средств в самом тяжёлом году, когда фашист лез на Волгу и Кавказ?
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 16 October 2015 16: 12 New
          0
          Quote: V.ic
          Вы не правы, стратегия бриттов в том и состояла, чтобы ручеёк помощи "Советам" совсем иссяк. То, что взяла морская пучина это были только прямые потери, а недопоставка вооружения и материальных средств в самом тяжёлом году, когда фашист лез на Волгу и Кавказ?

          Правильно оперируйте терминами "стратегическая", уважаемая
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 18 October 2015 15: 03 New
          -1
          for V.ic:
          "Вы не правы, стратегия бриттов в том и состояла, чтобы ручеёк помощи "Советам" совсем иссяк. "////

          Why did they even send convoys?
          Могли бы сказать: "нам эта техника нужна самим". И не посылать ни одного корабля.
    3. forwarder
      forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 01 New
      0
      Quote: qwert
      Under Prokhorovka we lost about 500 tanks

      1254 combat vehicles from July 4 to 23, 1943 were lost forever. Out of 2924.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 16 October 2015 07: 56 New
    +2
    Churchill eventually admitted that the PQ-17 tragedy was "one of the saddest episodes of World War II."... And then he turned out .. old fox .. sadness, you see from him ..
  5. timyr
    timyr 16 October 2015 07: 58 New
    +1
    Well, yes, a mistake. It’s just that the British threw a trick on the Russians and the Americans. After that, you can believe about the collusion of the Angles and Germans. You fight in the east, but we will not bother you. Not in vain did Hess flew to England in May 1941. What was agreed upon is evident in the politics of England. And as soon as Gorbachev cried out about the liberation of Hess, he immediately died a sick man, committed suicide.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 16 October 2015 08: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: timyr
      Hessa immediately died of a disease, committed suicide.

      "Самоудушился" на шнуре от утюга... Есенин, блин...
    2. forwarder
      forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 09 New
      -1
      Quote: timyr
      After that, you can believe about the collusion of the Angles and Germans. You fight in the east, but we will not bother you.

      Enchanting! author, burn on!
      Quote: timyr
      Not in vain did Hess flew to England in May 1941.

      And indeed, not in vain. But did not agree. Therefore, he was imprisoned to death.
  6. 31rus
    31rus 16 October 2015 08: 10 New
    +6
    Очень хороший анализ гибели конвоя был проведен и указан в "Техника Молодежи"год не помню,название " Редер против Фуллера",так там основной вывод разведка Германии "переиграла" союзников
    1. Alex
      Alex 16 October 2015 12: 57 New
      +3
      Quote: 31rus
      Очень хороший анализ гибели конвоя был проведен и указан в "Техника Молодежи"год не помню,название " Редер против Фуллера",так там основной вывод разведка Германии "переиграла" союзников

      Насколько помню, "Цербер против Фуллера", но там ни слова про конвои. Там, так сказать, предтеча северной трагедии: о том, как Редер под носом у англичан перегнал весь флот из Бреста в Нарвик. Помню, там была такая классная фраза:
      "Британского льва дёрнули за усы, но он в ответ даже не проснулся"
  7. bairat
    bairat 16 October 2015 08: 29 New
    +5
    The share of Lend-Lease deliveries of military equipment from its quantity produced in those years in the USSR amounted to 2,7% for artillery systems, 7% for tanks, and 13% for airplanes. In total, the volume of deliveries under Lend-Lease did not exceed 3-4% of Soviet production.

    Уклон понятен, "мы бы и без вас справились". А автор не хочет предоставить процентное соотношение по полноприводным грузовикам, продуктам питания, или например по бтр-ам? Американцы нам тогда здорово и бескорыстно помогли, за что им мое человеческое спасибо. Не надо коверкать историю в угоду политическому моменту.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2015 08: 39 New
      +8
      Quote: bairat
      And the author does not want to provide a percentage for all-wheel drive trucks, food, or for example, for armored vehicles?

      Авиационному бензину, взрывчатым веществам и т.д. и т.п.... да, ленд-лиза в абсолютном выражении было не так уж много, но им весьма удачно "расшивали" наши узкие места где выпуск сильно не соответствовал потребности
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 16 October 2015 15: 05 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Авиационному бензину, взрывчатым веществам и т.д. и т.п.... да, ленд-лиза в абсолютном выражении было не так уж много, но им весьма удачно "расшивали" наши узкие места где выпуск сильно не соответствовал потребности

        Угу... по тому же полноприводу "импортозамещение" in theory it was possible - GAZ-63 appeared even before the war. But in practice, the release of domestic all-wheel drive meant a complete cessation of production of light tanks and light self-propelled guns.
      2. Alex
        Alex 17 October 2015 23: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        им весьма удачно "расшивали" наши узкие места где выпуск сильно не соответствовал потребности

        Well, Stalin, unlike some of the current ones, also ordered what was needed REALLY, and not for POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.

        Thank you for the Lend-Lease, of course, but it’s also not worth carrying nonsense about its exceptional importance. One thing is good, that all this goods did not get to the Germans, otherwise it would have become from them.
    2. cayman gene
      cayman gene 16 October 2015 08: 50 New
      13
      Quote: bairat
      The Americans then helped us coolly and disinterestedly, for which my human thanks to them. No need to distort history for the sake of the political moment.

      only not disinterestedly, otherwise they would not be Americans, otherwise you are right.
      1. bairat
        bairat 16 October 2015 09: 11 New
        +3
        The principle of Lend-Lease: used - give it back, and you don’t have to. If you decide to leave then yes, you have to pay, but this is already a violation of the agreements.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. veteran66
        veteran66 16 October 2015 16: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: Cayman Gena
        just not disinterestedly,

        and which countries disinterestedly help someone?
        1. cayman gene
          cayman gene 16 October 2015 19: 23 New
          +5
          Quote: veteran66
          Quote: Cayman Gena
          just not disinterestedly,

          and which countries disinterestedly help someone?

          except Russia, perhaps, no one.
    3. veteran66
      veteran66 16 October 2015 16: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: bairat
      And the author does not want to provide a percentage for all-wheel drive trucks, food, or for example, for armored vehicles?

      and not only, not even a meter of rails, not a single mainline diesel locomotive was produced in the USSR during the war years, and the USA also delivered 8 refineries for the production of high-octane fuel, which the USSR did not produce at all.
      1. forwarder
        forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: veteran66
        which (PZ) of the USSR was not produced at all.

        And also TPP. 6 thousand tons of tetraethyl lead (anti-knock additive to aviation gasoline). It is only already in the Russian Federation ceased to produce. And without a thermal power plant, I would have to fight on I-15 and I-16. Until the end.
        And yet:
        18 thousand combat aircraft
        12 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns,
        7 thousand armored personnel carriers,
        520 ships of different classes,
        375 thousand trucks,
        50 тыс. полноприводных "виллисов",
        35 thousand motorcycles
        2 thousand steam locomotives
        11 thousand wagons,
        620 thousand tons of railway rails,
        7 thousand airborne aircraft radio transmitters,
        16 thousand tank
        53 thousand different other radio stations,
        619 thousand telephone sets
        2 million km of telephone wire (you can wind the Earth 48 times at the equator),
        3 thousand km of fire hose,
        10 million radio tubes
        170 ground and 370 airborne radars,
        12 tons of precious cesium,
        10 thousand tons of graphite electrodes,
        45 thousand metal-cutting machines,
        104 heavy presses,
        8 thousand small-caliber anti-aircraft guns and 18 million shells for them,
        6 thousand sets of semi-automatic anti-aircraft sights,
        903 thousand detonators of various types,
        603 million rounds of rifle caliber
        3 million shells for 20 mm air guns,
        1.170 тыс. тонн готового авиабензина (с учетом высокооктановых "светлых фракций"),
        13 million pairs of leather army boots,
        40 million grams of streptocide ...
  8. Yarik
    Yarik 16 October 2015 09: 00 New
    -3
    The German command, having decided to destroy the convoy, gave the order to prepare for the launch of its largest battleship Tirpitz

    Tipits threshing floor. If there were, say, Rodney in the convoy, the Fritzes would not even twitch. But the Britons are still allies ....
    1. Parabelum
      Parabelum 16 October 2015 09: 34 New
      +9
      Ну конечно же гумно.Одно такое же гумно "Худ" потопило, его потом по Атлантике гоняли всем флотом. Немцы же тупые, понастроили гумна и конвой расфигарили потом. Хорошая у вас аналитика, безапеляционная.
      1. Yarik
        Yarik 16 October 2015 10: 59 New
        -1
        Drowning Hood is a matter of chance, no more. Mr. Brenneke read, immediately all the futility of the attempts of the German Navy will be visible. Surface forces.
        1. Parabelum
          Parabelum 16 October 2015 11: 37 New
          +2
          Here's what they write on the same wiki:
          "Тип «Бисмарк» (позднее был построен ещё один корабль этого типа — линкор «Тирпиц») первоначально создавался как наследник «карманных линкоров» и в основном предназначался для ведения рейдерских операций против торговых кораблей. Так, объём топливного резерва «Бисмарка» скорее характерен для тихоокеанских линкоров, а показанная на испытаниях в Балтийском море скорость в 30,1 узлов была одним из лучших в мире значений для таких кораблей. После спуска на воду второго французского линкора типа «Дюнкерк» проект был изменён в сторону дальнейшего увеличения размеров. «Бисмарк» был первым после Первой мировой войны полноценным линкором германского флота: вооружение, включавшее восемь 380-мм пушек SKC-34 в четырёх башнях, позволяло ему на равных противостоять любому линейному кораблю. «Бисмарк» во время своей службы был крупнейшим линкором в мире, а тип «Бисмарк» остаётся третьим по величине (после японского «Ямато» и американского «Айова») типом линкоров за всю историю"
          1. Yarik
            Yarik 16 October 2015 13: 50 New
            -8
            "Крупнейший" это конечно,мощная характеристика.Как известно,большой шкаф громко падает.А габариты - они,собственно,откуда?Неудачная машинно-котельная установка,отсутствие универсального калибра и т.д.вас никогда не ужасало кол-во экипажа у "Бисмарков"? навевает даже как-то какой-нибудь "Капудание",типо на абордаж идти собрались. wassatИ 8 пушек в 4-х башнях отстой.12 в 4 или 9 в 3-х дело другое.Если бы с "Вашингтоном" встретился,жить бы "Бисмарку" недолго.конечно,кроме всего прочего водоизмещение это еще и боевая устойчивость...но толку от измолотого корпуса,как показала практика,немного.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 16 October 2015 15: 41 New
              +2
              Quote: Yarik
              Если бы с "Вашингтоном" встретился,жить бы "Бисмарку" недолго.конечно,кроме всего прочего водоизмещение это еще и боевая устойчивость...но толку от измолотого корпуса,как показала практика,немного.

              Heh heh heh ... on the tablets it certainly goes.
              А на практике у первых двух типов американских поствашингтонцев была куча проблем, которые крайне затрудняли нормальное ведение боя. Например - короткие замыкания и самообесточивание при стрельбе собственным ГК ("Индиана") или при близких разрывах.
              In a heavy fog on May 1, the flagship King George V rammed the English destroyer Punjabi and cut it into two. The next "Washington" in the wake just passed between the submerged halves of the destroyer, when deep bombs began to explode on the latter. Close explosions under the body and side did not violate the watertightness, did not cause any structural damage, but a strong concussion disabled some fire control devices (for example, all GK rangefinders, including tower) and radars (search and 3 artillery), and in one a leak started from diesel tanks. A wave of short circuits swept through the ship, a quarter of the power of the generators of the bow switchboard was lost.

              Плюс - хреновая первоначальная подготовка команд (до первого боя), которые действовали строго по инструкции даже в тех случаях, когда эта инструкция была явно неприменима. Например, на "СоДак" при Гуадалканале после КЗ у потребителей ГРЩ №4 на щит было последовательно подано питание сначала с ГРЩ №3, а затем с ГРЩ №2. Без устранения причин КЗ! Результат - 3/4 ГРЩ корабля временно вышли из строя.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2015 19: 19 New
              +2
              Quote: Yarik
              And 8 guns in 4 towers sucks. 12 in 4 or 9 in 3 is another matter

              So, for reference - placing the main caliber of two guns in four towers is MUCH better from the point of view of managing artillery fire than three towers of three guns.
              Quote: Yarik
              Если бы с "Вашингтоном" встретился,жить бы "Бисмарку" недолго

              При откровенно слабой броне "Вашингтона" - очень смелое заявление
        2. Alex
          Alex 17 October 2015 23: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Yarik
          Drowning hood issue of chance

          The question of the case was only what shot he would sink to the bottom of, and not its destruction itself: the English LINE CHAIR of the final series had no chance of resisting a one-on-one match with the LINCOR of the last design.
        3. forwarder
          forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 27 New
          0
          Quote: Yarik
          Drowning hood issue of chance

          Drowning Hood is a matter of neglect by the Britons. He could only survive if they hadn’t shot him. Or didn’t hit. In all other cases, he was doomed in advance.
          This is like Oslyabya under Tsushima.
          1. Alex
            Alex 18 October 2015 10: 11 New
            +2
            Quote: forwarder
            Drowning Hood is a matter of neglect by the Britons. He could only survive if they hadn’t shot him. Or didn’t hit. In all other cases, he was doomed in advance.

            Фактически вы повторили мой тезис другими словами. ЛКр-ы с самого начала вызывали вопросов больше, чем вменяемых ответов на их. Разгром эскадры Шпее "Инвенсиблом" и "Инфлексиблом" - это практически всё, чем они могли похвастаться.
      2. 31rus
        31rus 16 October 2015 11: 29 New
        +1
        Еще раз повторю гибель конвоя это цепочка не удач,просчетов и ошибок союзников,чем немцы и воспользовались,что привело к трагедии,рассматривать одну из причин не правильно и ошибочно,"игра англичан на радио перехватах(где немцы в тот момент превзошли англичан),одна из основных причин принятия не правильных и роковых для конвоя решений
        1. Alex
          Alex 18 October 2015 10: 20 New
          +2
          Quote: 31rus
          Once again I will repeat the death of the convoy is a chain of failures, miscalculations and mistakes of the allies, which the Germans took

          There were no errors, everything is extremely clear and understandable. The Germans decided to withdraw heavy ships not to scare off escort ships, but exclusively to defeat them. So it was the Germans who were more likely to have setbacks that rendered useless participation in the operation of surface ships.

          But what caused the escort ships to flee is a question to which the British Admiralty has still not given an intelligible (and indeed any) answer. Even the version of V. Pikul
          ..."Тирпиц" - этот ночной кошмар Уайт-Холла, за стройными надстройками которого лордам Адмиралтейства виделась смутная тень "Бисмарка"...
          and that seems far more convincing than Pound's psychos and Churchill's muttering about some setbacks and dark days.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. forwarder
        forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 39 New
        -1
        Quote: Parabelum
        Well, of course

        Have you seen the U-2? That's about a bunch of such funny planes with a torpedo under their belly was sunk Bismarck.
        And the reason for the return of Tirpitz is not at all in K-21, which did not hit anyone. After the Bismarck incident, Hitler banned the entry of large ships into the sea, if it was not known exactly where the aircraft carriers were. The exact location of the aircraft carriers could not be established, and Tirpitz was recalled.
        1. Alex
          Alex 18 October 2015 10: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: forwarder
          Have you seen the U-2? That's about a bunch of such funny planes with a torpedo under their belly was sunk Bismarck.

          "Суордфиш", конечно-же, не верх совершенства, но их и называли чуть-ли не одноразовыми торпедоносцами (ЕМНИП, у того-же Пикуля что-то есть об этом самолёте). И из всех торпед, выпущенных ими в той памятной атаке, только ОДНА нанесла существенное поражение - заклинила один из рулей, что заставило "Бисмарк" описывать неисправимую циркуляцию. механизма подрыва пера руля в его конструкции не предусмотрели (почему - отдельная песня), вот он стал крутить хороводы в одной точке, не имея возможности покинуть опасный район. Если сюда добавить то, что чуть ранее ещё одна торпеда повредила топливную цистерну, которая оставляла не поверхности весьма различимый след, то "Бисмарку" оставалось только ждать, кто подойдет раньше: обещанная Гитлером и Герингом помощь, или линкоры Гранд-Флита, которые, кстати, его и потопили.

          Learn the story, my dear, and use the brain, then, look, and the epaulettes will change color.
          1. forwarder
            forwarder 18 October 2015 11: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Alex
            or the battleships of the Grand Fleet, which, by the way, sank him

            Вот и задумайтесь, чего это Бисмарк не покидал зону циркуляции. И с какой скорость он бы ее покинул, если бы не "маленькие смешные самолетики" стоимостью 3 коп, по сравнению с линкорами. Задумайтесь, что именно стало ПРИЧИНОЙ уничтожения Бисмарка. И не давите на следствие, это вторично.
            Quote: Alex
            Learn the story, my dear, and use the brain, then, look, and the epaulettes will change color.

            You are funny. Highly. Other than that, you have strange life priorities.
            1. Alex
              Alex 18 October 2015 12: 12 New
              +2
              Commenting on the answers of a person who does not want to part with his conclusions made in advance is an empty idea, but this requires an answer:
              Quote: forwarder
              You are funny. Highly. Other than that, you have strange life priorities.

              1. If I personally caused an attack of uncontrollable laughter from you, I’m glad for you, although I advise you to contact a psychiatrist: such laughter is not a sign of a stable psyche.

              2. How do you know my life priorities? I, EMNIP, have not even met with you.
              1. forwarder
                forwarder 18 October 2015 12: 33 New
                0
                Quote: Alex
                not wanting to part with his pre-made conclusions

                Как я понимаю, вы все же решили оспорить тот факт, что Бисмарк не смог покинуть зону циркуляции по причине поражения его "маленькими смешными самолетиками"?
                Quote: Alex
                How do you know my life priorities? I, EMNIP, have not even met with you.

                You yourself stated them a little higher. Here they are:
                Quote: Alex
                then you look, and shoulder straps will change color.

                Fine swimming, you are my dear.
                1. Alex
                  Alex 18 October 2015 21: 01 New
                  +2
                  Quote: forwarder
                  Как я понимаю, вы все же решили оспорить тот факт, что Бисмарк не смог покинуть зону циркуляции по причине поражения его "маленькими смешными самолетиками"?
                  You misunderstand. I am not going to discuss with you at all.

                  If you were hurt by the statement about the color of shoulder straps, then I note that this is just an indication that I am not the only one who considers your priorities, to put it mildly, strange.

                  The depth of my swimming was determined by the status of my shoulder straps. Or do you think that everyone can be wrong, and you are the only one who thinks correctly? If so, then you should contact a specialist of which profile, I said above.

                  Общение в таком стиле меня перестало забавлять и я потерял к нему интерес. Хотите серьёзного разговора, давайте, если и дальше будете ерничать по поводу "маленьких смешных самолётиков" - всего хорошего.
                  1. forwarder
                    forwarder 18 October 2015 21: 22 New
                    0
                    Quote: Alex
                    If you are touched by the statement about the color of shoulder straps

                    It did not hurt me, but made me laugh. I am usually used to paying attention to some significant things.
                    Quote: Alex
                    that this is just an indication that I am not the only one who considers your priorities, to put it mildly, strange.

                    This does not mean that I am wrong.
                    Quote: Alex
                    The depth of my swimming was determined by the status of my shoulder straps.

                    Yes? Do you consider these children's games something defining? I'm really amazed.
                    Quote: Alex
                    Or do you think that everyone can be wrong, and you are the only one who thinks correctly?

                    Easy can. And that’s all, and I.
                    Quote: Alex
                    Do you want a serious conversation

                    About what? We have no topic. So we kick each other with empty words.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  9. Gray 43
    Gray 43 16 October 2015 10: 21 New
    +1
    Алистер Маклин написал хорошую книгу "Крейсер "Улисс"",также про полярные конвой. В конце книги рассказывается о бое с немецким рейдером. Интересно было прочитать о том,как союзники воевали против фашистов на Севере,простые люди искренне ненавидели немцев,а политики,как всегда,заботились о собственных интересах
  10. kvs207
    kvs207 16 October 2015 11: 08 New
    +1
    Quote: bairat
    The principle of Lend-Lease: used - give it back, and you don’t owe anything.

    В общем - да, но таким образом союзники "откупались" от посылки своих солдат. Рузвельт, об этом говорил.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mera joota
      Mera joota 16 October 2015 12: 08 New
      -3
      Quote: kvs207
      В общем - да, но таким образом союзники "откупались" от посылки своих солдат.

      And why did the Americans have to send their soldiers to fight with Germany?
      1. Alex
        Alex 16 October 2015 13: 03 New
        +3
        Quote: Mera Joota
        And why did the Americans have to send their soldiers to fight with Germany?

        Of course, they shouldn't. As, however, and help us. But if they were already called allies and now all the laurels of winners are attributed to themselves, then they could not only shake their wallet (or, for a change, supply the same strategic materials for free). And it turns out gloriously: less than a year, a parade march on a prostitute in France took place, money was cut down in the war and they are white and fluffy.
        1. forwarder
          forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Alex
          And it turns out gloriously: less than a year, a parade march on a prostitute in France took place, money was cut down in the war and they are white and fluffy.

          Are you jealous? Do it right. Learn how to.
          You still forgot to write that they have 3/4 of Germany. And Japan.
      2. alovrov
        alovrov 16 October 2015 13: 16 New
        +1
        Because they were the military allies of kakbe. And not just traded equipment.
      3. alovrov
        alovrov 16 October 2015 13: 16 New
        0
        Because they were the military allies of kakbe. And not just traded equipment.
  11. SSV
    SSV 16 October 2015 11: 20 New
    +5
    Мне кажется, что такое количество военной техники и грузов ооооочень бы помогли в тяжелый 1942год. "Вместе с погибшими судами канули в пучину 432 танков, 216 бомбардировщиков, 3350 автомобилей и порядка 100 тыс. т других военных грузов, столь необходимых СССР для борьбы с фашистами".

    Thank you and a deep bow to all the sailors involved in helping our country, a memory that has reappeared, and no matter what the relationship between our countries is now, it was a BIG and IMPORTANT business.
    It is a pity that the British mistake allowed the Nazis to destroy the RQ-17, such a load would save the lives of more than one thousand of our fighters.
  12. SSV
    SSV 16 October 2015 11: 20 New
    +1
    Мне кажется, что такое количество военной техники и грузов ооооочень бы помогли в тяжелый 1942год. "Вместе с погибшими судами канули в пучину 432 танков, 216 бомбардировщиков, 3350 автомобилей и порядка 100 тыс. т других военных грузов, столь необходимых СССР для борьбы с фашистами".

    Thank you and a deep bow to all the sailors involved in helping our country, a memory that has reappeared, and no matter what the relationship between our countries is now, it was a BIG and IMPORTANT business.
    It is a pity that the British mistake allowed the Nazis to destroy the RQ-17, such a load would save the lives of more than one thousand of our fighters.
  13. timyr
    timyr 16 October 2015 12: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: SSV
    Мне кажется, что такое количество военной техники и грузов ооооочень бы помогли в тяжелый 1942год. "Вместе с погибшими судами канули в пучину 432 танков, 216 бомбардировщиков, 3350 автомобилей и порядка 100 тыс. т других военных грузов, столь необходимых СССР для борьбы с фашистами".

    Thank you and a deep bow to all the sailors involved in helping our country, a memory that has reappeared, and no matter what the relationship between our countries is now, it was a BIG and IMPORTANT business.
    It is a pity that the British mistake allowed the Nazis to destroy the RQ-17, such a load would save the lives of more than one thousand of our fighters.

    There is no mistake there. Angles helped Germans as best they could
    1. forwarder
      forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 45 New
      0
      Quote: timyr
      Angles helped Germans as best they could

      Especially in the city of Dresden. Helped a lot. Just by all means.
  14. alovrov
    alovrov 16 October 2015 13: 15 New
    0
    It is sad that the belletrestic (sorry) version of Pikul is presented. The actions of the British, after receiving information about access to the Tirpitz Sea, were an accurate tracing of their actions after receiving information about access to the Bismarck Sea. Then they, too, pulled everything they could from all the cracks, including even from Gibraltar. This time it was the same. Yes, this had no effect and was a mistake. But having ascertained an error, one should at least analyze and indicate the reasons.

    In the same way, as respected Pikul, in his book he described the senseless, from his point of view, attack of torpedo bombers on Tirpitz from the stern. All 8 pieces came from the stern and were shot down, which supposedly was complete nonsense. The fact that Bismarck was actually killed by one small aircraft torpedo that got into the steering wheel, and Pikul (for some reason!) Did not write attacking a battleship with developed anti-torpedo protection on board, too, like a bebe.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 16 October 2015 15: 10 New
      +3
      Quote: alovrov
      and attacking a battleship with advanced anti-torpedo protection on board is also not very clever kakbe Pikul (for some reason!) did not write.

      Это в эпоху интернета легко приклеивать ярлыки. В 1969—1973 годах мы многое не знали. Валентин Саввич собрал всю ДОСТУПНУЮ ему на тот момент информацию. Крупным специалистом по уничтожению линкоров авиацией он безусловно не был. А с кочки зрения 2015 года закидать его какашками очень легко, а главное безболезненно для "обсиральщиков".
      1. alovrov
        alovrov 16 October 2015 17: 12 New
        -1
        I don’t throw anyone poop, you were mistaken with the address. But, firstly, the subject matter of this site requires deeper reasoning than Pikul's fiction, and secondly, there is nothing obsessive about substantiated criticism of any author. But to perceive criticism as a scum, this is a sign of lack of culture.
      2. alovrov
        alovrov 16 October 2015 17: 12 New
        0
        I don’t throw anyone poop, you were mistaken with the address. But, firstly, the subject matter of this site requires deeper reasoning than Pikul's fiction, and secondly, there is nothing obsessive about substantiated criticism of any author. But to perceive criticism as a scum, this is a sign of lack of culture.
      3. forwarder
        forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 47 New
        0
        Quote: V.ic
        He was certainly not a major specialist in the destruction of battleships by aviation.

        When a person is not even a petty specialist in a certain field, it is better to avoid this area in silence. Looks wiser.
  15. uncle
    uncle 16 October 2015 15: 27 New
    0
    The USSR received Lend-Lease 1941-1945 aircraft-22150, tanks-12700, passenger off-road vehicles-51503, trucks-375000, motorcycles-36150, tractors-8071, locomotives-1981, radar-445. This weapon on how many divisions?
    1. dudinets
      dudinets 16 October 2015 16: 08 New
      0
      in the comments above, calculations are given as a percentage of the output by Soviet industry. the worst part is that this assistance was repeatedly interrupted just when it was vitally needed and resumed when we could get out without it. true, with heavy losses.
      1. uncle
        uncle 16 October 2015 18: 22 New
        0
        This means very big losses, bad commanders. Why supply more. The USA also delivered in England and China.
  16. qwert
    qwert 16 October 2015 15: 31 New
    0
    Quote: alovrov
    In the same way, as respected Pikul, in his book he described the senseless, from his point of view, attack of torpedo bombers on Tirpitz from the stern. All 8 pieces came from the stern and were shot down, which supposedly was complete nonsense. The fact that Bismarck was actually killed by one small aircraft torpedo that got into the steering wheel, and Pikul (for some reason!) Did not write attacking a battleship with developed anti-torpedo protection on board, too, like a bebe.

    Вы уж меня простите конечно великодушно, но считая Пикуля прекрасным автором, и перечитав раза три "Реквием", после прочтения "Барборроссы" я все-таки понял, что Пикуль пишет с точки зрения своего субъективного мнения. В частности он ехидничает по поводу нашего маршала надеявшегося на переброску к нему войск из Ирана. Для Пикуля это нонсенс, мол, откуда там быть войскам, но сейчас то это уже известно, что таки они там стояли. Много и других в Барбароссе моментов, которые Пикуль трактует не имея полной информации.(многое рассекретили позже) Поэтому и выводы неверные и взгляд на проблему не с той стороны. Думаю и в "Реквиеме" без этого не обошлось. Хотя, считаю, что читать эту повесть следует всем мальчишкам.

    about advanced anti-torpedo protection. Three torpedoes on board would create a noticeable roll to the ship. This would affect maneuverability, speed, and the ability to use weapons. In short, Bismarck would have lost part of its power. And they attacked from behind, I think, because they knew about the deployment of anti-aircraft guns. From the stern of the trunks, everything is smaller than from the side.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 October 2015 16: 28 New
      0
      Quote: qwert
      about advanced anti-torpedo protection. Three torpedoes on board would create a noticeable roll to the ship. This would affect maneuverability, speed, and the ability to use weapons. In short, Bismarck would lose some of its power

      Хе-хе-хе... "Бисмарку" в своё время хватило всего двух попаданий 14" снарядов от PoW, чтобы обзавестись креном на левый борт в 9 градусов и дифферентом на нос в 3 градуса. Результат - оголение винта правого борта и снижение максимальной скорости до 28 узлов.
      Quote: qwert
      And they attacked from behind, I think, because they knew about the deployment of anti-aircraft guns. From the stern of the trunks, everything is smaller than from the side.

      Сзади атаковали потому, что это были "Альбакоры". Они вообще с трудом догнали ЛК - ветер был встречный. Кроме шуток - и у "авоськи", и у сменившего её "альбакора" скорости (особенно с торпедой) были таковы, что при встречном ветре они с трудом догоняли уходящие от них корабли. В данном случае "Тирпиц" шёл со скоростью 30 узлов против ветра в 35 узлов.
      Плюс к тому большая часть торперов "Викториеса" была "зелёной", а для их комэска это был первый вылет с эскадрильей.
      1. alovrov
        alovrov 16 October 2015 17: 44 New
        0
        Whatever versions are, but Pikul directly speaks about an error. Which is most likely wrong.

        "Ведущий покачал крыльями, чтобы ведомые обратили внимание на его действия, и швырнул свою машину в атаку прямо на «Тирпица» прямо в… ошибочную (!) атаку: заходя на линкор с кормы, против ветра. Ведомые исполнительно и точно повторили ошибку своего ведущего."
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 October 2015 18: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: alovrov
          Whatever versions are, but Pikul directly speaks about an error. Which is most likely wrong.

          Well .. at the time of writing, Pikul clearly did not know all the features of that attack. So theoretically he was right - if any normal torpers with trained crews such an attack was truly erroneous.

          But if you take into account the weather, performance characteristics of the carrier lime torpedoes and the level of training and flotation of their crews, the tactics chosen by their commander were the only possible.
          "Ножницы" с носовых КУ эскадриля "Викториеса" выполнить явно не смогла бы - не те скорости и не та подготовка.

          По поводу же силы и слабости ПВО ЛК... "Тирпиц" - это не "Бисмарк". Это у "канцлера" была известная проблема с ПВО кормовых секторов, связанная с тем, что вместо стабилизированных "качающихся горшков" в корме воткнули нестабилизированные армейские командогераты (производитель морских систем был слишком занят советским заказом для купленного СССР "Лютцова" - ибо за него платили золотом). А вот "Тирпиц" получил полный комплект, и его ПВО было сильным по всему горизонту.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  17. Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 16 October 2015 16: 50 New
    +2
    Let the author forgive me and my colleagues forgive me, but in the article I did not see anything new in relation to previous publications.
    Indeed, the northern convoys are a tragic page of World War II full of courage. But there were also 3, and if we count the Trans-Siberian flights of planes, then there are four supply routes for lend-lease. Researchers estimate the supply volumes along the northern route no more than in 25%. This must also be taken into account (to know). Well, of course, citing the supply volumes of only tanks, planes and artillery systems, the author acts prejudicedly, as colleagues have already noticed.
    Of course, we would have won without Lend-Lease supplies. But, of course, the fact that they helped us and saved the lives of our soldiers and officers.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 16 October 2015 19: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Army 2
      But there were 3 more, and if we count the Trans-Siberian hauls of aircraft, then there were four routes of deliveries through Lend-Lease.

      Northern convoys are the main route for the delivery of many types of cargo, stews and Studebakers, for example, were not driven through Alaska-Siberia.
  18. mvg
    mvg 16 October 2015 23: 24 New
    0
    Quote: V.ic
    Quote: qwert
    Under Prokhorovka, we lost about 500 tanks.

    Well, not everything was so sad, part of the beaten equipment was repaired after repair, but from the bottom of the sea to get it ...

    C'mon :-) Only 500 ??? And how much do you think from the Soviet side participated? Different sources say it is different, but everyone agrees that it’s more than 5000 ... And after that, Stalin made such a jumble ... Near Prokhorovka, more than half of what participated was killed ... and that’s practically official .. How much is simple damaged, not even considered ...
    But the fact that a whole division died on the PQ-17 (both air and armor) is not happy .. Only that without crews ...
    2 battleships, aircraft carrier, 11 boats, 2 dozens of not the weakest destroyers ... stsuki anglo-saxons .. not russians, but just stsuki ..
  19. former
    former 17 October 2015 00: 24 New
    +1
    oh ... catch the cons, but the truth is more expensive.
    I know about this operation from a dozen different sources, but have long been studied, I write from memory
    1. In defense of the British. When posting the polar convoys, the Angels had to face three threats at once: Air, NK and PL. They had to be beaten by slow-moving convoys (8-9uz). Like dogs on a leash against the wolves. Hell work. And they coped with it. Check, but in my opinion, out of 800 ships, 700 reached. (Convoys PiKu17 and 18 stand apart) I do not like Anglo-Saxons, but in the Arctic they accomplished a feat. At the same time, the mistress of the seas had very few ships. Do not forget that protecting the western approaches is there was a question of the survival of the nation, and the destroyers were removed from there.
    And yet: with the general superiority of the Angles at sea in the Barents Sea, the Germans dominated (in numbers).
    in fact, the Angles carried out an impossible mission. Well, something like that ...
    2.PQ 17...да уж накосячили.Лето однако, полярный день,ночи нет от слова совсем нет и отдыха.Нервы на пределе,вот и сдали они у Дадли(Don"t do it Dadly).Не было у него такой клички...это выдумка.Но ,как вежливо считали сами англы,не страдал этот командир Колосусса от избытка воображения.Ну то есть неумный карьерист.Не тянул он на первого лорда.Яселлер.Его приказ о рассеянии конвоя был бессмысленным(это хуже,чем преступление-это ошибка)Ну посудите сами .Мореходная часть баренцева между нордкапом и границей паковых льдов даже летом
    well, 500km. There is nowhere to hide ... to get lost. The place is not enough. In this case, the team to disperse implies the divergence of the vessels in all 32m points. That is, half of the vessels go by order directly to the hell. Check the ship captains according to the sources to fulfill the order. And ruined the court. Those who were lucky to go north and northeast survived. In general, one heaped up ... Tirpitz was frightened. The dead admiral would have been pleased. Classic. Fleet from bein. He won without fighting. And finally, I will remind you of the tactics of convoys. A convoy in service, even without security, has much greater combat stability against aircraft and submarines than a single ship ...
  20. former
    former 17 October 2015 01: 11 New
    +1
    I’ll continue ... oh, this highway to Hades through a kotsit ...
    3. About Pikule. In fact, Valentin Savich almost did not lie, but the picture showed not very true. In spirit, not very true. About the tanker azerbaijan. Well, who caught the torpedo, heroically defeated the fire and reached alone. So it was.
    BUT!!! He drove not gasoline but hemp oil, which ... well, it’s not very burning. Yes, and it flowed out. He came empty.
    The entire command staff (deputy politician and special officer) escaped on a boat to an English ship (I don’t remember which one), and the crew (almost only women) escorted them with matyugs and machine gun bursts. You won’t throw words out of the song.
    Remember the description of the death of a ship carrying explosives ... well, where there is a whisper of those who died from heaven ... well, about the fact that they trusted to carry trotyl to Soviet courts ... well, it’s only Soviet. It’s not true. Everyone carried it. And the explosion was described from convoy PQ 18. The ship was called Mary Lückenbach (or Läschenbeck). It seems Dutch. It was put in vain in the southern column. With six hundred tons of TNT in the hold. Check ...
    Well, on the little things. According to English data, Tirpitz attacked Swordfish, and not albacores. But this is really a trifle (especially since I also read about albacores, only from other sources).
    And Tirpitz on this theater was certainly the strongest ship, surpassing both the KG5 and any other English battleship. He also operated under the umbrella of coastal aviation. Absolute prodigy.
    4. About Macklin Alistair and the ship of His Majesty Ulysses. I also read this book. I don’t remember how Pikul borrowed something from it. But so the thing is not weak. Direct salvation of ordinary Ryan in the English version. Especially as a consumptive young man kneads ice sludge with bare feet so that the barbet does not freeze. He got to the depths of his soul. Well, the title of Rear Admiral to the dead commander (Commodore) And the death of the cruiser is also beautiful. Strong book. Only there was no UMS Ulysses in the English fleet. There was an Odyssey. But the same thing. There wasn’t a convoy with that fate either. There were fictions there. There were episodes from different convoys. Fiction. There is no relation to the blood and glory of war. It has. I have the honor.
    1. Spawn
      Spawn 18 October 2015 00: 16 New
      0
      I learned interesting facts from your words
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 October 2015 12: 04 New
      0
      Quote: ex
      Well, on the little things. According to English data, Tirpitz attacked Swordfish, and not albacores. But this is really a trifle (especially since I also read about albacores, only from other sources).

      Albacores it was.
      Последние "авоськи" ушли с палубы "Викториеса" в июне 1941 вместе с 825 эскадрильей.
  21. Turkir
    Turkir 18 October 2015 00: 02 New
    +1
    Pikul is so often criticized here that it becomes clear that everyone has read it.
    Many forget that Valentin Pikul is not a historian, but a writer who, by the way, fought in the Navy.
    The last thing to kick a man who has aroused not only interest but also pride in his own country and its history. He completed his task. Many forget that he wrote in Soviet times, when much of what we know today was a secret.
    He has the honor.
  22. Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 21 November 2015 00: 34 New
    -1
    Quote: V.ic
    Подлость, подлость английская! Британцы показали себя в о всей красе, бросив беззащитные суда на растерзание "волкам Дёница и асам Геринга".

    Камарад "бывший" уже ответил, и очень всё правильно ! Немцы реально ПЕРЕИГРАЛИ и британцев, и советских. И тройная угроза - ВВС, U-боты и надводные суда включая Тирпиц, а не конфетку. но фактически PQ17 - один-единственный раз ТАКОЙ РАЗГРОМ, пару раз ещё успех у немцев повторился, но в меньших масштабах. А потом у союзников техники и кораблей стало столько, что ничего подобного повторить не удалось.

    Quote: timyr
    It’s just that the British threw a trick on the Russians and the Americans. After that, you can believe about the collusion of the Angles and Germans. You fight in the east, but we will not bother you. Not in vain did Hess flew to England in May 1941.
    There was no mean act. Therefore, no one began to negotiate with Hess, but immediately planted. Moreover, in North Africa - well, such a trick that the Italians were first defeated in 1940, when the USSR was the true friend of the Reich, and then the Germans. Who knew that Rommel would be such a brilliant general? But by the way, by the fall of 42, he had to roll back from under Alexandria right up to Tunisia, where by May 1943 it had all ended ...

    Well, read about Dieppe in August 42 or something. Throw out Soviet stamps and cleanse the brain - we think that the second front is only at 44. But no, they tried at 42, and at 43 they opened in Italy, not so weakly distracting the Reich divisions from the East.

    Think also why the Lutfwaffe on the Eastern Front NEVER had such strength after the summer-fall of 41? look at how many air groups were urgently deployed, incl. and from near Moscow in dec.41, in the Mediterranean, to urgently save the situation there.