Northern convoys. Part II

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.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. V.ic 16 October 2015 06: 37 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    In the book “Requiem for a PQ-17 Caravan” V.S. Pikul concludes that the Germans' extermination of this convoy (material resources, weapons, gunpowder, aviation gasoline) was equivalent to the results of our losing a major battle on land.
    1. Kibalchish 16 October 2015 08: 11 New
      • -6
      • 0
      -6
      Pikul is one more inventor.
      1. V.ic 16 October 2015 09: 46 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +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 16 October 2015 12: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: V.ic
          In the book “Requiem for a PQ-17 Caravan” V.S. Pikul concludes that the Germans' extermination of this convoy (material resources, weapons, gunpowder, aviation gasoline) was equivalent to the results of our losing a major battle on land.

          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 16 October 2015 12: 50 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +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 17 October 2015 01: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Ralph Zeggers ... that was my captain's name for that submarine.
      2. 89067359490 16 October 2015 12: 27 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        By the way, Pikul fought as a young man during the war years in the Northern Fleet as a steering-signalman on the destroyer Grozny. And he wrote the book “Requiem for PQ-17 Caravan” in many respects according to his own impressions.
        1. Amurets 16 October 2015 13: 15 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          About V.S.Pikul. I really respect this writer and he writes the truth with minimal fiction. The only book that Valentin Savvich himself did not like is the book "Ocean Patrol." His first work.
          1. Vladimirets 16 October 2015 19: 33 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Amurets
            The only book that Valentin Savvich himself did not like was the book “Ocean Patrol.” His first work.

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

            With all due respect to Valentin Savvich, I must say that it is precisely in his novel Requiem Caravan PQ-17 that there are a lot of borrowings. And they are taken from the novel "The Odyssey of the Cruiser Ulysses", the British writer Macklin Alistair, a former sailor of the fleet of Her Majesty, who served as a sailor on a cruiser and participated in the polar convoys.
            I can’t say anything about the rest of Pikul’s works, because he really worked a lot with archives, and for the sake of artistry and brilliance he added fictional characters (which, by the way, could exist under other names), as for example, in Bayazet, Lieutenant Karabanov hi
      3. RONIN-HS 16 October 2015 19: 24 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Pikul is one more inventor..

        In the USSR, "Requiem escort PQ-17" was probably 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 17 October 2015 23: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 17 October 2015 23: 46 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: V.ic
      In the book “Requiem for a PQ-17 Caravan” V.S. Pikul concludes that the Germans' extermination of this convoy (material resources, weapons, gunpowder, aviation gasoline) was equivalent to the results of our losing a major battle on land.

      A purely Soviet approach. The fact that the Soviet people did not die does not interest him. Only pieces of iron matter.
  2. PlotnikoffDD 16 October 2015 07: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 16 October 2015 12: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 16 October 2015 12: 52 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +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 16 October 2015 07: 20 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Quote: V.ic
    In the book “Requiem for a PQ-17 Caravan” V.S. Pikul concludes that the Germans' extermination of this convoy was equivalent to the results of our losing a major battle on land.

    He had it. Well, in principle, "Together with the dead ships, they sunk into the abyss of 432 tanks, 216 bombers, 3350 vehicles and about 100 thousand tons of other military cargoes" Under Prokhorovka we lost about 500 tanks. So, indeed, the defeat of the convoy was equal to losing in a major strategic operation, when there were losses and there was no result.
    1. V.ic 16 October 2015 10: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 16 October 2015 12: 53 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 16 October 2015 14: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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.

          Meanness, English meanness! The British showed themselves in all their glory, leaving defenseless ships to be torn to pieces by the "wolves of Dönitz and the aces of Goering."
          1. code54 16 October 2015 19: 00 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +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 17 October 2015 23: 00 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +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 16 October 2015 12: 18 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      He had it. Well, in principle, "Together with the dead ships, they sunk into the abyss of 432 tanks, 216 bombers, 3350 vehicles and about 100 thousand tons of other military cargoes" Under Prokhorovka we lost about 500 tanks. So, indeed, the defeat of the convoy was equal to losing in a major strategic operation, when there were losses and there was no result.

      The battle of Prokhorovka is, sorry, not a major strategic operation. And the counterattack attempt in the framework of just a major strategic operation - the Battle of Kursk. and damage to equipment and aircraft during the Battle of Kursk is ten times more. So the losses of PQ-17 are high but they are not up to the “strategic” ones.
      1. V.ic 16 October 2015 14: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Bronis
        such that the loss of the PQ-17 is high but not “strategic”.

        You are wrong, the British strategy was just that the trickle of help to the “Soviets” would completely run out. What the deep sea took was only direct losses, and the shortage of weapons and materiel in the most difficult year, when the fascist climbed the Volga and the Caucasus?
        1. Bronis 16 October 2015 16: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: V.ic
          You are wrong, the British strategy was just that the trickle of help to the “Soviets” would completely run out. What the deep sea took was only direct losses, and the shortage of weapons and materiel in the most difficult year, when the fascist climbed the Volga and the Caucasus?

          Correctly use the terms "strategic", dear
        2. voyaka uh 18 October 2015 15: 03 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          for V.ic:
          "You are wrong, the British strategy was that the trickle of help to the" Soviets "completely dried up." ////

          Why did they even send convoys?
          Could say: "we need this technique ourselves." And do not send a single ship.
    3. forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 16 October 2015 07: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 16 October 2015 07: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 16 October 2015 08: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: timyr
      Hessa immediately died of a disease, committed suicide.

      "Self-suffocating" on the cord from the iron ... Yesenin, damn it ...
    2. forwarder 18 October 2015 00: 09 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -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 16 October 2015 08: 10 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    A very good analysis of the death of the convoy was carried out and indicated in the "Technique of Youth" I don’t remember the year, the name is "Raeder vs Fuller", so there the main conclusion German intelligence "outplayed" the allies
    1. Alex 16 October 2015 12: 57 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: 31rus
      A very good analysis of the death of the convoy was carried out and indicated in the "Technique of Youth" I don’t remember the year, the name is "Raeder vs Fuller", so there the main conclusion German intelligence "outplayed" the allies

      As far as I remember, “Cerberus vs. Fuller”, but there is not a word about the convoys. There, so to speak, the forerunner of the northern tragedy: about how Raeder, under the noses of the British, overtook the entire fleet from Brest to Narvik. I remember there was such a cool phrase:
      "The British lion was pulled by a mustache, but in response he did not even wake up"
  7. bairat 16 October 2015 08: 29 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +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.

    The bias is understandable, "we could have done it without you." And the author does not want to provide a percentage for all-wheel drive trucks, food, or for example, for armored vehicles? 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.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2015 08: 39 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +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?

      Aviation gasoline, explosives, etc. etc ... yes, there wasn’t much Lend-Lease in absolute terms, but our bottlenecks where the release didn’t meet the demand very well
      1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 15: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Aviation gasoline, explosives, etc. etc ... yes, there wasn’t much Lend-Lease in absolute terms, but our bottlenecks where the release didn’t meet the demand very well

        Yeah ... for the same all-wheel drive "import substitution" 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 17 October 2015 23: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        our bottlenecks where the release didn’t meet the demand very well

        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 16 October 2015 08: 50 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +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 16 October 2015 09: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +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 16 October 2015 16: 57 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Cayman Gena
        just not disinterestedly,

        and which countries disinterestedly help someone?
        1. cayman gene 16 October 2015 19: 23 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: veteran66
          Quote: Cayman Gena
          just not disinterestedly,

          and which countries disinterestedly help someone?

          except Russia, perhaps, no one.
    3. veteran66 16 October 2015 16: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 18 October 2015 00: 19 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 thousand four-wheel drive "jeeps",
        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 thousand tons of finished aviation gasoline (including high-octane "light fractions"),
        13 million pairs of leather army boots,
        40 million grams of streptocide ...
  8. Yarik 16 October 2015 09: 00 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -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 16 October 2015 09: 34 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Well, of course. The Germans are stupid, they set up a threshing floor and then unpacked the convoy. You have good analytics, categorical.
      1. Yarik 16 October 2015 10: 59 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -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 16 October 2015 11: 37 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Here's what they write on the same wiki:
          “The Bismarck type (another ship of this type was later built - the Tirpitz battleship) was originally created as the heir to the“ pocket battleships ”and was mainly intended for raiding operations against merchant ships. Thus, the volume of the Bismarck’s fuel reserve is rather typical for the Pacific battleships, and the speed shown in tests in the Baltic Sea of ​​30,1 knots was one of the best in the world for such ships. After the launch of the second French battleship of the Dunkirk type, the project was changed towards a further increase in size. "Bismarck "Was the first full-fledged battleship of the German fleet after the First World War: armament, which included eight 380-mm SKC-34 cannons in four towers, allowed it to compete on an equal footing with any battleship." Bismarck "during its service was the largest battleship in the world, and the Bismarck type remains the third largest (after the Japanese Yamato and the American Iowa) battleship type in history "
          1. Yarik 16 October 2015 13: 50 New
            • -8
            • 0
            -8
            "Largest" is of course a powerful feature. As you know, a large cabinet falls loudly. And what about the dimensions, where did they come from? An unsuccessful machine-boiler installation, the lack of a universal caliber, etc. you never were terrified by the number of crew Bismarck " it even somehow conjures up some “Kapudanie”, as if they were going to board the boarding. wassatAnd 8 guns in 4 towers sucks. 12 in 4 or 9 in 3 is another matter. If I met with Washington, I would not live for Bismarck for long. Of course, among other things, the displacement is also combat stability .. .but the sense of the ground case, as practice has shown, a little.
            1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 15: 41 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Yarik
              If he met with Washington, he would not live Bismarck for long. Of course, among other things, the displacement is also combat stability ... but, as practice has shown, there is little use for the ground body.

              Heh heh heh ... on the tablets it certainly goes.
              But in practice, the first two types of American post-Washington troops had a bunch of problems that made it extremely difficult to conduct normal combat. For example - short circuits and self-deenergizing when firing their own GK ("Indiana") or at close breaks.
              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.

              Plus - shitty initial training of teams (before the first battle), which acted strictly according to the instructions, even in cases where this instruction was clearly not applicable. For example, on the SoDak at Guadalcanal after a short circuit, consumers of the main switchboard No. 4 supplied power to the switchboard first, first from the main switchboard No. 3, and then from the main switchboard No. 2. Without eliminating the causes of the short circuit! Result - 3/4 main switchboard of the ship is temporarily out of order.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2015 19: 19 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +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
              If I met with “Washington”, I would not live “Bismarck” for long

              With frankly weak armor, “Washington” - a very bold statement
        2. Alex 17 October 2015 23: 09 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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 18 October 2015 00: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 18 October 2015 10: 11 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +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.

            In fact, you repeated my thesis in other words. LKRs from the very beginning raised more questions than sane answers to them. The defeat of the Spee squadron by Invensible and Inflexible is practically all that they could boast of.
      2. 31rus 16 October 2015 11: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Once again I repeat the death of the convoy is a chain of failures, miscalculations and mistakes of the allies, which the Germans used, which led to the tragedy, to consider one of the reasons is not correct and erroneous, "the game of the English on radio intercepts (where the Germans at that moment surpassed the English), one of the main reasons for making wrong and fatal decisions for a convoy
        1. Alex 18 October 2015 10: 20 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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
          ... "Tirpitz" is the White Hall nightmare, behind the slender superstructures of which the Lords of the Admiralty saw the vague shadow of "Bismarck" ...
          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 18 October 2015 00: 39 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -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 18 October 2015 10: 31 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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.

          "Swordfish", of course, is not the height of perfection, but they were called almost disposable torpedo bombers (EMNIP, the same Pikul has something about this aircraft). And of all the torpedoes fired by them in that memorable attack, only ONE inflicted a significant defeat - one of the rudders jammed, which made Bismarck describe incorrigible circulation. they did not provide for a mechanism for undermining the rudder feather (why - a separate song), so he began to spin dances at one point, not being able to leave the dangerous area. If we add here that a little earlier another torpedo damaged the fuel tank, which left a very noticeable mark on the surface, then Bismarck could only wait for someone to come before: the help promised by Hitler and Goering, or the battleships of the Grand Fleet, which, by the way , and drowned him.

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

            So think about why this Bismarck did not leave the circulation zone. And at what speed he would have left her if not for the “little funny planes” costing 3 kopecks, compared to battleships. Think about what exactly became the REASON for the destruction of Bismarck. And do not press on the consequence, this is secondary.
            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 18 October 2015 12: 12 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +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 18 October 2015 12: 33 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Alex
                not wanting to part with his pre-made conclusions

                As I understand it, you still decided to challenge the fact that Bismarck could not leave the circulation zone due to the defeat of his "little funny airplanes"?
                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 18 October 2015 21: 01 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: forwarder
                  As I understand it, you still decided to challenge the fact that Bismarck could not leave the circulation zone due to the defeat of his "little funny airplanes"?
                  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.

                  Communication in this style stopped amusing me and I lost interest in him. If you want a serious conversation, let’s continue if you continue to scoff about “little funny airplanes” - all the best.
                  1. forwarder 18 October 2015 21: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 16 October 2015 10: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Alistair Macklin wrote a good book, The Cruiser Ulysses, also about polar convoys. At the end of the book tells about the fight with the German raider. It was interesting to read about how the Allies fought against the Nazis in the North, ordinary people sincerely hated the Germans, and politicians, as always, took care of their own interests
  10. kvs207 16 October 2015 11: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: bairat
    The principle of Lend-Lease: used - give it back, and you don’t owe anything.

    In general, yes, but in this way the allies "paid off" from sending their soldiers. Roosevelt talked about this.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mera joota 16 October 2015 12: 08 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Quote: kvs207
      In general, yes, but in this way the allies "paid off" from sending their soldiers.

      And why did the Americans have to send their soldiers to fight with Germany?
      1. Alex 16 October 2015 13: 03 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +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 18 October 2015 00: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 16 October 2015 13: 16 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Because they were the military allies of kakbe. And not just traded equipment.
      3. alovrov 16 October 2015 13: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Because they were the military allies of kakbe. And not just traded equipment.
  11. SSV
    SSV 16 October 2015 11: 20 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    It seems to me that such a quantity of military equipment and cargo would have helped a lot in the difficult 1942 year. "Together with the dead ships, 432 tanks, 216 bombers, 3350 vehicles and about 100 thousand tons of other military cargoes, so necessary for the USSR to fight the Nazis, sunk into the abyss."

    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
    • 0
    +1
    It seems to me that such a quantity of military equipment and cargo would have helped a lot in the difficult 1942 year. "Together with the dead ships, 432 tanks, 216 bombers, 3350 vehicles and about 100 thousand tons of other military cargoes, so necessary for the USSR to fight the Nazis, sunk into the abyss."

    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 16 October 2015 12: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: SSV
    It seems to me that such a quantity of military equipment and cargo would have helped a lot in the difficult 1942 year. "Together with the dead ships, 432 tanks, 216 bombers, 3350 vehicles and about 100 thousand tons of other military cargoes, so necessary for the USSR to fight the Nazis, sunk into the abyss."

    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 18 October 2015 00: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 16 October 2015 13: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 16 October 2015 15: 10 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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.

      It is easy to stick shortcuts in the age of the Internet. In 1969-1973, we did not know much. Valentin Savvich collected all the information AVAILABLE to him at that time. He was certainly not a major specialist in the destruction of battleships by aviation. And from the point of view of 2015, throwing it with poop is very easy, and most importantly, painless for the “crapers”.
      1. alovrov 16 October 2015 17: 12 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -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 16 October 2015 17: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 18 October 2015 00: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 16 October 2015 15: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 16 October 2015 16: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 16 October 2015 18: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This means very big losses, bad commanders. Why supply more. The USA also delivered in England and China.
  16. qwert 16 October 2015 15: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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.

    Forgive me, of course, generously, but considering Pikul as an excellent author, and after reading the Requiem three times, after reading Barborrossa, I still realized that Pikul writes from the point of view of his subjective opinion. In particular, he smiles about our marshal who hoped to send troops from Iran to him. For Pikul, this is nonsense, they say, where do the troops come from, but now it is already known that they were standing there. There are many other points in Barbarossa that Pikul interprets without complete information. (Much declassified later) Therefore, the conclusions are incorrect and the view of the problem is not on the other side. I think in Requiem it could not do without it. Although, I believe that all the boys should read this story.

    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 16 October 2015 16: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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

      Heh heh heh ... "Bismarck" at the time had only two hits of 14 "projectiles from PoW to get a roll to the left side of 9 degrees and trim on the nose at 3 degrees. The result - exposing the starboard screw and reducing the maximum speeds up to 28 knots.
      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.

      They attacked from behind because it was the Albacores. They generally hardly caught up with the LC - the wind was headwind. In addition to jokes, both the “string bag” and the “albacore” that replaced it had speeds (especially with a torpedo) that were such that in the headwind they could hardly catch the ships leaving them. In this case, the Tirpitz was traveling at a speed of 30 knots against the wind at 35 knots.
      Plus, most of the Victories torpers were “green”, and for their comasco this was the first flight with a squadron.
      1. alovrov 16 October 2015 17: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Whatever versions are, but Pikul directly speaks about an error. Which is most likely wrong.

        “The leader shook his wings so that the followers would pay attention to his actions, and threw his car into an attack right on the Tirpitz right in ... an erroneous (!) Attack: coming to the battleship from the stern, against the wind. The followers executed and accurately repeated the mistake of their leader . "
        1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 18: 31 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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.
          Obviously, she couldn’t be able to complete the “scissors” from the forward control units of the Victories squadron - the wrong speeds and the wrong preparation.

          Regarding the strength and weakness of the air defense of the LC ... Tirpitz is not Bismarck. It was the "chancellor" who had a well-known problem with the air defense of the feed sectors, because instead of stabilized "swinging pots", unstabilized army commandorates were put in the stern (the manufacturer of marine systems was too busy with the Soviet order for Lyuttsov bought by the USSR - because they paid for it gold). But the Tirpitz received a complete set, and its air defense was strong across the horizon.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  17. Army soldier2 16 October 2015 16: 50 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 16 October 2015 19: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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
    • 0
    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 17 October 2015 00: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 ... yeah, they did it. Summer, however, is a polar day, there’s no night at all from the word, there’s no rest. Nerves are at the limit, so they passed it to Dudley (Don "t do it Dadly). He didn’t have such nicknames ... this is fiction. But, as the Angles themselves politely believed, this Colosus commander did not suffer from an excess of imagination. Well, that is, an unreasonable careerist. He did not pull on the first lord. Yaseller. His order to disperse the convoy was meaningless (this is worse, than a crime is a mistake) Well, judge for yourself. The navigable part of the Barents between the North Cape and the border of pack ice, even in summer
    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 17 October 2015 01: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 18 October 2015 00: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I learned interesting facts from your words
    2. Alexey RA 19 October 2015 12: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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.
      The last "string bags" left the deck of the Victories in June 1941, along with 825 squadrons.
  21. Turkir 18 October 2015 00: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 21 November 2015 00: 34 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: V.ic
    Meanness, English meanness! The British showed themselves in all their glory, leaving defenseless ships to be torn to pieces by the "wolves of Dönitz and the aces of Goering."

    Kamarad "former" has already answered, and everything is very right! The Germans really outplayed both the British and the Soviet. And the triple threat is the Air Force, U-bots and surface ships including Tirpitz, and not candy. but in fact PQ17 is the only time SUCH A BREAK, the Germans repeated success a couple of times, but on a smaller scale. And then the allies got so much equipment and ships that nothing like this could be repeated.

    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.