Dedicated to marine historical excrement …
A random search link took me to a very interesting forum. Forum, discussing the topics of radio programs "Echo of Moscow". Well, we know whose this echo is, and to hell with it. And on this forum I got acquainted with another Rezunovite. The cattle, I must say, prepared, arguing their conclusions, and so on. But there is something worth talking about.
Mr. Rezun is called assault-50 on the forum. At the end of the material, as expected, I will give a link to his material, whoever wants to - read it. The material is long-standing, but it has something to do with my articles, and, moreover, it is very qualitatively fabricated. And, using this "material" as an example, I want to show HOW they rewrite history. That is, how the facts are distorted so that everything looks believable.
Quoting this:
Here's a parsley. That is, the Soviet Navy sucks, and the Kriegsmarine rules. On paper, everything looks pretty meaningful, if not for a couple of points.
The first moment. Pay attention to how the author presents statistics. In the confrontation between the two sides, the LOSSES of the Soviet Navy and the confirmed VICTORIES of the Soviet Navy are considered. That is, we consider EVERYTHING, and the Germans only have what is 100% ditched by our sailors. I don't know about you, but I find it more than strange. What are we comparing? Counting victories - counting on both sides. Calculating losses is the same. And so, excuse me, the next nonsense comes out. Moreover, for a specific purpose.
The girl looks at the destroyer of the Northern Fleet "Crushing" in the harbor
At the first point of our losses is EM "Crushing". I had the honor to write about the tragedy of this ship, and I, as the author, wonder why, in the context of the article, the northern seas are enlisted as the allies of the Germans?
Further. German destroyers Z-35 and Z-36, which blew up in the Gulf of Finland in December 1944 and drowned.
Funny, isn't it? Our destroyer sunk due to a storm is a loss. Yes, this is definitely the loss of a warship by our fleet. And two Germans, blown up by mines - this is not a fucking loss, so it does not count. Wo, arithmetic, right?
A funny approach: a Soviet ship blown up by a mine is a ship UNIMATELY blown up by a German mine. Or Finnish. The German ship is in question. Well, there is no way a German destroyer can fly into a Soviet mine, can it?
With regard to these two drowned people, I will give you the following example.
I quote Sergei Patyanin and Miroslav Morozov "German destroyers of World War II:" On the eve of his (exit), Kota held a short meeting, at which he gave a number of instructions, which subsequently played an extremely negative role. Firstly, all subordinate ships were strictly forbidden to use radio facilities, including VHF-band, and radar equipment. They could exchange only light signals, which was not entirely suitable for the dark time of day in winter. Secondly, the headquarters of the flotilla took full responsibility for the navigator's laying, which in the conditions of disciplined German fleet led to the fact that it was not led by the navigators of the remaining destroyers.
The flotilla went to sea at 7:00 on December 11. At first the weather was pretty good, but then it deteriorated noticeably - low clouds hung over the sea, it started raining. At times, visibility dropped so much that neighboring ships could only see each other by the tongues of flame escaping from the chimneys. For an hour and a half from 16:25, the destroyers could observe the Faro lighthouse on the northern tip of the island. Gotland, but none of the navigators (possibly with the exception of the flagship) tried to establish the true location."
And it seems like because of this the whole detachment climbed into their minefield and left two destroyers there.
And right then and there, I have a bunch of questions:
1. Was the group leader Kote an idiot? Because as soon as an idiot can give such an order - do not use radars. No comment at all.
2. Is the exchange of light signals not suitable at night?
3. Were the German navigators, who forgot about their official duties and did not bother to determine the location of the ship, watching the lighthouse for an hour and a half, were morons?
4. Taking into account clause 3, where did the Germans get that they were in their field? Yes, it says in the text that on one destroyer the navigator still took the coordinates. Mines are torn, ships are sinking, and he, the poor fellow, does his job with his unwavering hand. Hiroi Reich, what can I say … A true Aryan with a Nordic character, since he could do this. Previously, it was simply impossible to do this, but now, in spite of the difficulties … In short, the Sovinformburo nervously smokes on the sidelines.
Okay, I’m ready to believe that pedantic and trained German navigators made their way along the pack of Belomor, sailed with the radars turned off, did not determine their place, since the course was laid for them at the headquarters (in nonsense!) … Sorry, I do not believe. That this is how the valiant representatives of the Kriegsmarine sailed with their eyes closed on their own minefield … Nonsense. And even if it is not delusional, if all this is true, one can rejoice for the death of a crowd of sheep. But personally, I think that they were not blown up by their own mines. And all this nonsense was invented by them and fed to us. It's easier than admitting that they ran into our mines. Another question is, will they eat everything?
The history of the destroyers T-22, T-30, T-32 is also written as a blueprint. Everything is the same: turned off radars, no connection, etc. Well, a fact was also added, they say, mines were installed from landing barges, without special reference, so the theoretical and actual location of the minefield might not coincide … Until 1944, the super-punctual Germans did not know where their minefield was? Oops … Okay, let's go. But the T-32 did not drown after activating two mines (it turned out to be strong), our aviation finished off after half a day. And also does not count.
More about a couple of their fellows.
T-31. TK of senior lieutenant Taronenko and lieutenant Bushuev was drowned. German Admiral F. Ruge claims that "the Russians attacked bravely, and their tactics were good." Probably, the "T-31" was hit by two torpedoes, and it quickly sank on June 20 at 0:00 am at the point with coordinates 60 ° 16'N, 28 ° 17'O. Crew losses amounted to 82 people. Some of the survivors were taken aboard Soviet boats (6 people), 86 were rescued by Finnish boats (including the destroyer commander Lieutenant Commander Peter Pirkham). The Finns saw, the Germans saw … whoever does not need to - he did not see.
T-34. On the morning of November 20, 1944, the T-34 fired at the target ship Hesse, an explosion thundered under its keel. The aft part was destroyed, but a number of structural elements on the starboard side survived. Soon the destroyer lay down on the port side and sank. Together with the ship, 67 sailors were killed. The place of death is the area of Cape Ancona at the point with coordinates 54 ° 40'N, 13 ° 29'O. The cause of death was a mine explosion by the L-3 submarine (Captain 3rd Rank VN Konovalov). (No, the mine was definitely English … or Martian).
T-36. May 4, 1945 She goes to sea together with the Yagd floating base and a group of destroyers. The goal is to move from Swinemunde to Copenhagen. The destroyer returned to Swinemunde after being blown up by a British aircraft mine. One turbine failed. The destroyer was discovered by 6 Soviet aircraft, they were Il-2 from the 7th Guards Assault Regiment of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet. During the attack, the T-36 was fired upon by cannon and machine-gun fire, and then bombs were dropped on it. Several bombs hit the destroyer, there were heavy losses among the crew, and the ship sank.
Here's a strange statistic.
I'll just keep quiet about Schlesien. Drowned and good. And who he was during his lifetime - a battleship, a battleship, a training ship or a minesweeper - personally I do not care how they call him names. The bottom line is exclusively in the minus of four 280-mm guns that hit our troops. And the fact that the beginning was made by an "unidentified mine" - excuse me, but who prevented me from going and establishing its nationality? Oh, her absence? So what are the problems ??? Is the aviation affiliation established? Well, who's the last is the one and the dad.
Next, about the submarines. Everything is clear here, if our submarine is missing or blown up by mines - this is a 100% German mine. And if something happened to a German submarine, it’s anything except our mines and ships.
I have already said enough about our submarines. But for the German I will argue slightly.
U286. (in the opinion of that author, unlikely). Probably because our "Karl Liebknecht" shot and threw bombs at her. On April 22, 1945, the Northern Fleet mine-carrier "Karl Liebknecht" under the command of Lieutenant-Commander KD Staritsyn, while guarding the convoy, discovered a submarine with the help of a sonar station and dropped the entire stock of deep bombs. Four minutes later, the boat surfaced with a strongly raised stern 45-50 m from the destroyer side. Her wheelhouse was smashed, the periscopes were bent, the antennas were cut off. They opened fire on her from guns and machine guns, and she immediately sank. It is believed that this is how U-286 died. Sank or submerged after being thrown to the surface by an explosion - what's the difference? The fact is that she never got in touch anymore. The sailors from the destroyer, I suspect, also did not care about the submarine's number, they did their job. But I'm sorry for them.
German submarine U-250 (type VII-C) in dry dock in Kronstadt. Sunk on June 30, 1944 in the Bjorke-Sound area by depth charges of a submarine hunter MO-103 (commander Senior Lieutenant A. P. Kolenko). 46 crew members of the U-250 were killed. Six, including the commander, were saved. On September 14, 1944, the submarine was raised, towed to Koivisto, and then to Kronstadt, where it was docked
U344 (possibly), 1944-22-08 the destroyer "Daring" bent the stem over the seal?
U387 (very possible), A careful comparison of domestic and foreign sources gives reason to believe that only the destroyer "Hardy" can really claim a victory: on December 8, 1944, it rammed an unknown submarine, which can be identified as U-387. Yes, you can identify her, since there was no more news from her either. It was not the Martians who dragged away …
U585 (unlikely), March 30, 1942 destroyer "Thundering" (commander 2nd rank captain AI Turin) discovered the submarine and attacked it, dropping 9 large and 8 small depth charges. Debris, paper and oil stains surfaced at the place where the submarine was submerged. Presumably, it was the U-585 submarine.
U679 (very possible). On January 9, 1945, this submarine, located in the Baltic Sea northeast of Pakri lighthouse, was attacked and possibly destroyed by depth charges of the submarine hunter MO-124. Officially confirmed by the enemy.
It turns out that this is the second victory on the MO-124 account: according to a number of sources, on December 26, 1944, he sank the U-2342 XXIII series submarine. The Germans list her as killed by a mine.
German submarines were killed for unknown reasons in the zone of operation of the Soviet fleet
U367. The most likely reason for the death of the submarine is a minefield set up by the Soviet submarine L-21.
U479. Officially, the Germans "disappeared". According to our information, it was rammed by the Soviet submarine Lembit. Although, our historians point out that Lembit has no traces of such a ram. Yes, there was an incident with damage to the nose of the submarine, but they agreed that it was not a German submarine.
U676. Mines
U745. Mines
U-416. The reason for her death on December 12, 1944 is also attributed to mines. Perhaps it was a mine put up by the Soviet submarine L-3.
Slightly different arithmetic. In general, the approach that "the Germans were great, our military personnel lost how much, the Germans were great, but ours were not, because they drowned so little", to put it mildly, is biased. Roughly speaking …
If we take the losses of our submarines in the same Baltic, then from the actions of the German fleet 4 boats were lost and from the actions of the Finns and Swedes 5 more. The rest - the same mines, aviation, in two cases land artillery. But they are talking about all 46 … And then, again, about accuracy and honesty. Our submarines blown up in the roadstead of Tallinn are a loss, but the German ships that were finished off by our aviation and sunk by crews are not. Weird…
There is no doubt (and on this I agree with the excrementors) that in the headquarters of the fleets we had … not very smart men. Who did not really understand how to use combat surface ships, except in the role of floating artillery batteries. And submarines shoved through nets and mines, instead of taking and disrupting the setting of these mines. As in 1918 in the same Baltic. Only it is not worth comparing the crews of those years, because in 1918 there were more problems. And in the Great Patriotic War it could well have happened. Because the fleet was pretty impressive. And two battleships (albeit old, like mammoth excrement) could well disperse the German minelayers. I am silent about the herd of cruisers. And about the fighting spirit of the sailors too. Instead, the fleet was locked in a puddle, the sailors were sent to the front line, and the cannons were fired somewhere at the concentration of troops. I am personally very skeptical about such shooting. Especially when I read how on the Black Sea "Paris Commune" in a 6-point storm led fire to the area of the Old Crimea …
Nowadays, many writers tend to generalize. It struck someone in Ukraine to make another statement on the topic "Russia is Ukraine's # 1 enemy" - that means that all Ukrainians consider us enemies. And in this vein, a lot of things are considered. “Stalin (Zhukov, Konev, the list is long) won the war with pure blood …” And when was the war won with candy?
For such historical excrementors, with ease of operating in numbers, apparently, war seems to be a computer strategy. There is a headquarters moving figures back and forth, and there are figures. Ships, submarines, aircraft, tanks, nothing more. And this is how the war happens, all according to Hasek: "Di erst column of marshirt …"
And, starting from the numbers, highly intelligent conclusions are made, such as the one I have cited. All that can be said to such (without using the appropriate vocabulary) historical geek is only one thing: "Do you yourself imagine what you are croaking about?"
Of course he does. It was he who blindly (without radars and computers) calculated the combat course of the submarine and successfully hit three out of three torpedoes. It was not a problem for him to lay bombs on the deck of a ship moving and firing from all anti-aircraft barrels. He can do everything. Therefore, he dares to evaluate the actions of others. And for some reason there are more and more such errors of evolution. The aforementioned assault is resting compared to other history buffs. Fondly describing the performance characteristics and the actions of German ships, bearing the titles of the Reich … But I will return to them later. There is something to talk about.
Probably to the great surprise of these excrementists, I will report this: the navy is not only about admirals. And not only ships. They are also people.
These are the people of the fleet who gave themselves to the fleet despite the most idiotic orders from above. Sailors, mechanics, torpedo men, gunners, signalmen, signalmen … hundreds of thousands. It was they who inflicted damage on the enemy, not your colleagues, armchair warriors. And they did it in the end. Yes, the fleet was nothing more than an assistant to the ground forces in this war, mainly, yes, due to the limitations and stupidity of its leaders. But he was a navy. On the contrary, at the beginning of the century, were there smart and experienced generals and admirals in the army and navy? Were. What were they able to do when both the army and the navy collapsed, thanks to the agitation of the Euro-Bolsheviks? Never mind! Hence the moral - a general without an army is an empty space. Conversely, an army, even without a general, is an army. And a fleet without an admiral is also a fleet. Which, in fact, was proved during the Great Patriotic War. The fleet was, and fought with the enemy, and inflicted no less damage.
In the old days there was such a saying: "I have the honor!" The speaker made it clear to him about the presence (possession, possession) of this very honor. Well, I can't figure out why the opposite is happening. Why did the honor of the German sailors and submariners take our Internet (and not only) hackers?
Achkasov, V. I., Basov A. V., Sumin A. I. and others.
"The combat path of the Soviet Navy"
S. Patyanin and M. Morozov "German destroyers of World War II"
