boxer написал:

Оригинальное сообщение #727471
правда в цитируемом Вами * Первоисточнике * МО № 216 (новострой зав. №216) назван как ех. ПК-216 (№ 405 по пр. 25.7.41г) потопленный еще  в сентябре 41г в  б. Триги о. Саарема.

Составители этого справочника не первые и не последние, кто запутался с перенумерацией катеров. Мы в своей работе постарались этого избежать и уделили данному вопросу углубленное внимание.

boxer написал:

Оригинальное сообщение #727546
Но на СФ ушли ЕМНИП новострои зав.  №№211, 212, 222 и 223 - там сооотв. МО № 153, 161-163 . А вот ПК-222 и 223 на СФ не просматриваются.

Есть предположение, что ПК-222, 223 и зав. №222, 223 это одно и то же.
По крайней мере катеров "либавского" дивизиона МПВ ПК-220 - ПК-223 в Либаве к началу войны не было. Есть мнение, что это "новостройки", находившиеся на заводе №5 и вливавшиеся в состав флота позднее. В боевых действиях до 25 июля, когда вышел приказ о смене наименований катеров, я этих катеров  также не встречал.

Прошу прощения , но не вписываются они в в зав. №№ 1-228 , с учетом здравствующих 4 -х северных ед. ( МО № 153, 161-163).
Подробно чуть позже, если есть смысл говорить на тему без знания стр. №№ балтийских и тихоокеанских пограничников.
С уважением  Вох.
PS- вроде в Тайфуне № 29 была упомянута достройка  после войны только 2-х МО-4 в мастерских Лен. погран. порта . А на самам деле восьми единиц ?

Отредактированно boxer (19.08.2013 00:05:40)

Мирослав Эдуардович! Не подскажите - за потопление U144 кого-нибудь из экипажа Щ-307 наградили.. а то у её штурмана П.А. Никитина первая награда - "За Отвагу" от 15.4.42.. заранее спасибо, с уважением..

Мирослав Эдуардович, эдравствуйте! Возник вопрос по этому фото..

Командир краснознамённой С-51 капитан 3 ранга К.М. Колосов.. а у него, ЕМНИЗрение, знак морской гвардии? У меня его военная "биография" начинается с М-119, а где он мог получить подобный знак?  Заранее спасибо, с уважением..

Отредактированно maslopoop (24.08.2013 13:33:12)

Hello! (i'm the Italian user ^^)
I'm returned with some few new data that could strenght the option of the MAS attack on the damaging of the cruiser Molotov in Black Sea.
From the 2011 article of Enrico Cernuschi, from "Rivista Marittima -March 2011" (i've a copy) there are
1) a not much nice attack against the "use of internet" about the research for naval events and battle
2) a quiet stern nationalistic defense of the italian success against the possibility of German aircrafts attacking Molotov.

On the italian forum i'm part, i've wrote some lines to criticize such stern article about how Cernuschi attacks the research online (and that allow people to confront and share data). However he also adds a pair of elements with proof that could negate the German options:

He say clearly that on "Achtung - Torpedo los! Die Strategische und Operative Einsatz des Kampfgeschwaders 26  "   published by Bernhard & Graefe Verlag   of Coblenza in 1991.  Pages 148, 149 and page 353   -  author Rudi Schmidt, commander of the same 6./KG 26  Staffel.
The "German air attack was at Midday of day 3" and not around the "Midnight of the night between 2 and 3 "

Also it's adds as second source this one:
"Luftwaffe aerial torpedo Aircraft and Operations" of Harold Thiele,  page 39
With further data:
He-111 launched 10 torpedoes during "a good nice of sun, at mid morning". According Cernuschi, the description it has difference from Thiele's report that speak of "bad conditions" and not a good time (but maybe the first one mentioned the general conditions + smokes, while the second one it was only about the weather).
Thiele reports that the optimistic Germans claimed "from 2 to 3 torpedo hits".  It also admitted that 2 aircrafts were shot down by the ships.

However the key fact it's that the German attack should have happened during the morning of day 3, when the cruiser was already damaged (by MAS).

It also say that about the previous book the only one that gave a mixed account was book "The Soviets as Naval Opponents, 1941 - 1945" of Friederich Ruge at page 85.
Here it say that Molotov was attacked "By German torpedo planes and Italian MTBs" but without giving clear dates and hours, so it's possible that Ruge wrote about both the attacks as a single one.

Cernuschi also adds that's reasonable for the damaged Molotov to keep on at slower speed, so to remain in Fedosya Gulf for the morning of day 3.


All this data should strenght the Italian option for the damage on Molotov.
What say the Soviet sources? There were mentions about air attack on morning/midday of 3, apart the ones at night of day 2? (because MAS engines could have been exchanged for airplanes).
This data from German books could give a final confirmation for the Italian success?

Отредактированно lupodimare89 (07.09.2013 22:13:56)

Уважаемый Мирослав Эдуардович!
Если Вас не затруднит - посмотрите этот пост  http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php … 3&p=90
М.б., Вы внесёте ясность?
    Заранее спасибо...

Отредактированно maslopoop (11.09.2013 09:58:40)

I've talked to my distant relative this summer (he's been officer on Comandante Borsini patrol ship) and he basically told me that he can't really help much and one have to give credits and good reasons to ask for the original documents (and giving some money)

All the avaible reports and articles online give no mentions about German presence of aircrafts or collaboration of aircrafts: however this still can't be denied because these online articles are not first-hand sources.

Probably you already knew them, but i've managed to read the KTB in english that include the general naval operations of Kriegsmarine, sadly the specific page of August in Black Sea it's not avaible.
http://archive.org/stream/wardiarygerma … 4/mode/2up

Offically the document gives credits to Italian MAS of the torpedoing. Then on day 6 August it's say clearly that  "Krasny Krim was sunk by Italians". Later on 13 August it's said that thanks air recconnaissence has been discovered that "Krasny Krim was undamaged, and that probably was sunk a destroyer."
This description, and some interesting lines that basically report the general italian claims, without adding if Germans made credible claims, seems to strenght the Italian option for the damage of Molotov.

HOWEVER  there is also the line  " From 22.45 our torpedo planes followed the force.  "  That's the first sign  of a presence of Axis torpedo bombers that night around Molotov&Kharkov.
Have to be said however that there are no further mention at these torpedo planes, neither if they made attacks or abandoned.

My question before was more specific: if Soviets reported air attacks not the day between 2 and 3 August, but the next morning and midday of 3 August as mentioned in this italian source that mention German data.
It will not explain everything of course, but it could be interesting to see if this is confirmed by Soviets (that air attacks kept on until midday of 3 August), i've checked your previous replies and i've not found if you talked of air attacks on morning of day 3  (i'm sorry, maybe i missed it). Basically because the italian article said that Germans admitted of having lost 2 aircrafts attacking the ships: and this give confirmations of the Soviet claim to have shot down them.


-----------------


I don't know if may help, however the english translated Diaries gave also another interesting detail for the battle of Convoy PQ-13 that involved Soviet destroyers.
I've already wrote here about how the british Diary of HMS Eclipse seemed to strenght the option that Sokrushitelnyi had actually fired against Z-26 (basically because Eclipse identified "mysterious ship attacked by Sokr" as the HMS Trinidad, and the "mysterious ship attacking from front area" as HMS Fury", as two distinct ships.
If i'm right Sork and Grem. both spoke about 1 single destroyer sighted but this could have happened due the disposition of the ships, with HMS Eclipse being in central postion and having the better position to see both the "mysterious ship". It was interesting that HMS Eclipse said that didn't joined the Sokrushitelnyi attack just because it believed it was the Trinidad. Then after having identified the HMS Fury, it decided to search for the other "mysterious ship" because got news that there was an enemy destroyer damaged on sea, and that Trinidad got damages too (but didn't know that was so damaged that it stopped the search). HMS Eclipse kept on his search until finding Z-26 and until the last moment believed it was HMS Trinidad = same target of Sokrushitelnyi. The discover that it was actually the Z-26 seemed to decrease possibility that Sokr. fired against an allied ship).

Well, after this little summary, i've found on the german general war diary here: http://archive.org/details/wardiarygermann311942germ
A very interesting report of the action, i copy it word-by-word.
During low visibility and snow flurries, destroyer Z-26 located a target by radar, and at 0948 encountered an enemy cruiser of the City class, which opened fire at a distance of 3,000 to 4,000 metres and shot a 6-fan. Z-26 was severaly hit at once by gunfire, but outmaneuvered the torpedoes. Z-24 shot a 7-fan at the cruiser; probably 1 of the torpedoes hit the target. Destroyer Z-24 and Z-25 lost contact with Z-26 in the snow flurries while the latter was outmaneuvering the torpedoes. Subsequently Z-26 had further encounters with 1 large and later 1 smaller destroyer, and suffered additional damage as well as heavy causalities.The intention to break through Honningsvaag could not be carried out. At 11.25 Z-24 and Z-25 reestablished contact with their hard-pressed flottilla leader, chased off the enemy destroyer by gunfire, and took aboard 88 survivors, 7 of them officers including the flottilla commander and the captain, as well as 23 dead, before Z-26 sank.8 more members of the crew were picked up by submarine U-376.

The most interesting aspect it's that from this summary (that is said to come from the war diary of the destroyer's group) it seems that Z-26 actually met 2 single enemy destroyers after having been damaged and after that Trinidad was self-torpedoed (with Germans claiming to have torpedoed it).
While the second one (the "smaller") is surely the HMS Eclipse, i think that this description adds too more credit that the "larger" was the Sokrushitelnyi.
It could not have been HMS Oribi because it was behind the other Allied destroyers.
I don't think it could have been the HMS Fury because it appeared in front of Eclipse & Gremyashchyi.
The detail of being "larger" it could be a further clue... because the 7-class destroyer was larger and heavier then the E/F British destroyers.

Sadly from the text it can't be said clearly if the "larger destroyer" fire caused damage.

Отредактированно lupodimare89 (15.09.2013 22:57:53)

Thank you very much.  I will make present to the italian users i know that this important war story still needs details to be disclosed ^^

Absolutely no problem for PQ-13 battle! ^^
I only hope that it could be help you when/if you will examine it.

Отредактированно lupodimare89 (16.09.2013 12:22:35)

Если первую в тот день атаку торпедоносца (экипаж Деревянных) немцы описали в цветах и красках, то вторую никто не наблюдал вовсе. Судя по координатам она произошла против одного из кораблей "восточной" группы на заграждении "Зееигель" - тральщик М-29, охотники Uj-1202, 1204, 1208. Естественно, отсутствует КТВ охотника 1204, поскольку около 4 ч утра 26-го он подорвался на мине и затонул.

mop написал:

Оригинальное сообщение #745133
Судя по описанию атаковали транспорт который шел в сопровождении сторожевика.

В оперсводке напрямую про охранение не написано, я ориентировался по ней. А вообще немцы на "Зееигеле" парами ходили: тральщик - охотник т.е. "транспорт" и "сторожевик/миноносец". Меня смущают указанные в оперсводке попадания двух зенитных снарядов в плоскость. Что касается 1 торпеды - вероятно моя описка.

Во время зимовки 1941/1942 гг. стояла у борта ПБ «ДУС» у Петроградской набережной.

Hello again !
Recently, apart study for university, i've managed to keep on a nice work about the Black Sea operations and with big help of user igor surfaced a pair of interesting thing that i've never seen before. Basically could be 2 additional small victories for Soviet MTBs.

First event has been reported by the german KTB here http://archive.org/stream/wardiarygerma … 6/mode/2up
On day 27 July, concerning a pair "Patrol vessels" attacked by 1 enemey (soviet) gunboat and 1 MTB occurred on 25 July. One patrol vessel is reported as sunk with crew missing. Igor has checked the soviet data and found that SKA-0175 and TK-154 were involved.
(the mistake in term of the units involved is due the english translation, but the loss itself happened).
Further confirmation came here: http://www.wwii-photos-maps.com/kriegsm … index.html 
where igor found that it was a sailing vessel/schooner for fishing, possibly with military personal (croat or german) and this unit loss got also a name/number, the  n°2412

Probably you already knew of this, but i've think to wrote about it ^^

The other event it's more mysterious and was reported by the KTB here:   http://archive.org/stream/wardiarygerma … 4/mode/2up
This time we've a "cutter" reported as sunk during an engagement  in 27 September .
Here it's a bit messed up:   this KTB has already made mistakes of reporting events with some days of delay, and here it's not clear if the cutter was lost EXACTLY that day, or few days before. The event is reported in Novorossisk.
Igor found that no engagement took place there in such date, but one took place at Blagoveschenskaya, with TK-94 that claimed to have gunned a cutter.
However there was also an engagement on night between 20 and 21 at Novorossisk, with SKA and TKA that  clashed with cutters and claimed one sunk.
I think it's both possible that 1) KTB made a mistake in reporting the place of engagement 2)it was delayed the communication (as already happened).
I've yet not searched well her for confirmation  http://www.wwii-photos-maps.com/kriegsm … index.html

You knew about this event? What's your opinion about it?