Soviets subs of WWII

[CaptainD]

I found that by accident!

http://english.battlefield.ru/

There are many things about east front of WWII but not many about navy or subs.
Only these two reports abouts soviets subs, translated by James F. Gebhardt:

http://english.battlefield.ru/media/DaytimeSubTorpedo.pdf

http://english.battlefield.ru/media/SubmarineUtilization.pdf


These files are translation of official Soviet navy staff reports about operation of soviet submarine during WWII.

As usual there is some propaganda in these but also many critics about Sub commanders, operations and material

By the way I found some data about soviet torpedoes of WWII.
That was difficult because I had to use google translation from Russian to get the data.

I found these data in many russian website
The data are the same on all the websites and I think they are accurate but can be confirmed.

The first number in the type is the caliber and the second is the year of service ready.
All data are in metric system excepted the speed in Knots

Mk 53-27, caliber 533mm, length 7m, weight 1710Kg, charge weight 265Kg, range 3,7KM at 45Knt
Designed in 1927

Mk 53-36, caliber 533mm, length 7m, weight 1700Kg, charge weight 300Kg, range 4KM at 43,5Knt, 8km at 33Knt
Designed in 1936

Mk 45-36N, caliber 450mm, length 5,7m, weight 935Kg, charge weight 200Kg, range 3KM at 41Knt, 6km at 32Knt
Designed in 1936 for launch by aircraft

Mk 53-38, caliber 533mm, length 7,4m, weight 1615Kg, charge weight 300Kg, range 4KM at 44,5Knt, 8km at 34,5Knt, 10KM at 30,5Knt
Designed in 1938

Mk 45-36NU, caliber 450mm, length 6m, weight 935Kg, charge weight 200Kg, range 3KM at 41Knt, 6km at 32Knt
Designed in 1939 for launch by aircraft

Mk 53-38U, caliber 533mm, length 7,4m, weight 1725Kg, charge weight 400Kg, range 4KM at 44,5Knt, 8km at 34,5Knt, 10KM at 30,5Knt
Designed in 1939

Mk 53-39, caliber 533mm, length 7,4m, weight 1780Kg, charge weight 317Kg, range 4KM at 51Knt, 8km at 39Knt, 10KM at 34Knt
Designed in 1941

I think that the 53-38 and 53-38U performed close from US Mk14 but the 53-39 performed close from the japanes type 95 torpedo which was derived from the type 93 610mm "Long-Lance".

I was not able to found detailed caracteristics of the soviets sub of the time.

If someone find anythings to complete this post it will be great

Happy new year to everyone

[Cybermat47]

Thanks for the info!

But I'll never have the same amount of respect for the Soviet sub campaign as I do for the German, or British. Why?

One soviet captain, on a war patrol in 1945, caused the second-biggest maritime disaster ever, when he sent a ship full of German refugees and wounded to the bottom. One week later, he caused the largest maritime disaster ever, doing the exact same thing to the Whilhelm Gustloff. This captain returned to port to receive an order of the red banner. If he hadn't been involved in an incident on shore, he would have been awarded the title hero of the soviet union. Just before Gorbachev fell, he awarded the hero of the soviet union to the captain posthumously, as the picky man had decided that it would be be best to go into a drunken rage and be thrown into a Siberian death camp.

Still, that's not to say all Russian submariners were like this.

[CaptainD]

You're right but take the account of all merchant sailors and passengers killed by german submarines in the Battle for the Atlantic and you'll see that the balance dont go german side.
So remember of this British ship, which was getting british children to Canada and was sunk by an U-Boote.
History must be cold and told without political, religious, influence method which it's very difficultto apply.
The history of the WWII has been told during the cold war with taking for true the talks of the germans who has become our allies at the time.
In the same mood german military has not been taken guilty of what they have done during the war.
Remember, there was not enough SS to make all the crimes.
It is still a big debate in Europe for now and cold war reflexes are still present.
By the way I gave these file because it is the soviet view of the soviet sub operation during the war translated by an american, just for info and historical view.
USSR had lost about 20 000 000 people during the war.
Twice in his history, Russian empire and the following USSR had been invaded by someone who wanted to destroy it.
It's a good reason to become paranoïac.
Stalin foly is not the only reason for this policy and the history of the cold war is still to be writen.
In WWII germans where not the good ones.

[Cybermat47]

In WWII germans where not the good ones.

Thre was no completely good side in the war: Americans took body parts from dead Japanese as ornaments, Japanese took part in killing competitions, the British shot German sailors in the water, the Germans started the Holocaust, the Italians invaded Ethiopia unprovoked before the war, the soviets shot their own men and raped every woman they could find, Australian's shot not to kill, but to wound at Kokoda.

But war brings out the best in people as well: Americans and British helped the German people after the war, A Japanese captain put his ship at risk to rescue British sailors, a German U-boat captain rescued the hundreds of passengers of a ship he had sunk, Italian soldiers had no desire to be at war, and the Russians and Austrlians had been almost dehumanized by the conditions they were in.

[CaptainD]

Yes, some men acted as true men and others follow the way of war.
War which can do the best or the worse of men.
I just want to say as "Bomber" Harris: " they sawn the wind and they reap the hurricane".
In 1914 began a process which will destroy Europe and kill millions of men and women of any age with just an interruption of 21 years.
Ironically the germans had generated their worse ennemy by sending Lenin to Russia with the result we know.
It is true that France and UK had declared war to Germany but Germany after Germany had invader Poland without declaration has did another country allied with Germany.
Germany also invaded Belgium, The netherland, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece and finally USSR without any declaration.
Stalin play his game by calling Soviet people to defend not the soviets but the motherland.
Soviets are not angels.
They did their part of war crimes but I think that by striking so hard Germans they not only avenge their own murdered people but also other victims of german crimes.
For exemple the GI murdered at Malmedy.
The crimes you talk about are real crimes but in no way they came from a deliberate will of allied governments.
They just are the consequence of the action of the men who began the game.

By the way I should like having some technical comments on soviets torpedo of WWII

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^^^

Hang on, did I come across as saying the Allied Commanders specifically came across as sanctioning those war crimes?

Damn.

I didn't mean that at all, sorry for giving you that impression! I mean, there was only one Allied government that sanctioned war crimes (I'm looking at you, Stalin) but Nazi Germany had to be defeated.

Although I think Churchill might have been in the right track when he suggested re-arming the Whermacht after the war for a combined invasion of the Soviet Union to destroy communism :D

[CCIP]

I think it’s important to give the Soviet submariners and designers due credit – their subs were not the most successful or ‘best’, but given the conditions they fought in and the odds they faced, they actually performed admirably and compare very favourably to everybody else’s subs. Coming into WWII, the USSR had the largest and most diverse submarine force of any nation, although they relied especially heavily on smaller and quicker coastal subs. Unlike the German or US sub campaigns, they did not face an enemy that relied mainly on shipping for their trade, so they performed very well against Germany given that. Unlike Germany, they had enough subs to accomplish their stated missions at the start of the war, and while it took them a while to get in gear, they did do this successfully. Unlike the US, they had a working tactical doctrine and mostly-effective torpedoes from the very start, and they used both of these well. Soviet subs also excelled in a number of aspects – the smaller coastal subs had very good underwater performance, and the survival, rescue and air recycling gear that they carried aboard was the most advanced in the world at the time (in fact their underwater endurance was largely limited by battery life, not air).

In terms of the odds they faced – the Baltic campaign is remembered for the sinkings of the German liners in 1945, but somehow what Soviet submariners faced in 1942-1943 is forgotten – a time when their survival odds on a patrol were as bad if not worse than for German U-boats who left port in 1944-1945. And yet they still went out, fought, and still managed to sink ships.
All in all, the Soviet subs did very well. A better comparison for their actions would be something like the Royal Navy’s experience with subs in the European theater, and arguably Soviet subs had somewhat more success, even. Both forces, however, had some real similarities in their strategy, equipment and tactics, and did well in often less-than-ideal situations.

[CaptainD]

Cybermat47, I think you're right with Stalin "communism" and it's sequels and I remember my father saying that the most beautifull day in his life is the one in August 1944 when he saw the first GI, 4 men in jeep with a machinegun, not very proud, but for French people they were the messenger of freedom.

CCIP, I was very surprised when I red these reports.
The only things I knew before about soviets navy war was the performances of their Marines at Leningrad, Sevastopol and Stalingrad, and of course the sinkings of the german's liner at the end of the war.
They had a lot of casualties and their weapons were at least as good as the best ones of other countries.
And they don't make a war only against merchants but against the Kriegsmarine, attacking the supply ships for the wehrmacht comming from german allied harbour of Romania.
You're rights saying thay made a similar war as the British subs in mediteranean sea when they wanted to cut the line between Italy and North-Africa.
And they also had to make war spied by their own political power :03:

Have you some data about soviets subs of that period, before they copied the type XXI U-booten?

[Cybermat47]

CCIP, I was very surprised when I red these reports.

Good one :haha:

[CCIP]

I don't have a lot of references that are not in Russian, unfortunately, BUT...

Here is an old thread from my visit to the D-2 submarine in Russia, an awesome exhibit and arguably the oldest preserved war veteran sub (i.e. the oldest-built sub that went out, sank ships, returned from patrol, and became a museum at the end of its service).

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=124914

Give it a look :)



and you can always start looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Russian_submarine_classes#World _War_II_Era

The Soviets didn't invent everything themselves of course, but they generally kept up. If you look at the subs, you'll notice that in a lot of ways they combine features from other nations' subs. Their main classes, in a lot of ways, look like a hybrid between hulls that look a lot like German U-boats, and tower structures that look like early-war American fleet boats. Some of the equipment was essentially copies - for example the S class ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_S_class_submarine ) was built on early plans for the German Type IX that the Soviets bought. The Soviets generally benefitted a lot from the research that the Germans did abroad between the wars, when they were still respecting the Versailles treaty and thus not building any subs of their own.

One big difference is that the Soviets essentially stopped sub development and construction when WWII started. All of their efforts were directed at the ground war (for good reasons), so the improvements throughout the war were minimal and the crews mostly had to make do with what they had - while the Germans and the Americans made big technological leaps and accelerated their production. So by 1945 the Soviet equipment was as obsolete as the early-war Type VIIs and Type IXs. Needless to say, they raced to grab what they could from German technology when the war ended, including the XXIs and XXIIIs.

They still did a pretty good job in the war, all things considered. All their subs were built and equipped at home, and were able to stay operational even in extremely bad conditions. They weren't better than German or American boats to start out with, but they weren't worse either. I'd say they were about on par, and certainly the M and Sch classes worked well in the tasks they were designed for (patrol in restricted coastal waters).

[CaptainD]

I watch the pics and find them really good.
The comments are fine too.
Many people of west europe as I don't know anythings about soviet navy in WWII except what I talk about in prior post.
For exemple I am stuned by the performance of the torpedoes.
I read about theses that their developpement continue throughout the war but that was on russian website translated with Google.
Theses russians fish had similar performance as US MK XIV maybe with less problems:03:
As I said before if someone had data about the most used soviets sub of WWII it's will be great.

[Jimbuna]

A Soviet sub in GWX3.0

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/788/russian2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/russian2.jpg/)

[CaptainD]

Hi Jimbuna
Do you know which class she is part of?
I think that's subs can be seen in the black see campaign.

[Jimbuna]

Hi Jimbuna
Do you know which class she is part of?
I think that's subs can be seen in the black see campaign.

AI-controlled Shchuka-class submarine.

[CaptainD]

Hi Jim
In one post following CCIP pics I read that these subs looks as if they have been made with parts of other subs and that the exact impression I had when I look at your pic and I also read that this "Pike" class sub was one of the most successfull with the "Dekabrist" class shown by CCIP.
It is true that Germans and Americans had improved their subs during the whole war and USSR had'nt the means to do it with the ground war at the same time.
We also must keep in mind that Leningrad, now Saint-Petersbourg was encircled during about 2 years and a half and maybe some sub shipyards were blocked there.

[Jimbuna]

IMHO US and British subs were far superior to those used by Russia.

The Russian navy was low down on the list of priorities in Stalins Russia...the greatest emphasis was put on defearing the Germans and reclaiming the land they had overrun.

[CCIP]

The Russian navy was low down on the list of priorities in Stalins Russia...the greatest emphasis was put on defearing the Germans and reclaiming the land they had overrun.

Well, that's not entirely true - as I noted above, the USSR actually had the largest submarine fleet of anyone at the start of the war (250+ subs, vs. Germany's 70 or the US' 110 or so), and most of the subs were relatively new (most of the fleet was built in the mid- and late 30s). The Soviets were well aware of the potential of submarines, and in fact it was long before the Cold War that they set about building the biggest and most diverse fleet of them in the world - they bet on subs as their most major naval weapon very early on. Arguably the Soviet navy of the 1930s was the first navy to treat the submarine as its primary weapon. Stalin himself actually interfered with this to some extent (for example with his ambitious and completely silly project for Soviet battleships), but not enough to throw off the focus on submarine construction, which the Soviets always had.

The real problem was what happened to their priorities once the war started, because all new production of subs stopped, and especially unlike the US subs which were substantially upgraded and given big advantages (like radar, especially) throughout the war, Soviet subs really didn't see much improvement until the war ended. WWII was a 'break' of sorts. Had the Soviets been fighting someone like Britain or Japan though, things may have been different. Indeed as the Cold War showed, they could throw some impressive effort into submarine technology when needed. It just wasn't in WWII.

[Jimbuna]

My apologies, I should have added or included 'during the actual conflict years' :yep: