|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Royal Navy > The naval engagement of 26 June 1941|
|Posted by: dragos July 06, 2004 07:38 pm|
| On 25 June 1941, at 19:15, a task force made of destroyers HARKOV (P. A. Melnikov) and MOSKVA (A. B. Tyhov) left Sevastopol harbor, followed after two hours and a half by a supporting force made of heavy cruiser VOROSHILOV (F. S. Markov) and destroyers SOOBRAZITELNII (S. S. Volkov) and SMISHLENII (V. P. Veppers). The task force headed to Odessa, then changed direction towards Constanta during night. At 03:42, the Soviet destroyers deployed their anti-mine shield. Minutes later, a mine exploded in the right shield of HARKOV, without causing damage to the ship.
At 03:58, two ships were spotted by destroyer REGINA MARIA, but they were believed to be friendly destroyers at Midia. The two ships heading south-west at high speed opened fire. The first two salvos fell in the waters of Constanta harbor, framing minelayer CAROL (three shells in starboard stern, two shells in port stern). The Soviet destroyers fired 350 shells of 130-mm, at distances up to 24000 meters (over three salvos per minute). It was aimed the Palas railroad station, where an ammunition train has been hit and several fuel tanks were ignited.
At 03:59 AM destroyer MARASTI turned north and armed the 120-mm guns. At 04:12 AM destroyer MARASTI opened fire, starting from 14800 meters, closing to 11400 meters. The first salvo caused the windows of navigation cabin to shatter. Destroyer REGINA MARIA also opened fire.
At 04:15 AM the Soviet destroyers launched smoke screens and headed open sea.
At 04:19 AM destroyer MARASTI ceased fire at a distance of 16000 meters after having fired 19 shells. At 04:22 AM destroyer REGINA MARIA ceased fire at a distance of 18000 meters, after having fired 23 shells.
At 04:22 AM “Tirpitz” coastal battery opened fire, one shot followed after one minute by three salvos of three shots each, firing 53 shells.
The Soviet destroyer MOSKVA suffered a great explosion and broke in two parts, sinking between 04:23 and 04:25. The cause of explosion was the collision with a mine, because the established location of the Soviet destroyer at the moment of the explosion was exactly on the mine barrage in Tuzla area. The mine explosion ignited the ammunition store at the stern.
HARKOV continued the escaping route. A nearby hit damaged the tubes of two steam tanks, causing his speed to drop to 6 knots. Two mechanics (Petr Grebennikov and Petr Kairov), dressed in asbestus suits, emerged for repairs, and at 07:14 the ship recovered its 26 knots.
The supporting task force also approached the Romanian coast. A mine exploded in the shield of SOOBRAZITELNII, causing light damage to the bow of cruiser VOROSHILOV. The cruiser turned away after sending the destroyers SOOBRAZITELNII and SMISHLENII to provide AA support for the retreating HARKOV.
|Posted by: dragos July 10, 2004 09:19 pm|
The survivors of MOSKVA in Romanian custody.
|Posted by: blink7422 March 15, 2010 12:28 pm|
| era pe undeva o fotografie cu schema bataliei din 26 iunie 1941... m-as bucura foarte tare daca as regasi-o
|Posted by: Victor March 17, 2010 07:46 am|
|The forum rules clearly specify the posting in English. Please comply.|
|Posted by: contras April 05, 2010 10:50 am|
| I saw a documentary at TVR few years ago, when others presumtions were made. One of them was that Moskva destroyer could be hit by friendly fire, from one of the Soviet subs.
Otherwise, the most logical explanation is a mine from Tuzla barrage, even if everyone tried to claim the kill, including Tirpitz coastal battery.
|Posted by: MMM April 06, 2010 10:47 am|
What did the survivers from "Moskva" say regarding the sinking? Perhaps they could have enlightened the "mystery"...
|Posted by: contras April 07, 2010 07:57 pm|
NKVD and the commisars taked care to don't say a word about it. The ideea was put into question because the crew of one of the subs who was in area was disbanded and all the members were split to other units. Same time, all other the crews, subs or surface, were awarded, except this one.
|Posted by: dragos April 07, 2010 09:02 pm|
| The prisoners couldn't give more details, as they claimed to be at their posts when the explosion occurred.
But if it was a friendly fire from a Soviet submarine, in the heat of battle it was hard to tell for the crew of Moskva it wasn't a mine or a torpedo from an enemy submarine, so they couldn't know it was friendly fire to cover it up.
|Posted by: contras June 23, 2010 03:29 pm|
| One map of the battle, from Nicolae Koslinski, Raymond Stanescu, Marina romana in al doilea razboi mondial, , ed. Fat-Frumos, Bucuresti, 1996, vol I.
|Posted by: contras June 23, 2010 03:46 pm|
| Sorry, my mistake. Real map is down there.
One map of the battle, from Nicolae Koslinski, Raymond Stanescu, Marina romana in al doilea razboi mondial, , ed. Fat-Frumos, Bucuresti, 1996, vol I.
|Posted by: Petre July 04, 2010 06:19 pm|
| From www.Adevarul.ro, a post on the forum by Vladimir Deveselu 23.Jun.2010 :
"I know very well the story of Moskva. At that time my father (Lt.Cmdr. Petre Popescu-Deveselu) was the chief of staff at the Romanian-German Headquarter.
It was at that time a whole discussion about who sank the ship: the mines, the guns of Regina Maria or the German battery Tirpitz...
My father, as Romanian officier, claimed the success of our destroyer, challenged by the Germans who claimed that the range of the guns of RM was not sufficient to hit the Russian, advocating for Tirpitz battery. However the ship has sunk and the Soviets have never came to blows.
About Harkov, sister-ship of Moskva, she was touched by our guns, was damaged, and retired at Sevastopol, where it was found by Romanian troops when they occupied the city. The Soviets were lucky, the deck was pierced in three places by shells that probably did not explode…"
|Posted by: Victor July 05, 2010 08:26 am|
|The Kharkov was not captured in Sevastopol in 1942. It was sunk by the Luftwaffe in 1943.|
|Posted by: contras July 25, 2010 10:48 am|
|Posted by: MMM July 30, 2010 05:14 pm|
| Oh, he's soooo modest!
If we had a couple more like him in those days, we'd have had the Black Sea as a Romanian lake, isn't that so?
|Posted by: dragos July 30, 2010 05:28 pm|
|Yes, the article is laughable. The "specialists" called destroyer Moskva the "Titanic of the Black Sea". I wonder who these specialists are.|
|Posted by: Victor August 04, 2010 11:16 am|
Well he is right in one aspect. Both the Titanic and the Moskva sank.
|Posted by: Agarici August 04, 2010 11:44 am|
| Well, in my oppinion the article is more than decent (far above the average, in the "generalist" press at least), offers all the significant alternatives for the sinking of Moskva, and the author also asked for a historian (Mihai Retegan) oppinion. Also, the quotation "Am scufundat Titanicul Marii Negre" should be taken as WE (as in the RR Navy - not I) sunk the Titanic of the Black Sea" - he never claims such an accomplishment for himself.
I think showing a little respect for a 87 years old war veteran with such a career record (and who actually served on Regina Maria as a cadet navy officer in June 1941) won't hurt at all. Other military history enthusiasts would be glad to have him alive and well, and would rush to interview him about his memoirs and experiences in the Royal Navy. But apparently the military pilots are privileged on this site - a thing which is not bad in itself.
|Posted by: dragos August 04, 2010 10:54 pm|
| It's not about disrespect towards the veteran, but a military history article should be treated a bit more serious, at least by the reporter. Because if he would have done some research on the subject, he would have discovered that there were ships in the Soviet Black Sea Fleet much bigger than Moskva, which was merely a destroyer: cruisers, heavy cruisers and even a battleship.
Treating the subject in a manner like this, omitting some facts and presenting only those favorable, glittering gift wrapped, is not what I would like to see, for the sake of historical accuracy.
Reviewing the article, my impression is that it was edited since I've first read it
|Posted by: Agarici August 05, 2010 10:48 am|
| Dragos, I entirely agree with you about the title (Moskva being labeled "the Titanic of the Black Sea"), but apart from that I’ve found the article absolutely decent. That’s why, in my opinion, the title was chosen not out of ignorance but rather for drawing attention/sensationalism. I agree that this it a bad habit (over present in the Romanian media, but not only here), but perhaps up to a certain point is necessary when such a specialized article is included in a general/mainstream daily newspaper. But again, I agree with the point you’ve made.
As for the article being edited post-publishing, I don’t think it’s possible (not technically speaking, of course - but perhaps legally or customary, if there are such things in the Romanian media), even in an online edition. Moreover, I don’t think they would make such an effort for a marginal (from the newspaper perspective) material.
|Posted by: Petre August 17, 2010 05:49 pm|
|Posted by: raevski August 18, 2010 05:51 am|
| I don't understand the markings on the map. Could you help me deciper these.
What do the triangles and ship markings mean.
|Posted by: Petre September 07, 2010 04:13 am|
| White bugs = romanians, black bugs = soviets. Triangles = destroyers. 2 = two. Other ship markings = other ships, maybe groups.
From the story, at Midia were Regele Ferdinand and Marasesti, at Agigea-Eforie were Regina Maria and Marasti.
From the story and the map :
04.12-04.15 Marasti with artilery fire
04.19-04.23 Regina Maria with artilery fire.
|Posted by: RedBaron September 07, 2010 07:15 pm|
Unfortunately nowadays... there is little respect.
Living this new wonderful era of information, with the internet and all, makes some people way too intelligent for their own sake I would say.
The article was decent.
|Posted by: Petre September 30, 2010 09:14 pm|
| From a text of Leonid Poritskyy : Raid over Constanza. June '41 :
...About the statement of mine barage on the way to Constanza, the Romanian Government declared on Feb.20th, 1941. From official sources, it was known that their border was taken out at 17 miles from coast and the passage was known only by few persons…
The two leaders, before going to sea, in them (both sides) were installed shield-protectors designed to protect the ships from anchored mines. Because their speed was sometime to high and also, in the mine barage were anti mine-sweeping devices, 3 shield-protectors got lost...
The plan was to destroy the petro-tanks in Constanza and to investigate the defence of the navy base. That means at The Soviet Tch.Fl. they missed data and studyes about the opponent... Air bombardements were also planiffied...
Also because of damages, the speed of Harkov dropped to slow and the treath was great. But the crew repulsed the attack of enemy planes, shot down two of them, and at 05.55 came out from under the fire of German batteries....
Soon after that, the soviet forces received order to return to their bases. On the way back, Harkov repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, was attacked by small groups of aircraft...
After 90 min of the attack, only 6 SB soviet planes with bombs over Constanza...
In the port of Constanza the petro-tanks remained whole...
In his war diary, the german commander Gadow has make the following record on Jun.26th : „We need to recognise that the bombardment of the coast by the Soviet destroyers was very courageous. As a result of this bombardment, a fire has arisen in the oil storage in the area of the station Pallas and some ammunition has been set in fire. This is the fine proof of the success of the bombardment. Besides, as result of the damage of the rail, the way Bucharest-Constanza has been interrupted. In connection with the big damages of the station, there were difficulties with the delivery of fuel for the Romanian Navy, the ways of delivery beeing destroyed”...
With regard to the problem of shelling Constanta, in the opinion of Rear Adm. Vladimirsky, it should carry not by leaders but using for this purpose cruisers with their 180-mm guns (maximum range 206 cables). Cruisers were well trainedin for carefully shooting over the beach and could, by air-guidance, to cause powerful blow to the coastal targets, firing from a safe for mine area. Of course, in this case had to take risks. Mainly an airplane located between cruisers and port. Another opportunity to fire long-range was not...
|Posted by: raevski September 30, 2010 11:51 pm|
| What are the likey aircraft to have attacked the Soviet Destroyers?
I know the Hurricanes were positioned near Constanta.
|Posted by: contras November 02, 2010 08:07 pm|
| I tried to find some wiews from the prisoniers taken from destrozer Moskva. I find only the coverage made by Constantin Virgil Gheorghiu, war reporter in ww2. He wrote many books about his coverages in ww2, like "Ard malurile Nistrului" (4 editions in 1942), "Am luptat in Crimeea", "Cu submarinul Delfinul la atacul Sevastopolului". After 23 August 1944, he remains in West, and emigrated to Canada. Here he wrote other books, must known "25th hour", that was put onto movie, with Anthony Quinn in main role. Here is his coverage about the prisoniers take from destrozer Moskva. His entire book about his reports on the Bassarabian front, "Ard malurile Nistrului", can be downloaded from here:
Here is the part about the Moskva prisoniers:
And so on. The report is too long, if you want to see it all, follow the link.
|Posted by: contras November 02, 2010 08:20 pm|
| I don't know if my last post could be put on the forum, because it was too long. I'll put here again, with some cuts.
I tried to find some wiews from the prisoniers taken from destrozer Moskva. I find only the coverage made by Constantin Virgil Gheorghiu, war reporter in ww2. He wrote many books about his coverages in ww2, like "Ard malurile Nistrului" (4 editions in 1942), "Am luptat in Crimeea", "Cu submarinul Delfinul la atacul Sevastopolului". After 23 August 1944, he remains in West, and emigrated to Canada. Here he wrote other books, must known "25th hour", that was put onto movie, with Anthony Quinn in main role. Here is his coverage about the prisoniers take from destrozer Moskva. His entire book about his reports on the Bassarabian front, "Ard malurile Nistrului", can be downloaded from here:
Here is the part about the Moskva prisoniers:
And so on. The report is too long, if you want to see it all, follow the link.
|Posted by: Petre January 21, 2015 07:19 pm|
| Source - Net.
A report about the circumstances of the loose of the soviet destroyer-leader "Moskva"
|Posted by: Petre March 21, 2015 02:55 pm|
| De-classified documents, first published in early 90's.
A Report on the raid-operation with ships of Black Sea Fleet Detachment of light forces against the harbor-base of Constanta, night of june 25-26, 1941. (selections)
|Posted by: Petre May 02, 2015 07:14 pm|
| From the web-site http://www.lider-moskva.ru/, (it seems it is a book, I'm not sure) The page : Raid on Constantsa / How it was prepared the raid
|Posted by: Petre February 01, 2017 07:51 pm|
| Source / Net. ( tsushima.su/forums/ )
From the german translation "Conclusions from the interrogation of the prisoniers of Moskva", Romanian Navy.
The actions of destroyer Moskva since departure from Sevastopol till sinking.
Moskva a ieşit de la Sevastopol în dimineaţa 25 iunie 09.00, după cum reiese dim majoritatea explicaţiilor şi odată cu el distrugătorul de acelaşi tip Harkov, ca navă-comandant.
Ieşirea de la Sevastopol, după cum reiese dim majoriotatea explicaţiilor, s-a făcut fără pilot şi fără ajutorul remorcherului care era legat de distrugător.
După ieşirea de la Sevastopol ei au patrulat un timp de-a lungul coastei din SV Crimeei (indicaţia comandantului). Marşul s-a făcut în siajul lui Harkov, pe care se afla Comandantul detaşamentului.
La începutul zilei navele inamice au văzut coasta la Constanţa, de care s-au apropiat din direcţia NE. În acele momente paravanul de la Harkov a fost avariat şi pe această bază, Moskva, la care paravanul era încă întreg, a fost trimis înainte.
După ce Moskva a fost în frunte, detaşamentul s-a îndreptat pe direcţia SSE, paralel cu coasta şi a deschis focul, în condiţii de vizibilitate foarte nepotrivite (ceaţa de dimineaţă la coastă). Au tras asupra portului şi rezervoarelor de petrol.
La această trecere distrugătorul a tras din bordul tribord asupra portului. Moskva, puţin înainte de explozie, a tras asupra unui distrugător pe care l-a observat pentru scurt timp, probabil asupra lui Mărăşti.
Dar la 04.23 în bordul babord, în zona coşului din prova a avut loc o explozie.
Această explozie s-a întâmplat sub apă şi fără dubii în bordul opus celui de tragere, iar din impresiile tuturor prizonierilor, cauza a fost o mină din baraj.
Până la momentul exploziei, clar paravanul la Moskva a funcţionat bine.
Distrugătorul a fost rupt în două părţi, vetical pe axa navei, partea din prova din cauza forţei exploziei a fost întoarsă cu 180 gr spre tribord şi s-a scufundat pe locul unde s-a rupt, cu prova înainte, după 3-4 min. Partea dinspre pupa s-a scufundat şi ea, după ce prova se dusese deja la fund.
A fost timp suficient ca echipajul să se adune pe punte, iar cei care au ieşit de la maşini să se dezbrace şi să sară în apă.
Căpitanul Privalenkov a confirmat că a avut timp suficient pentru a da ordinul de ocupare a locurilor în mijloacele de salvare. Unii prizonieri au explicat (Comandantul Moskva), că după ce au căzut în apă, au putul vedea îndepărtarea lui Harkov.
Cei mai mulţi au fost traşi în vârtejul de apă care a apărut când nava s-a dus sub apă, dar au reuşit să iasă din nou la suprafaţă, unde petrolul fierbinte se răspândea masiv, arzându-le ochii şi pielea.
După ore întregi, au fost salvaţi toţi de vedetele româneşti şi de hidroavioane.
Avarierea paravanului la Harkov trebuie atribuită barajelor noastre de protecţie şi credem că la acel moment ambele distrugătoare au trecut linia barajului nostru şi mergând în interiorul câmpului de mine au atins o singură mină.
Regruparea se vede că s-a făcut tot în interior dincolo de câmpurile noastre. Drumul spre SSE pare a fi paralel cu linia barajelor noastre şi la interior de câmpurile de protecţie.
Faptul că explozia s-a petrecut în bordul opus coastei noastre şi a fost din apă, duce la concluzia că cauza a fost o mină din baraj. Nava a intrat din interior în câmpul de protecţie care mergea spre SSE.
Această presupunere este confirmată de felul exploziei. Nava a fost ruptă în două părţi, pe când dacă suferă explozia loviturii unui proiectil, o navă este complet făcută bucăţi (zdrobită), cum s-a mai întâmplat în situaţii similare.
De altfel, din indicaţiile prizonierilor, loviturile artileriei au căzut mai scurte sau mai lungi.
De aici tragem concluzia că nava rusească şi în realitate a fost încadrat, cu atât mai mult pentru că un matroz rus a informat că o lovitură a nimerit catargul din prova. Trecerea navelor ruseşti peste câmpul de mine şi funcţionarea normală a minei Vickers – iată pentru ce tragem noi concluzia că scufundarea lui Moskva trebuie atribuită unei mine.
The interrogation of the prisoniers of leader Moskva (Capitan-zur-See von Baumbach)
Pe 25 iunie dimineaţa devreme liderele Harkov şi Moskva au ieşit pe mare de la Sevastopol. Deja înainte de asta la ieşirea spre vest de la Sevastopol, un remorcher a lovit o mină şi a sărit în aer. Cu toate acestea, ambele nave au făcut ieşirea fără avarii de la mine.
Pe durata apropierii Moskva şi-a montat paravanul. El trebuia să fie pus după 30 km. Când la Harkov pe durata apropierii s-a rupt paravanul, Moskva a trecut în capul formaţiei. Pe durata tragerii au mers iar cu paravan, la fel şi pe timpul retragerii după tragere, când s-a ordonat viteza maximă (40 Nd.), însă până la scufundare nu a fost atinsă.
La antrenamente, paravanul a mers până la viteze de 24 - 30 Nd. (indicaţia nu este unanimă). La întrebarea, de ce s-au bazat pe funcţionalitatea lui când s-au retras cu viteză mare (36-37 Nd.), s-a primit răspuns – dar am decis să riscăm. Dacă a rămas paravanul şi dacă a funcţionat corect, nu ştie nimeni.
După tragere, liderul a întors către est şi a pus viteza maximă, însă până la dezastru Moskva a reuşit să atingă doar 37 Nd. Viteza din construcţie era 43 Nd., dar practic viteza maximă admisibilă era apreciată cca. 40 Nd. Anul trecut, când am fost eu în vizită pe Harkov, viteza din construcţie a fost dată ca fiind corectă.
Pe durata tragerii, de la uscat nu s-a tras. Doar la întoarcere a început tragerea de la bateriile de coastă asupra liderului care se îndepărta.
The sinking of Moskva
După ce Moskva se retrăgea de 15 min şi s-au observat exploziile celei de-a doua salve a bateriilor de coastă, a urmat o explozie cu forţă monstruoasă sub navă în dreptul coşului din faţă, la adâncime sub mijlocul navei, la cca. 60 m de prova, care a rupt nava în două. Partea dinspre prova s-a întors cu 180 gr la tribord, s-a răsturnat în scurt timp şi s-a dus la fund după 4 min. Un mecanic vitalist, care era sub punte la prova navei în grupa de luptă cu avariile, a reuşit să scape.
The actions of Harkov
După explozie, Harkov a trecut prin babord şi n-a făcut nici-o încercare să salveze supravieţuitorii de pe Moskva. Supravieţuitorii au înotat în apă 10-12 ore şi au fost luaţi pe hidroavioane.
The cause of the sinking – mine or artillery.
Supravieţuitorii sunt toţi de acord că scufundarea a fost cauzată de o mină, anume una magnetică. Magnetică deoarece explozia a avut loc sub apă şi mai jos de paravan (mai sus s-a arătat că funcţionarea paravanului la viteza de 36-37 Nd. nu se garantează şi este îndoielnică). Din interogatorii detaliate, cei interogaţi separat, independent unii de alţii, au dat diferite motive pentru care consideră ei că mina este cauza scufundării. Comandantul a spus că a fost o explozie de o forţă monstruoasă, dar nu s-a auzit foarte tare, deşi s-a produs la un tanc de petrol el a negat posibilitatea exploziei combustibilului. Pe timpul exploziei nimeni n-a văzut jerbe de apă de la proiectile. Proiectilele de artilerie n-au căzut mai aproape de 5 cabluri. Ofiţerul 1 cu artileria a spus că explozia a urmat după 8 sec. de la căderea proiectilelor celei de-a doua salve a bateriilor de coastă. Ofiţerul din cartul 2 a informat, că a văzut ca specialist în mine tot felul de explozii de mine, de aceea el consideră precis o explozie de mină. Explozia a avut loc la corpul navei. De felul lui, un proiectil de 30 cm nu are forţa necesară, pentru a rupe nava în două părţi trebuie rupte toate cadrele longitudinale (din descrierile interogaţilor, nava a fost construită în sistem cu cadre longitudinale). El produce de asemenea o flamă roşie-neagră cu fum negru deasupra.