| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Royal Navy > Soviet air bombardment against Constanta |
| Posted by: Dénes July 07, 2007 09:28 am |
| "On Aug. 3, 1941, at 1339 hrs., a few ships (Veselia, Dumitrescu, Mengescu, Ferdinand) and the submarine Delfinul were partially damaged by Soviet bombers. The Dumitrescu ship was nevertheless hit again later in the day, as were some harbour installations." Are these details correct? Anything more to add? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor July 07, 2007 12:42 pm |
| Never heard of a ship called Veselia of one called Mengescu. What is the source ? On 3 August 1941, 1338 hours did indeed take place the first raid on Constanta that day. In total six waves of Soviet bombers hit the port and city up until 1659 hours. The warships suffered only superficial damage due to splinters from the bombs. The port side gas tank of the Viforul MTB was punctured by a splinter and another splinter passed through the tower of the Delfinul, punctured the mother ship Constanta and stopped into a closet where it set some clothes on fire. Only severa lwounded sailors from the splinters, no fatalities. Practically, from a military point of view, the effects of the raid were negligeable. COnstanta, on the other hand, suffered more, especially the area near the port. The Eastern wall of the cathedral collapsed during the bombing. The AAA claimed to have shot down 3 bombers. |
| Posted by: Dénes July 07, 2007 01:14 pm |
| Thanks for the details, Victor. The source of the info is Jean-Louis Roba (and his Rumanian connections, I suppose). As for the strange ship names, could they be transcribing error by a non-Rumanian speaker? So Veselia could be, for example, Vijelia, or Mengescu, Murgescu? Just a wild guess. What would be a 'one-stop' source for the damage caused by Soviet bombers to Rumanian ports and ships, as well as flak claims? The rest of the info I already have. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor July 07, 2007 01:32 pm | ||
Probably. The source is the first volume of N. Koslinski, R. Stanescu, Marina Romana in al Doilea Razboi Mondial, Editura Fat-Frumos, 1997, which is IMO the best source on the Romanian Navy in WWII. |
| Posted by: Petre April 28, 2009 07:39 pm |
| Sov. author Serghey Bogatyrev wrote in his "Raid over Constanza" : On Aug.1st, 6 Pe-2 from The 40 Regiment/63 Brigade have dumped at 13.30 over Constantza 12 bombs FAB-250(kg.). By direct hits have been sunk cargoboat Durostor (1309) and pilot boat Amarilia (103), one oil tank destroyed and the second set on fire . Next day over Constantza, the Pe-2 crews reported one floating dock sunk. By results of investigation, The Command decided to repeat a touch over the port. According to the German-Romanian sources, on Aug.3rd at 18.35, 3 Sov. bombers have dumped on harbor 10 bombs FAB-100(kg.), one of which hard damaged a 50-ton saving boat Luftwaffe FI.B-301. On Aug.3rd. almost all planes of The 63 Air Brigade carried out a successful touch to Constantza : 18 DB-3F attacked the area of the Southern pier, 18 SB - East pier, 6 Pe-2 - railway station and 5 oil storages. Some ships, including a destroyer have been damaged. On Aug.5th, there were two touches: at 8.50 with 20 bombs (all have fallen in the sea) and at 12.35, 25 bombs have been dumped, one of which breaks a barge in port. Planes were 9 Pe-2. On Aug. 10th to Constantza there was a strike with 7 SB planes. At night on Aug.13th the port was bombed by 6 Pe-2, but all dumped bombs have fallen in the sea. On Aug.16th, 8 SB have dumped 20 bombs to Constantza. Early in the morning on Sep.9th, 25 bombers have put out of operation an underwater cable between Constantza and airdrome Mamaja. |
| Posted by: MMM April 29, 2009 08:20 am |
| Of course, with no losses, right? That shows how trusted can Soviet authors be... Not that many others would be better; the idea is that a little more circumspection wouldn't hurt! |
| Posted by: Petre April 29, 2009 08:43 am |
| They were Sov. losses, of course. It is a longer story, good for air forces topic. What I posted referes only on navy and harbour. Sorry. |
| Posted by: MMM April 29, 2009 02:33 pm |
| Anyway, to make a more believable (or closer to the truth) story, one should read at least two different accounts of the facts, coming from both sides involved. Not to say that a better version - if any - could come from a non-involved party... |