 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Romanian claim edit
Placeholder comment for the Romanian enthusiasts/censors/propagandists. The only torpedo attack committed by NMS Delfinul was a failure: "Uralets" was sunk by Luftwaffe on 29 October 1941 (and this is reported by other Romanian sources). Only potential target of the attack was minelayer "Ostrovsky" Greetings Lupodimare89 (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
As extra update for everyone else who could be informed, Soviet tanker "Kreml'" (7661 GRT) another proposed ship torpedoed by "Delfinul" was damaged by German mine on 3 November 1941 (two days the earlier attack).
This second alternative target was proposed after negation of "Uralles" (victim of Luftwaffe) likely because it was another ship that suffered damage loosely matching that day (author Miroslav Morozov, most updated modern researcher of submarine warfare in eastern front).
With all credit to submarine crew and commander for the attempt, this was far from being the only case when a submarine crew optimistically interpreted the explosion of the torpedo (early accidental, agains seabed, or due self-detonation after run) followed by lack of visual confirmation of the presence of target as successful sinking. By the way, countless of Soviet submarines claims in Baltic, Black Sea and Arctic proved to be false-claims due this habit.No surprise the same occurred with the single torpedo attack committed by Delfinul (and just one torpedo launched).
Lupodimare89 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I respect your POV and your commitment. Truly, I'm sorry for any previous outburst. But, if sources attest more possibilities, they must all be addressed, with due importance according to how many sources can be found which support each claim. Take the Raid on Constanta article, another one in which I am heavily involved. While the sinking of the Moskva is mostly attributed to Romanian mines, the other two possibilities for her sinking are also mentioned. I used to pick only the most sourced possibility I could find on Google Books, but I accept the additions of others as long as they are given due weight. As in treated as possibilities too. Not what you did on the M-class submarine, you negated everything outright, I can't have that. I ultimately accepted your possibilities, after given due weight as possibilities. Look, I know the waters are particularly murky in regards to pin-pointing actual happenings in the naval front of the Eastern Front. But let's give each possibility a shou-tout. Again, I'm sorry if this sounds hypocritical of me since I tried to delete other possibilities before, but I'm willing to compromise now. Let us just list the claims/possibilities from the reliable sources, and call it a day. Torpilorul (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it's fine. And it is interesting you brought the case of Moskva, that's one reversed case. Authors like Rohwer (one of the few to ever write about Estern Front naval warfare, and thus having the "monopoly" of it in english) reported the alleged cause of sinking of ShCh-206 friendly fire attack, followed by subsequent sinking of the sub. with depth charges. This was a purely complete fantasy based upon "connecting dots" over a missing-sub and a not yet fully understood submarine loss (wreck not yet found): not helped by the fact that crewmember of "Kharkov" reported extraordinary not-existing torpedo attacks (but that was quite common in the Soviet Navy to overestimate enemy forces). While some western sources these are often inserted (like the claim of German coastal battery over the Moskva), by most updated not-english russian sources both victories are 100% Romanian-only victories. Lupodimare89 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)