Talk:Soviet submarine S-363

Interesting

This could be interesting to add to this article (but I'm not a specialist so I won't add it myself).

• The Soviet designation was S-363 (not U-137. This was a lie the crew told the Swedish navy).
• Soviet spy (in Sweden at the time) Boris Grigorjev recently claimed (according to tv4 in his new book) that the U-137 indeed had faulty navigational equipment (due to a Danish fishing net, I think it was) but also a drunken crew - and that it was only a mistake. Boris Grigorjev was present (for the Soviet embassy) when the Soviet submarine crew was interrogated.
• Captain: Anatolij Michajlovitj Gusjtjin, Political Officer: Vasilij Besedin
• The submarine may have carried nuclear weapons. Swedish Defence Research Institute measured something what was almost certain uranium-238 through the hull.

I found this too: "S-363 - Ordzhonikidze (Ordzhonikidze Yard, Leningrad) - serial no. 252 - laid down 12.1.56 - launched 16.11.56 - completed 17.9.57; ran aground 27.10.81 near the Swedish Naval Base in Karlskrona, after having lost its radio direction finder in a fishing vessel trawl 18.10.81; 1990's decommissioned, sold to Sweden as a museum boat."

Kricke 02:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

U-137 came from the captain calling it Ubåt-137 (submarine-137) the U-137 was never something used by the Soviets, in fact the soviets had 3 names for all their vessels, 1 secret one not so secret and one public. --Darkwand (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The swedish variant of this page claim it was uranium-235 and not uranium-238. Which one should it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.79.167.152 (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of the linked site?

Just wondering whether the site linked to at the end of the article, compunews.com, is credible at all?

It's full of both grammatical and spelling errors, not to mention some pretty grave factual errors regarding other things(such as stating that Olof Palme was killed in 1987, he was killed in Feb 1986).

Aside from that, the site also seems to mix facts with opinions quite liberally(interchangeably sometimes?).

And finally, the general style of writing makes the site look like it was written by someone in their early teens.

RealSunner 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear torpedo?

As far as I recall the speculation was that it had a nuclear mine rather than a torpedo since the submarine was considered too slow (I think) for having nuclear torpedos. // Liftarn (talk)

Hard to know we knew it had nuclear weapons onboard but can only speculate as to what was carries. --Darkwand (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed

Recent interviews and investigations of Russian officers and naval commanders involved in this situation revealed that the U 137 commander had orders to launch the vessel's nuclear weapons against Swedish targets if any attempt was made from the Swedish forces to capture the vessel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarity issue

There isn't much in the article that explains what ultimately happened to the vessel and it's crew.

The statement "Days later as the Soviet Captain was being interrogated" is very ambiguous, Captain of what? If I assume the S-363 then that implies capture of the submarine and its crew. If we are only hearing from soviet sources about the presence of nuclear ordinance then the Swedes didn't capture the vessel?

Did it free itself after 10 days on the rock? Was it captured by the Swedish? Was it recovered by the Soviets? The final disposition in the article lists it as a museum ship, but for who and where? This information must be available if we know it is a museum ship.

All in all a great event to chronicle but seems to be missing a few key points to provide a complete telling.

Dougboyle (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Errr... I don't understand something. Every documents on the web writes the submarine was given back to the Soviets. However she became a museum. Actually I visited it in 1998 in Stockholm. In 2004 I could also see it in Helsingborg. See the picture.

--Kissg (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Just my opinion.

The article needs a lot of work on the aftermath of the incident. Particularly the widely reported incidents of the Swedish navy depth bombing schools of fish, seals, and the like. And of course the reports of swimming weasels being recorded as both the signature sounds of underwater listening record observations of subs and visual signs of a periscope rising to the surface. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of infiltration

The S-363 ran around near Karlskrona. This was well within Swedish waters. It could not have got there by accident. The grounding was clear proof of Soviet infiltration, as was the finding of submarine tracks and other evidence.

The interview with Vasily Besedin does not give "a different picture". It appears to confirm that there was an "error in calculations" by the navigator. However there is no inconsistency here. Obviously there was a mistake in navigation or the submarine would not have run aground!Royalcourtier (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not two interpretations

It is stated that "At the time, the incident was generally seen as a proof of widespread Soviet infiltration of the Swedish coastline....In an interview in 2006, Vasily Besedin, the political officer on board, gave a different picture". This is not correct. The view at the time that the Soviets were infiltrating was supporting by Besedin.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)