Talk:Operation München

Sourcing

@Brown Water Admiral: Currently the bulk of the text after the lead is attributed to a single inline citation (Jipa Rotaru, Ioan Damaschin, Glorie și dramă: Marina Regală Română, 1940-1945, 2000), despite the text you transferred here from Raid on Constanța having several more sources. Does that inline citation support everything you added? Also, why exclude some of the details that were sourced from some of the sources you didn't include?

(The text you added to Munchen and the text you removed from Constanta)

And a separate note, perhaps it would be worth adding a summary of the engagements to Black Sea campaigns (1941–44). Alcherin (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Alcherin Greetings. I sourced it all to that book because it may just be way easier to see it all from a single source, not to mention the extra details it gives. But I do see your point. Very well, I added two English sources: the first confirms the damaging of the two Soviet monitors by the Tulcea Group, as well as the fate of the Romanian 15th Marine Battalion, while the other confirms the sinking of the 7 armored motor gunboats. I may do more in the future, but for now, these will do. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Alcherin Major update. I found, a good while ago, in Trigg's, that the Romanian warships damaged two Soviet monitors, two armored motor gunboats and sank another boat. Now, I decided to split these actions from the main body of the article, and address them in separate sections. Trigg knew what he was talking about, the Romanian source I have confirms and details these actions. Well mostly. It also added a damaged Soviet motorboat, but heck - it's a motorboat, not really worth mentioning. So despite this negligible addition, it is basically confirmed. I just wanted to extract and detail a bit these actions, and create another article for the one that actually precedes the Operation. Trigg also confirms what the Romanian source says about the 15th Battalion, minus some details, like its subsequent stand at Stipoc. In any case, I am pretty sure this matter is finally settled. I noticed you seemd interested in the matter, so I thought you I should let you know. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as personal information, it seems to me the entire bulk of the data coming from these riverine engagements in Danube river in 1941 (both here and similar pages) is entirely from Romanian point-of-view. Some time ago I questioned few russian authors on open-sites, but while none of them expressed a defined opinion, it seemed to me the amount of Soviet casualties was far less than claimed by Romanians. Eventually I will dig in Russian literature for a full proper Russian-side point of view of the events. Lupodimare89 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, one of the first things I learned since editing the Wiki, is why so few delve in Romanian naval history in WW2. It's really, really murky...Romanians claim this, Russians claim that, the English language sources might say a completely different thing than both...It's a real shitstorm, pardon the profanity. But I try to mostly rely on English sources for the base. I found in Anthony Preston's "Warship 2001-2002" that Romanians sank 7 armored motor gunboats. The Romanian source only confirms it and details the sinkings. Same with Jonathan's Trigg book, where he mentions the toll of the naval engagements, without detailing them. The Romanians confirm the toll and provide some details. See, I mostly go with the Romanian POV because what I find on Google Books seems to agree with it more. In the Raid on Constanta article, I found much more sources that state Moskva's sinking to be the cause of Romanian mines, and barely anything confirming the Soviet variant, that she was sunk by a Soviet submarine in a friendly-fire incident. My editing decisions are simple: The version with the most sources on Google Books wins. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it's true that wikipedia have this kind of policy. And it is indeed true that the whole situation of the naval warfare on the eastern front (including then not just Black Sea, but also Baltic Sea, the soviet operations versus Japanese in 1945, etc.) are extremely poorly researched. The bulk of the information from widespread Western authors rely on former Axis' POV or part of the (equally poor) Soviet sources. I would like however to stress that nowadays the most common Russian sources are NOT directly pro-Soviet: quite on the contrary, they tends to heavily criticize the naval war conduct when there is something that needs criticize (for one thing: each Navy in every kind of naval warfare battle usually overestimate the damage inflicted to enemy). There are currently some Russian authors who are spending their career as naval authors and it's a huge "Work-in-Progress" because Soviet archivies (and some German and British data from ULTRA machine intercepts) come to public eyes only in the last decade.

The example of the "Moskva"'s loss is for once one of such examples, because current Russian sources (contrary to the Soviet ones) definitely deny the possiblity ShCh made the torpedo attack: however Western sources still report the Soviet source as the most updated and sometimes translate/equate it as the "Russian" source.

The gunboat situation is very very much more vague: but this is more general for the Soviet actions on riverine warfare: a top current russian author (Miroslav Morozov, who focused on submarines) admitted his lack of interest/time/data for focusing on the history of the BKA (the soviet small gunboats) so far. Another Russian author (K. B. Strelbitskiy, who btw I think he argue with M.Morozov sometimes) focused more on the BKA... but on their Manchurian operations in 1945. I RECALL to have read a russian post confirming the loss of few BKA (but I don't think 7 was the number), but in temporary lack of a more strong data (sadly most of the current Russian books are not translated), we can only adds what there is online.Lupodimare89 (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

My research on Google Books revealed one thing: The Romanian Navy might have been the most successful Navy of WW2. Think about it: it was the only Navy that was active through the bulk of the war without losing any unit of its main force of destroyers and submarines (as per Warship 2001-2002), while at the same time sinking one destroyer leader and anywhere from a dozen to twenty submarines. It's amazing, really. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to reveal you that the "Google Books" are mostly based upon old unreliable sources quoting and over-quoting old Romanian claims. The only thing Romanian Navy managed 100% to sink in direct action was ShCh-206. Delfinul was an old submarine with limited capabilities and was retired from service (without scoring victories, the "Uralles" was sunk by Luftwaffe), while the other 2 new subs made only few patrols toward the end of the war (sinking nothing). Romanian destroyers has never been used in offensive operations and Germans themselves allowed their use only for the dire conditions of Crimea evacuation because the terrible lack of ships. The loss of Moskwa was probably due the German battery "Tirpitz" and the victories scored by the Romanian navy with fields of mines can appears numerous but nothing spectacular considering what the Finnish and the Germans did to the Soviets in Baltic: I should also adds how the losses suffered meant little for the soviets especially because they largely achieved their objective. Just the loss of Romanian steamer "Suceava" was evaluated by Germans as the sudden loss of 1/4 of the transport capabilities at the time in Black Sea.

I understand your enthusiasm, but I suggest you to look through war events with a more critic eye: I suggest you to read the original Kriegsmarine war diaries of Black Sea where you could observe how the Romanian navy indeed played a minor role in the Black Sea theatre. https://archive.org/details/wardiaryofadmira81943germ

This doesn't means the Romanian Navy achieved "nothing", but it was limited by age of ships and restrictions (for example the Romanian 2 new subs could not enter earlier in service because priority was given to repair the German uboats). In the end the Romanian Navy achieved to survive the war with the bulk of the force intact ... but it played an entirely auxiliary role in Black Sea among the Axis forces: it was German U-boats, S-boats, and Italian MAS and CB midget submarine that were deployed on the frontline (Crimea peninsula and Kerch) scoring a number of successes against the Soviets. Lupodimare89 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask several questions. First of, you directed me to the Kriegsmarine war diaries. But what exactly would make German claims more valid than the Romanian ones? Also, excuse any apparent bias that may come with what I'm about to say, but if the Romanian claims are unreliable or exaggerated, why do English-speaking authors seem to quote them more than their Soviet and perhaps even German counterparts? I wish to say this again: I use English sources for the base, and Romanian sources for confirmation and details. Not the other way 'round. Also, I would dispute myself the minor role of the Romanian Navy, on account of it being the sole Axis naval force in the Black Sea, for the entirety of 1941. Thus, it staved off any Soviet landings that could possibly breach the Axis front and greatly damage the conduct of Barbarossa. They laid the mines that sank Moskva (say what you may about the German battery, I am merely quoting the sources) in the one failed Soviet landing attempt that seems to have "scared" them away for the rest of the war. The RoN also had the largest and most powerful Axis warships in the Black Sea, afterall. But for my curiosity, what exactly makes you incline to the possibility of the sinking of Moskva by the Tirpitz battery? Maybe show me the source that states so, even. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean, there is a difference between a war diary and a book. Books are wrote by authors to sell, and while they usually take time to make research (if they are good authors from the original diaries and datalog, if they're bad authors just quoting previous books). And also Germans (like Soviets, like every other kind of Navy) made overclaims: in the end the original diaries are good for a research with conservative values: you pick what each diary list as own casualty and damage to be fixed and then you cross them to find out what happened. The point it's that for the whole Cold War Soviet database were sealed and not available for public, so every piece of Western literature was based on an entirely Axis-side POV. And you have to take in account also the current political mood, and then ask why a Romanian or a German author (or Finnish or Italian) has no interest in digging and checking the real Soviet losses. Modern russian books, as I said, are coming out quite interesting because there is a thriving community of authors online and most of them has zero interest to glorify the Soviet Navy (and quite the contrary they tends to criticize when they can).

It... seems to me there is some misunderstanding because the Soviet raid in Costanta was not planned as a "landing" attempt, but merely as a raid. And the loss of Moskwa did not "scared"t them away from the rest of the war because they attempted further (fruitless) raids close Romanian coast in 1942 (that is a quite common Romanian-propagandistic lines from author that were not aware of the 1942 raids). Moreover the Soviet Armed forces had no plans nor capabilites to make a landing... (where? in invade the whole Romania by sea?) and stop the Barbarossa operation: this seems more a fantasy scenario to me.

Jurgen Rohwer mentioned it as equal chance in addition to the submarine attack: personally I believed this opinion until 2011 when wreckdivers inspected the wreck and optioned for mine. What's surely was not responsable was the gunfire shelling from destroyers (as claimed by other romanian sources).

Just to clarify, I may guess you are Romanian? or part-Romanian. I am from Italy and while I personally take interest and some pride to read about the achievments of our sailors against the Royal Navy, I also read how the Western literature give full credits to the Italian claims over Soviet units in Ladoga Lake and Black Sea itself... and how such claims are (in my opinion, after cross-referencing with the Russian ones) an overclaim in most of cases: as common habit from each Navy. And guess what... Italian and Western book still write of fantastic victories scored in Ladoga Lake or not-existing submarines in service in Black Sea sunk by CB. Lupodimare89 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

To return to the original question, I forgot Draft:Battles for the Danube was lying around, there's a Russian military journal and a book drawing on Soviet documents cited there. Alcherin (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment POV sources, and sources derived from them, are fine to include so long as they are given due weight. We aren't here to distinguish which version of events is true, but rather (as a tertiary source) reflect what the balance of reliable sources available are saying about the topic. For example, see how I wrote about the differing claims about the sinking of the Moskva on the Raid on Constanta article. Alcherin (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

And that was indeed a good and complete article! Btw, I researched a bit more into a very active russian forum and concerning the BKA losses in Danube, indeed they found very recently a wreck of a 1125 boat in the River (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnqQaWP7FPQ ). If some of the authors will provide a full evaluation (complete with identification number of the unit(s)) I will add it to the page.

Concerning the monitors battle, I am not sure to have ever seen "Udarnyy" mentioned by Russians as engaged in battle with Romanian monitors, however "Zheleznakov" probably engaged monitors between 22-23 June (the very first days of war), but there could have been a mistake in date report. "Zheleznakov" was confirmed in the account I read to have suuffered one hit, so it's my guessing that "Mihail Kogălniceanu" could have engaged "Zheleznakov" rather than "Udarnyy". I will search for a full account to have a better confirmation of the date. Lupodimare89 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)