Soviet Navy in WW2?

E

Ed Brubaker

New Member
Was there any Soviet navy activity at all in WW2? I saw a book that listed their navy in various parts of the world at the time, and it seemed extensive, but I can't recall any battles they fought at sea.

Did they help the Allies at sea in the war at all?
 
I don't think I've ever heard mention of Russian navy as such. I've read about the Russian merchant navy, but that was it.
 
Ed Brubaker said:
Was there any Soviet navy activity at all in WW2? I saw a book that listed their navy in various parts of the world at the time, and it seemed extensive, but I can't recall any battles they fought at sea.

Did they help the Allies at sea in the war at all?
Click to expand...
To be honest, While the Naval units which fought as land forces in WW2 gained a reputation as good troops. Their record on the high seas was poor.

They did give some support to the Arctic convoys when they neared Russia, but the majority of what action they did see was in the Baltic, and the inland waters of Russia.

The Navy's use in the inland waterways was mainly supply to the garrisons of Stalingrad and Leningrad, and in this they did do some good service

But in the Baltic the German navy with use of large defensive minefields, was able to keep them bottled up until the last days of the war.

It was only in the last days that the Soviet navy achieved anything of note. When a Soviet submarine got amongst the evacuation fleet from East Prussia, and sank the Wilhelm Gustoff and the Goya causing great loss of life.
 
redcoat said:
It was only in the last days that the Soviet navy achieved anything of note. When a Soviet submarine got amongst the evacuation fleet from East Prussia, and sank the Wilhelm Gustoff and the Goya causing great loss of life.
Click to expand...
The greatest loss of life in any maritime sinking -- EVER. I'll have to look it up but I believe it was more that 8000 people killed. If we're talking about the right ship (I always forget the name), it was packed to overflowing with evacuating Germans from E Prussia and Poland. Interestingly enough, the Soviet submarines captain directly disobeyed orders in launching that attack. Other than that and resupply into Leningrad, the Soviet Union's Navy makes virtually no impact on the war effort.
 
Their was a USSR navy but it wasn't that big, and mostly the war was fought on the ground near the SU borders, and was more concentrated on ground combat. Because SU was desperate into pushing the Germans back they fought the war on the ground as i already said.
 
Kirill K said:
Their was a USSR navy but it wasn't that big, .
Click to expand...
While not all of their ships were of modern design, the Soviet Navy was actually bigger than the German Navy.
This is the make-up of the fleet at the start of 1941
3 battleships,
7 cruisers,
59 destroyers,
218 submarines,
22 patrol boats,
269 submarine chasers.
 
Much of that navy was trapped in the Baltic with no means of getting through the Denmark Straight and hemmed in by German sea-mines. The remainder was largely up in Archangel and other northern ports -- not in good position to have an impact. All of that said, the USSR Navy's non-use was nearly as irresponsible as that of the Italian Navy. It sat there and did nothing when it didn't need to.
 
If the Soviet ships anchored in Archangel would have set to see to attack the German submarines that were patrolling the allied convoy's heading into Murmansk (are they the same city?) the Army would have been better supplied to do the fighting on the ground and the Navy would have been much more effective. But at the same time I can not blame Stalin for keeping the fleets in, he was in no position to truly understand the horror that was the Murmansk trading routes and the wolf packs that were patrolling the waters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top