Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

According Tehran agreement in late 1943, "Sunfish" was intended to be transferred to the Soviet Union as a result of the division of the Italian fleet. On April 10 (according to other data, March 9, 44) the submarine was registered with Soviet Navy VMF under the designation "B-1". On May 30, 1944 the sub arrived in the UK as part of the RA-59 convoy, manned by the crew the L-20 submarine. The submarine became part of the 7th independent division of the Northern Fleet submarine group .

Commander of B-1 became Hero of the Soviet Union captain 2 rank (Commander ) Israel Fisanovitch . On June 10, the B-1 it arrived to Dundee, where, under the supervision of British specialists, performed combat training, by June 15 a new naval gun was installed on the submarine. On July 25, the submarine arrived in Lervik, from where on the evening of the same day departed to Polyarnoe though it never arrived there .

According to the original version as into the B-1 disapperance , it's believed that the submarine deviated from the recommended course (while still in the UK waters ) and became a victim of of an erroneous attack of a Liberator aircraft of the 18th British Air Force Coastal Command Group in the morning of July 27, 1944, 300 miles north of the Shetland Islands (64 ° 34 'N / 01 ° 16' W, according to other data 64 ° F N / 01 ° 16'W). The plane attacked the submarine 80 miles from the border of the corridor assigned to it for the crossing. Instead of responding to the IFF , the submarine began an emergency dive. There is also a version of the submarine sunk as result hitting a floating mine or as a result of an accident. Along with the loss of the B-1 sub 51 submariners perished. Is anyone aware of any updates at the British Royal Navy archives on this specific event ?

There are no records showing if ever the British Navy or Russian intended to start a search after this sub, Finsanovitch himself was awarded the US Navy Cross
for his role in protecting Allied convoys and for sinking a few German ships which attacked Allied expeditionary ships on Northern approaches .

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

The involved aircraft was a Liberator (86 Sqn RAF/V) and I have some doubts about the story that the Soviet submarine dived when the aircraft approached, even if they were in a position where they weren't supposed to be.

As I am more interested in the U-boats I haven't checked the details of this case yet, but these two documents held by the National Archives should contain all known information about this incident:
Royal Navy Enquiry: ADM 1/16390 (http://discovery.nationalarchives.go...ils/r/C4786876)
Royal Air Force Enquiry: AIR 2/9279 (http://discovery.nationalarchives.go...ils/r/C2634443)

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

The subject has appeared in the 'FRIENDLY FIRE WW2' thread which is a sticky. It is here:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/search...earchid=524944

... but youu will see the search has also picked up other submarine related events including another 'Friendly Fire' on a different Russian sub.
Hope this helps.

Bruce

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Bruce

Thanks very much for the feedback .The links to Britsh Admirality
and as I have expected leads to a fee created data which is not of
interest to me , as into your other link of this forum which dealt
with the subject in the past, it shows an empty page.

I note your doubts , so if the Stalinist and later on the Soviet
version is doubted by you what is then your opinion as into the
event ? I am not really subs history specialist but I am specifically
iinterested on this case and some Russian parties keep feeding me with
info.

I am attaching some rare photos from the Sevastopol Naval Archives
as well one from Northern Fleet VMF Museum in St.Petersburg

Let me know

Best Regards
Alex

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Bruce

One addition to the previous story , Fisanovitch was a precision
man and so as submariner eventhough he originated from a very
poor Jewish family which could not afford sending him to a good
school on his earlier time. Back in the 1940 he was one of very few
Soviet submariners who was awarded a gold watch from the Fleet
Commander for outstanding results on drills ,

Prior leaving UK he expressed serious doubts on the route
and the corridors he was supposed to navigate through.
My Russian collegues could clarify on why these doubts
arisen and based on what grounds he's got suspicions.


Posting also last Sub's photo while departing UK

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Sorry about that, I can't make the link work now either although I tested it before posting. Open 'Friendly Fire' thread, select 'search within thread' and search 'submarine'.

Bruce

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

This what the US archives have to say about the incident :

In 1944 Fisanovich went to Britain to take command of the former HMS Sunfish which was lent to the Soviet Navy. This boat was renamed V-1 (В-1). While on passage to USSR, the V-1 was attacked in error by a Coastal Command Lib. Fisanovich allegedly was out of the prescribed area and dived rather than staying on the surface and sending a recognition signal. The boat was lost with all hands including the British liaison officer.

In fact, the RAF and RN both held Courts of Inquiry into the loss of B-1 and her 50 Russian and one British crew. The relevant files have been released to the National Archives - see AIR 2/9279 and ADM 1/16390. Both inquiries were clear that Captain Fisanovich was almost exactly where he was supposed to be, that he did not open fire on the aircraft and that he did not crash dive when it approached.

RAF Coastal Command were searching for a U-boat believed, from Enigma decrypts, to be outbound from Trondheim. The crew of the 86 Squadron Liberator that attacked B-1 were, however, found to have been at least eighty miles off course, well inside the 'submarine sanctuary' surrounding B-1 as she made her way north, and to have ignored unmistakable signs that the submarine was friendly.

Captain Fisanovich was cleared of all blame and the RAF aircrew was held fully responsible for the incident which was then hushed up to save diplomatic embarrassment ahead of the Yalta Conference .

Note : Fisanovitch was the 1st Soviet Submariner to receive the USN Cross out of 13 foreign recepients .

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

In my own judgement something else not related to the RAF crew and Soviet submarine gone wrong and like in most cases pilots and dead crews are to be blamed first. I would even risk and say that Royal Navy Intel Service screwed up which is not the first time in their history then by no means why not blame the Russian first and then the RAF crew. Attached a post war post card widely distributed in Russian Federation-

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

The search was for a possible U-boat but the Liberator was a long way off course. When the s/m was sighted other errors were made. The enquiry at the time found the Liberator crew responsible and the Russian submarine was in the correct position and her actions were not criticized.
Perhaps you have other information but I cannot see the Russians being blamed in the reports of the time. The quality of the intelligence was not the problem, the Liberator was in the wrong place and the crew were at fault.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Bruce

At this place I again doubt the the RAF crew were at fault becuase they were
constantly in touch with RN Ops room ,tracking stations possibly
ship based tracking Sonars too. The dispatch order came from the RN
Ops Room who on turn were fed by RN Intel . The Sub movement
was under Allied control and even the Lib may have been so far of
course I cant believe they would act like this .

According the US Archives they were fed by RN Ops with an Enigma
deciphered message as into Trondheim's position.....I doubt the RAF on
board sparky or Radar Op would independently receive ,decrypt, analyze
Enigma messages and then launch depth charges without specific orders from
RN OPS room,period.

Also before departure Israel Fisanovitch had great doubts on the British
dispatch order something he expressed it in the strongest way possible

PS :

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Once an aircraft on an anti-submarine patrol sighted a target, they had to (A) satisfy themselves that it was an enemy vessel and (B) attack as soon as possible without waiting for instructions from ‘the boss’. That is what happened and the mistake was caused by the aircraft being in the wrong place and assuming any submarine they saw was an enemy.



The intelligence that a U-boat may be in a certain area was nothing to do with the wireless operator on the Liberator or even the base it flew from: it came from SIGINT and under no circumstances would the details be passed on to an operational aircrew. It was a mistake, not the only time an Allied aircraft attacked a friendly sub for the same reasons.



Rainer suggested two files at The National Archives. I have seen those files and he is right, everything you need is there. Again, do you have some information from another source that leads you to believe there was something else responsible for the sinking?


Bruce

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

All I have avail. is the Russian Archives suspecting RN accountable for the incident
considering also a floating mine and a technical malfunction as a possibility. I am not aware of any
SAR activity past the tragedy nor any salvage effort post WWII. One thing which I am still
trying to understand is based on what evidences the Soviets concluded B1 did not respond
the Lib IFF interrogation . From my material is not evident if there was just a Radar contact
with the sub , visual or both before depth charges were thrown.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

And the Enigma info seems to be correct because U-865 was attacked on 27 Jul 1944, outbound one day from Trondheim, by a British Liberator from 86 Sqn RAF (plane R, pilot G.G. Gates) with six depth charges, sustaining moderate damage. The Germans put up a powerful flak barrage, hitting engines #1 and #2 and setting them on fire. Both subsequently managed to return to their respective bases.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Hello Alex,
The earlier aircraft was not the same one who later attacked. If I recall correctly that sighting was near a busy area and the aircrew was aware that a friendly sub would be passing through the area on the surface.

Bruce

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Hi Bruce

No this was not the Lib was of an other type and performed pure Recon
which is a clear indication that the B1 was monitored .

The disapperance of B1 is an other unsolved mistery of WWII
whereby unlike on other friendly fire incidents such as this of
866 GvIAP and 82nd FG , November 1944 over Yugoslavia the Soviets
were not yelling that bad strangely taking into account also mines and
malfunctions......this leads me to believe that both British Navy
and Soviets did not have clean bill of lading .

Also, on attachment the golden submariner watch received
from admirality for outstanding services and excellency in
drills ,some shots at Murmansk and one of last B1 photos.

Alex K

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Hello Alex
Kiitos hyvää mutta kiirettä pitää (Very good, thank you but very busy)
Regretably only Franks gives the position and it is bogus (64 deg 40 min N, 20 deg 20 min W, which is on Iceland! Maybe typo from 64 deg 40 min N, 02 deg 20 min W, but that is pure a guess). The time was 20.03 and when sighted the U-865 was fully surfaced. When I have spare time I’ll check Blair’s The Hunted and a couple Coastal Command histories.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

U-865 was actually already returning to Trondheim due to difficulties with its snorkel when they were slightly damaged by Liberator R/86 in naval grid AF5693 (approx. 64°45'N,09°22E) about 80 nautical miles north-northwest of Trondheim at 19h58 (German time) on 27 July 1944.

According to the Admiralty War Diary the aircraft of No. 18 Group carried out two attacks on the day in question:
- Liberator V/86 attacked U-boat, course 320° at 0610Z/27 in 64°34N/01°16W
- Liberator R/86 attacked U-boat on surface, course 150° at 1807Z/27 in approx. 65°00N/08°45E

German Naval Intelligence intercepted both sighting reports and the BdU staff correctly concluded that the second attack was directed against U-865, but was't aware of any U-boat being in the position of the first attack.

My own research confirms this, the U-boat "closest" to the first sighting report was U-300 en route to Iceland more than 100 nautical miles away and its war diary shows that it was proceeding submerged using its snorkel the whole day. In this late stage of the war air attacks on U-boats on the surface were quite a rare occurence because only snorkel equipped U-boats were still sent on patrols. Allied submarines on the other hand weren't equipped with snorkels and B-1 would certainly have proceeded on the surface during its transfer to North Russia for most of the route.

The original documents of the enquiries carried out by the Admiralty and the RAF on this incident are available from the National Archives (the links I provided in my first post in this thread). Even without knowing these documents I find it very likely that the finding of the Admiralty that Liberator V/86 attacked B-1 in error must be true.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Hello Reiner
Thanks a lot for your exact information!

Juha

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Juha and Rainer , thanks and yet I disagree about the LIB's crew guilt , they were
guided by Ops Room which on their turn were on constant contact with RN Intel
unless otherwise proven I consider RN Ops and Intel as accountable because previous
recon aircraft made clear position reports . If the Lib flew 80 miles of course and it
remained unnoticed to the crew , than drop depth charges on a sub at surface without
taking the time to ID or get IFF solution light , sounds very wierd

Question ; what was the time when the V/86 reported contact with B1 ?

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Alex, this type of patrol was not 'guided by the ops room'. The mission was to be at a certain area and then search: even the method of searching was specified in advance and the pilot could only vary it in small ways, usually to allow for visibility. It was the responsibility of the crew to navigate properly.

You have said that the progress of the submarine was being monitored: all friendly boats and ships in transit were registered on a daily movements ledger run by the Royal Navy and their progress was followed. Then, as they progressed, they were passed from one naval command to the next. It was routine. Allied intelligence would be involved in reporting any new enemy activities, NOT tracking routine movements of Allied vessels.

The earlier position report was correct, but that is no surprise since the sub was in the right place. It was the airplane that was in the wrong place and then the crew did not follow procedure for identifying a target.

You have mentioned RN Intelligence as playing a part in the events but I have never seen anything to link any branch of Allied Intelligence to the movement of the B-1. They did correctly report to Coastal Command the possibility of a U-boat. This is what they were supposed to do and it was then the job of CC to react and take steps to ensure their aircrews attacked the right target. This includes checking what friendly traffic was in the area and giving the aircrews clear instructions on which areas they were forbidden to carry out attacks. This assumes the crews navigate adequately.

As Rainer has said, the TNA documents cover the event. I have seen them.
There were many friendly fire accidents and this was one of them. It was tragic, but it is not a mystery. But, if you have some evidence that contradicts this, I will be glad to see it.

I hope this helps.
Bruce

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

I have no knowledge of this incident other than what is reported in this thread. Despite clear explanations on RN/CC operational procedure and reference to the relevant archival sources, you refute the explanations given with your "belief" (sans evidence) that somehow RN Intelligence had real-time communication with the Liberator crew during the time leading up to the attack. Why is that? What are your documentary sources?

Regards

Rod

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Bruce, Rainer and Company

First of I sincerely appreciate your efforts in contributing to this topic
especially that Subs history is not really one of my strenghts. Though
I am in close contacts with Russian historians but also VMF Museum in
St.Pete who helpped with material and who also follow the
developement and opinions .

Lets for a moment deviate from your and Rainer's logical assesment
and start with the begining . Fisanovitch was a top quality submariner
who was capable despite predjudices as into his Jewish origin
to quickly promote became a top Russian sub commander and be the
2nd known outstanding Jewish submariner of VMF Northern Fleet during
WWII.

As such he was a precision man a man who would never question a
dispatch order disobey rules or act blindly when it comes to mission
completion .

Why did he then and from the begining on had serious objections
as into the dispatch order and routing given to him by the RN , why did he
reenforce his doubts by sending a message to VMF Hdq doubting this
what RN told him to do ? Why despite two other recon flights
which identified him , all of a sudden a Coastal Command crew would
deviate more than 80 miles ( no idea if statute or nautical) be at
fault and drop on him depth charges ?

The transition of this Sub to Russia was a highly classified mission .
On the post WWII era numerous sources in Soviet Union and then Russia
claimed the British Intel intentionally staged the incident in order not let
this sub become part of Russian Fleet and yet in order not to endanger the Yalta
Meeting let it look like first look a Soviet Naval error (one many during WWII) than
when running out of facts end up blamming own Coastal Command .


There are numerous books describing faulty and "tricky" SOI and sometimes even
OSS mssions whereby many agents where mistakenly and intentionally were sent
into the hands of SD , Gestapo death due to Intel mess ups casus SOI who put numerous
Jewish agents into hands of Gestapo in France .No need to mention case Filby
and other who spied for years for the Soviets .

Strongly recommend the following books :

Churchilll and Stalin Secret Agents , Sharing Secrets with Stalin ,A Man
Called Intrepid ,OSS The Secret History, Stalin's agent, Stalin Secret
Agents , From Hitler's Doorstep ,Operatives Spies and Saboteurs,Fighting
with the Soviets and the Poltawa Affair , The man who never was .

Then lets take a look at Ops Frantic II and the Poltawa disaster caused
by the Russians the huge games behind the curtain played by Russians
British and Americans against one an other during WWII and then return
to this Submariner doubts about RN and a Coastal Command Lib who screwed up
his mission. After all these facts it would be to simple to let this mission look
like just an other friendly fire incident .

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

I give up.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Bruce

Before giving up , try to find the two books called "Fighting with the Soviets " and "The Poltawa Affair " . It took many years for the Americans to finally understand that Stavka intentionally let 8th AF get bombed by the Luftwaffe on June 21,44 one out of many Stalin's tricks . In similar to NKVD also the SOI and OSS became to be known as
best spy agencies during WWII having staged many of their operations looks as simple at this of our Russian Submariner. Definitely the Lib was of course and the Russian
ended up topedoed as part of a bigger invisible game .

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Alex, with respect, can I remind you that you have not read the files at TNA and I have? Suggesting that I read further material about other things does not seem appropriate. And, so there is no confusion, 'I give up' means that I quit trying to help.

Bruce

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

No idea what file TNA is , though the links to British Archives are subject to fees
UK LB 8 or more per file something I am not really interested on

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

TNA is the abbreviation for the British National Archives - the original documents about the investigations carried out by the Admiralty and the RAF about this incident can be found there and these documents weren't open to the public until decades after the war.

Alex, you asked for details about the sinking of B-1 and all information you search can be found in the TNA documents we mentioned. It is ok if you don't want to pay to read them yourself, but Bruce has seen them and told you the most important part: The British investigations came to the conclusion that the crew of the Liberator was at fault - they were out of position and did not properly identify their target despite being warned about the presence of Allied submarines in their patrol area. Nonetheless, in the official naval history the Soviet submarine was blamed of being out of position.

B-1 was only one of four British submarines transferred to the Soviet Union at that time, together with several destroyers, cruisers and even a battleship (HMS Royal Sovereign). But the warships were only lend to the Soviet Navy until their share of the Italian fleet could be transferred to Russia. All four submarines left the UK in late July 1944 with B-1 being the first to leave - the other three safely arrived at their destination between 2 and 4 August. All were returned to the Royal Navy in 1949/50 and scrapped.

So please tell me why the British should make the effort to stage an incident like this to prevent one submarine from this large group of warships to become part of the Soviet Navy? What made B-1 so special? To have a Jewish commander? The Brits couldn't care less.

All known facts show that this was an unfortunate accident - not more, not less - and not the only Allied submarine to fall victim to own forces. HMS Oxley, ORP Jastrzab and HMS Unbeaten come to my mind, but there were probably even more.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Rainer

As I mentioned earlier I fully agree with you and Bruce statements , the crew of Lib was at fault , other
subs arrived safely to Russia , etc .

However none addressed my question, why Fisanovitch a man with a long record of perfectionism and
obedience expressed serious concerns about the RN dispatch order his routing and kept bugging
the Russian Hdq with encoded messages prior departure ?!

In my life as historian as well from my previous long military career I saw numerous other "friendly fire" incidents
cases which at first looked as innocent as this of B1 though with the time the thruth emerged .

Of course here nothing to do with his Jewish origin or a personal plot against him .

That is why my doubts . If you wish I will cite you many similar cases other than Poltawa disaster
Russian pilots deliberately aiming at US aircrafts which later on they identified as " enemy " , US and British
doing the same . Lets even look at more recent cases such as Korean 007 downing , USS Liberty
etc etc. My instincts tells it was more but just a faulty Lib crew and simple friendly fire incident .

Cheers
Alex

PS : Did ever the Admirality and Soviets started a SAR or a salvage Ops given the huge publicity
and given they knew that the Lib was about 80 miles of course ?

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Do you know the details of his criticism of the orders given to B-1 by the Admiralty? Was it the route itself or other instructions given to him? Almost every Allied warship commander had concerns about orders given to them by Naval Authorities, some of them were justified others not because they weren't told the big picture - only what they had to know to do their job.

The Soviet submarines were instructed to follow a certain corridor during their transfer and the Coastal Command was informed of this area, so the air crews knew where they were obliged to properly identify a submarine prior to an attack. However, the crew of Liberator V/86 made a navigational error and was unaware that they carried out their attack within the restricted area.

I wonder what you are trying to tell us, Alex? That the crew of V/86 attacked B-1 intentionally because it was a Soviet submarine? Or they even had orders to do so?

On 27 August 1944 four British minesweepers were attacked in broad daylight by two Squadrons of Typhoons - after the RAF pilots asked their controller four times for confirmation of the attack order as they had doubts about the identities of the ships. The reason for this tragedy was no mystery or conspiracy. At some stage of processing the orders for the minesweeping flotilla the flag officer responsible for their operational area was omitted as recipient, so the controller was not aware of friendly ships operating in the area.

Sometimes a simple error can have disastrous consequences - be it the omission of a recipient on a radio message or the faulty navigation that led a Liberator to a position of an Allied submarine instead of the U-boat they were searching for.

PS: There was no rescue attempt because it was not realized that B-1 had been lost until it failed to arrive at its destination.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Rainer

You did not read my previous post till the end , I did not say the Lib crew
attacked on purpose , I spoke about other scenarios in addition I am not
trying to tell nothing , I am saying what the Russian sources saying but of
course in your opinion they are all wrong .

Since you speak German maybe you should get in touch with his son , he
may tell you more about his dad's doubts.

http://nts-hamburg.de/lektorinfo.php?p=29

I did not talk about rescue but salvage of the sub such as the Kursk
was salvaged later on .

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

I would like to point out the USN lost the submarines Seawolf and Dorado to "friendly fire " during WW II. There are some accounts that speculate the Dorado may have been a victim of a mine from the U-214. There were also numerous other incidents where US submarines were attacked by "friendly forces". As one US Sub commander said after he was told he was attacked by a friendly aircraft. The plane was "No friend of mine" or words to that effect.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Just for the record I am fully aware of numerous friendly fire incidents on Land , Sea and Air since WWII and up to present conflicts , this is however was not what I referred to .

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

Kursk sank to a depth of 100 meters in the Barents Sea, the B-1 was lost in a part of the Norwegian Sea that is over 1000 meters deep. As hard as it may sound, the VMF and the Admiralty had certainly other priorities than to search for a single submarine that was reported missing - about 100 Soviet and 76 British submarines had been lost during the Second World War.

In your first post of this thread you asked about any updates from British archives about this incident. Bruce and I provided the latest historical findings from primary British and German sources about this event, but you keep speculating vaguely about something I still don't understand. If Fisanovitch sent radio messages about his concerns to VMF it should be possible to find them in Russian archives to know what he worried about.

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

To get it straight on record ,I don't speculate and I never speculated while
working with my historical research , I have general knowledge about subs
unlike in your case I have no family members who served in the Navy , I am aware about many
friendly fire incidents , I am aware about British , American , Russian and many other friendly
fire incidents , pilots at fault , pilots not at fault who later on were blamed for wrong doing even
about your Luftwaffe bombing Freiburg in Breisgau instead of a French target.....and all
this without use of Internet .

In this case I say what Russian sources say , I am awaiting feedback as into his
objections from sources in Russia , as mentioned earlier on his son lives in Hamburg
and he could answer some of your questions .

Re: Soviet Sub B-1 "Sunfish" sunk by British Coastal Command
 

I have read this thread several times now and I am still no clearer as to what the originator is actually after?
Whatever the goal is, researcher111's posts indicate his belief in the potential for nefarious dealings by someone (on the UK side). Whether this is the intent, or whether something has been lost in translation, I am not sure, but the term 'conspiracy theory' appears alive and well.