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

[Bruce Dennis]

Originally Posted by researcher111

... 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 .

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

[RodM]

Originally Posted by researcher111

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 ?

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

[researcher111]

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 .

[Bruce Dennis]

I give up.

[researcher111]

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 .

[Bruce Dennis]

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

[researcher111]

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

[Rainer]

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.

[researcher111]

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 ?

[Rainer]

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.