Whiskey on the rocks

[Pandemonium]

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/3283/ubat1qe8.jpg

The incident with The Astute reminds me of another incident long forgotten by most of us, but the consequences were vast according to some as it would lead to the murder of the swedish Prime minister,

There had been smaller incidents before between Swedish and Russian subs, but this was something the Russian naval command wanted to gorget as soon as possible
Extremely serious but quite amusing, enjoy



Soviet submarine S-363 was a Whiskey class submarine of the Baltic Fleet, which became famous under the designation U 137 when it ran aground 10 km from Karlskrona, one of the larger naval bases of the Swedish fleet, on the east coast of Sweden on October 27, 1981. U137 was the unofficial Swedish name for the vessel, as the Soviets considered names of most of its submarines to be classified at the time and did not disclose them.


Standoff

In October 1981, the Russian Submarine S-363 accidentally hit an underwater rock about 2 km from the main Swedish naval base at Karlskrona. The boat was stuck on the rock for nearly 10 days. The Soviet Navy sent a rescue task force to the site in Sweden; it was composed of heavily armed destroyers and high sea tugs.
When the Swedish Defence Research Agency secretly started measuring for radioactive materials through the hull, using a specially configured Coast Guard boat, they detected something that was almost certainly uranium-238 inside the submarine. They speculated it originated from a nuclear weapon – a torpedo, in the upper port tube. The yield of this weapon was estimated to approximately the same as the bomb dropped over Nagasaki in 1945. No nuclear weapon on board S-363 was ever officially confirmed by the Soviet authorities. Vasily Besedin later confirmed that there were nuclear warheads on some of the torpedoes, and that the crew was ordered to destroy the boat, including these warheads, if Swedish forces tried to take control of the vessel.

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/730/ub009di1.jpg

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/2251/s24b.jpg
Swedish Coast Guards moored alongside the Soviet sub with special equipment for detecting eventual nuclear material onboard the submarine


Sweden's centre-right government at the time was determined to safeguard Sweden's territorial integrity. As the Soviet recovery fleet appeared off the coast on the first day, a fixed coastal artillery battery locked onto the ships, showing the Soviets that there were active coastal batteries on the islands. The fleet did not turn immediately and as they came closer to the 12-mile (19 km) territorial limit the battery was ordered to go into war mode on its targeting radar turning it from a single frequency mode to a frequency hopping mode. The Soviet fleet reacted almost immediately to this and everything except a heavy tugboat turned and stayed in international waters. The tugboat was quickly met by Swedish torpedo boats and it left as well.

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/2941/s20b.jpg

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/5145/s20ab.jpg
Swedish para's stand by

Days later as the Soviet Captain was being interrogated the weather was very bad and the Soviet submarine sent a distress call. In Swedish radar control centers the storm was interfering with the radar image. Soviet jamming could also have been a factor. As the Soviet submarine sent its distress call two ships from the nearby Soviet armada passed the 12-mile (19 km) limit headed for Karlskrona. This produced the most dangerous period of the crisis and is the time where the Swedish Prime Minister Thorbjörn Fälldin gave his order to "Hold the Border" to the Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces. The coastal battery now fully manned as well as the mobile coastal artillery guns and mine stations went to "action stations". The Swedish Air Force scrambled strike aircraft armed with modern anti-ship missiles and reconnaissance aircraft knowing that the weather did not allow rescue helicopters to fly in the event of an engagement. After a tense 30 minutes Swedish FACs had met the ships and identified them as West German grain carriers. The crisis was over.

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/9586/s38b.jpg

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/3664/ub120gq9.jpg

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/3283/ubat1qe8.jpg


At the time the incident was generally seen as a proof of widespread Soviet infiltration of the Swedish coastline, but this interpretation is still open to debate.
In an interview in 2006, Vasily Besedin, the political officer on board, gave a different picture. The vessel had dual navigation systems, a well-trained crew and the captain, Pyotr Gushchin, was among the best. On board was staff officer Joseph Avrukevich, who was trained in security techniques. Besedin claimed the incident was caused by an error in calculations by the navigation officer. The area in which the Soviet submarine ran aground was at the time a restricted military zone, where no foreign nationals were allowed. The exact location served as one of only two routes that could be used to move bigger ships from the naval base in Karlskrona to open water.
This incident is popularly known in the West as "Whiskey on the rocks". In Soviet Navy the sub became to be known as "Swedish Komsomolets", a pun on both the incident, and the then widespread tendency to give the subs Komsomol-themed names


The Captain of U-137 claimed that the gyro compass of the ship did not work properly which had lead the captain to believe he was navigating in waters off Stolpe Banks along the Polish coast and that he was surprised to have found himself on a rock in the Swedish Naval station Karlskrona.
The submarine also carried a man with a considerably higher rank than the Captain and the man presented himself as passenger and navigation expert. The political officer onboard also had his own version and told the Swedish commission that the U-boat thought they were navigating around the island of Bornholm in Denmark!
When the Swedish interrogating officer left the boat he stumbled over rolls of very well made and very detailed Russian charts covering the Navy Station in Karlskrona and the neighbouring waters. Just the right charts to have onboard when you are sailing in Poland!


More information and pics on this site: http://compunews.com/s139/sp2.htm

[kitatatsumi]

Crazy. I had never heard of this, almost like a mini-Cuban missile crisis but a lot funnier.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

IIRC it was not very funny for the Soviet submarine captain

[Rakki]

IIRC it was not very funny for the Soviet submarine captain

He probably got no Whisky... but had a lot of vodka... gulag gulag gulag....

[bababooey]

A Viggen bearing down on a sub! New screen saver!

[Five-to-One]

Very cool piece of history. Thanks for sharing

[103]

This topic deserves a good link to the Astute story with colorful photos :)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?188082-Nuclear-Submarine-Grounded-Near-Scotland

[supercontra]

I remember it. It sparked an era of the Swedish military (and public) seeing Soviet subs in every body of water available. Unfortunately the Swedish government behaved like wussies including not even boarding the sub. Damn I was mad at them.

[SmoothieX12]

I remember it. It sparked an era of the Swedish military (and public) seeing Soviet subs in every body of water available. Unfortunately the Swedish government behaved like wussies including not even boarding the sub. Damn I was mad at them.

It could not board the sub under the circumstances. In the end, the whole ordeal was strictly navigational mistake (which brought fore in the Soviet Navy the problem of the watches--NO was simply exhausted), another factor which played the role in this mishap was the fact that there was a mistake (compounded) on board of sub when using the receiver (Pirs-1) of Navigational System Decca.

[Photographic]

It could not board the sub under the circumstances. In the end, the whole ordeal was strictly navigational mistake (which brought fore in the Soviet Navy the problem of the watches--NO was simply exhausted), another factor which played the role in this mishap was the fact that there was a mistake (compounded) on board of sub when using the receiver (Pirs-1) of Navigational System Decca.

Maybe it would be better to refrain from broad, definite, statements like that. And settle for that being the Soviet/Russian version of events. That the boat navigated itself into Swedish territorial waters, to a military naval base where torpedo tests were being conducted at the time - by mistake no less, remains highly unlikely. If we discount the Decca, 3 navigational systems were still intact and operational. In that case the drunk crew theory would make more sense.

[SmoothieX12]

Maybe it would be better to refrain from broad, definite, statements like that. And settle for that being the Soviet/Russian version of events. That the boat navigated itself into Swedish territorial waters, to a military naval base where torpedo tests were being conducted at the time - by mistake no less, remains highly unlikely. If we discount the Decca, 3 navigational systems were still intact and operational. In that case the drunk crew theory would make more sense.

Sir, this statement betrays in You a man who has a very (if any) limited understanding of the realities of organization of the navigational service (in the Soviet/Russian Navy known as BCH-1 (Combat Department-1)) and the fact that in 1981 navigational reality of the SKK of pr. 613 (my first dive was on this sub, BTW) was less than inspiring and consisted of radio-navigational receivers KPI (for Loran-A-C), KPF-2 at that time, if my memory does not fail me, for obsolete RTNS, already mentioned Pirs-1 and maybe, which I do not think so it was the case with this particular sub, the receiver Shluze of the KSN Parus (Sail). The "theory", as is with any situations of this nature is simple--combination of the several factors.

Evidently the tactical reality also did not dawn on you--but that is completely different matter. From the very beginning this whole incident had a navigational ( hence the political) embarrassment for USSR written all over it. How I know all that?? Well, make a guess.

[SmoothieX12]

A Viggen bearing down on a sub! New screen saver!

It is not the sub of pr.613 in the photo with Viggen. Totally irrelevant photo.

[SmoothieX12]

he stumbled over rolls of very well made and very detailed Russian charts covering the Navy Station in Karlskrona and the neighbouring waters. Just the right charts to have onboard when you are sailing in Poland!

Any ship or a submarine going on patrol MUST have the full complement of the nautical charts (maps) of the theater of operation. While on the patrol in Caspian any ship has a full set of charts INCLUDING the charts of the northern coast of Iran, including the set of maps on the bases there, such as Enzeli and others. I passed through Baltic Sea in this area several times, the detailed maps of the Swedish littoral, including maps which are usually called: Approaches To....(place in any naval base)--were on board and it is NORMAL practice for any Navy and I was, certainly, NOT on any "secret" mission.

[Robert.V]

Thanks for your insight smoothie.

[Pandemonium]

It is not the sub of pr.613 in the photo with Viggen. Totally irrelevant photo.
Indeed my bad, any idea on what class this might be?

I also found out that there was an old thread about this, and it tells another story, but the pictures are very nice:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?26687-Soviet-submarine-U137

[Leaper]

I remember it. It sparked an era of the Swedish military (and public) seeing Soviet subs in every body of water available. Unfortunately the Swedish government behaved like wussies including not even boarding the sub. Damn I was mad at them.

I would think that they didnt want to risk the Russians fireing a nuclear missile. But what do I know.

"Hold the border" is not tough enough for you?

[Breerman]

I remember it. It sparked an era of the Swedish military (and public) seeing Soviet subs in every body of water available. Unfortunately the Swedish government behaved like wussies including not even boarding the sub. Damn I was mad at them.
I agree with Leaper on this one. What the Prime Minister did was to order the military to "hold the border" -- meaning that he effectively ordered the armed forces to go to war with Soviet Union had the other ships not halted at that point.

Overall the situation was handled in a good way. The Captain was taken ashore and interrogated. The submarine in question was armed with nuclear weapons (torpedoes). Boarding it would have meant a massacre and a risk involving the WMD capacity.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/371/ub113.jpg

[Breerman]

Undoubtedly there are also many incidents that are kept in the dark and will remain there for many decades to come.

Here's an article by a former fighter pilot discussing some comments by a former Supreme Commander. He (the former aviator) gives several detailed examples for which he says he has received credible information. He among other things claims that Sweden during this era sunk a Soviet submarine, damaged other ones and then opened up an escape route, that a Soviet frogman was killed in the Stockholm archipelago etc.

http://www.newsmill.se/node/24415

[SmoothieX12]

Undoubtedly there are also many incidents that are kept in the dark and will remain there for many decades to come.

Here's an article by a former fighter pilot discussing some comments by a former Supreme Commander. He (the former aviator) gives several detailed examples for which he says he has received credible information. He among other things claims that Sweden during this era sunk a Soviet submarine, damaged other ones and then opened up an escape route, that a Soviet frogman was killed in the Stockholm archipelago etc.

http://www.newsmill.se/node/24415

Sure, and also Sweden (secretly and according to "credible" information) defeated the invaders from planet Zoltar. What a crock o' shyte.

[Breerman]

Sure, and also Sweden (secretly and according to "credible" information) defeated the invaders from planet Zoltar. What a crock o' shyte.
The former Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces just recently said that "the Soviet Submarine Forces suffered casualties in connection with violations of Swedish territorial waters".

[Leaper]

My dad (Infantry) was out in the archipelago looking for frogmen and Subs 3 times (that I know of). They cleared whole Islands, landing on the Islands and stuff.

There's a 40 years confidentiality "promise" to every action that happend. So in 10 years, we'll know

[SmoothieX12]

What would you know about it?

The former Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces just recently said that "the Soviet Submarine Forces suffered casualties in connection with violations of Swedish territorial waters".

I would say about a million times more than You. I would also doubt hugely the claims of the "Supreme Commander" on the "casualties" of the submarine forces, not because the Soviets were that good that they could not sustain any casualties, the incident with S-363 is just a good example of the complete unprofessionalism and disorganization, but because NO compelling evidence exists, not counting conspiracy theories and paranoia for the consumption of the fanboys and housewives, of violation by the Soviet Subs of the Swedish territorial waters. Does it mean that they did not violate the waters?? No. But no other subs were ever lost by the Soviet Union in any connection to the "violation" of the Swedish territorial waters.

BTW, the disastrous embarrassment of the Soviet Navy with S-363 somehow hid the fact of another (lesser, but still significant) embarrassment for the Swedish ASW forces and Border Guards--to miss a sub in the surface mode in own waters with Radar Station literally looking at this "secret" sub. How would you judge that. Apart from the fact that hapless S-363 was detected by the Swedish....fisherman.

[Breerman]

It is not the sub of pr.613 in the photo with Viggen. Totally irrelevant photo.
And which other submarine would it then be?

[SmoothieX12]

And which other submarine would it then be?

Most likely Swedish Draken-class SSK. And if you would have any clue you would know that approach by the military aircraft of the hostile ship from the port (starboard) course angles means hostility (attack), so, I doubt it is any sub other than own Swedish sub playing the target on drills.

[Leaper]

http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/06/23/bevisen-f-r-att-sverige-skadade-sovjetiska-ub-tar

That looks like proof to me.

Smoothie, where do you get your information from?

[SmoothieX12]

http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/06/23/bevisen-f-r-att-sverige-skadade-sovjetiska-ub-tar

That looks like proof to me.

Smoothie, where do you get your information from?

How about 10+ years of service (including Naval Academy) on different officer positions in the Soviet Navy?

[Leaper]

Yea that's what I figured. Please go on with your propaganda, sir. rofl

[SmoothieX12]

Yea that's what I figured. Please go on with your propaganda, sir. rofl

Sure, I, certainly, will.

[Breerman]

I would also doubt hugely the claims of the "Supreme Commander" on the "casualties" of the submarine forces
I would say he knows more about that than you do (or would admit).


but because NO compelling evidence exists
It's not a trial where some sort of evidence are publicly displayed.


No. But no other subs were ever lost by the Soviet Union in any connection to the "violation" of the Swedish territorial waters.
Maybe you should read the article. I don't believe Soviet Union would admit losing a smaller submarine in foreign waters (SE Landsort). Other specific incidents are mentioned. Such as a fighter pilot photographed a submarine with blown off tower being towed (SE Huvudskär).


BTW, the disastrous embarrassment of the Soviet Navy with S-363 somehow hid the fact of another (lesser, but still significant) embarrassment for the Swedish ASW forces and Border Guards--to miss a sub in the surface mode in own waters with Radar Station literally looking at this "secret" sub. How would you judge that. Apart from the fact that hapless S-363 was detected by the Swedish....fisherman.
The embarrassment of not discovering the submarine is to some extent real. We were however a peaceful and open nation. You would not expect a Soviet submarine to suddenly steam ahead and blend in with the usual fishing and trading traffic. Our ASW is... Well, you know about that if your background info is true. But it's an organization that needs to be triggered in peace time.

[SmoothieX12]

I would say he knows more about that than you do (or would admit).


It's not a trial where some sort of evidence are publicly displayed.


Maybe you should read the article. I don't believe Soviet Union would admit losing a smaller submarine in foreign waters (SE Landsort). Other specific incidents are mentioned. Such as a fighter pilot photographed a submarine with blown off tower being towed (SE Huvudskär).


The embarrassment of not discovering the submarine is to some extent real. We were however a peaceful and open nation. You would not expect a Soviet submarine to suddenly steam ahead and blend in with the usual fishing and trading traffic.

Oh, you have got to be kidding me about the trial. As for the "who knows more"--show me the photograph of the "submarine with blown off tower being towed". Than we will talk.

As for the marked in red--agree, this is a reasonable statement, with one exception--militaries do not operate on assumptions of being peaceful. They have a specific range of the tasks and objectives assigned to them. And here is the problem with your statement--when some object on the radar screen "blends"(c) with the "usual fishing and trading traffic" (c).....35 meters from your shores it is about time to really thinks something IS wrong. Consequences of this mishap, as we all observed after, are paranoia, which has one of its definitions "heightened awareness", hence the "casualties" and Supreme Commanders and some.....pilots commenting on all this pretty straightforward shyte.

[Breerman]

Most likely Swedish Draken-class SSK. And if you would have any clue you would know that approach by the military aircraft of the hostile ship from the port (starboard) course angles means hostility (attack), so, I doubt it is any sub other than own Swedish sub playing the target on drills.
That submarine is much larger than a Draken class... There are several images showing Viggen flybys over the stranded sub, can't see why this one would be the only one that's not genuine.. I believe this one is from after the submarine has been escorted out and is heading towards the awaiting Soviet ships.

[Leaper]

There's still no talks going on about the U137, do you think secrets like the photos of the damaged POLISH sub are making the news?!

I honestly think the Soviet Navy lost mini subs in Swedish waters, and why would they react if the Swedes sunk them? They were ther illegally.


Please do not ruin this thread even more. This thread is about the U-137 getting stucked on Swedish waters, not what did and did not happend here in the 80s

[Leaper]

It do look like a Draken Class if you ask me.

[SmoothieX12]

That submarine is much larger than a Draken class... There are several images showing Viggen flybys over the stranded sub, can't see why this one would be the only one that's not genuine.. I believe this one is from after the submarine has been escorted out and is heading towards the awaiting Soviet ships.

Sir, specially for You from my personal library--this is from the Illustrated Directory Of The Submarines Of The World.

140660

[SmoothieX12]

There's still no talks going on about the U137, do you think secrets like the photos of the damaged POLISH sub are making the news?!

I honestly think the Soviet Navy lost mini subs in Swedish waters, and why would they react if the Swedes sunk them? They were ther illegally.


Please do not ruin this thread even more. This thread is about the U-137 getting stucked on Swedish waters, not what did and did not happend here in the 80s

So far, Sir, I see a couple of Swedish fanboys (make no mistake--I love Sweden, hey, my generation grew up on ABBA's music) who are desperately trying to expose own complete incompetence in any issue pertaining submarine operations, let alone of Soviet subs of the project 613 on Baltic. I can, certainly, stop my any attempts to provide even rudimentary education on this issue here but then again--I have a feeling the thread then will be, indeed, ruined;)

[Breerman]

Oh, you have got to be kidding me about the trial. As for the "who knows more"--show me the photograph of the "submarine with blown off tower being towed". Than we will talk.
Silly argument. You know very well that everything surrounding such incidents is classified.

Needless to say I regard the word of the highest ranking military officer in this country as full confirmation.

[Leaper]

And there goes the thread!

Thank you all for playing!

[SmoothieX12]

Silly argument. You know very well that everything surrounding such incidents is classified.

Needless to say I regard the word of the highest ranking military officer in this country as full confirmation.

"Classified" is a very broad term. For example--couple of years ago Russian ASW forces on Kamchatka Peninsula detected and escorted US LA-class SSN from Kamchatka Gulf. It was everywhere in the news but in Russia only. In US these news were not reported. So it is US Navy's tradition not to comment on any submarine operations, yet, US Navy DID report the detection of Russian pr. 971 SSN in 1998 near the shores of California and, guess what, so did Russian news agencies. I am not denying the possibility of Soviet subs penetrating Swedish ter.waters. I am denying the fact that there were "casualties" on this account. If you are talking about midget subs and the insertion of the seals--well, than this is the realm of PDSS (Underwater Diversionary Forces and Means) and has nothing to do with (I believe it is 157-th) 157 BRPL from Paldiski where the S-363 was from.

[Breerman]

Sir, specially for You from my personal library--this is from the Illustrated Directory Of The Submarines Of The World.
That's not a Draken but a Draken II.

As for which type I can't say I'm 100% either way. Details don't match.

[Breerman]

I am denying the fact that there were "casualties" on this account.
That discussion won't go anywhere. I have what I need.

[SmoothieX12]

That's not a Draken but a Draken II.

As for which type I can't say I'm 100% either way. Details don't match.

OK. But, Sir, do you concur that the boat in the photo IS NOT S-363??:-D

BTW, what to do with the conclusions of the Rolph Ekeus' Commission (I hope I print his name correctly)??

[SmoothieX12]

That discussion won't go anywhere. I have what I need.

Oh, I know. It will not go anywhere you want it to go, since long ago majority of competent naval professionals be they from Sweden, Russia or Germany view the incident with S-363 with the smile (or smirk), understanding that this was a tour de' force of a bad seamanship, lack of any navigational skills, the breakdown of decision process and of...plain simple incompetence which was in total accord with this old obsolete rust bucket of project 613. Or, it was that classic case of the unintended consequences which is known in the world as "shyte happens".

[Arbody]

Smoothie, where do you get your information from?
You are funny guy :D , cheers mon

[Breerman]

Oh, I know. It will not go anywhere you want it to go
On the contrary it won't go anywhere you want it to go. You can say you "doubt" Soviet casualties all you want. It won't change my opinion since what I view as the most credible source regarding these incidents has made a clear statement.


since long ago majority of competent naval professionals be they from Sweden, Russia or Germany view the incident with S-363 with the smile (or smirk)
Pretty much cemented the image with a drunken captain and nuclear weapons if that's what you mean. However the navigational error was so great (Sweden instead of Poland), and the attempt to navigate westward through a difficult archipelago straight towards one of the main naval bases is so irrational that the whole situation is hard to overlook as a simple mistake.

That's however just one of many incidents. From 1981 to 2000 125 reports were classified as "underwater activity" and 415 reports were classified as "probable". Some were likely NATO but many were undoubtedly Soviet/Warsaw Pact.

[artjomh]

Pretty much cemented the image with a drunken captain and nuclear weapons if that's what you mean.

Wow, how about some respect?

We are talking about a seasoned captain of a military vessel who has either made a not uncommon navigational error (or one of his subordinates did), or has successfully infiltrated one of the most protected Swedish military locations and suffered an accident.

Whichever theory you believe, your rudeness is uncalled for.


However the navigational error is so great, and the attempt to navigate westward through dense archipelago towards one of the main naval bases is so irrational that the whole situation is hard to overlook as a simple mistake.

Because you have navigated those waters submerged before and speak from vast experience, right?

[SmoothieX12]

On the contrary it won't go anywhere you want it to go. You can say you "doubt" Soviet casualties all you want. It won't change my opinion since what I view as the most credible source regarding these incidents has made a clear statement.



Sir, I am not trying to change your opinion--this thread, I am pretty sure, is being read by many other people. I am just trying to show what a collection of utter BS all these "credible" sources are. Actually, the Ekeus' Commission of 2010 lists...10 probable cases of violation of the Swedish ter. waters by Unidentified submersibles. FYI, Soviet Government in 1984 actually....offered Sweden help in finding...Soviet subs in their waters. That was a humorous diplomatic response on the ASW paranoia which struck Sweden. Sir, NOBODY was killed by Swedish ASW forces, no seals were inserted there, since after 1992, when Sweden installed new static sonar system it was confirmed that all those "spooky" sounds of "Soviet subs or frogman penetrating Swedish" waters were actually....marine animals. That is when the amount of "suspicious" contacts started to diminish by bulk. But, hey, as long as there is money to be made in Sweden about nasty russkies trying to do bad things to Sweden--sure--there will always be "credible sources".

So, do You concur about photo?? :-D

[Arbody]

Sir, I am not trying to change your opinion--this thread, I am pretty sure, is being read by many other people. I am just trying to show what a collection of utter BS all these "credible" sources are. Actually, the Ekeus' Commission of 2010 lists...10 probable cases of violation of the Swedish ter. waters by Unidentified submersibles. FYI, Soviet Government in 1984 actually....offered Sweden help in finding...Soviet subs in their waters. That was a humorous diplomatic response on the ASW paranoia which struck Sweden. Sir, NOBODY was killed by Swedish ASW forces, no seals were inserted there, since after 1992, when Sweden installed new static sonar system it was confirmed that all those "spooky" sounds of "Soviet subs or frogman penetrating Swedish" waters were actually....marine animals. That is when the amount of "suspicious" contacts started to diminish by bulk. But, hey, as long as there is money to be made in Sweden about nasty russkies trying to do bad things to Sweden--sure--there will always be "credible sources".

So, do You concur about photo?? :-D
SmoothieX12 Why why? He is Breerman! facktproof mofo from North!

[SmoothieX12]

However the navigational error was so great (Sweden instead of Poland), and the attempt to navigate westward through a difficult archipelago straight towards one of the main naval bases is so irrational that the whole situation is hard to overlook as a simple mistake.



Sir, you are going to be pretty stunned when you will learn some astounding cases of discrepancies counting in tens of nautical miles and learn about aggregate navigational errors, as well as try to be on patrol being the Commander of the Electro-Navigational Group (in a place of Commander Of BCH-1) and will have to be on the Navigational watch virtually 24-7 because you will be alone. Try it for couple of weeks--we'll see where you will end up physically and mentally.

[SmoothieX12]

SmoothieX12 Why why? He is Breerman! facktproof mofo from North!

Just to save the thread:-D

[Arbody]

Just to save the thread:-D
It's like in Cervantes "Don Quixote" or "Sisyphus work"

[Breerman]

I am just trying to show what a collection of utter BS all these "credible" sources are.
You can call everybody liars all day long if you want to, it doesn't change a thing.


Actually, the Ekeus' Commission of 2010
How nice that you would mention Ekéus out of the blue... Surely strengthens those who believe he was a Soviet puppet (or just a "useful idiot"). Among other things he has criticized the former Supreme Commander for engaging in live ASW against intruding submarines (!).


Sir, NOBODY was killed by Swedish ASW forces, no seals were inserted there
Yeah, I heard you the other times as well...


since after 1992, when Sweden installed new static sonar system it was confirmed that all those "spooky" sounds of "Soviet subs or frogman penetrating Swedish" waters were actually....marine animals.
Not at all. Undoubtedly a number of reports have been dismissed for various reasons. That did however not change the overall picture.


So, do You concur about photo??
I commented on that in a previous post.

[Breerman]

It's like in Cervantes "Don Quixote" or "Sisyphus work"
Welcome dear Russia Strong Team.

[Breerman]

Sir, you are going to be pretty stunned when you will learn some astounding cases of discrepancies counting in tens of nautical miles and learn about aggregate navigational errors, as well as try to be on patrol being the Commander of the Electro-Navigational Group (in a place of Commander Of BCH-1) and will have to be on the Navigational watch virtually 24-7 because you will be alone. Try it for couple of weeks--we'll see where you will end up physically and mentally.
Sure, I'll let you know when anyone I know that are into sailing ends up in Poland by a navigational mistake... Not to mention that S-364 (U-137) had several separate navigational systems...

Just by coincidence the RSN were conducting torpedo trials on the same day and in the same area where the Soviet S-363 (U-137) ran aground.

[Leaper]

Sir, I am not trying to change your opinion--this thread, I am pretty sure, is being read by many other people. I am just trying to show what a collection of utter BS all these "credible" sources are. Actually, the Ekeus' Commission of 2010 lists...10 probable cases of violation of the Swedish ter. waters by Unidentified submersibles. FYI, Soviet Government in 1984 actually....offered Sweden help in finding...Soviet subs in their waters. That was a humorous diplomatic response on the ASW paranoia which struck Sweden. Sir, NOBODY was killed by Swedish ASW forces, no seals were inserted there, since after 1992, when Sweden installed new static sonar system it was confirmed that all those "spooky" sounds of "Soviet subs or frogman penetrating Swedish" waters were actually....marine animals. That is when the amount of "suspicious" contacts started to diminish by bulk. But, hey, as long as there is money to be made in Sweden about nasty russkies trying to do bad things to Sweden--sure--there will always be "credible sources".

So, do You concur about photo?? :-D


How do you know all this? Just because you were a Soviet Navy Officer?
How can you know more about what the Swedish Armed Forces did in the 80s-90s then we do?
You make the whole Swedish Armed Foces sound incompitent and dump. And you insult my father who were there.
The Soviets were here, there pictures of it, but it's still classified here.

And there's another Soviet major fail that you guys should be embarresed of, a sub running aground in Swedish waters with neclear weapons onboard.
Soviet Navy Strong!!!111

[ozumn]

God i hate red ****ing commies. With that said it was not only soviet subs in our waters.

[Leaper]

Nah some Polish ones too

[Robert.V]

Why the hell would a sub that was supposedly set out on a mission to spy on you swedes and your fancy new torpedo be armed with a nuclear torpedo ?

And keep making that Soviet Navy Strong!!!111 comment, it makes you look intelligent. :roll:

[Leaper]

I dont think it was a nuclear torpedo. What do you do with a nuclear torpedo? Blow up harbors?

Maybe it was to help negotiate if they got caught?

[K22GLE]

I dont think it was a nuclear torpedo. What do you do with a nuclear torpedo?

You target carrier groups with them.

I have served in various ASW functions in the Swedish navy and I have heard and tracked non Swedish submarines myself. Including but not limited to the compressed cavitation acoustic similar to marine mammals swimming on the surface.

[Leaper]

But we didnt have carrier groups?

[Robert.V]

What's your take on this K22GLE ?


And Sweden sinking a soviet sub. Come on Breermen your not this stupid are you ? Sub's have crews ..those crews have families and friends. After the wall fell one would think some of those families or and friends would have made an enquiry. And not all that many incidents, cover ups or secrets were all that well hidden anymore after the wall fell especially in the ****ing early 90's.

And really do you think Sweden would have had the balls just to sink a Soviet sub ? And that soviet captain would have had the balls or was stupid enough to continue he's mission or whatever the **** he was doing there when he was found out ? and not turn around when the Swrde's found him and get the **** out ?

Both the Soviets and American's played this game ...and neither fired on eachother to destroy even in their own waters. The game was basicly this ..find the son of a bitch make it known to him you found him and then escort him the **** out of your own waters.

[K22GLE]

It's the commander's discression what to do with a detected vessel. Do you fire at it or do you document the contact, let it know you know it's there and let it go? I am in favour of the second option and I believe commanders of most peacetime ASW units and submarines agree.

The problem comes if you are required to provide evidence of the contact. The evidence needed to classify the contact and even determine the type of vessel is one thing. The evidence needed to prove the case to the general public is something else. In that case "Whiskey on the rocks" is pretty much what it takes. I do however see no need to provide evidence to the general public about contacts/suspected contacts, sightings etc.

Secondly I think the gap between depthcharges and torpedoes/mines in terms of weaponry against submarines is signifficant. You don't sink a submarine with depthcharges, you shake up its crew a bit. However the torpedoe is a sinking weapon. So, what do you use? The step to go to torpedoes is quite big and what if the contact is just a bad navigator? Maybe in its view it is in international waters and will defend itself? I know we have the ELMA grenades supposed to be an intermediate but I the dilemma is the same imo.

[Breerman]

Why the hell would a sub that was supposedly set out on a mission to spy on you swedes and your fancy new torpedo be armed with a nuclear torpedo ?
That the submarine carried a nuclear weapon aboard was confirmed in 2006 by it's then political officer, Vasilij Besedin of the GRU.


And Sweden sinking a soviet sub. Come on Breermen your not this stupid are you ? Sub's have crews ..those crews have families and friends. After the wall fell one would think some of those families or and friends would have made an enquiry
If you had read what you're trying to comment on you would have known that one of the things mentioned is West German intel on reported Soviet casualties in the western Baltic Sea.


And really do you think Sweden would have had the balls just to sink a Soviet sub ?
ASW campaigns were carried out on many occasions during the cold war. As K22GLE mentions depth-charges are said to have been used and not torpedoes. However submarines aren't invulnerable. In some cases trapped submarines are said to have been let out on orders from the government.

When the U-137/S-363 went aground it sent out a distress signal and an armada of Soviet warships started steaming towards the area. At that point the literal order that was given by the Command Central was:

"Oskadligör, sänk med alla medel, i det fall den ryska armadan inte viker och ändrar kurs."

"Neutralize, sink by any means, in case the Russian armada doesn't deviate and changes course."

[Robert.V]

When the U-137/S-363 went aground it sent out a distress signal and an armada of Soviet warships started steaming towards the area. At that point the literal order that was given by the Command Central was:

"Oskadligör, sänk med alla medel, i det fall den ryska armadan inte viker och ändrar kurs."

"Neutralize, sink by any means, in case the Russian armada doesn't deviate and changes course."


Well in that case that would be understandable ...But see here the Russian armada did change their course because I doubt they wanted to start a war just like I doubt the swede's wanted also. neither side would take such risk and sink a vessel intentionally unless left in no other choice or all warnings ignored or the target becomes hostile etc. And perhaps the swede's did indeed sink a soviet sub unintentionally ..but I don't see any proof of that ..again we haven't heard nothing from the famillies or friends. And i'm sure some naval higher up would have blabbed about it.

You just can't cover up so many dead if the swede's indeed have sunken a soviet sub.



That the submarine carried a nuclear weapon aboard was confirmed in 2006 by it's then political officer, Vasilij Besedin of the GRU.


I'm not denying that it wasn't there. I'm just wondering why in god's place would a sub on a spy mission carry a nuclear torpedo ?


Edit


Thank you for your K22GLE

[SmoothieX12]

1. The boat on a "secret mission" ran into the Swedish shore being SURFACED!!! I never heard about such "secret" or clandestine missions which are done in this manner;

2. After grounding, still not being able to fix her position on the order from the Main Staff S-363 gave the pulse (which testifies to the fact that this rust bucket did not have KPI Shluze) on which satellite gave the position of S-363 which was conveyed to her by the Main Staff.

So much for the clandestine operation.

[SmoothieX12]

How do you know all this? Just because you were a Soviet Navy Officer?
How can you know more about what the Swedish Armed Forces did in the 80s-90s then we do?
You make the whole Swedish Armed Foces sound incompitent and dump. And you insult my father who were there.
The Soviets were here, there pictures of it, but it's still classified here.

And there's another Soviet major fail that you guys should be embarresed of, a sub running aground in Swedish waters with neclear weapons onboard.
Soviet Navy Strong!!!111

Nobody denies (in fact I stress it from the very beginning of this thread) the fact that S-363 incident was a huge embarrassment for the Soviet Navy in general and Baltic Fleet in particular. But that is the whole point--it was nothing more than that, embarrassment with no malice towards Sweden intended. As for the Soviet Navy strong BS. Sir, at the height of the Cold War Soviet Navy was as large as US Navy and about equal in its firepower to it. It deployed some of the most advanced technology and professionals, but like it is always the case with the huge institutions it had its top notch units and it had its backwater rust buckets. S-363 belonged to the latter. As for the embarrassments--it could happen to anybody and it DID happen many times in any Navy of the world. It just happened so that the events with S-363 happened in the times of a huge Cold War tensions and raging paranoia on the both sides of the issue which made this situation a political and ideological hot button and some in Sweden, after almost 30 years , still do not want to let it go.

As for the marked in red. The reason that I know "all that" is because virtually everybody in the Soviet Navy (and in 1981 I was in my second year in naval Academy) knew it--it was talked about it in academic auditoriums, it was talked about on the Fleet, some people went to practice on S-363 AFTER the event and in general there is nothing secret about this situation and, believe me, I know what secret is, S-363 is not that kind of situation.

[Photographic]

Navigating into the area required surfacing at least at one location or face the risk of running aground, the waters are infamous for the difficulty of manouver even with surface vessels. Furthermore Soviet subs were known to operate like this (and yes, it has been confirmed by several independent comissions). So what is the big problem, that the SU is not portrayed as the big friendly giant that it should be? The shot down DC-3, the murder of Wallenberg, the spy rings in situ were all of course a result of Western propaganda and paranoia, yes? Of course the running aground could have been a mistake (albeit, not a simple one as someone made it out to be) - but concerning the context, it's implausible. What is so terrifingly hard about accepting this, for the always enervating Russia strong crew?

Because surely you had no good intentions towards us.

[SmoothieX12]

Navigating into the area required surfacing at least at one location or face the risk of running aground, the waters are infamous for the difficulty of manouver even with surface vessels. Furthermore Soviet subs were known to operate like this (and yes, it has been confirmed by several independent comissions). So what is the big problem, that the SU is not portrayed as the big friendly giant that it should be? The shot down DC-3, the murder of Wallenberg, the spy rings in situ were all of course a result of Western propaganda and paranoia, yes? Of course the running aground could have been a mistake (albeit, not a simple one as someone made it out to be) - but concerning the context, it's implausible. What is so terrifingly hard about accepting this, for the always enervating Russia strong crew?

Because surely you had no good intentions towards us.

Sir, cut the crap, will ya?? You have no clue what you are talking about and I mean NO clue whatsoever. You want to exercise your revulsion towards USSR/Russia--fine by me, but do not do it in the thread concerning specific issues of navigation and basic tactics. See marked in blue. If you want to portray yourself a complete ignorant fanboy (which you are) go right ahead--but expect to be treated accordingly.

[Photographic]

I see, I guess I couldn't hope for a less inflammatory response from a good old fashioned Russia strong!!!! (and never wrong!) adherent. Always carrying that big chip on your shoulders. My revulsion towards what, exactly? Subs were known to breach our territorial waters - be it for SIGINT/ELINT purposes or testing ASW, or planting desants as in WW2 is irrelevant, it did happen. Dismissing the incident as "a strictly navigational mistake" is higly tendentious. So I ask again, why not simply settle for that being the official Soviet/Russian version of events?

P.S.

Drop the "sir" thing, you come across as a major douchebag.

[Andreas]

IIRC it was not very funny for the Soviet submarine captain

When I was a baby my dad's nickname for me was Pjotr after the sub captain...
According to my mom the captain was pretty much the laughing stock of the whole world after the incident..

When people where double parked etc.. They just shrugged their shoulders and talked with a Russian accent:
"What do you mean comerad, this is not russian property?"

[SmoothieX12]

I see, I guess I couldn't hope for a less inflammatory response from a good old fashioned Russia strong!!!! (and never wrong!) adherent. Always carrying that big chip on your shoulders. My revulsion towards what, exactly? Subs were known to breach our territorial waters - be it for SIGINT/ELINT purposes or testing ASW, or planting desants as in WW2 is irrelevant, it did happen. Dismissing the incident as "a strictly navigational mistake" is higly tendentious. So I ask again, why not simply settle for that being the official Soviet/Russian version of events?

P.S.

Drop the "sir" thing, you come across as a major douchebag.

I guess it is a classic response of a righteous hot air balloon.

[Marsch]

The French-German TV station ARTE aired a documentation which is called "In feindlichen Tiefen" (in hostile depths) in German. About half of this docu deals with this incident and its background. It says there's much more behind it then just a stranded submarine. I don't know where to start or end but I try to put the most important parts together.

At first the interviewed intelligence-correspondent for UPI Richard Sale is sure that the whole thing was staged by the Pentagon and CIA. He came to the conclusion because of the way it was handled by the press and after some talks to people from the Hanscom Airbase, the Mite (?) Cooperation and USN researchers who told him they (the USA) had the technology to make the submarine captain believe he had more water under the keel then he actually had.

The also interviewed captain of U-137 Piotr Gustschin says he had a higher ranked (higher then him) navigation officer named Avrokiewitsch (sp?) on board which made one fault after another. At first this officer manuvered the ship into a dragnet with the result of a bend frameantenna of the navsystem. Short after that the depth sounder of the submarine broke and not much later even the Pirs (sp?) navsystem was defect. So the only way left to navigate were the stars which is a little diffcult if you're submerged and the sky is cloudy.

Prof. Ola Tunander at this time submarine-expert for the Swedish government comes to the conclusion that the submarine threat was staged to get rid of Olof Palme because of his nuclearweapons free Northern-Europe politics and that the government wasn't informed correctly by the Navy about what really was going on.

Lieutenant Colonel Sven-Olof Kviman sector commander of the Swedish Navy around Muskö tells a story about a submarine that he damaged with a 600kg mine during that time. The ship must have been badly damaged because it sank to the bottom and later on you could hear sounds of repairs and an emergency signal (fluorescent paint) was spotted on the surface. Later debris were discovered by divers at the site of the incident but the sub was gone. On an other occasion some days later they had contact with a sub again and he ordered a patrol to throw some depth charges at it when the Navy base intervened and told the patrol to just throw one single charge at it. The funny thing is that they even took samples of the paint but they somehow got lost. They had recorded the sounds of the subs on tape but they got erased and somehow even the warlogs of these both days are empty.

The former Brigadier General for the coastal defense Lars Hansson says he had the feeling that they didn't wanted to actually really destroy any of the submarines and that the whole thing fits together if these submarines weren't Soviet but NATO ones.

Another thing is that Caspar Weinberger (minister of defense at that time) made a visit in Sweden short before and in 2000 he admitted in an interview that US submarines were operating in Swedish waters with the acknowledgement of the Swedish Navy and that besides U-137 there never was a Soviet sub in Swedish waters.

Now you can call me a conspiracy theorist but if you count one and one together you've to come to the conclusion that something is fishy about this whole thing.