Talk:Naval operations in Romanian-occupied Soviet waters

Useless and wrong article
To my knowledge the article has some logical issues and bad points: there was no Soviet "specific" operation in "Romanian-occupied Soviet waters": Soviet Navy engaged in the western Black Sea operation area as a whole. Article is quite pointless because repeat just a number of data coming for other more comprehensive articles.

Plus Romanian fairtailes:

"Actions in Bessarabian waters" 1) Once again, and regardless how many books Romanian could write concerning the issue, M-59 was never attacked by Romanian Subs on 17 December 1941, because the submarine could not possible be still floating on that date. No Soviet submarine reported damages or attacks or anything in the area and no submarine was lost on that day nor wrecks were ever found. The attack was just one of the countless WW2 ASW attacks when depth-charing units ASSUMED to have sunk a submarine.

2) It is unlikely the Romanian attack was successful (again despite the widespread Romanian and pro-Romanian literature). No wreck of M-118 was ever found in the location of the depth charges attack, on the other hand locals report fragments of submarine 25km from sinking point of "Salzburg". Location match with claim made by a German "BV-138" (3 / SAGr.125) on 2 October.

3)M-32 was indeed damaged by the depth charges, and on surface remains and debris (including jackets) were observed by Romanians that claimed to have sunk M-32. Submarine returned at base on 20 October and this kind of attacks (with subsequent Romanian claim of sinking) should help contributor to realize how ASW ships often claimed sinking over discoery of whatever kind of debris was spotted(or believed to be spotted) on water.

"Actions in Bessarabian waters" 1) Loss of Viforul and Vijelia (not confirmed due to mine, but possibly also due "Ungvar" merchan explosion while attempting to recover her), was part of the Soviet surface offensive. Cloning data on geographical position without proof of concept that there was a strategical attempt to limite specific operations on a specific geographical area is pure speculation.

2) It's wrong. A-2 was damaged on 11 June 1942 by German anti-submarine boats, after having torpedoed and damaged Romanian merchant "Ardeal". Submarine back in operation next month

3) Correct

4) Loss of YA-26 and YA-27 is not specified in the second source: moreover to my knowledge Odessa area was heavily de-mined (by Germans) and re-mined by Germans and Soviets in 1943 and 1944. On what basis these to units are claimed solely by Romanian mines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupodimare89 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh God, you again...Look, you can condemn my well-sourced tastefully-written fairy tales as much as you want, until you find sources to back up your ramblings you might as well shut up. I use what is immediately accessible to me: Scans on Google Books. Not some Russian site, not even Romanian sources - I've been shaking them nearly in full lately, remaining just with English ones as it's appropriate on the English Wiki. I created this article because I found the extra Romanian coast to the North highly unique, this is not about any organized larger thing, merely a collection of stuff that happened on what was Romanian coast during WW2. As for the mines, the area was mined by Murgescu & Co. in June, and the two subs plus the two MGBs were sunk solely afterwards. Regardless, every mine victory goes to the Romanian Navy by default, unless proven otherwise. Virtually all the minelaying capacity belonged to the Romanian Navy. Torpilorul (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I explained case-by-case each action what truly happened. Exactly what of my replies unsettle you so much? Please, I am very interested to read each specific comment of your concerning each specific above-mentioned case. For example, the revision of loss of M-118 is not available in English sources, because research for the wreck is relatively modern (and obviously done by local diving groups). On the other hand the fate of M-59 is plainly clear, and reported by other English books and sources that correctly (differently from others) checked the operating status of the submarine and the start of her last patrol.

"You found the extra Romanian coast highly unique": I would like to see proof in literature that there was some specific campaign or offensive strictly related to the operative zone. So far this is your personal interpretation of events, consisting mainly in gathering data copying them from another article. This was exactly the same that it occurred for the so-called "Naval operations during Stalingrad Battle" that was a baseless name for a title, inherently wrong (and btw, after having corrected and fixed it, the result was changed from "Inconclusive" to "Axis Succes", because contrary on what you may believe I have no interest in portraying the Soviet side as winner when they were not).

"As for the mines, the area was mined by Murgescu & Co. in June, and the two subs plus the two MGBs were sunk solely afterwards." As you could have noticed from my comment, I have contested the motor gunboat operation: they were sunk in 1944, not 1941. In the years between, lots happened including de-mining operations and further mining operations. If you're unaware of the Kriegsmarine naval operations in the zone I would likely provide you the War Diary of the location. By the way, given they are primary sources (translated in english by the US Navy and available online) when I have time I will start to implement information from them. Lupodimare89 (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2022



 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. Whether this article should be deleted, split, merged, redirected, or otherwise restructured is beyond the scope of this discussion. BD2412 T 05:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Naval operations in Romanian-occupied Soviet waters → Romanian naval operations in Soviet waters during World War II – Better title. Maybe "during World War II" can be dropped. Super  Ψ   Dro  10:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Colin M (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Srnec (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. But it's not just about Romanian operations. It's also about Soviet operations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to me it is or should be about Romanian operations only. What else is the basis for restricting it to the waters off the coast of Romanian-occupied territory? The Soviet submarine actions were (1) against a Romanian-escorted convoy and (2) were met by a Romanian response, so they do fit. An action can be both a Soviet and a Romanian operation at the same time. Srnec (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Necrothesp. Article is also about Soviet operations. --Spekkios (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Naval operations in Romanian-occupied Soviet waters (1939—1945) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Romanian Navy during World War II as this constitutes WP:CONTENTFORK.Anonimu (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.