Talk:Battle of Hanko (1941)/Archives/2012/June

Discussion

I changed the battle result from Finnish victory to indecisive, because in the end of the hostilities, Soviets held all of their territory plus at least 18 more islands they had captured from the Finns. Soviets were forced to retreat due to inability to sufficiently resupply the base, not due to any military pressure the Finns applied to the perimeter of the base. Also, I am not sure why one battle is mentioned in this article. There were several, all won by the Soviets, that were not mentioned. As it is this article seems to be an example of pro-Finnish POV. Goliath74 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Finns retook several of the islands during the autumn. Regardless in the end Soviets were forced to leave. And as said Soviets did not win all the others, Bengtskär on the other hand is clearly separate from the Hanko region. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Soviets were not forced to leave by the Finns and the fighting pretty much ended by November-December 1941 around Hango (Soviet Army left in early December without being harassed by anyone). Furthermore, the battle ground was firmly in the Soviet hands as, in the end, they held more ground than they did in the beginning. That is why I insist on changing the battle outcome to indecisive. Goliath74 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Amount of Finnish harassing is not really any cause for such a determination. Also battle ground on the land had not really moved at all - after all it had been Finnish plan to contain the Soviets, not to assault them. Some islands had been fought over and 'traded' during the summer and autumn. Take comparison of say Continuation War. Finland controlled more land when it ended than they did before, fighting had died down well over a month before ceasefire started. Parallels are obvious. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Simply untrue. In the Continuation War, Finnish Government sued for peace, thereby accepting defeat. Additionally, Soviet plan was to use the base as a measure to prevent Axis naval access to the Soviet sea ports and naval bases on the Baltic coastline. That they accomplished by default (German KriegsMarine did not try particularly hard either)Goliath74 (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet the fact remains that the garrison was forced to flee and suffered heavily during its escape. Which is clear indication of overall Finnish victory at Hanko. As for that matter Hanko never managed to prevent Axis access to those ports, it did hinder but failed to prevent it. Also in similar manner Finnish goal was to contain the base, which they accomplished. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the garrison was not forced to flee. It's task was fulfilled. The Axis forces were not allowed to advance with their naval units into the Soviet Baltic sea ports. With the German GROUND troops overrunning the majority of the Soviet naval bases on the Baltic Sea the task of the base was judged fulfilled and the troops were required elsewhere. The indication of Finnish failure is obvious - the Finns had lost territory throughout the fighting. I am forced to reverse your changes. Goliath74 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a very good source, a memoir of the Russian commander of the Hanko's garrison: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/kabanov_si1/index.html (S.I. Kabanov). Very much down to every hour. It is in Russian, however. Goliath74 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that the garrison was forced (regardless of reasons) to flee leaving the battlefield to the victors - ie. to the Finns. As for that matter i have never seen any evidence the Axis would have in 1941 wanted to advance their naval units into Soviet Baltic ports, all they wanted was to contain the Soviet Navy. Minefields, U- and S-boots could do the job just fine. As for the territory claims, there is a slight mistake... Finns had started retaking the lost islands during the autumn. So the claim that Finns had lost territory throughout the fighting is false. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The garrison wasn't defeated militarily. it could hold out for many more months. it wasn't even threatened. Secondly, Soviets had captured a grand total of 18 islands. Whether or not Finns would have recaptured them is conjecture. So, aside from an abortive excursion to destroy a Bengtscar lighthouse, the Soviets did win almost every engagement of the battle.Goliath74 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you count every skerry and islet (even ones separate by a ditch) i think you can reach the number of 18 on which there were fighting. However not all of them remained on Soviets at the end. So Soviets clearly did not win 'almost every engagement'. Situation was somewhat like you describe before Finns started special training for coastal forces and retook several islands before October 1941. On the other hand it hardly matters what happened in the islands, in the end the garrison had to admit defeat and flee regardless of those. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Finns may have recupture a couple of islands but they were still on the losing end territorially and militarily. Garrison did not admit the defeat, it was transferred to other locations. Military situation did not warrant it. Soviets controlled more territory than they started with. The only difference is the task of the garrison had changed.Goliath74 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Garrison admitted defeat by withdrawing. That they could not hold the ground over the winter only proved that the siege of Hanko was successful as it forced the Soviet forces to withdraw. Finnish task was to contain the garrison, it succeeded throughout the siege. Soviet task changed when the conditions in the war and in the garrison changed so that it became untenable to hold the garrison. Clearly the siege of Hanko was successful as it forced the Soviets to flee. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Garrison had enough armaments and provision to last through the Winter and Spring of 1942. S. I. Kabanov makes it very clear. Garrison's position was not untennable. It was actually winning. The changes in the rest of the war did require its presence elsewhere and its original task to defend the base and the Soviet ports from Axis Navy was fulfilled. Hanko garrison fulfilled its objectives. Goliath74 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet the garrison fled in the end so like you said such thing like armaments and provisions do no matter. They surrendered the town of Hanko and the surrounding area to the Finns. Again, clearly the Finns won. And what exactly was the garrison winning? Its gains in the surrounding archipelago were shrinking and soon it would be totally cut off from supply routes due to the winter. Garrison had nothing but defeat in their sights. As the garrison was forced to leave clearlu it's position at Hanko had become untenable. Wanderer602 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The garrison did not flee. It actually relocated, transfered, if you will, during a 45-day period (doesn't sound like a defeated garrison, which takes so long to evacuate). Hanko garrison achieved its goals and fulfilled its task. Finnish troops had failed to dislodged it. Instead, the garrison achieved territorial advances, which it did not give up until the evacuation. Finnish troops had not regained a single one of the 18 islands lost to the Soviets until the start of evacuation.

Additionally, the garrison was removed due to the situation elsewhere. Not due to anything Finnish troops had done. And whether or not garrison had "nothing but defeat in their sights" is irrelevant. They had enough provision and ammo to last through the Spring of 1942 and they believed by then Soviet fortunes in the war would change. besides, Finns had failed at cutting Hanko off - great majority of the ships that came to evacuate the base throughout the Sep. 16 - Dec. 2 period came from outside. had the base been truly cut off, would this even be possible? Goliath74 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet it did flee. Nothing can change that. The Soviet garrison fled. Finnish troops never tried or were ordered to dislodge it. And as for that matter Finns did capture several of the islands during the autumn. So Soviets were losing in territory when the base was evacuated. As you pointed out in your own comments such things (like situation elsewhere) does not matter, all that matters is that Soviets were forced to flee, which in turn directly means that siege ended in Finnish victory. As described in literature supply situation in Hanko was even worse than at Leningrad. Situation in the besieges base was untenable and it was forced to flee, nothing else there to it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The garrison did not flee, and that's a fact. It orderly transfered piece by piece in a 45-day period. 45 days!! - does not sound like a defeated formation. Situation elsewhere caused the orders to change. Situation elsewhere is not to be described here. But it does matter. The garrison was not losing territory until the evacuation orders. The garrison was not forced to retreat. The garrison was ordered to transfer to the defense of Leningrad where it was more necessary, given that it has fulfilled its mission. I doubt you fully grasp that distinction. Goliath74 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In late 1941 the base was abandoned and surrendered to Finns. That is only possible if the Soviet garrison fled. On land front it wasn't losing ground, then again neither were the Finns - in the surrounding archipelago Soviets however had been gradually losing ground. So it is just convenient that garrisons orders changed so that it could flee to Leningrad under orders? All the while Finnish side the orders never changed regarding Hanko. Garrison may have followed orders but in that case it was ordered to flee. That does not change the fact that the base was surrendered to Finns or that Finns won at Hanko. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The base was abandoned but the battle was indecisive. The abandonment of the base was not a consequence of any fighting. It was a consequence to an October 16 order to bring the Hanko troops to support the defensive effort around Leningrad. The following 45-50 days the evacuation took place, in many stages, deliberately. The garrison fulfilled its objective. After which it was transfered. Prior to the order, and I suspect, until the very last days of evacuation, Soviet garrison had not been losing ground.

Had the mainland situation on the Soviet-German front been more stable the evacuation order may have never come. The garrison was doing well on Hanko.Goliath74 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The small fights (including all action at land, archipelago and even at Bengtskär) during battle or siege of Hanko were indecisive. However the Soviet action in the end was not. As the situation of the base had become untenable it was to flee to Leningrad and surrender the base to Finns leaving Finns clearly the victors. Garrison may have held to its objective but in the end was ordered to surrender it to the Finns - there is no way past it. How the garrison was doing is irrelevant, Finns were doing just as fine on their side of the front line. In the end Soviets fled and left the whole area to victorious Finns. What-if discussions do not belong to the article so the situation you describe is irrelevant. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The base's situation was never untennable. It was ordered to transfer to support a more important part of the front (defense of Leningrad). The fighting was indecisive. Soviet troops did not retreat as the result of action. Soviet troops were transfered. I am sure Finns were doing fine. Thus, the verdict is "indecisive". Neither side won. Goliath74 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither party won in the fighting done at Hanko. However that does not change that Soviets were forced to flee (ordered or not) and therefore surrendered the base to Finns. Regardless of how the battles progressed the Finns won at Hanko in the end as Soviets were forced to flee. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Break

Problem with the source is that it uses the same statements which have already previously been shown false, like stating that Finland was under Mannerheims government, describing German troop transfers via Turku, endlessly repeated fantasy tale of large bombing raid from Finland, Finnish aerial losses over Hanko (which in reality amounted to 2)... Not to mention that even the Russian source states that even at the end they tried to evacuate all 28 000 troops from Hanko, which would have been quite an achievement if there would have been only 25 000 troops present. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, none of this has anything to do with Hanko. The source spends most of the time talking about Hanko and most of the rest - about action on Moonsund. Secondly, the 28,000 number comes from other troops that were being evacuated from other outposts of the Soviet front (S. I. Kabanov, На дальних подступах, VoenIzdat, 1971, p. 249, http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/kabanov_si1/13.html ), like Hiiumaa, Tallinn, etc, which had to stop at Hanko on their way East. The book does talk about it in detail. The book actually lists 25,000 as the number of defenders. Which also happens to be the number on the Russian language Wiki page for Hanko. I did not contribute to it.Goliath74 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So the evacuated troops increased the strength of the garrison. (At least) 28,000 - 30,000 is still the number of troops attempted to be evacuated as Hanko garrison (and therefore also the strength of Hanko garrison late in 1941. Several and severe inaccuracies (bordering on lies to be honest) are present in the source which does cast doubt on the source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the evacuated troops did not increase the strength of the garrison. The evacuation of the garrison had actually began in mid-October, even before troops from Hiiumaa were evacuated to Hanko. So, at no time did the Soviets have more than 25,300 at the base. 25,300 is the initial strength of the garrison. Goliath74 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Number 30,000 is however still listed in the sources as the strength of the garrison at the time of the evacuation. Several of sources list initial strengths to be around 28 000. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any sources that list 30,000 as the garrison's strength at any point. 25,300 had been the prescribed initial strength of the garrison and, in the beginning of the hostilities, it was even further reduced as some units were sent to fight the German forces on the mainland, namely the almost entire air force of the base (except for one squadron) and most of its naval strength (except for 7 torpedo or hunter boats).Goliath74 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the listed sources. They do present the number of 28,000 to 30,000.You can not change what they are saying just because you do not like it. And as for that matters Germans took no part in any of the fighting around Hanko. Their bombers did occasionally dump their loads to Hanko in case of poor weather on primary target but beyond that they took no part to the fighting, not at sea off the Hanko, not at surrounding archipelago and not at land front. So including them in the infobox makes no sense. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The listed sources include the garrison of Osmussaar (the island between Estonia main land and Hiiumaa), which was evacuated at the same time. Kabanov also mentions 28,000 when including Osmussaar. These troops were never fighting on Hanko. Additionally, the very fact of German bombers participating merits inclusion of German Nazi flag in infobox. Additionally, German minesweepers also heavily mined waters around Hanko. So, German participation was there. Whether or not it was significant is not relevant.

The Russia Navy's Heroic Defense of Hanko site ( http://www.rusnavy.ru/d03/212.htm ) also lists 25,000 as the size of the garrison. Goliath74 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fighting or not they were part of the manpower of the garrison. German minesweepers did not mine the waters. Furthermore German forces took part in none of the fighting in the area. They earn a note but nothing else. Including them to the list makes about as much sense as including UK and USA as belligerents into to the eastern front. Garrison strength could have been around there at some point but during the evacuation it was (as per several sources) around 28,000 to 30,000. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Osmussaar garrison WASN'T EVEN ON HANKO, so they can not count among the defenders of Hanko! At no point were more than 25,300 Soviet troops on Hanko. And German mining ships were involved in the mining of the waters around Hanko. Every source, including the ones listed, talks about it. Goliath74 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If the troops from Osmussaar were evacuated to Hanko at some point they do count towards the number of Soviet troops present at Hanko or do they not? German ships were mining waters in Gulf of Finland. Not specifically around Hanko. Battle of Hanko handles the events related specifically to (siege/battle/1941) Hanko not to the whole of the Gulf of Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Most Osmussaar defenders never set foot on Hanko. Mainly the wounded from Tallinn, Hiiumaa, and Osmussaar were evacuated to Hanko. It is not a military historians practice to consider the wounded personnel (wounded elsewhere) among the active fighting strength. Goliath74 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not try to mix the issue. The sources explicitly state that 28,000-30,000 troops were attempted to be evacuated from Hanko which gives us a solid number for the strength of the garrison at the time of the evacuation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources I provided clearly state that 28,000 were evacuated at the same time. but not from Hanko. Sources I provide state very clearly that the convoys from Osmussaar brought the wounded into one of the two Hanko military hospitals and took the active defenders from Osmussaar to Kronstadt.Goliath74 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet the other source explicitly set the number of troops to 28,000-30,000. Are all the other sources wrong and only the one you provided (which is riddled with errors to begin with) has the correct values? Osmussaar garrison was evacuated using tug Laine to Hanko and from there to Kronstad. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Iosif Stalin Ship

The Iosif Stalin "passenger ship" that is being linked to from the article is not the ship that was destroyed as the result of the Hanko evacuation. This ship was severely damaged (but survived) during the Tallin evacuation earlier. The Iosif Stalin ship that did sink as a result of the Hanko Evacuation was a different ship, the turbosteamer Iosif Stalin.Goliath74 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting claim, since by most accounts it is, including the article of the ship in question. Its sister ship Molotov was the one damaged during the evacuation of Tallinn. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a claim, it's a Wiki link correction. Go check out the Wiki article on the passenger ship Iosif Stalin and the turbosteamer Iosif Stalin. I suspect whoever started this article confused the two Iosif Stalin ships. Goliath74 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Does not appear to be so, more than likely they refer to a same ship. Even the corresponding ru-wiki article talks of the very same ship (including same pennant number). - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)