I was perusing a copy of the old Cape Cod Times (in a compendium volume), and came across a rather odd little news item:
Russina submarines detected off Argentina. The Argentine Navy detected two unknown submarines, in the Gulfo Nuevo. A pattern of depth charges was dropped, in an attempt to force the unknown submarines to surface. Admiral Bergman Montiz Cuver of the Argentine navy said that contract with the subs was lost after the depth charges were dropped. A spokesman for the US Navy said that the depth charges used by the Argentine Navy were of a type that could not be set for depths greater than 650 feet.
An unofficial report said that the body of a diver (presumably from a submarine) was recovered as well.
I was just wondering…did the Russian Navy have any long-range submarines in 1960? And what on earth would they be doing off the Argentine coast?
The Soviets certainly had long-range subs back then. Several of them showed up near Cuba during the Missile Crisis of 1962:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/
No idea what they were doing there, but it’s amazing where subs show up. I’m sure US subs have been right off the coast of most maritime countries. During WWII, German subs came right up to the US eastern coastline. They just didn’t do anything there, like sinking merchant vessels or shelling cities.
The Soviets’ first nuclear sub entered service in 1958. I don’t know if that alone would make it “long-distance.” The subs could have been American or British on a clandestine mission. Either way, a sub could be doing anything from eavesdropping to just plain being daringly close to a foreign coast.
The whole point of subs is that you can move them anywhere virtually undetected. Doesn’t seem implausible to me. Also, first generation USSR nuclear subs also used diesel, so it seems to me they might fill up on their way from friendly but inconspicuous ships.
If the subs were unknown, how do they know they were Russian, er Soviet?
Supporting the peoples democratic liberation front of what ever flavor. Dropping off or picking up spies, training missions on sneak and peak in a foreign waters, just dont get caught.
Probably just what the USN was doing off the Russian coasts.
Declan
This has nothing to do with subs, but back when either the U2 or the SR-71 was active, it used to overfly the middle east, including Israel. The Israelis scrambled fighters which could track the bogey, but not reach it do to the operation height it flew at. They found out who owned it by consulting Janes aircraft and looking up the parameters for aircraft flying at that height.
If that boat was a diesel electric, it would have been eyeballed at some point in transit between its home port and argentina, and either the USN or the RN would have let the argies know a bear was in town.
Declan
I’m not sure if this is intended as a woosh or not, but German subs did quite a bit on the US east coast in both wars. (e.g. Second Happy Time, shelling of Orleans, Mass)
They also landed agents on Long Island.
News to me. I’d never heard of these . Thanks for relating them.
Although the WWII actions aren’t the sort of direct-attack-on-US-mainland I had in mind.
Well, the only reason they didn’t shell was that there was much more military value to be had in sinking vessels than in shelling some light sources ashore. The commanders of the U-boats describe watching the lights of US cities (which they could not believe weren’t blacked out for war), and watching Ferris wheels turning, cars driving past, and individual people walking around. They were right offshore and, while there, they killed more Americans than were lost in the Pearl Harbor attack, if you’re looking for “damage.”