This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
were 381 incidents between 1965 and 1977. According to data cited in official documents, one third of such incidents occurred on surface ships, with ten percent of them taking place while ships were in port.”
On 18 May, Pravda accused the United States of creating a threat to life and vegetation on the sea floor by planning to sink the “rusty bodies” of the ballistic missile submarines Abraham Lincoln (SSBN-602) and Theodore Roosevelt (SSBN-600) while they “still contain residual radioactivity.”
The Surface Line Laments
Soviet naval leaders now proudly state in their Navy Day articles and speeches that “ours is an ocean-going and nuclear missile fleet. In terms of its technical equipment, it meets all the demands of modem warfare. . . . The Navy has everything necessary . . . nuclear-
powered submarines . . . missile-carrying aviation . . . missile cruisers . . . naval infantry.” Less widely publicized are the effects of that naval modernization on personnel requirements, promotion opportunities, and traditional officer career patterns.
On 28 December, an article in Red Star by Captain Second Rank N. Novozhilov, commanding officer of the old Baltic Fleet gun cruiser Oktyabrskaya Revolyut- siaya, highlighted those issues. He wrote:
“Not long ago 1 met a former classmate from higher naval school [one of a number of Soviet higher educational institutions that are the equivalents of the U. S. Naval Academy]. This officer recently left ship duty and is now on shore duty. . . . [H]e asked [me] with a note of superiority, ‘Aren’t you tired of sea duty? . . . [I]t’s time you had shore duty, too. The duty is easier, ... the pay is the same, and, as you can see, there is no problem with promotions.’ Yes, somewhere along the line my comrade had managed to pass me in rank. With such a comparison, it appeared that one could hardly take issue with what he said.
“I am not talking about my feelings, although such conversations do not raise my spirits. But how, I wondered, would young officers view such situations (and they are not isolated)? Which choice would they make for themselves, and what choices are they actually making?
“I would make one stipulation right off: 1 do not mean to cast aspersions on officers on shore duty or at institutions. But now I conclude, not only from my own personal observations but also the comments of other ship commanders, that some sort of annoying misalignment has occurred. Easier, less responsible positions than those on board ship have become prestigious for some officers. . . . What can be done about the profound respect for sea-duty personnel, which is being eroded by this sort of “shore- based” psychology?
“I also want to draw attention to certain other issues, perhaps private but sufficiently topical for sea-duty personnel. There has long been talk about the need to establish a chest badge for commanders of surface ships. . . . [T]he submariners have had one since ... the war. I don’t understand; what harm is it to equalize sea-duty personnel of surface ships with submarines in this case?”
Inspiring Careers
Only the most active and exemplary members of the Communist Party are chosen as delegates to the Party congresses. The March issue of Morskoy Sbornik, the Soviet Navy’s professional journal, summarizes the personal qualities and professional careers of two naval officers selected as delegates to the recent congress.
One is Captain Second Rank Viktor A. Krikunov, commanding officer of the guided-missile cruiser Slava. He was said to have “overcome the failures and mistakes that occur in the first years of service” and, by his “industriousness and persistence,” to have achieved good results. As a lieutenant, he attained command of a battery before his compatriots of the same age. On his ship, he was considered an effective specialist, “a careful and thoughtful instructor, and an active, principled Communist.” “Good evaluations inspired him” and he accepted new
“In the north, he made his wa^ the difficult steps of fleet service^ from lieutenant and navigator board a submarine to fieet r mander. He was the first a diesel submarine, and a subm ^ commander. Then he guided on
our first nuclear-powered submar through the northern seas. ■ • • “Captain Third Rank V. N- ^ navin was also among the P'on^ sllb-
assimilation of nuclear-powere -
marines. The nuclear-powere marine under his command cr beneath the arctic ice to work ou ^ procedures for navigation benea ice and surfacing in ice-free g 1
challenges with confidence. In turn, he became a department head, deputy commander, and commander of a large antisubmarine warfare ship. After attending the Soviet Naval Academy (the Soviet Navy’s mid-career educational institution, similar to a combination of the U. S. Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval War College), he was assigned as commander of the Slava. While that is a great responsibility, he already has “no small experience” and “took up his duty with confidence.”
The second officer was Captain Second Rank Mikhail F. Pinchak, commander of the guided-missile cruiser Groznyy. As a new lieutenant, after his first voyage in the Mediterranean, he said to his friends, “In ten years, I will be commander of this cruiser. ’ ’ He was not one to waste words. Pinchak was the first of his group to become division officer, and his division was soon outstanding. When department head, his department was the best in the squadron for two years. He achieved every military position ahead of schedule and excelled in academic work. Now assigned as commanding officer of the cruiser, Pinchak is an “indefatigable worker” with an “aspiration to fulfill his responsibilities as best he can.” He considers his greatest luck is in having good people, his deputy, his political officer, and “almost all” of his department heads.
The Early Northern Fleet Sub Force submarine group, to study the operations and maintenance of equipment, and to conduct various scientific studies.
The Soviets take pride in referring to the voyage as a “first,” and emphasize that it was a group voyage that occurred without surfacing. But they acknowledge that the U. S. nuclear submarine Triton (SSN-586) made a solo round-the-world trip in February-April 1960, which was interrupted by a forced surfacing.
Upon completion of the cruise, the title of “Hero of the Soviet Union” was awarded to Admiral Sorokin, Captain Second Rank Vyacheslav T. Vinogradov, and Captain Third Rank (Engineering) Stanislav P. Samsonov, the commander and engineer of the flagship. Captain Second Rank (later Rear Admiral) Lev N. Stolyarov and Captain Second Rank (Engineering) Ivan F. Morozov, the commanding officer and engineer of another submarine along with Captain Second Rank (later Rear Admiral) Nikolay V. Usenko, probably the political officer of one of the subs, also were named Heroes of the Soviet Union.
In February, the Soviet military history journal carried an article written in the typically dramatic and politically oriented style of Soviet history. Nevertheless, it did offer more specifics on the purposes of the voyage and provided some operational details. The cruise was made to test the submarines and their systems under a variety of climatic and hydrographic conditions and to work on tactical training, communications, and command and control. The subs performed complicated high-speed maneuvering that required each commander to know his exact position at all times.
The March issue of Morskoy Sbornik carried a longer article by retired Captain Second Rank G. A. Savichev, a military journalist who participated in the voyage, reported on it in Red Star at the time, and described it in a 1967 book. His article provided a personal view and more details on the contributions of other personnel. He identified and described the activities of various watch officers and others such as the Flag Navigator Dmitri E. Erdman. The article was accompanied with a picture of Admiral Sorokin and others posing with King Neptune as the ships crossed the equator.
A related Red Star article on 15 April described the career of Admiral Stolyarov, the commander of one submarine in the 1966 patrol, now Commander of the Nakhimov School, the secondary and preparatory school of the Soviet Navy. The article reported that as a Captain-Lieutenant, Stolyarov served as a senior department head in a Northern
Fleet submarine under the comman now-Fleet Admiral Vladimir N. navin. Chemavin recalls with °“v'° pride Stolyarov’s leadership 9ua 11L” career progression, and his service commanding officer of one of the su This mention of Admiral Chemavl connection with the round-the"'v° s cruise is similar to a revision tha made to the official history of the 0 em Fleet between the 1977 edition the 1983 edition while Chemavin was Fleet Commander in Chief (1 y to 16 December 1981). In the 19 ^
sion, Chemavin was not mentione 1 text, the historical chronology, or the ing of the Heroes of the Soviet n The 1983 edition, however, descr Chemavin as a Hero of the Soviet ^ and cites two 1981 newspaper artic e describe his career:
sub-
In the 1983 chronological 1>S ^ ?n Admiral Chernavin’s entry is inse e^ 1962, just prior to the entry f°r 1 ^er- mous under-ice cruise of the Nove ^grn. class nuclear submarine Lenirtskiy sotnol to the North Pole. It predates ^ September 1963 cruise beneath the P ice cap and North Pole surfacing, won a Hero of the Soviet Union desic- ^ tion for Captain First Rank Yuriy ^ Sysoyev, later an Admiral and Con1 der-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet. • .c precedes the 1963 entry for the ^ cruise, apparently from the No Fleet to the Pacific Fleet, of a su^nia under the command of Captain First Arkadiy P. Mikhaylovskiy, later an ^ miral and Chemavin’s relief as mander of the Northern Fleet.
While Commander of the Nor^ Fleet, Chemavin received belated rcC^r nition as a pioneer submarine cornman ^ whose activity set the stage for quent important “firsts.” Now, as mander-in-Chief of the Navy, attention being directed to his contributions to other important submarine first.
the 'ate anc* May while
the S CSIern Press informed readers about an l i°* * * * V'Ct nuclcar disaster at Chernobyl for ecr'e(l the lack of timely Soviet inspa at'0n’ t6e Soviet press devoted little
CouCe to rePorting that event. Instead, it
tow.n ere<^ by giving more space to dis- nu ? 3nC* 'ntinted reporting of Western ear accidents, including some in-
V°QlnS the U. S. Navy.
n ^6 April, the mass-circulation WsPaPer Pray da reported:
The U. S. Navy Poseidon-class nuclear-powered submarine Nathan- ae Greene [SSBN-636] got into a se- |10as accident when on patrol in the p's" 8ea in March this year. . . . Characteristically, the U. S. military reniained tight-lipped for more than a m°nth about the accident which caused, at least, radioactive contamination of the coastal waters of a num- cp of European nations.* The wreck ? . cNathanael Greene is far from eing a single accident in the U. S. strategic nuclear force.”
On i May, tjje sovjet mijj_
y newspaper, reported:
About 30 incidents involving nu- 'ear weapons occurred in the U. S. ](?vy on average between 1965 and • The Pentagon admits that there
Note;The U. S. Navy r go ( 1 w" 'he Nathanael Greene we ft. Und’n 'he Irish Sea on 13 March ai Car rd submerSed to Charleston, Sou Anri] Under her own power on , ■ A Navy spokesman stated th
PrZ?, WOS "° effect on ^ Inuclea to ,h Sl°n' no '"juries” and no damat ° 'he missiles.
During February and March 1986, the Soviet Navy marked the 20th anniversary of the first round-the-world submerged voyage by a group of nuclear-powered submarines. That event was highly publicized at the time, and has since been chronicled in books, official Soviet naval histories, and individual memoirs.
Despite this attention, operational details have remained vague. The cruise was made by an unspecified number of Northern Fleet submarines, variously described as a squadron, detachment, or group under the command of Rear Admiral (later Vice Admiral) Anatoliy I. Sorokin. The voyage started sometime in February 1966, and is said to have followed a route from arctic waters, across the equator, around South America via the Drake Passage, and into antarctic waters. The course homeward, which was by an unstated route, completed a transit totaling nearly 25,000 miles in a month and a half. Standard series- produced submarines with their normal crews aboard reportedly made the trip. The publicized purposes of the voyage were to develop coordination among the