The legacy of Admiral Gorshkov: mistakes or greatness?

36 161 94
The legacy of Admiral Gorshkov: mistakes or greatness?

Unobtrusively, without a pump, and generally without any extra memories, February 26th passed the 110th anniversary of the birth of Sergei Georgievich Gorshkov.

Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, a man who left behind not some virtual legacy in the form of memoirs, memoirs, thoughts, but a very real confirmation of his work.



Some today allow themselves to criticize everything created under Gorshkov. Yes, there were things that are difficult to understand today. For example, the rejection of the construction of aircraft carriers in favor of cruisers. But what was done under Gorshkov. was done.

And most importantly, even today, after 30 years ago, Admiral Gorshkov went on his last voyage, his creations are the backbone of the Russian fleet.

You can criticize as much as you like, but what was done under Gorshkov was done for a long time. And we should remember his merits with a great deal of gratitude. The main one is that under Gorshkov, with his labors, we had a fleet, to which even the USA belonged with a certain amount of respect. And this is a fact from which it is impossible to get out.

In 1959, the fleet was armed with nuclear submarines of project 658.


26 knots at a depth of 300 meters, autonomy of 50 days. In 178, the K-1963 submarine was the first in the world among submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles. rockets on board made a 16-day trans-Arctic underwater passage. K-178 covered four and a half thousand miles from Zapadnaya Litsa in the Murmansk region to the Far East, to Krasheninnikov Bay. These boats made the Americans think. Think about security and the fact that America is not so invulnerable.

Submarines of project 658 and 658M for a long time acted as a counterbalance to the American nuclear submarines and an important component of the nuclear triad of the USSR, having served from the 60s to 90s of the last century.

Nuclear submarine of project 667BDR Kalmar.


Armed with 16 R-29R ballistic missiles with monoblock or multiple warheads. Each "Squid" carried on board about 600 kilotons. In accuracy, these complexes were not inferior to the nuclear strikes of strategic bombers.

On these ships hydroacoustic equipment quite modern by world standards, space communications and navigation aids appeared. On board the nuclear powered ships appeared saunas, tanning salons and gyms.

One “Squid” (“Ryazan”) still serves in the Pacific Ocean.

Nuclear submarine of project 941 "Shark".


The largest submarines in stories. They were created in response to the American Trident program, under which they built the Ohio nuclear submarine with 24 nuclear intercontinental missiles.

The USSR also developed a new ballistic missile R-39 with ten individually guided warheads. There was a boat under the rocket. An underwater monster with a displacement of about 50 thousand tons, a length of 172 and a width of more than 20 meters carried on board two dozen ballistic missiles.

In fact, these were two combined submarines parallel to each other. Now the Russian Navy has only one submarine of this project: the Dmitry Donskoy nuclear submarine, adapted for testing and running the new Bulava missile system.

The submarine fleet of the USSR and Russia by inheritance became a real nightmare for potential opponents. He is now no less formidable weaponsthan in those years when Gorshkov personally escorted submarines on responsible campaigns.

But the surface fleet was not left behind. Under Gorshkov, ships were developed and created that could independently operate in the far ocean zone in isolation from the main forces and coastal bases.

Nuclear-powered missile cruisers of Project 1144 Orlan.


Four cruisers were to become the basis of the new Soviet Navy. Able to withstand any enemy at sea, designed to deal with enemy aircraft carrier formations, the largest ships in the world not carrying aviation. Still.

And until now, one "Orlan" is still in service, and perhaps another one will join it.

However, the projects that survived the collapse of the USSR, the heavy nuclear cruisers Peter the Great and Admiral Nakhimov, the missile cruisers of the Atlant project 1164 (Varyag and Moscow), nuclear submarines - all this was a small part of the admiral’s global strategy Gorshkov, who dreamed of an indestructible ocean nuclear missile fleet, which could act as a counterweight to US carrier strike groups.

A concept was developed to contain US carrier strike groups.

To do this, it was necessary to form autonomous formations of warships (nuclear, of course), capable of ensuring the security of the country's long sea borders and delivering surprise strikes anywhere in the World Ocean.

The shock nuclei of such compounds were to be the nuclear carriers of project 1143.7. The main Ulyanovsk was laid in 1988, but perestroika began. The ship was dismantled on a slipway in the early 90's.

To cover these aircraft carriers far from their native shores was supposed to be “Orlanes” and atomic anti-submarine ships of Project 11437 “Anchar”. And if the "Eagles" still built, then the "Anchars" remained on paper. The project was recognized too expensive and eventually closed.

The meaning of the "Gorshkov doctrine" was reduced to creating the possibility for the destruction of enemy carrier groups on the principle "we do not have aircraft carriers, but you will not have them."

Here, Gorshkov’s interests coincided with the vision of Nikita Khrushchev, who is known to have relied on missile weapons.

In 1956, Admiral Sergei Gorshkov became commander in chief of the Navy of the USSR. It was very difficult. It was very difficult. It was necessary to reduce the fleet and send for scrap ships that could still serve and serve. Alas.

In order to please Nikita Sergeyevich, the new commander in chief had to seriously reduce the personnel of the fleet, send ships declared “unnecessary” “under the knife”.

After the resignation of Khrushchev in 1964 and the rise to power of Leonid Brezhnev, Gorshkov got a real chance to implement his plans. Brezhnev reasonably believed that the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy was better versed in his economy and did not meddle in the affairs of the fleet.

Gorshkov worked hard to create the so-called "high seas fleet", in fact, similar to the German one. Over the creation of groupings of ships carrying combat duty for a long time away from their native shores.

The “High Seas Fleet” was to become a tool for solving the geopolitical tasks of the Soviet Union.

The British, who, whatever one may say, understood in maritime affairs, wrote that if someone turned the USSR into a superpower at sea, it was Admiral Gorshkov.

When Sergey Georgievich resigned, he left behind a fleet capable of accepting the challenge of any opponent.

Yes, the Gorshkov Doctrine is criticized today. Considering it too costly, too fragmented and unbalanced. And it is true.

But the truth is that Sergey Georgievich Gorshkov brought the Soviet fleet to such a level that it was simply unattainable to him. And which is unlikely to be achieved in the coming decades.

Admiral Gorshkov in life was lucky three times. He fought and became a winner. He built ships and built a beautiful and strong fleet. He died without seeing what the followers of perestroika did to his brainchild.

110 years ago, in the small town of Kamenetz-Podolsky, a real admiral was born.
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    28 February 2020 06: 17
    The British, who, whatever one may say, understood in maritime affairs, wrote that if someone turned the USSR into a superpower at sea, it was Admiral Gorshkov.
    A superpower cannot be a superpower without a powerful fleet. Russia, as a great country, also cannot be great and united without a strong fleet. Therefore, those who are in favor of "Grachat" and corvettes to submarines, at best, "wanted the best," at worst, these are "servants of the State Department," traitors. I really liked one comment on the topic on submarines, this, again, from the category of what kind of fleet we need.
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Unless you need to intensively build submarines with nuclear missiles, which are the main scarecrow for our sworn partners.

    And here we again find ourselves in the situation described by Krylov.
    By themselves, SSBNs do not make sense - they need to somehow be withdrawn from the base and brought to the positioning area. For if we accept the concept of “shooting from the berths,” then SSBNs are not needed for this - the same PGRKs will be more effective and tenacious.
    So we need OVR. They built an IDF - he pulled along the coastal aircraft for his cover.
    OVR ensured the SSBN exit from the base - now we need to ensure a safe transition to the position area. That is, we need our own ICAPL and FR / BOD to combat the ICAPL of the enemy / cleans the area. But the FR needs air cover, because the enemy will not calmly look at how someone is hunting for his nuclear submarines. And in the end, this whole chain ends with the need to build an AB. smile
    (from commentary by Alexey RA (Aleksey))
    1. + 11
      28 February 2020 06: 32
      Therefore, those who are in favor of "Grachat" and corvettes to submarines, at best, "wanted the best," at worst, these are "servants of the State Department," traitors.
      "Crooks and thieves" with servants can take offense.
      110 years ago, in the small town of Kamenetz-Podolsky, a real admiral was born.
      Precisely what is REAL! That's about whom the film of the same name was worth filming, and not about the "supreme traitor" who was "drowned" in the hole. Many thanks to the author for the article! hi
    2. + 10
      28 February 2020 06: 36
      We need such ships at sea,
      So that we can argue with any wave.
      Lighthouses are needed and we need a locator,
      And we need loyal guys.

      We need hikes to serve at sea
      And greetings from home in distant waters.
      And so as not to waste free minutes,
      Of course, we need a guitar in the cockpit.

      We need anchors and cables for service,
      We need a charter that all sailors remember.
      Need a flag that flies above the blue wave
      And the Motherland is most needed - Russia.

      And then water is like earth to us.
      And then we have a crew - a family.
      And then any of us do not mind
      Although all his life to serve in the navy.
    3. +4
      28 February 2020 08: 44
      Desire is there is no possibility; opportunity is there is no desire. So let's drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities!
    4. +3
      28 February 2020 10: 30
      Therefore, those who are in favor of "Grachat" and corvettes to submarines, at best, "wanted the best," at worst, these are "servants of the State Department," traitors.

      But what if the opposite is true?
      Did it ever occur to you that in the depths of the CIA there is a disinformation department that introduces self-destructive ideas into the minds of Russians?
      For example, to start building right now, right now urgently 14 Boreev and 33 Ash, we need parity with the Americans, Gorshkov reasoned like that.
      And then - as in the quote that you quoted: "SSBNs themselves do not make sense ..."
      1. +8
        28 February 2020 11: 56
        Quote: Arzt
        Gorshkov argued that way.
        Gorshkov was a naval commander of the Soviet Union, on the margin of which Russian capitalism is still riding. What are the "urgent urgent" now? Let's not engage in demagogy, if we talk about the fleet, we must understand that you need to build a full-fledged fleet. Here, in this, "here" and "now", will manifest itself only after many years. We will lose the experience of building ships of the 1st rank, after that you cannot buy this experience, it also does not fall from space. So that Gorshkov could build an ocean-going fleet, we cooperated with Italy before the war, making projects for new destroyers and cruisers, and after the war we studied captured ships received from reparations. Finally, the very development in socialism made it possible to build a space and nuclear superpower, whose strong fleet was a reflection of its capabilities.

        We will not build more aircraft carriers than the United States, we will not even build more frigates and corvettes, but we need to have a full-fledged, harmonious fleet capable of solving ALL problems at sea. This is what we are talking about. Still, without a fleet, Russia will roll back to the "Muscovy", all attempts of Peter I, who fought for access to the seas, for the empire, will go to dust. And, don't talk about the people's penny, about saving. With our oligarch brothers, with hundreds of billions flowing out of Russia, a picture in the subject for our "economists" and "strategists".
        1. -1
          28 February 2020 12: 26
          Let's not engage in demagogy, if we talk about the fleet, we must understand that you need to build a full-fledged fleet. Here, in this, "here" and "now", will manifest itself only after many years.

          But we must take into account the priorities, the current economic situation and the experience of previous wars? Do not you think that if in the 30s half of the funds allocated to the fleet went to the ground forces and aviation, then the war would have gone differently? And vice versa, if half were added to the Navy, would the border between the Reich and the Japanese empire pass through the Urals?
          1. +5
            28 February 2020 12: 48
            Quote: Arzt
            But we must take into account the priorities, the current economic situation and the experience of previous wars?
            Should, of course, should, Yuri. Nobody calls for "catching up and overtaking" the United States on aircraft carriers or, as you have "straight urgently 14 Boreev and 33 Ash". I will say it more simply, to illustrate the idea, we do not need a hundred chessboards with sets of pieces, like the USA or anyone else, but we must play this naval "chess" not with just pawns, but with a full set of pieces, including light and heavy pieces. This is a balanced, full-fledged fleet, capable of solving all the problems in such a "chess game". However, for this we need to think not only about the "pipeline", about pumping raw materials from Russia, but also have a clear military doctrine, plus a national idea. We must also understand that there are laws of geopolitics, according to these laws and it is desirable to build our foreign policy, which will be covered by our fleet. Otherwise, "They won't get off with tomatoes" and "Let them just try" will remain words, including such as "She drowned" ...
            1. 0
              28 February 2020 13: 17
              but we must play this naval "chess" not with pawns alone, but with a full set of pieces, including light and heavy pieces. This is a balanced, full-fledged fleet, capable of solving all tasks in such a "chess game"

              I understand the idea of ​​a balanced fleet as a set of surface and submarine ships, from corvettes and minesweepers, to the AB and the SSBN, plus naval aviation and naval forces. Something like this was formulated by Gorshkov, and so it has been invested in the minds of naval officers since cadet times.

              But let's look at it from the other side. Let's say we have one full-fledged AUG and we send it to the shores of Syria or Venezuela. The Americans get involved in the conflict, it escalates into the Third World War, and our game will end, like in Ilf and Petrov's story - with a board to the head.

              It turns out that in order to fully confront the United States, forcing them out of their zones of influence, we must have an equivalent fleet. And given their allies - even more. It was along this path that the USSR followed, which ultimately led to collapse.
              And if we have a limited fleet, then it will be able to carry out limited tasks, and still we will be stuck in the opposition of the West.

              So isn’t it easier to strengthen the economy in the territory of the largest country in the world, keep a small coastal fleet and aviation for border protection, completely abandon the SSBN and all the smut with their launch areas, and concentrate on silos and their protection?
              And live for your pleasure. Or can’t we?
              1. +4
                28 February 2020 14: 28
                Quote: Arzt
                And live for your pleasure. Or can’t we?
                A certain contingent with us lives for pleasure. It seems that they don’t need either an army or a fleet, they don’t understand right away their actual masters, and people don’t understand, and after Yeltsin the rating of these gentlemen fell below the plinth, it was necessary to raise this rating and puff it out.

                They will not let us live for our pleasure, the West can only "love" Russia when it is very weak, and this is the collapse of the country, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia itself. Without the navy, it is impossible to defend our national interests, to pursue a foreign policy, which must be based on force, on the demonstration of force. That is, the theme of "sausage" in a single "happiness" is a utopia. And, one coastal fleet cannot do, do not indulge yourself with illusions. Therefore, either we have a full-fledged fleet, a strong army in general, or those who have a full-fledged fleet and a strong army have us.
                Also, a full-fledged fleet from your "equivalent" is far from the same thing. You described a dilemma where it is so bad, but bad only in the case of a "limited fleet", it is possible to fully resist the United States even with a smaller number of ships. It's not even about war, not about epic sea battles. By and large, the role of the surface fleet is now more in the prevention of war, in the timely relief of problems, in the demonstration of strength. Here, behind each of our ships should be "all the might of the Soviet Union." This is how one of our commanders answered earlier that there are more NATO ships nearby. The prelaunch period, deployment and cover is also important, but if it comes to global strikes, then if something survives at sea, these ships will have nowhere to return. In this there is no point in butting with the United States in terms of the number of ships' personnel, but Russia should have quality in individual groupings, at the right time and in the right place. I hope that you will understand me correctly.
                1. -2
                  28 February 2020 14: 48
                  You can fully resist the United States and having fewer ships.

                  How? How exactly do you see it?
                  By and large, the role of the surface fleet is now more in the prevention of war, in the timely relief of problems, in the demonstration of strength. Here, behind each of our ships should be "all the might of the Soviet Union."

                  This is not only now. Fleets have always been an element of intimidation as well.
                  But we are talking about a situation when everything has begun. Ponte no longer roll, it's time to show the cards.
                  Like it or not, here the ICBM with nuclear weapons decides. And carriers must be resilient. Boreas with cloudy missiles, in unsecured areas, with a low coefficient of operational voltage are not included.
                  Meaning?
                  1. +1
                    29 February 2020 09: 29
                    It doesn’t solve a damn thing, as nuclear weapons do not guarantee the destruction of such countries AS RF and the USA
                    1. -1
                      29 February 2020 10: 28
                      It doesn’t solve a damn thing, as nuclear weapons do not guarantee the destruction of such countries AS RF and the USA

                      I agree to all 100. And that's good. You can even get away from the Nuclear Forces and all the hemorrhages with their support, create a PLO based on specialized corvettes of the Baltic, Black Sea Fleet) frigates (SF, Pacific Fleet), aviation, and Scythians. Plus, three dozen small nuclear submarines - hunters of the French "Ryubi" type - drive the adversary under the ice, and if you have to, then gasp along the AV.
                      To demonstrate the flag, travel and scare the pirates to keep a couple of cruisers in the dimensions of the Atlanteans, only smaller weapons and larger toilets.
              2. 0
                3 March 2020 17: 18
                Quote: Arzt
                But let's look from the other side. Suppose we have one full-fledged AUG and we send it to the shores of Syria or Venezuela

                according to this logic, you do not need to have an ocean fleet request and if you look from the third side - simply the presence of our ships excluded US intervention against India, and if there had been an AUG on a non-missile cruiser - would it have been worse for the USSR Navy? hi
                Quote: Arzt
                And live for your pleasure. Or can’t we?

                are we talking about the USSR? but for the Russian Federation this is a dream ... alas, almost unattainable and not our fault ...
          2. +3
            28 February 2020 15: 22
            Don't you think that if in the 30s half of the funds allocated to the fleet went to the ground forces and aviation, then the war would have gone differently?


            Pennies were invested in the fleet in the 30s, which later fell into the war in huge vain losses during landing operations due to the lack of ships, the inability to disrupt the offensive operations of the Finns and Germans in the Baltic because the fleet was paralyzed by mines, etc.
            The army already gobbled up almost all the money, and eventually went to them to Moscow and the Volga.
            1. -1
              28 February 2020 17: 40
              Then he fell into the war with huge vain losses during landing operations due to the lack of ships, the inability to disrupt the offensive operations of the Finns and Germans in the Baltic because the fleet was paralyzed by mines, etc.

              That's right. It was necessary to lay what was needed - the coastal fleet, and not the battleships.
              1. +4
                28 February 2020 19: 02
                What is a "coastal fleet"? And for what tasks it was necessary to build it, if until 1941 it was not clear with whom we would fight - the Germans or the Britons?
                1. -1
                  28 February 2020 19: 17
                  What is a "coastal fleet"?

                  Fleet cover shore. Minzag, minesweeper, PLO ship, submarine, landing ship. Dimensions to destroyer.
                  1. +5
                    28 February 2020 22: 19
                    With the exception of the minesweepers, which turned out to be a failure, for everything else, it was necessary to guess the nature of the future war.
                    1. -3
                      28 February 2020 22: 57
                      for everything else, it was necessary to guess the nature of a future war.

                      Not if we change psychology. We do not need another land, but we will not give up our own.

                      Instead of an aggressor country that forcibly brings socialism to the world, we are a self-sufficient large neutral country, a kind of giant Switzerland or Sweden, engaged in the development of our resources, protecting the territory, and improving the well-being of citizens.

                      The coastal defense fleet is simple: battleships are drowned by submarines, submarines are drowned by PLO ships, we put minefields, we connect aircraft.

                      Having a developed land army, we are calm about enemy landings, let them land at least a million, they will hesitate to support us by sea, and we have enough plywood for their coffins.

                      To demonstrate the flag and travel, we hold a couple of cruisers, we also accept the surrender of the aggressors. laughing

                      The nature of the war and the aggressor nation (Germans, British, Japanese, etc.) are not important with this approach.
                      1. +2
                        1 March 2020 08: 56
                        You do not write nonsense please, the nature of the war is its key features - at sea or on land, on which theater of war, etc.

                        For example, to reflect the raids of the British Air Force bombers in Baku, neither tanks nor infantry are needed, but high-altitude interceptors and much more are needed.

                        This is roughly what the "character of a future war" is.
                      2. -1
                        1 March 2020 13: 03
                        the nature of the war is its key features - at sea or on land, on which theater of war, etc.

                        Right. But what determines these key attributes? The level of development of weapons in the first place. As a derivative of the general level of technological progress. With the advent of firearms, the nature of wars has changed.
                        With the advent of new weapons, the nature of actions sometimes changes during one war. So, the advent of radar changed the tactics of German submarines.

                        For us, the Second World War is Stalingrad and Kursk, and for the Americans, Pearl Harbor and Midway. Their faith in aircraft carriers is based on this experience. They point blank do not see the appearance of missiles and nuclear weapons.

                        Help the Japanese at Midway, enter into battle on their side only one small frigate, pr.22350, equipped with Onyxes with special warheads.
                        You will be amazed how after that the nature of the US military operations will change.
                      3. +2
                        1 March 2020 17: 18
                        The level of development of weapons in the first place.


                        No, by politics. We could have been with the Germans against the British, and then we would have tried on ourselves strategic bombing and shelling from the sea. The nature of the future war would be just that.

                        It turned out differently.

                        For the rest - to the clinic at the place of residence, please.
                      4. -1
                        1 March 2020 17: 53
                        No, by politics.

                        Of course. But where did our discussion begin? What fleet do we need.
                        One that in any scenario will help to win.
                        The United States is not threatened by Canada, they will cope with the Mexes, but the length of the coastline is almost 20 km. And all life on the coast, and oil overseas. Of course, they are nowhere without a powerful fleet, even to the detriment of the ground forces.

                        With us, on the contrary, we are self-sufficient. The same Americans will not bring bananas at the expense of them, but will not bring them, we will survive.
                        But if the Chinese agree with the Kazakhs, and rush to Nizhny Tagil, then even 5 ABs with the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet will not help.
                      5. +2
                        4 March 2020 11: 06
                        With us, on the contrary, we are self-sufficient. The same Americans will not bring bananas at the expense of them, but will not bring them, we will survive.


                        You do not own the subject from the word at all. We are NOT self-sufficient. Without Indian pharmaceuticals, mortality alone will be the same as in the Middle Ages, and there are also electronics, precision bearings, bearings, spiral tubes of more than 420 mm in diameter, aluminum sheets more than 1 meter wide and tens of thousands of items of different goods that are not produced in Russia, but massively used, including in industry, including in the military industry. Among them there are things that simply cannot be obtained in our climate zone, the same natural rubber.
                        In addition, about 80% of our oil is exported by sea and the same amount of grain. And without it, we won’t have currency to buy what we ourselves don’t do. We are extremely dependent on sea communications, no less than the United States, but unlike the United States, where these many thousands of kilometers of the coast cannot be blocked by anything, we have all access to the sea through straits and narrownesses - the Bosphorus, the Danish Straits, the English Channel (for routes from the North) or the Faroe-Icelandic Barrier, the Kuril Straits, the Laperuza and Yap.more Strait with two exits, one of which goes through Japan
                        All this is shut up "once" by very small forces and after that the Russian economy will collapse at least five times.

                        And this is not counting such places as Yamal, Sakhalin, Chukotka, Norilsk, Kuril Islands, Kamchatka, Kaliningrad, etc. which, in principle, are supplied by the sea and from which everything that is produced and mined is also exported by the sea.
                        And where about 2200 million people live.

                        A person who claims that we don’t need a fleet, etc. I need to amputate the brain in my opinion.
                      6. +1
                        19 May 2020 09: 02
                        I support this 100%. I don't see the need to build an ocean fleet. Especially if we tell everyone how friendly we are. Heavy ships are not needed to protect the coast. Especially in the context of the US Marine Corps reform, aimed at confronting China with the rejection of landing operations like Overlord. All other tasks can be solved by the forces of the OVR, coastal aviation and coastal defense.
                  2. +1
                    29 February 2020 09: 11
                    And with whom, for example, will he be able to cope now? You can’t understand, now the ball on the sea-ocean is not ruled by aircraft carriers, not destroyers and not nuclear submarines - they rule and in the near future they will rule aircraft carrier strike formations / groups consisting of aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers of the URO and the same nuclear submarines and no one in the near future time can not oppose them.
                    1. -2
                      29 February 2020 09: 35
                      Aircraft carrier units / groups will soon rule

                      Imagine that we have a full-fledged AUG and we sent it to the shores of Syria. The Turks did not put on their pants and the war began. Look at the composition of the Turkish Air Force and estimate the chances of an aircraft carrier.
                      We already have an aircraft carrier there. Called Khmeinim. It is much cooler than the US ones, it has a long strip, there is no nuclear bomb inside it, it will not drown. But if the Turks trample, he will not save.
                      The generals are preparing for the past war. Admirals too.
                      An aircraft carrier is a weapon of the time of the Second World War, its long aviation arm was good against guns of battleships and coastal batteries.
                      With the advent of long-range missile systems with tasty filling, one hit is enough.
                2. 0
                  3 March 2020 17: 28
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Until 1941, it was unclear with whom we will fight - with the Germans or the Britons?

                  1) Yes, it was already clear to all reasonable people since June 1940, and to smart people back in October 1939... the USSR would not have become Germany’s junior partner, which was proven in December 1940.
                  2) A fleet is needed against the Britons, in our country it could only be based on the Northern Fleet - and there was no base system there and far from Britain. Those. it was necessary to build a fleet of 10 years and a basing system - there would be no money left for the Red Army .... request
            2. 0
              28 February 2020 23: 59
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              the inability to disrupt the offensive operations of the Finns and Germans in the Baltic Sea due to the fact that the fleet was paralyzed by mines, etc.

              Amazing! And what helped us battleships and cruisers in which they were invested by no means a penny .. (you recall that in the battleships RI thumped 3 \ 4 means of the army and navy?)

              Maybe not money? Maybe the mind is not enough? laughing
              1. +1
                1 March 2020 08: 57
                Amazing! And what helped us battleships and cruisers in which they were invested by no means a penny ..


                When used correctly, they could have prevented mining. For instance.
              2. 0
                6 March 2020 16: 54
                About how much the evil and stupid fleet took money away from the army, invincible and legendary, everything has been calculated a long time ago. Alas .... And there is no overeating. Irrational spending - yes, about a steam locomotive. As in the army .... But about "gorging" - that's in vain .... In addition, often the War Ministry demanded more money, including from the "wet" ones, without having mastered the already allocated .....
                1. 0
                  7 March 2020 01: 18
                  Quote: frog
                  Once upon a time everything was counted. Alas...

                  Precisely that "Alas .." It is calculated and the numbers are shocking. Quite realistically, 3/4 of all funds allocated for the rearmament of the army and navy were in fact driven into the construction of battleships. Moreover, everyone understood that they were preparing for a land war. The military and state defense councils were categorically opposed, but Stolypin personally pushed for this program. It is no coincidence that today Stolypin is the idol of all modern liberal officials! The country, of course, was eventually ditched, but what was the cut !! negative
            3. 0
              3 March 2020 17: 23
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              that then came back to war in huge wasted losses during landing operations due to the lack of ships,

              and they also wasted money on a bunch of M-type submarines or redan TKs - which had no combat value... or laid down battleships, not even having a battleship... and the landing ships in the Black Sea Fleet were still tsarist...
        2. 0
          3 March 2020 17: 15
          Quote: Per se.
          And, do not talk about the people's penny, about saving.

          That's it - that's the slogan of the construction of the fleet in the USSR! They built more nuclear submarines than anyone else in the world! Now we're struggling with disposal... The special stupidity of creating the parallel 941 project request
          Quote: Per se.
          We can’t build more aircraft carriers than the United States,

          1) why more? 6 AUG would be quite enough - one each in the Mediterranean, Indian and Pacific on the BS ...
          2) If you count the tonnage of our submarines with cruise missiles (949, 675, 670, 667AT, etc.), it would be more than enough...
      2. +1
        28 February 2020 14: 37
        In this case, there is an option "Think for yourself".
  2. + 10
    28 February 2020 06: 40
    Sergei Georgievich Gorshkov brought the Soviet fleet to a level that was simply unattainable to him. And which is unlikely to be achieved in the coming decades.

    Great son of a great country .. Thanks for the article.
  3. +3
    28 February 2020 06: 49
    I saw the admiral "in person". True, from afar. He was short, and wore glasses. It even seemed that his overcoat was a bit too long. He came to Vlad together with Brezhnev. On the cruiser "Admiral Senyavin". On which the artillery barrage exploded. Many sailors and officers died.
  4. + 10
    28 February 2020 07: 25
    It can simply be said that a MAN has devoted his whole life to serving his country.
  5. +2
    28 February 2020 09: 10
    The “High Seas Fleet” was to become a tool for solving the geopolitical tasks of the Soviet Union.

    Which ones?... Can you name at least one? Just as the "high seas fleet" was not provided with a basing and support infrastructure, so the solution of geopolitical problems did not lead to an increase in the quality and standard of living of the country's population. Therefore, this high seas fleet burned, sank, exploded and quickly became unusable. Alas, but it is so. The Soviet Union was the only continental self-sufficient country in the world that did not have geopolitical problems. All of them were solved before the revolution.
    1. +3
      28 February 2020 11: 02
      Quote: Silhouette
      Therefore, this fleet of the open sea burned, sank, exploded, and quickly deteriorated

      laughing And at the same time he had destroyers and submarines of the 80s of release in his system at the end of the 40s!
      Quote: Silhouette
      The Soviet Union was the only continental self-sufficient country in the world in the world

      So self-sufficient that since the mid-70s, I began to buy wheat, automobile and animal feed plants!
      1. +4
        29 February 2020 01: 35
        And at the same time he had destroyers and submarines of the 80s of release in his system at the end of the 40s!


        Joined the fleet in 1945.
        He fought in the Gulf in 1991.
        hi
    2. +6
      28 February 2020 11: 46
      Quote: Silhouette
      Which ones? .... Can you name at least one?

      Actually, the fleet had two tasks: to make transportation across the Atlantic more difficult in the event of a war in Europe and to cover the SSBN before launch.
      1. +6
        28 February 2020 15: 25
        To prevent landing on the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka, to maximize the loss of the enemy’s Navy until their main forces are brought into battle near our coasts (OPESK), plus peacetime tasks.
        1. -2
          28 February 2020 22: 11
          This is you talking about the operational and tactical tasks of the Pacific Fleet.
      2. -2
        28 February 2020 22: 09
        Can you read? We are talking about the geopolitical tasks of the USSR, not the fleet. The fleet cannot have geopolitical tasks.
        1. 0
          29 February 2020 00: 06
          However, you need to study the mat part. Since the age of commercials with 16 what is the fleet for
  6. +3
    28 February 2020 09: 23
    This article can be laid out as a Battle Leaf, or as ... an obituary.
    Admiral Gorshkov, an extraordinary personality and it is not realistic to describe it in 20 paragraphs. In my opinion, Sergei Georgievich is more a diplomat than a naval commander, it was his "court diplomacy" that made it possible to create the Oceanic Fleet, which it was, this fleet is another matter, but the admiral managed to make Kuznetsov's dream come true.
    Admiral Gorshkov in life was lucky three times

    Not three times, Roman, but much more .... before the war, Gorshkov was twice on the verge of execution and both times Kuznetsov saved him, for which later Gorshkov repaid Nikolai Gerasimovich with black ingratitude.
  7. The comment was deleted.
    1. +8
      28 February 2020 11: 23
      hi Hello my friend!
      Quote from rudolf
      But I would change this phrase, put it in gold and hang it in a prominent place in the offices of all the highest government officials

      Rudik, but did Brezhnev and his Politburo really get into the affairs of the fleet? And what is the role of Ustinov in the development and construction of the fleet? High words, these are only high words, and the reality was not so rosy ...
      Quote from rudolf
      Appoint only managers in your fields to leadership positions!

      It was under Gorshkov that the formulations took root in the navy; "it is better to shut up the problem than to solve it," "the best method to get rid of the nonsense is to send this nonsense to a promotion or to the academy." After all, the "specialists" Gromov, Kuraedov, Kozhin, and the same Popov, became admirals even under Gorshkov ... and the high accident rate of the Soviet Navy, which specialists did it depend on? ...... Not everything is so simple in the Danish kingdom!
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +4
          28 February 2020 11: 40
          Quote from rudolf
          Yes, I'm not talking about the realities of those times

          bully Yes, I understand that you are talking about modern realities, but they are not as bad as they seem. 90s and zero ones were knocked out of the same naval ranks and for the net not the worst! Yes, there is far to go, who would you be now, if .....
    2. 0
      28 February 2020 11: 32
      Appoint only managers in your fields to leadership positions!


      But add - let the experts not meddle in their own business. The strategy of the country is more than the strategy of the fleet. If the country says "nafig the fleet" (at least for now) - so be it.
    3. +3
      28 February 2020 12: 58
      Quote from rudolf
      "Brezhnev reasonably believed that the commander-in-chief of the Navy understands his economy better and did not go into the affairs of the fleet."
      But I would change this phrase, put it in gold and hang it in a prominent place in the offices of all the highest government officials. Do not go into what you do not understand! Appoint only managers in your fields to leadership positions!

      It seems that you are writing everything correctly, but you are forgetting about the blinkered nature of some high-ranking officials and their vision of their messianic role in one of the state structures, when they only think about its development. Unfortunately, this was very much evident in our military-industrial complex, where the idea that "there is no such thing as too many weapons" blew the heads of some of our great figures, and then this affected the economy of the entire country. I will not recall the activities of Tukhachevsky, but what Ustinov and the same Gorshkov were leading to ultimately came back to haunt our country, and served as one of the reasons for its collapse. I think that both Ustinov and Gorshkov themselves became victims of the brainchild they created, and no longer understood that our country did not need millions of servicemen, whose maintenance was not justified, but the most advanced weapons that allowed us to destroy any enemy, if not many times, then at least once.
      In general, Groshkov himself was a unique person, and did a lot to ensure the country's security, but at some point he simply did not understand what he was building, which is why now such mixed assessments of his activities. And it’s especially sad to look at all this when you understand why the collapse of the USSR occurred, which will remain a tragedy for all of us.
      1. +2
        3 March 2020 17: 33
        Quote: ccsr
        oh at some point he just didn’t understand what he was building

        namely, but this applies to the entire leadership of the USSR ... feel
        1. -1
          3 March 2020 19: 18
          Quote: ser56
          namely, but this applies to the entire leadership of the USSR ...

          I’m not arguing that we didn’t have people like Kosygin in the Politburo, that’s why they were run by those who had a poor understanding of what it would lead us to. But they went through the war, and this somehow removes part of the blame for short-sighted decisions.
          1. +2
            4 March 2020 13: 47
            Quote: ccsr
            But they went through the war, and this somehow removes part of the blame for short-sighted decisions.

            a difficult question ... the problem was in the created control system - uncontrolled ... request
            in the same US, the Senate may limit the Navy or demand a report ... but in the USSR there was one center - the Central Committee
            1. -3
              4 March 2020 19: 03
              Quote: ser56
              in the same US, the Senate may limit the Navy or demand a report ... but in the USSR there was one center - the Central Committee

              In fact, we had a Supreme Council consisting of two chambers, so all the fateful decisions for the country were made there.
              As for the influence of the Central Committee on the economic life of the country and, in particular, on military development, it was more nominal than real, because everything was decided by the Military-Industrial Commission under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, and to get through it you had to try very hard. By and large, the Central Committee simply endorsed what went through the military-industrial complex - at least in my time it was on those issues that I had to deal with.
              1. +2
                5 March 2020 13: 09
                Quote: ccsr
                Actually, we had a Supreme Council consisting of two houses, so all the crucial decisions for the country were made there.

                It's funny! bully USSR Armed Forces stamped the decisions of the Central Committee ...
                Quote: ccsr
                it refers to the influence of the Central Committee on the economic life of the country, and in particular on military development, it was more nominal than real

                you are sorry, you do not know anything about the realities of the USSR ... request
                Quote: ccsr
                everything was decided at the Military Industrial Commission under the Council of Ministers of the USSR

                it is simply an executive body, and the Central Committee determined the policies and personnel ...
                Quote: ccsr
                at least in my time it was so on those issues

                have not heard of the joint decisions of the Central Committee and the SM with a red stripe? hi
                1. -1
                  5 March 2020 19: 38
                  Quote: ser56
                  you are sorry, you do not know anything about the realities of the USSR ...

                  Let's say I don't know. But you can tell us how the procedure for creating the Resolution of the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers of the USSR took place, at least at the R&D level - so that everyone understands how well you know Soviet realities.
                  Quote: ser56
                  it is simply an executive body, and the Central Committee determined the policies and personnel ...

                  You fantasize about these issues - yes, there were not so many specialists in the Central Committee, by definition, that they would at least understand what they were talking about when adopting the Decision to develop or launch into the series some complex development from the defense, nuclear or aerospace industries, for example .
                  The Central Committee determined the policy, and even then only after the Politburo determined it for the Central Committee. As for personnel policy, you are out of the loop here too - in the USSR there were many THOUSANDS of nomenklatura positions that required the approval and coordinating signature of the relevant department of the Central Committee. They would have been exhausted there deciding which division commander was worthy of being awarded the rank of general, or would remain a colonel until retirement - they only checked the papers themselves, and if there were no serious complaints, then there were no problems in the Central Committee. There were more problems when the papers went through the Ministry of Defense itself and when coordinating with the KGB for access, because some generals were presented five times until they received their coveted stripes, and the Central Committee played no role in this matter.
                  Quote: ser56
                  have not heard of the joint decisions of the Central Committee and the SM with a red stripe?

                  According to the Decree, I conducted several works - do not scare me with this. And I only worked with an extract in the part concerning - the entire Decree was not received by us, we didn’t need it, if there were two hundred points there in different industries.
                  1. 0
                    6 March 2020 13: 36
                    Quote: ccsr
                    But you can tell us how the procedure for creating the Decree of the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers of the USSR went at least at the level of R&D - so that everyone would understand how much you know Soviet realities.

                    you go to the State Committee for Science and Technology, there is written a draft resolution on the basis of the submitted proposal ... it was such a green building, it was shot in a comedy by Ryazanov ... feel
                    Quote: ccsr
                    You fantasize about these issues

                    far from it, you are simply confusing the system and the routine of its implementation ... request For example, the director signs the paper, but prepares it for the clerk, conducts it in all departments and endorses ... and so for you - the main clerk ... request
                    Quote: ccsr
                    do not scare me with this

                    you confuse me with someone ... bully
                    1. 0
                      6 March 2020 14: 35
                      Quote: ser56
                      you go to the SCST

                      You may have traveled, but ours went immediately to the military-industrial complex with a bunch of prepared papers.
                      And then, if everything went well and they accepted, then they waited for the decision to be issued - that was the order. Although the SCST also went, but there, in my opinion, when the question concerned academic work. I had to go to the Presidency more than once, but these were purely technical issues - I was still too young to decide something on my own.
                      1. 0
                        6 March 2020 16: 06
                        Quote: ccsr
                        You may have traveled, but ours went immediately to the military-industrial complex with a bunch of prepared papers.

                        I'm in another department ... feel
                        Quote: ccsr
                        I was still too young then

                        alas, I was also young, so I drove on business trips ... hi
                      2. 0
                        6 March 2020 19: 48
                        Quote: ser56
                        I'm in another department ...

                        I realized - you had a different algorithm than ours.
                        But I retained in my memory a state of affairs when the Central Committee did not bother us, and we somehow got along without their "leading" instructions in matters of technology and weapons. But getting through the military-industrial complex was a big problem - they made sure that the military did not push through any garbage, especially in their narrow departmental interests.
                      3. -1
                        7 March 2020 15: 40
                        Quote: ccsr
                        But I have in my memory such a state of affairs when the Central Committee did not bother us

                        let's say this - both you and I were on a different level... a lower one...
    4. +1
      3 March 2020 17: 32
      Quote from rudolf
      appoint only specialists in your fields to leadership positions!

      specialists are like flux and absolutize their area ... request
  8. + 10
    28 February 2020 09: 57
    Sergei Georgievich was undoubtedly a great man. There is no need to argue with that ...... It was through his efforts that the USSR Navy was created. But ..... Almost always this part of speech "great and mighty" comes out .....
    Everyone who is interested in the sad history of Soviet aircraft carriers knows more recently about her wink And, since we recall THIS MOST FLEET, it would be nice to recall its other features. In order not to jump again on a rake, even though this is quite traditional for itself.
    The unification of land and sea air defense systems is a good thing, as is unification in general, if it is implemented with the head and hands. If you just implement it ...
    The mass of the "Dagger" air defense system is admirable. Really. Try so hard - you have to be able to ... Like the whole wonderful idea with the drums, about which only the lazy did not speak. By the way, that would be a wonderful piece of material about who, in fact, was the father of this masterpiece of Russian military engineering thought ..... As I understand it, although I may be wrong, in this case there are no "political problems It was"? And these monster-like entities were. And there is.
    And this is not the only example of the triumph of industry over common sense, to list all of them - such a good article will come out ....
    About some... discrepancy between the basing locations and the number of ships, again, only the lazy did not talk. In that very fruitful 1985, since it is pointless to compare with 1913, often mentioned in the USSR era, the Navy had about 430 submarines. Not counting various experimental and pilot ones. And how many of them had real combat value by that time? And all of them had crews, they took up places, they required various spare parts, etc., etc. As a result, as one comrade mocking the fleet said, we had crews that were constantly studying, that were constantly being repaired, that were constantly carrying out combat operations. With the corresponding consequences....
    Of course, there is no comparison with non-existent meager times. It's hard to argue here. However, recalling the story, I would like not to make mistakes that have been made many times over, just as I would not want to produce new ones. Actually, they are studying history for this. IMHO, sorry)))) And not just to be proud of the accomplishments of their ancestors. Let them be proud of them, because over the following times they are usually ashamed. And if nothing else remains in history - it's sad .........
    1. +7
      28 February 2020 12: 37
      Quote: frog
      Everyone who is interested in the sad history of Soviet aircraft carriers knows more recently about her

      Yep ... how Ustinov and Amelko fought against the "instrument of imperialism" in our Navy, and how much it cost the Navy and the country.
      Quote: frog
      The mass of the "Dagger" air defense system is admirable. Really. Try so hard - you have to be able to ... Like the whole wonderful idea with the drums, about which only the lazy did not speak.

      Do not forget about the second drum complex - S-300F. Instead of UVP pressed to each other - epic drums with a single lid for each. This one cover failed - immediately minus six or eight missiles.
      And I still don't remember another thing about the miraculous S-300F - a radar with a phased array with a mechanical rotation of the scanning sector, providing simultaneous operation on targets only in the 90-degree sector. Two radars at 1144 in total keep only half of the horizon, and the other half - "out of the sector".
      1. +3
        28 February 2020 19: 58
        As already said - if you list all the "wunderwales" of the domestic military-industrial genius - the article will not be childish .... "Fort" is ...... an independent saga on the topic "How to make a candy out of it ... ..guano "Sorry .... Just with the fort-shaped monster, everything is somewhat voluminous and not entirely clear. With the same mass .... For in open sources, as a rule, hallucinogenic dreams of a female mustang of black color with gray hair)) .... But with the "Dagger" everything is a little simpler)) 42 tons instead of 24 - you have to try. ...
        And so - the list of miracles can go on for a very long time))) As, incidentally, are the current..... innovative solutions lol
        1. 0
          29 February 2020 09: 20
          Recently, one "competent" comrade in an article dedicated to modern corvettes, in response to my proposal to replace Redut with Kinzhal, assured me that the drum is the only possible option for the existence of this RK and that allegedly placing missiles in a cell is impossible a priori. He justified this by the radio command method of control of the 9M-330-2, based on the fact that the land-based Thor allegedly turns the turret towards the target not only to turn the radar illumination towards it, but also so that the missile itself gets into the same corridor (it got to the point that the missile almost has a mark on which side it should be installed in the launcher, how this works in military conditions I have no idea). To my arguments why then does the missile need powder engines for stabilization, if it is already turned in the right direction, and how then can Thor exchange information about targets and even direct missiles from other complexes located at a significant distance, when their missiles are not capable of getting into the designated corridor, and why in the end do a vertical launch at all, when even for the land version of the missile complex it would be easier to implement a design like Rim-116, the same answer followed about radio command control. More details here https://topwar.ru/166542-zamyshljaetsja-li-peredelka-proekta-20386.html

          I see a very simple scheme: the surveillance radar takes a bearing on the target, the illumination radar turns in its direction. The missile itself has no strictly deterministic launch limitations and can be launched even from stationary launchers located outside the hull (the location of the Kinzhal launcher separately from the antenna post eloquently indicates the reality of this statement), it is not at all necessary to arrange a carousel with rotation of which (as evidenced by the manufacturer itself, indicating everywhere that it is not at all necessary to turn the turret in the direction of the target). The missile is controlled by the operator via a separate dedicated channel, in no way tied to the illumination radar, and therefore has no limitations associated with the beam size of this radar of 64 degrees. This scenario allows not only to carry out targeting based on information coming from other Thor complexes, but also to make the missile itself extremely cheap, because the "brain" is not the internal filling, in the form of a transceiver that directly receives data from radar systems, but from the operator, who is the control buffer between them (which greatly simplifies the transmitter itself, installed on the missile). True, in this case, the operator's work becomes more complicated and there is no longer any need to talk about the "fire and forget" principle, but this is an inevitable price for the low cost of the 9M-330 itself.

          Reason us. I really would not want supporters of revolvers to triumph. I understand this saves a little space, but it increases the weight and the risk of breakage, which can be critical. And in my opinion for a ship like a corvette the Dagger remains the most optimal type of air defense, even despite the appearance of the Sea Shell and other Broadswords and Cortics.
          1. 0
            29 February 2020 10: 46
            In the photo you showed, where are the rotating covers of these drums visible? Perhaps I am blind, but somehow I did not see any seals besides welding traces. Also, do "Fort" balalaikas work the same way? Then everything is much worse, because here only comrades from Serbian can help, and even then, I'm not sure.
            Two-fold advantage of the complex for such an extraordinary solution (worthy of state awards))) - a little expensive for the goat’s games, washed and .... affiliated, do not you find? Not to mention everything else that accompanies this decision ....
            The drums don't save space in any way, from the word at all. With "standard", even not very "licked" UVPs, 9x8 launchers can be squeezed into the dimensions of the "Atlanta". I don’t even want to talk about "Orlan" ...... The normal implementation of the same "Dagger" made it possible to really put it instead of "Wasp". Even with modernization, for which it was supposed, including. You know real. As for the various ZRAKov, a good idea was multiplied by zero by clumsy execution. And instead of a normal "metal cutter" we got a heavy, slightly edible ....... something.
            1. 0
              29 February 2020 11: 31
              Well, that's something I just understand. In general, I am not an apologist for the revolving installation from the word "in general." The thesis that it takes up less space is not mine, it comes from the accompanying literature, which engineers tried to test the implemented solution, which is why I note that if space savings are achieved, then it is very modest. That is why I would be happy to see Kortik, whose PUs are executed without this anachronism in ordinary containers, because I think that in terms of its performance characteristics, the complex is still quite good for ships of small displacement, in which it simply makes no sense to install anything more expensive and sophisticated. But my proposals are challenged by those who are sure that the "drum" is the only form of life for this product of the domestic military-industrial complex, and therefore it is pointless to sell it and it is necessary to continue to overpay fabulous sums with the installation of Redoubt for anything larger than 1,5 thousand tons.
              1. 0
                29 February 2020 20: 53
                Without going into details, just estimate the size of any normal runway and compare with the dimensions of the drums. After that, the address where the drum fans should be sent will automatically appear in the mind wink
                Any approximate calculations cause that same burning sensation on the topic: but on .... do figs need these dreams of reason in general?
                As for corticoids ..... With sane implementation - it’s completely edible. True, you will have to do almost everything anew lol But this is a common place for our valiant armed forces .... What, in fact, is the question feel
    2. 0
      3 March 2020 17: 34
      Quote: frog
      About a certain

      That's it! hi
    3. 0
      6 March 2020 15: 12
      Exactly! I can only add that they built a highly specialized disposable fleet for the global thermonuclear war, which terribly saved on people, operation, infrastructure, with a bias in quantity versus quality.
  9. -5
    28 February 2020 13: 36
    Firstly, not "admiral", but Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy - Deputy Minister of Defense of the USSR (1956-1985). Twice Hero of the Soviet Union (1965, 1982). Laureate of the Lenin Prize (1985) and the USSR State Prize (1980). Member of the CPSU Central Committee (1961-1988). Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the 4th-11th convocations.
    Secondly, the fleet, the creation of which he headed, was needed by the USSR for the implementation of a project that had world-wide historical significance. And who are we who evaluate the activities of this statesman for errors?
    1. +5
      28 February 2020 15: 45
      Those who, thanks to these errors, also ended up where we are.
      1. -1
        28 February 2020 20: 36
        As if those who ended up where they are were not where they are (fortunately) not yet, thanks to their own mistakes.
        1. +3
          28 February 2020 22: 20
          The descendants will condemn us with full right then - as we judge the ancestors.
    2. +2
      2 March 2020 14: 25
      Quote: iouris
      Firstly, not an "admiral", but an Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy ... Member of the Supreme Council of the USSR 4-11 convocations ...
      the last, as for me, is not the most loud / significant part of this titularities...Well
      Quote: iouris
      Secondly, the fleet, the creation of which he led, ...
      , namely -
      Quote: iouris
      Commander-in-Chief of the Navy - Deputy Minister of Defense of the USSR (1956-1985)
      leads me to the idea that not everything was good (i.e., not following the lead /maybe under lobism/ industry). Concretizing the example, concentrate attention to dates above and appearance let's say 1155.1 (as a more versatile ship combining functions and capabilities two predecessors / projects 1155 and 956 / ?! Laying down and handing over to the fleet "Chabanenko", - ( https://flot.com/nowadays/strength/chabanenko.htm /The ship was laid down at the Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad 28 February 1989 year and launched December 14 1992 year. Admitted to the fleet on January 28, 1999./) occur somewhat later than the period of supremacy in the Navy Gorshkov ?! Before did not see / did not realize that the construction of a series of ships of two projects at once, but with a truncated part of the functions (in the PLO or air defense, each of them), is it more expensive ?! .... And maybe if we had allowed ourselves to realize this earlier, then 11560 would have seen the light of day much earlier, (and in place 1155 and 956 ?!)
      Quote: iouris
      And who are we who evaluate the activities of this statesman for errors?
      just descendants, and observers ...
      To him of course - eternal memory !!! But is everything, and has it always been done right ...?!
    3. +1
      3 March 2020 19: 21
      Quote: iouris
      And who are we who evaluate the activities of this statesman for errors?

      Yes, we do not evaluate-their history of the collapse of the USSR has already appreciated, you just did not notice ....
  10. 0
    28 February 2020 17: 51
    I’ll make a correction: about 600 kilotons were carried by each (one) missile of project 667 BDR.
  11. +1
    28 February 2020 18: 02
    The struggle of the commander-in-chief with our industry is almost not covered. This is a topic worthy of separate consideration.
    1. 0
      28 February 2020 18: 33
      Gorshkov, like Kuznetsov, was a supporter of the construction of very large ships; the PL 941 project alone was worth something; if it weren’t for this gigantomania, the number of the Navy would have been higher.
      1. +1
        28 February 2020 20: 34
        A. Raikin: "We are not for quality - we are for quantity."
        The justification of the construction program was carried out by scientific institutes. The Commander-in-Chief approved and represented the agreed position.
  12. +3
    28 February 2020 18: 35
    “We do not have aircraft carriers, but you will not have them”
    This is an offset! For the admiral drinks
  13. -2
    29 February 2020 00: 03
    Wonderful article! Gorshkov is certainly one of those personalities that history will not forget. Thanks to the author!
  14. 0
    6 March 2020 14: 48
    The only result of Gorshkov's rule is a nuclear missile fleet, specialised for a global thermonuclear war, built in a very poor country, hence the shortcomings, accident rate, caused by saving on people, on operation, on infrastructure, on the cult of quantity at the expense of quality. Gorshkov's fleet was useless for local conflicts, for projecting force.
  15. 0
    6 March 2020 14: 59
    About Khrushchev and "cut the fleet" is also a thoughtless retelling of myths. Stalin and Kuznetsov were planning a fleet of dozens of battleships and classic cruisers with hundreds of diesel pl. Only Khrushch realized that the future was in saturating the fleet with nuclear missiles and nuclear power. Therefore, he cut all the junk into metal, and the projects developed under Khrushche were serially built until the early 1970s.
  16. 0
    6 March 2020 15: 06
    The author did not even study the biography of Gorshkov, and it is quite unique for the Soviet admiral. But his military experience for the future post-war construction turned out to be specific and useless - he commanded flotillas and a slightly defensive area, but strictly in the interests of ground operations.
  17. 0
    13 March 2020 18: 51
    As long as the Russian fleet is part of the Ministry of Defense, we will not build a worthy ocean fleet and will not see its revival from the shallow coastal fleet. The first step was taken: the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy moved to St. Petersburg. It remains to revive the Admiralty and restore the Ministry of the Navy.
  18. 0
    April 17 2020 21: 12
    The Great Man was, what can I say ... Mistaken or not, he did everything he could and even more. And we have left. And Ukraine, and China, and India
  19. 0
    April 17 2020 21: 34
    Do better than Gorshkov and you will be right, but only better.
  20. 0
    6 May 2020 19: 02
    In the early 80s, I saw live the fruits of the works of this admiral with the largest stars. And he must be respected precisely because he created the fleet, continuing the actions of Admiral Kuznetsov. Amid the intrigues of the aging political elite of the USSR, this was very difficult to do.