K-429 Tragedy: Personnel Decides Everything...

15 984 130
K-429 Tragedy: Personnel Decides Everything...

At one time, the author had the honor of being acquainted with Hero of the Soviet Union Vice-Admiral Yevgeny Chernov. It was from Yevgeny Dmitrievich that I first heard this history...Let's say—in vivid detail. The thing is, it's one thing to read about an event in a DEA textbook, and quite another to receive detailed information from someone knowledgeable. Moreover, someone who doesn't consider it necessary to spare the reputations and egos of the participants and, shall we say... the organizers of those dramatic events.


Hero of the Soviet Union Vice-Admiral Evgeny Dmitrievich Chernov

Let me explain the situation right away for those unfamiliar with the nuances of submarine service. Nuance #1: no two submarines are alike. Even submarines of the same design differ, sometimes significantly: here a mechanism is installed at the wrong frame, here a valve is positioned a few centimeters to the right or left, here a ladder baluster is lower than on the adjacent side. When first taking over a new submarine, even experienced submariners bump their heads on its protruding parts—because the submarine the crew previously sailed had a slightly different arrangement of all of the above, and the familiar trajectories of movement through the compartments bring their heads into contact with system components and mechanisms.



Nuance #2: On a submarine, the crew truly must be, if not a family, then a highly coordinated team (as naval wits say, "the crew must be well-fed and well-done"), each member of which must be perfectly familiar with the specific submarine they are currently on. Not the neighboring one, but the same one! However, there's a catch to this nuance—it almost never happens. The fact is, there's a perpetual shortage of submariners, so crews are constantly being reshuffled to varying degrees.

Recognizing this delicate point, the governing document, KAPL VMF-75 (in effect at the time of the disaster), established standards: if more than 15% of the crew is deployed, the crew must undergo additional combat training. If more than 30% of the crew is deployed, the submarine is "withdrawn from service," meaning the crew must retake the first and second course tasks (Tasks L-1 and L-2). Now, let's move on to the description of the K-429 disaster...


K-429 at the pier

The K-429 was a Project 670 nuclear submarine built in Nizhny Novgorod (then Gorky) at the Krasnoye Sormovo shipyard in 1972. The boat was multipurpose, meaning it was designed to combat surface ships, for which purpose it had torpedoes and cruise missiles on board. missilesThe submarine's surface displacement was 3570 tons, submerged displacement 4980 tons, length 95,6 meters, width 9,9 meters, and average surface draft 7,5 meters. Its operating depth was 270 meters, and its maximum diving depth was 350 meters. Its maximum submerged speed was 26 knots, and its surface speed was 12 knots. Eight Ametist anti-ship missile system containers were located on each side, and the first compartment contained six torpedo tubes with 16 torpedoes. The crew consisted of 87 people: 23 officers, 33 warrant officers, six petty officers, and 25 sailors. However, this is only according to the crew roster; "passengers"—psychologists, security officers, and the like—often take the submarine out to sea.

In May 1983, the submarine returned from a six-month deployment. That's an insanely long time! At the end of the 20th century, when the author of these lines served, submarines no longer went to sea for more than three months. And even then, three-month deployments were rare—typically 85–87 days. The submarine was handed over to a "technical" crew (nuclear submarines always have two crews; usually one goes to sea and the other maintains the submarine at base, but often they simply rotate, and while one crew rests, the other goes to sea). Those returning from the deployment began to leave.


Captain 1st Rank Nikolai Suvorov

The protagonist of this story, Captain 1st Rank Nikolai Suvorov, commander of the 379th crew, had just returned from a deployment on the K-212 and, having sent the crew on leave, remained behind to hand over his duties and responsibilities—he was preparing to transfer to Leningrad. And it was he who received an order from the division commander, Captain 1st Rank N.N. Alkayev: to go to sea with his crew to complete the L-2 mission. However, at least half of his crew had already departed on leave! In fact, he pointed this out to the command: going to sea with half of his assigned crew was a gross violation of the VMF-75 submarine code! To which he received the reply: "Never mind, this is your last visit. The flotilla needs it."

It must be said that the flotilla command had experience organizing such adventures, and for a while, it worked. Suvorov went to sea, after which he calmly sent the rest of his crew on leave. But on June 20, the division commander gave him another order: put to sea on the K-429... with his crew!


Captain 1st Rank Suvorov with his crew at the parade

It's worth noting that the K-429 was on combat duty at the time, so its crew should have been well-prepared. But Suvorov was told to train the 228th crew, which was manning the submarine, and its commander, Captain 2nd Rank Belotserkovsky. Meanwhile, the division's chief of staff would sail the K-429 and conduct a torpedo launch against a submarine, which would carry the flotilla's chief of staff, who would then return fire. In short, the primary objective was to organize a successful torpedo launch for the flotilla's chief of staff, Rear Admiral O. A. Yerofeyev. Requests not to torment the already exhausted crew for such trivial matters were in vain. The order was: recall those who hadn't gone on leave, supplement the crew with seconded personnel, and sail. The order was verbal...

In total, at least five days were needed to prepare for the launch. They were given 12 hours. The crew was assembled from scratch: 46% regular personnel, 54% seconded. Suvorov didn't have time to inspect the submarine's technical condition, but the head of the political department had promised to expel him from the party and prosecute him if he refused. As they departed the pier, it was discovered there were 120 people on board: Captain 2nd Rank Belotserkovsky had decided to take 20 trainees—young sailors who had never set foot in the sea.

A competent military man, given a stupid order, always knows what to do: Suvorov didn't sign the logbook stating that "the ship is ready to go to sea." He was a competent military man: he had served on nuclear submarines for 23 calendar years, ten years as a commander, and had sailed without incident. In fact, that's why he was entrusted with the task of going to sea to practice gunfire with the flotilla's chief of staff. When the flotilla's duty officer started calling on board, asking, "Why aren't you retreating?" Suvorov gave the order to tell the duty officer that he had gone according to plan and to have him check the logbook. The submarine commander hoped that, if he didn't find his signature, the duty officer would report to the commander and the submarine would be returned to base. The duty officer took him at his word and didn't bother to look at the logbook.


Hero of the Soviet Union A. A. Gusev

Standing on the bridge with Suvorov was his classmate, Hero of the Soviet Union A. A. Gusev, the division's chief of staff. He also believed the submarine was unprepared for deployment, writing a report to that effect. Before setting sail, he locked it in his office ashore in a safe. Neither Suvorov nor his crew knew of the K-429's peculiarity. The ventilation system flaps on both sides (400 mm in diameter each), which normally close clockwise, closed counterclockwise on this particular submarine. Had he had at least five days, this peculiarity would have been sorted out during the submarine's daily maintenance, but the crew, assembled from scratch, didn't have even 12 hours to study the K-429.


Sarannaya Bay

The exercises in which the K-429 was to participate were scheduled to take place in an area with depths exceeding 2000 meters. But Suvorov decided to trim the submarine in Sarannaya Bay, with a depth of 40-50 meters, ignoring instructions to proceed to the exercise area and trim there. Was it intuition? Most likely, yes. The preconditions for disaster were present, but it hadn't been planned. Nevertheless, the commander's actions saved most of the crew, and the K-429 didn't become a Soviet "Thresher."


Viktor Kurochkin is a second-year student at "Holland"—the Sevastopol Higher Naval School, which he graduated from 11 years before the author enrolled.

As the reader has already understood, the submarine submerged with the ventilation system valves open. When jets of water as thick as an elephant's foot began gushing from 40-cm pipes into the fourth compartment, the compartment's crew began fighting for survival, including closing the valves. Clockwise, of course. Credit must be given to the submariners—they fought to the end; not a single one made it from the emergency fourth compartment to the third. Warrant Officer Vladimir Leshchuk went into the adjacent compartment to de-energize the battery circuit breaker and warn the watchman of the emergency, then returned to his duty station.

In the three minutes remaining, the crew managed to report the water influx to Central Station and de-energize the compartment, thereby preventing a fire. Lieutenant Commander Viktor Kurochkin (compartment commander) of the 2nd BC-5 Division and Senior Lieutenant Anatoly Petrov, commander of the remote control group, attempted to manually close the valves. In an emergency, people develop extraordinary strength: according to those involved in the submarine's recovery, the handles of the ratchet wrenches they used to close the valves—solid steel—were bent at an angle of almost 90 degrees. The officers were found after the submarine was raised, still at their combat post, holding the ratchet wrenches.

The submarine grounded with its diesel compartment flooded. In the first compartment, upon touching the bottom, the main ballast tank, whose ventilation valves were still open, was vented without orders from the main control center, thus wasting the high-pressure air supply. The reactor's emergency protection grilles collapsed, the submarine lost propulsion, and Suvorov and Gusev realized they would not be able to surface. Captain 1st Rank Gusev assumed control of the submarine, making a note in the logbook to share responsibility for the disaster with his comrade.


The ISP-60 individual submarine gear with the IDA-59 breathing apparatus. Naval wits sometimes claim that the number "59" in the apparatus's name refers to the number of divers who died during testing. In fact, it refers to the year it was adopted.

It was immediately clear: the submarine could not be saved, but the crew had to be rescued! The task proved daunting: the cover of the floating rescue device was firmly secured with a cable to the outside of the submarine's hull, both emergency rescue buoys were welded in place, and attempts to use the sturdy conning tower of the third compartment for airlock passage were unsuccessful—the flooding seacock was broken. A group of submariners, led by Warrant Officer Baev, an experienced diver, was trapped in the aft compartments. He organized a free-floating exit through the aft hatch. An air cushion of 4 atmospheres was created in the compartment. During an attempt to open the hatch, the rack-and-pinion latch handle broke, but a new one was removed from the bulkhead door between compartments 6 and 7; fortunately, it fit. Baev released all the crew, personally instructing each one, and was the last to leave the compartment. Interestingly, at least half of the IDA-59 breathing apparatuses transferred from the surface to the compartment turned out to be faulty or had empty cylinders. This speaks volumes about the organization of service on the flotilla...

The crew was released from the forward compartments through the starboard midship torpedo tube. First, when it was believed to be light outside, a group of two volunteers, warrant officers N. Merzlikin and M. Lesnik, was dispatched with the precise coordinates of the stricken submarine. After three hours on the surface, the warrant officers were picked up by border guards, who reported the incident to the flotilla's duty officer. The remaining 104 submariners exited over the course of two days; two died upon surfacing, and 102 were rescued. Suvorov and Gusev were the last to leave the K-429. It was decided that Gusev would be the last to leave, as he was legally the submarine's commander from the moment he assumed command.


Ascent of K-429

And then began something that would surely make any submariner ashamed. Before leaving, Gusev handed Suvorov the key to his safe, which contained the report on the K-429's unreadiness for sea. Immediately after the rescue, the division chief of staff was placed in a decompression chamber for three days to avoid decompression sickness. And when he returned to his office, he discovered the safe had been broken into, and the report was gone...


Submariners killed on the K-429

The investigation lasted 17 months, but investigators were only interested in the period from the time Captain 1st Rank Suvorov's crew accepted the submarine until the disaster. How the crew ended up on the submarine was of no interest to them. At the trial, the commander of the K-479 submarine was held responsible, despite the outrage of everyone familiar with the details of the submarine's sinking—he had only been in command for eight hours! An order from the Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy, Sergei Gorshkov, stated: "This grave incident for the Navy was made possible by the irresponsible attitude toward their official duties and the extreme incompetence of certain officials of the 2nd Flotilla of the 10th Submarine Division of the Pacific Fleet." However, Rear Admiral Yerofeyev, who orchestrated the disaster, received a severe reprimand. Captain 1st Rank Suvorov, meanwhile, was imprisoned for 10 years, released two years later under an amnesty, but died shortly thereafter.


The K-429 disaster did not hinder Rear Admiral Oleg Yerofeyev's career...

However, the severe reprimand did not affect the flotilla's chief of staff's subsequent service. He was promoted: in 1985, he entered the General Staff Academy. And in 1987, upon returning from the Academy, he became commander of the 1st SSBN Flotilla. fleetThe same one where the K-218 Komsomolets submarine served. He commanded the Northern Fleet. But that's a story for another day...


K-429 on pontoons

P.S. The K-429 was raised and taken to the shipyard for restoration, but apparently the boat fared better at the bottom. She sank again in 1985, right next to the shipyard. This time, they decided not to restore her and sent her to the scrapyard.


Funeral of those killed on K-429

All photos are taken from open sources
130 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    30 October 2025 04: 36
    A sad story, I feel sorry for all the sailors!!
    1. +6
      31 October 2025 03: 12
      Quote: andrewkor
      A sad story, I feel sorry for all the sailors!!

      It's a sad story, and I feel so sorry for the sailors! But wait, how could the shut-off valves close the wrong way? It's nagging at me: if you want to close a faucet, gate valve, etc., you have to turn it clockwise! To turn off the lights, turn the switch down! Well, unless the electrician is clumsy! But I just can't figure out what to do with the gate valves!
      1. +1
        31 October 2025 15: 47
        Quote: Traveler 63
        But wait, how could the shut-off valves close the other way? It's nagging at me: if you want to close a faucet, gate valve, etc., turn it clockwise! To turn off the light, turn the switch down! Well, unless the electrician is clumsy! But I can't figure out what to do with the gate valves!

        I agree. hi Such design decisions should be judged under the article "sabotage".
      2. 0
        4 November 2025 14: 34
        The author never deigned to explain how the valves remained open during the dive, because he himself doesn't know. They were opened remotely, using the "Key" control panel. With the valves open, the automation prevents the middle ventilation valves from being opened remotely. Therefore, the control panel operator must have released this lock for some reason. In other words, he acted quite deliberately.
        The author again did not delve into the nuances when writing the article.
        1. 0
          5 November 2025 02: 33
          I won't argue. As I've said many times, I'm from a different element! But from personal experience (not underwater), I know that any automatic valve (faucet, etc.) can be closed manually, "with a crowbar, a sledgehammer, and some other kind of swearing!"
          1. +1
            5 November 2025 07: 13
            In this case, they attempted to close it manually from the local control station, but under stress, they forgot to set the bypass valve (the spool valve) to neutral, removing the flap from the remote control. They bent the valve stem, but were unable to close it (this is impossible with the spool valve set to hydraulics). This is how this person was found in the 4th compartment, next to the flap's manual actuator.
            1. 0
              6 November 2025 01: 44
              I don't argue! But the author's conclusion about the crew's lack of training is correct! I once (thinking I was already experienced) flew to the range, even though I hadn't flown to the range for two years, and as a result, I screwed up! It wasn't a big deal and posed no threat to anyone, but I still feel ashamed! Even though that was in 1992.
              1. 0
                6 November 2025 07: 28
                Crew training had nothing to do with it. There was no crew as such. It was a composite division. Moreover, some key positions were occupied by people with little practical training (the OCS control panel operator). And the lack of organizational measures on the ship prior to the dive made the disaster inevitable.
      3. 0
        9 November 2025 21: 15
        Quote: Traveler 63
        But let me ask you, how could it happen that the shut-off valves closed in the other direction?

        It happens. On my last ship, all the ventilation shutters in the fire department opened and closed backwards. It seems like a crucial thing for fighting a fire—but there you go!
  2. +13
    30 October 2025 05: 03
    And the author wrote to me yesterday that service on a submarine is romantic... Terrible horror... If you don't die because of your own stupidity, then because of someone else's.
    1. +16
      30 October 2025 06: 38
      …How beautiful, how fresh will be the roses thrown into my coffin by my Country…
      Nothing has changed since the time of Tsar Pea: the innocent will be punished, those who have screwed up will be promoted... Rest in peace to the departed
      1. +5
        30 October 2025 12: 44
        The country didn't throw roses into Suvorov's coffin...
        1. +8
          30 October 2025 16: 16
          Quote from: nepunamemuk
          The country didn't throw roses into Suvorov's coffin...
          To show respect to him is to confess your own actions:
          Quote: Georgy Tomin
          The topic of admiral's showdowns, the court acquitted him /Yerofeyev/, but the case was extremely dirty - they blamed everything on Suvorov...

          This is the level where the feeling corporate developed in spite of everything
    2. +3
      31 October 2025 02: 37
      Quote: Puncher
      And the author wrote to me yesterday that service on a submarine is romantic... Terrible horror... If you don't die because of your own stupidity, then because of someone else's.

      Yeah, it's romantic! You can't survive there without it! I actually served in a different environment, and we had some cases...only we have a crew of three, and here there are 120...I'm so sad!
    3. 0
      5 November 2025 11: 52
      There's romance involved, too. The main thing is to avoid serving under idiots, and instead, join a proper division and crew.
      1. 0
        5 November 2025 12: 29
        Quote: 955535
        The main thing is not to end up serving under the command of idiots, but in normal divisions and crews.

        Well, who knows where you'll end up? In civilian life, if you end up in a bad team, you can just quit, but where can you go from a submarine? You're not going to show up and ask, "Transfer me to another ship," are you?
        1. 0
          5 November 2025 12: 39
          In my first 10 years of service, I changed four crews—there weren't enough crew members, so I was promoted to higher positions. Officer rotation is the norm.
          1. 0
            5 November 2025 12: 43
            Quote: 955535
            In my first 10 years of service, I changed four crews—there weren't enough crew members, so I was promoted to higher positions. Officer rotation is the norm.

            The video shows a piece of the rubber coating torn off the fence. Is this normal?
            1. +1
              5 November 2025 12: 45
              The consequences of icing. The ice was thick. This is precisely where one of the forces is applied when floating in ice without moving. This cannot be corrected during the expedition.
  3. +16
    30 October 2025 05: 14
    Which says a lot about the organization of service on the flotilla...

    Unfortunately, this kind of chaos is not only in the navy. request While this chaos doesn't affect lives in some office, in risky areas, people die due to the tyranny and stupidity of decision-makers, of whom there are, unfortunately, many. And equipment, often very expensive and vital, is ruined.
    1. +11
      30 October 2025 07: 40
      While this chaos in an office doesn't affect human lives, in risky areas, people die due to the tyranny and stupidity of decision-makers, of whom there are, unfortunately, many.

      because of the loyalty of those with decision-making authority...
      Some time ago, I wrote here that Khrushchev buried the army, but they tried to correct me - they cut it...
      When it was time for my uncle to leave for the "big hunting grounds," he explained why he believed the army had been destroyed—they began to put loyalists, not principled ones, into positions of responsibility...
      and the blame was placed on the "scapegoats" for the decisions taken, and the army began to disintegrate - in his words...
      1. +14
        30 October 2025 11: 21
        Quote: Dedok
        Some time ago, I wrote here that Khrushchev buried the army, but they tried to correct me - they cut it...
        When it was time for my uncle to leave for the "big hunting grounds," he explained why he believed the army had been destroyed—they began to put loyalists, not principled ones, into positions of responsibility...

        It wasn't until the National Socialist Republic that loyalists began to be promoted. Technical incompetence, coupled with a desire to report achievements to superiors, nearly led to the destruction of the battleship Marat in the 20s: occupied with socialist competition for rate of fire, the turret crew, composed of party activists, grossly violated procedure during a sustained fire and opened the breech prematurely. The result was 68 casualties; the battleship was saved by the rapid flooding of its magazines.
        Well, as for figures like Tributs or Oktyabrsky, PMSM, you know yourselves.
        1. -4
          30 October 2025 12: 25
          Yeah, it's especially funny to read about loyalty and integrity under Khrushchev after Stalin's purges.))
        2. 0
          2 November 2025 23: 41
          We're talking about socialist competition here; gunners have always raced against time. It's a question of survival and crew size, and the entire ship/unit. And where did they come up with a crew made up entirely of party activists, where did so many of them come from? Only one in ten was accepted into the party...
  4. +4
    30 October 2025 05: 21
    While the number of US nuclear submarines lost is two: the Tersher and the Scorpion, the Soviet Navy was ahead in this regard: disasters occurred with four Soviet submarines...

    Count?
    1. +10
      30 October 2025 15: 56
      K-8 missed, so that's five. I don't count K-27, Nagasaki was famous for its nuclear accidents, but it didn't sink (disposal doesn't count).
  5. +12
    30 October 2025 05: 22
    I wonder if this would-be "Admiral" Yerofeyev has now been found guilty of the submarine's destruction or not? And has Gusev been rehabilitated?
    1. +11
      30 October 2025 06: 26
      Re-hold the "Court of Honor" for both the guilty and the judges. So, there was a pre-history and hints before Komsomolets' death...
    2. +7
      30 October 2025 06: 41
      Just the other day impressionable characters They praised the general who led the platoon's advance in Kursk...
    3. +2
      30 October 2025 07: 43
      I wonder if this would-be "Admiral" Yerofeyev has now been found guilty of the submarine's destruction or not? And has Gusev been rehabilitated?

      Who might need this?
      Neither you nor I can force the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to review the case...
      1. +4
        30 October 2025 15: 26
        Who might need this?
        Yes, at least to those same relatives!!! And as for “we can’t”, the same attitude was applied to many of the repressed, but they were rehabilitated!!!
        1. +5
          30 October 2025 17: 20
          Yes, the Kursk case is a complete lie... It's simply uncomfortable to read the documents, it's hard to believe that they can just announce to the whole country their stupidity and denial of the facts, and the falsification of evidence is simply staggering...
          A normal lawyer, and especially an attorney, can only gasp - is that even possible?
          And who was held accountable?
          1. +8
            30 October 2025 21: 09
            I don't want to touch on the Kursk. Firstly, a classmate died there, and secondly... Too little time has passed; the information needs to settle, and the people involved must either resign or die. And anyway, I spoke with a classmate who worked on the submarine after the salvage... Well, the way I spoke, he cried more than anything, and the sight of a crying man over fifty doesn't invite questions. I think in 20 or 30 years, there will be much more clarity...
            1. +6
              30 October 2025 21: 31
              Quote: Georgy Tomin
              Too little time has passed, the information must settle, the interested persons must leave their positions or die.


              Almost 25 years have passed... is that not enough? For whom?

              With this approach, any tragic accident is of no concern. And this leads to impunity for officials—a cliche, but true.

              Then why did you pull this disaster out of your desk drawer? It's only been a little over 40 years, so it's still a bit early...
              My friend, the first one to die from that class was in 1980. We dealt with it then, not now... The last one was already in the SVO, and they dealt with it right away, and punished the freaks without delay...
              Ustinov and Kozlov, Popov, and the other Kursk defendants should be questioned while they can answer, not when they're moved to the cemetery with full military honors and there's no one left to answer...

              So, your position is not close to me; non-resistance to evil by violence is Tolstoyanism, excuse me...

              "Everyone will be rewarded according to his deeds..."
    4. +14
      30 October 2025 16: 00
      It was a topic for admiral-level squabbles; the court acquitted him, but the case was incredibly dirty – everything was blamed on Suvorov, and he was left out of it. Moreover, he had made a good career... Chernov couldn't stand him, but that was personal – he believed (not without reason) that Yerofeyev had been responsible for the sinking of the Komsomolets. That's the subject of the next article.
  6. +15
    30 October 2025 06: 26
    Thanks for the story. This is the dark side of Admiral Gorshkov's ocean-going, nuclear-missile fleet, with its inflated numbers and combat readiness. There weren't enough submariners to crew modern submarines, so they kept a bunch of old ones in service, like Project 629, 651, 659, 675, and 627 submarines, to keep up the numbers.
    the cover of the pop-up rescue device was firmly secured with a cable to the outside of the submarine's hull, both emergency rescue buoys were welded

    Personnel are the cheapest consumable, cheaper than even one emergency rescue buoy.
    1. +5
      30 October 2025 08: 08
      Quote: severok1979
      Here is the seamy side of the ocean-going, nuclear-missile fleet.

      Was this only the case in the navy?!
      Wherever you look, there's chaos, both then and now. And this chaos stems from officials and leaders who seek even greater privileges for themselves! And they don't care about those below them!
    2. +1
      30 October 2025 10: 05
      I don't know how true this is, and I'm open to correction, but they say the buoys were specially welded in place before deployment. At depths of 2000+ meters, where patrols are conducted, the buoys won't save you anyway, but they rattle against the hull, revealing the submarine.
      1. +3
        30 October 2025 10: 07
        Perhaps. But does this indicate due attention to the means of rescue and to the people for whom these means are intended?
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. +5
          30 October 2025 12: 29
          I was wrong... I meant the depth under the keel during patrol.
          1. +8
            30 October 2025 12: 55
            I get it, so I deleted the comment. As for welding the buoys, it wasn't so much the rattling that made them rattle; they were often torn from their standard mountings. And losing a buoy, as you can imagine, will result in a lot of flak, so that's why they welded them.
    3. +9
      30 October 2025 16: 19
      Pokrovsky wrote about this well in his collection "Shoot!" and its sequels. In fact, no one has written better than him. It's a shame the film "72 Meters" turned out so-so, but it's hard to make a good film about submariners—they're a very specific community...
      1. +3
        30 October 2025 17: 23
        Pokrovsky's book "Shoot" is a very successful canvas of rough reality,
        BUT! Even this book reveals about 1/3 of the picture...
        No more drinking.... drinks
      2. +2
        30 October 2025 21: 47
        Georgy Tomin (The Flying Dutchman)
        Pokrovsky wrote about this well.


        Pokrovsky is a chemical engineer (chemist), certainly not like the Kandey man Novikov-Priboy with his "Tsushima," but very close. There were some good stories before "Shoot," and that's the end of it. After that, it's all just sordid stuff, and so on.
        1. 0
          3 November 2025 18: 40
          Pokrovsky described what he knew well, and then... I'm not a literary critic, but in my opinion, his pinnacle is his stories about submariners. As for him being a chemical warfare chief... The debate about who should be considered a true submariner is eternal. Mechanics generally don't consider anyone but themselves to be sailors. Navigators - themselves. And no one likes miners at all))) It's all snobbery: a submariner is someone who went to Avtonomki. Pokrovsky went, and a lot.
          1. 0
            5 November 2025 12: 12
            Political officer: our missilemen are the leading combat unit on the boat!
            First Mate: Our leading combat unit is the navigation unit, the carrying unit is the electromechanical unit, and the rest are the driving units.
  7. +8
    30 October 2025 07: 50
    To the author. You simply "heard" about this. But you didn't study it. A Project 670 submarine with its "Volfram" launcher simply couldn't have taken on the main ballast with its flaps open. That's one thing. And then there's the next point. Every officer in the Navy is obligated to know about every accident and draw conclusions.
    The first to emerge from the sunken submarine K-429 was Captain 2nd Rank A.B. Martman.
    1. +3
      30 October 2025 16: 21
      There was also a problem with the electrical circuit; it didn't show on the remote control that the flaps were open.
      1. 0
        2 November 2025 23: 48
        This is a very important fact. Why did you conceal it from the article?
    2. +3
      30 October 2025 17: 27
      What about "Wolfram"?
      He also had to work on a project basis, and not with various "squiggles"...
      And your hands shouldn't stick out from one place...
      When Gorshkov and his cronies visited, they gave a simple command: "Turn on the light signaling control mode"—and, with the lights blazing, they explained to the admirals how everything was working perfectly and was in high readiness, even at the pier! Heh-heh...
      1. 0
        2 November 2025 23: 51
        Yeah, and the admirals immediately bought into such a cheap trick? wink
        1. 0
          3 November 2025 00: 19
          Yes, always!
          They taught us this in school, heh-heh...
  8. +7
    30 October 2025 08: 53
    Suvorov and Gusev should have refused to go to sea with an unprepared boat, and not drawn figs in the safe and journal - they had the right.
    1. +12
      30 October 2025 09: 17
      had the right.
      They had the right to demand a written order and nothing more.
      1. +8
        30 October 2025 09: 23
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        They had the right to demand a written order and nothing more.

        From the article:
        Generally, At least five days were needed to prepare for the launch. They gave us 12 hours.The crew was assembled from pine trees: 46% were regular personnel, 54% were secondedSuvorov didn't have time to check the submarine's technical condition., but there was a promise from the head of the political department to expel him from the party and bring him to trial in case of refusal.

        That is, he had every right not to go on an untested boat, but he was afraid of punishment.

        And he got 10 years.
        1. +6
          30 October 2025 09: 28
          but was afraid of punishment.
          Possibly. Most likely, after refusing to obey Suvorov's order, even command of the river tram was out of the question.
          1. +7
            30 October 2025 09: 31
            Quote: 3x3zsave
            Suvorov wasn't even given the chance to command a river tram.

            Perhaps, but be honest - do what you must and let it be...
            1. +8
              30 October 2025 09: 47
              They would have dismissed Suvorov. They would have appointed another officer as commander, who would have led the submarine not into Sarannaya Bay, at a depth of 37 meters, but, mindful of his predecessor's fate, straight to the firing range, at a depth of 2000 meters. And the entire crew would have been guaranteed to perish.
              This is how things are with honesty and dishonesty...
            2. +11
              30 October 2025 09: 50
              Perhaps, but be honest - do what you must and let it be...

              From the outside, in reality there is a principle of one-man management and collective irresponsibility.
              The system breaks everyone; it’s impossible to reach the rank of major or captain 3rd rank without professional deformation and burnout.
              Uh... I'm speaking as a doctor...
              1. +6
                30 October 2025 11: 33
                Mr. Kohanka (Vladislav), Doctor, you're wrong! Everyone's rose-colored glasses disappear completely as soon as they become senior lieutenants, although... in practice, and especially those who served their conscription in the USSR, long before they earned their lieutenant's stars, clearly saw: "Something was rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark."
                In 1990, on Pioneer Day, May 19, the Severodvinsk City Court dismissed the Severodvinsk City Prosecutor's Office's claim to evict my father, me, my wife, and my daughter, born in 1986, from a 13,6-square-meter room in a Sevmash residential building without providing living space. On May 18, 1990, a representative of Sevmash's housing department (a third party in the proceedings) rejected the prosecutor's claim and stated that if my father were evicted from the room, in accordance with the USSR Constitution and the Housing Code of the RSFSR, he would need to be provided with housing. However, Sevmash had no available room or apartment, and she could not accommodate my father—who had received state awards, VDNKh awards, and the title of "Honorary Veteran of Sevmash"—in a dormitory. A representative of the city executive committee's housing department (a third party in the case) stated that she would not support the prosecutor's claim because I am on the city's preferential housing waiting list for young professionals, number 96. My wife, as a young professional, was assigned not by assignment but by my place of service, and has been on the GORONO (city education department) waiting list since 1987, number 275. If we are evicted, the city executive committee would be obligated to consider our young daughter and provide a family with a young child with at least a room, but the city has no available rooms. The judge, turning to the prosecutor's representative, said, "You've heard it all. Maybe we should put an end to this circus?" To which the prosecutor's representative proudly declared, "I will fight to the end!" And the process lasted two days... By then, I'd graduated with honors. Like all top students, I'd attended a gala reception at the Supreme Soviet. I'd flown to warmer climates, with preferential service, to take a break from the Far North, with preferential service, and even received a bonus for that trip—a whopping 50 rubles, according to an order from a major general. True, in violation of the minister's order and based on all my performance indicators, I still hadn't been sent to the Academy for two years straight. My favorite political officer reminded me at the commission that I wasn't even a candidate for membership in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, even though I was well past 18. Apparently, I was missing something, and I didn't come to him for advice...
                1. +8
                  30 October 2025 14: 51
                  By the time you get older, everyone's rose-colored glasses disappear completely.

                  The problem is different.
                  There are norms of behavior, customs, and rules that shape your relationship to reality. Unfortunately, the older you get and the higher you climb the "Olympus" of your career, the further you drift from reality.
                  In fact, you begin to become a cog in a system that functions only for the sake of its own existence (or rather, to justify its own existence) in the structure of executive institutions of power.
                  It's a dead end... actually, it's a tracing of that in Timur's article. The result: the death of the guys...
                  1. +4
                    30 October 2025 15: 20
                    Mr. Kokhanka (Vladislav), sir, I don't agree with you on everything. Some of my colleagues, as well as those serving under the epaulets in various "security" agencies of the USSR and the Russian Federation, whom I knew for many years, having received preferential pensions, to one degree or another embraced the "don't care" system. After all, they already have a pension!
                    Those who had no housing at all and whose native federal agency fed them promises of certificates and later preferential mortgages—they did. They always played by the rules, enforced by the smart guys at the top... Although, the repeat offender, Vice Admiral O.A. Tregubov, systematically rowed only for himself, while the criminal, Captain 1st Rank K. Mitkin, supposedly cared about the honor of the crew and the entire brigade... The former was kicked out of the Arkhangelsk Regional Council of Deputies, while the latter was hired for a lucrative position at a ship repair yard.
                    1. +2
                      31 October 2025 04: 09
                      Some of my fellow soldiers, as well as those serving under the shoulder straps in various "power" structures of the USSR and the Russian Federation, whom I had known for many years, having received a preferential pension, to one degree or another included the system of indifference.

                      Good morning, dear Evgeny!
                      I know from personal experience that the hardest part is the 2-3 years of service before that “retirement.”
              2. +1
                3 November 2025 18: 42
                As Pokrovsky put it: "It has long been noted that in the navy, everyone up to and including captain 3rd rank are normal people. After that, the number of idiots grows exponentially."
        2. +11
          30 October 2025 16: 23
          Superiors always have the ability to put pressure on their subordinates, especially in the navy, especially the Soviet one. The threat of "laying your party card on the table" was a serious one back then. But, I repeat, no one knew 100% that the submarine would sink. But the fact that they would ruin their lives was 101% certain...
          1. +4
            30 October 2025 16: 32
            And the fact that they would ruin my life was 101% certain...
            Moreover, Suvorov was awaiting a transfer to Leningrad.
      2. 0
        31 October 2025 20: 24
        No. The order violated several points.
        They could have asked for confirmation.
        1. 0
          31 October 2025 20: 34
          They could. And what does that change?
          1. 0
            31 October 2025 20: 49
            The responsibility of the senior officer on the ship. The senior officer is responsible for everyone's life.
            In wartime, it is permissible to carry out orders that are essentially questionable.
            In peacetime, this is a crime. And a commander who knowingly gives a criminal order should be reported to the appropriate authorities.
            In this particular case, there is only one measure. Conscience.
    2. +2
      30 October 2025 17: 28
      They had the right... they didn't have the opportunity - this has been done dozens of times, and the fig in the safe is a well-established technique.
      1. +1
        30 October 2025 20: 05
        and the fig in the safe is a well-established technique.
        Perhaps this is why the safe was opened?
        1. +2
          1 November 2025 09: 43
          Hmm...safes...just like that, I came back from vacation, the safe was opened, sealed with a seal that wasn't mine, and the prosecutor called to see me...and two days later, the citizen...what fun...
  9. +7
    30 October 2025 10: 00
    Even submarines of the same design differ, sometimes significantly: here a mechanism is installed at the wrong frame, here a valve is positioned a few centimeters to the right or left, here a ladder baluster is lower than on the adjacent side. When first commissioning a new submarine, even experienced submariners bump their heads on its protruding parts—because the submarine the crew previously sailed had a slightly different arrangement of all of the above, and the familiar trajectories of movement through the compartments bring their heads into contact with system components and mechanisms.

    "Slightly different"—greetings from industry. I wonder what would happen to someone who, seeing the "reverse" flap, refused to accept the submarine? After all, there are design documents!
    I read a story on a military-related website. When accepting a submarine, the political officer asked for a safe to be moved from one bulkhead to another. The safe was welded in place at four points. Several sailors and naval scrap metal were assigned to dismantle the safe. While attempting to separate the safe from the bulkhead, the bulkhead separated from the hull! It turned out they simply forgot to weld it in place.
    And about injuries. "Crucian carp injury" is when you hit your head on the handrail while diving into a hatch. "Pole fishermen"—those above average in height—were particularly prone to this.
    1. +8
      30 October 2025 11: 47
      Ne_boets (Roman), sir, I don't agree with you at all: "Slightly different"—greetings from industry. But what about the greatest specialists from military acceptance? Did they accept awls from the factory's masters in their office in quantities greater than one "Prosyankin on the Hunt" flask?
      Political officers in the USSR had a standard safe-box. It wasn't very large. The story on a military-related website is nonsense. Didn't the radiologists examine the bulkhead after welding, didn't the quality control department accept it, was the entire military acceptance department in court, like leading specialists of the 1059th Military Prosecutor's Office, Valery Dolbilkin and Pavel Nazarov, didn't apply the rubber seals, didn't install the cables, didn't the painters paint it, didn't the fitters and welders from the outfitting shop weld the safe, did the sailors build it themselves, without the approval of the fire department?
    2. +5
      30 October 2025 20: 41
      Even as a captain three, I regularly banged my head on some contraption above the upper hatch after a new boat was delivered: the ladder baluster there was five centimeters higher than on the previous one, so out of habit I would bump my head into the metal, and after a couple of days I got used to it)))
  10. 0
    30 October 2025 10: 35
    Kapraz Suvorov is guilty of violating the guidelines and instructions, and of destroying both the men and the submarine. Why should he be pitied? For wanting to please his superiors? It's long been known that the desire to please one's superiors in every way sooner or later ends badly.
    1. +5
      30 October 2025 16: 15
      The point is that a sortie under such a composition and organization is far from isolated. Far less frequently have they gone to sea in full compliance with the submarine regulations. And no cries from submarine commanders or engineers were ever heeded; the final response was always "Attention! Run and march!"
      1. 0
        30 October 2025 16: 45
        Kapraz, I think you've already served your pension time—put your report on the table and go. And no one will do a damn thing to you. And what did people die for?
        1. +3
          30 October 2025 17: 13
          Yes, that was sometimes done, but many times or even tens of times less often...
          The very course of service, the daily routine itself was simple: I'm the boss - you're the boss, you're the boss - I'm the boss... and repeated violations of all and any regulations by the command - these are not isolated incidents, but a dull everyday routine... And only catastrophes would cheer us up for a couple of days... and then - everything all over again: "At ease! Run, march!"
          People die, as a rule, due to carelessness, lack of preparation and training (for which their immediate commanders are responsible) and the idiotic admiral's paradigm - "running in circles"...
    2. +5
      30 October 2025 20: 12
      It is difficult for the living to judge those who departed with Charon...on their last voyage along the Styx.
      The situation was typical: the BP plan needed to be closed. Combat-ready and technically sound forces were scarce. Because with Soviet ship repairs, the only option was to "quietly shoot ourselves." It was impossible to defeat them. The division's plan was burning, dragging down the flotilla... and that flotilla was sinking the Fleet. The BP course—the L-3/SL task—was "closed" by the TS in a duel situation... So they sent what was operational to sea.
      Suvorov, Chief of Staff of the Divisional Submarine, was ultimately responsible for the execution of the BP plan. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief, an experienced sailor, relied on the Russians' "maybe." It didn't work out... Fate decreed otherwise. He didn't please anyone. He wanted to complete his mission—to close the division's BP plan. But, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
      Fate, in a word. And judging the departed is the last thing one should do. Suvorov was a sailor, an honest man. He pleased no one... soldier
      1. -2
        30 October 2025 21: 13
        His life is his personal business, but no one gave him the right to manage the lives of people.
        1. Fat
          +2
          30 October 2025 21: 55
          Quote: TermNachTER
          His life is his personal business, but no one gave him the right to manage the lives of people.

          Such rights are enshrined, in particular, in the Charter...
          1. -1
            30 October 2025 22: 01
            For some reason, the court ruled differently. Even Peter the Great said: "Don't adhere to the rules like a blind wall."
            1. Fat
              +2
              30 October 2025 22: 11
              Quote: TermNachTER
              For some reason, the court ruled differently. Even Peter the Great said: "Don't adhere to the rules like a blind wall."

              Article 332 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Failure to comply with an order.
              1. 0
                30 October 2025 22: 16
                Article 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Execution of an order or instruction.
    3. +3
      30 October 2025 20: 46
      The Navy is a system where even today, failure to obey a superior's order is a criminal offense. There are countless ways to pressure a commander, and in the USSR, there was also a party line: failing to comply with a party organization's decision meant leaving your party card on the table, and that would be the end of everything; the only option left would be to become a street sweeper.
      1. 0
        30 October 2025 22: 03
        Is there no life in civilian life? Would it be better to bury 10, 15, or 20 people?
  11. +4
    30 October 2025 11: 35
    The story with the report in the safe is a bit unclear. What's the point of locking it up without sending it on time? Or was it a copy of what was sent? But then, destroying a sent document and failing to act on it would warrant a special investigation, wouldn't it? Aren't documents recorded upon receipt?
    1. +5
      30 October 2025 20: 51
      My guess is that either Gusev didn't have time to submit it, or the incoming log was purged: in that case, they could have simply rewritten the log. Here, most likely, the investigator handling the case was well-greased or pressured so that he wouldn't have noticed the log swap. But that's just my guess, and the safe story comes from Chernov, and he was a well-informed old man.
      1. +1
        30 October 2025 21: 42
        Another possibility suggests itself: if the commander expected the submarine to be turned back due to the lack of his signature in the logbook, then he prepared the report precisely for this contingency, ready to hand it immediately to his superiors. But then I see no point in opening the safe later—the document didn't pose a threat to anyone except its author. It turned out that he knew, but didn't react appropriately to the situation.
        P.S.: Did they limit the investigation to just one investigator? In theory, there should have been a whole commission.
  12. +6
    30 October 2025 16: 11
    The history of submarine disasters in our Navy is a bitter and terrible truth about the real level of our naval leadership... first and foremost, the moral level... I don't recall a single case of senior naval officers, that is, admirals, being held accountable...
    My experience interacting with the Navy's command staff (again, we're talking about admirals and commanders of various levels) was incredibly sad... I often felt like washing my hands...

    An old friend of mine, an officer, was on that boat; thank God, he survived... He didn't want to talk about the disaster, but immediately started swearing... and he simply called the command bastards...
    1. -1
      30 October 2025 22: 13
      Why does a person (a boss) become a bastard? After all, we're all born simple, ordinary people. It's the subordinates who turn a boss into a bastard by their willingness to carry out the most stupid (and criminal) orders. Incidentally, this is even in the Criminal Code: "Carrying out a criminal order is a crime."
      1. +2
        30 October 2025 22: 28
        Quote: TermNachTER
        It is the subordinates who make the boss a bastard,

        Aren't you ashamed to say so?

        However, if a person has never served in the military, then there is nothing surprising...
        A classic example of this is to shift the blame onto... a subordinate/the poor/the weak... they are to blame for everything - they carry out some wrong orders, they don't work hard enough, they don't show heroism...
        It's surprising to read such gems today... but people, of course, have the right to even the most eccentric point of view... that's democracy, there's no escape...
        1. +1
          30 October 2025 22: 43
          I worked for the Ministry of Internal Affairs for 17 years and retired as a captain because I had the audacity to have my own opinion and never bowed to anyone. And Corporal Suvorov, in accordance with all regulations, was required to submit a reasoned report outlining his point of view and refusing to lead a submarine that hadn't been properly tested. However, he faced a tempting prospect—a transfer to Leningrad, with the prospect of a rear admiral's rank, and perhaps even higher—and he committed a direct crime.
          1. +2
            30 October 2025 23: 09
            I don't question your conscientious service in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. But service in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with all due respect to law enforcement, is not military service—except for the superficial similarity of the uniform. Only security (not operational) special forces units bear some resemblance to military service.
            Therefore, your opinions, while completely fair from the point of view of a law enforcement officer, do not in any way reflect the content of military service.
            A military prosecutor oversees officials' compliance with the law, while a military investigator provides a legal assessment of a service member's actions. But both of these law enforcement officers are military personnel. Although, after all, they're not combat soldiers, so why not appoint ordinary prosecutors and investigators to these positions? That's because military service is a specific type of human activity. Too specific to be judged as simply as one might sometimes wish.
            1. +1
              30 October 2025 23: 41
              So how does service in the Ministry of Internal Affairs differ from military service? There are also regulations and orders that govern service, rights, and responsibilities. And how does a military prosecutor (investigator) differ from a regular one? Is it just the prefix "military"? And the Criminal Code is the same for everyone. What are the specifics? Suvorov's actions fall under the simplest classification—criminal negligence resulting in particularly grave consequences. And no military prosecutors are needed.
              1. +1
                30 October 2025 23: 45
                P.S. And when Chechnya started and the cops went there, it wasn't up to some sailor warming his belly on the beaches of Sevastopol to tell whose service was more difficult and important.
                1. +4
                  31 October 2025 08: 04
                  And when Chechnya started and the cops went there,
                  I would also like to point out that, together with the St. Petersburg OMON, a combined detachment of marines from the Baltic Fleet was among the first to go to Chechnya.
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2025 09: 58
                    Marines, but not submariners.
                    1. 0
                      1 November 2025 10: 03
                      but not submariners.
                      That would be strange, to say the least.
                      1. 0
                        1 November 2025 10: 04
                        Isn't it strange to see cops in the Chechen forests (mountains)?
                      2. 0
                        1 November 2025 11: 53
                        Where did I say this was normal?
                      3. 0
                        1 November 2025 12: 23
                        Another participant in the discussion stated this, see above.
                2. 0
                  1 November 2025 09: 50
                  And what service in the Ministry of Internal Affairs were you in?
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2025 09: 57
                    Fight against organized crime
    2. +1
      31 October 2025 16: 38
      Quote: Vasily_Ostrovsky
      …our Navy – the bitter and terrible truth about the real level of our naval leadership… first and foremost – the moral level…
      It seems to me this story is not just about the Navy. From the time of King Pea to today's cruel days...
      Quote: Vasily_Ostrovsky
      I don't recall a single case of senior naval officers, that is, admirals, being held accountable...
      I would like to believe that the history of the SVO will first be examined by investigators, and only then by historians.
      1. +2
        31 October 2025 19: 07
        I'm probably going to disappoint you, but don't get your hopes up... The powers that be haven't changed all that much (I mean the military component, not the political one in this case), the senior command staff up to the level of unit commander has remained, by and large, the same...

        How do you imagine this happening? Investigators turning on themselves? That's beyond the pale for an adult...

        Whatever
        investigators will sort it out first
        - It is necessary to disable the ability of those who "made history" to influence the proceedings...

        This was not often possible even during the Great Patriotic War, and now even more so...

        Now only descendants will be able to do a "debriefing," and even then, it will depend on whose descendants are at the helm...

        It's an unpopular point of view, but I don't have any faith in the government at all, not at all... Ideologically motivated people could still do something; they had principles, but today's government has no principles, no money, and never will, except for one: holding on to power at any cost. Because that's what ensures their survival, and the lives of their children and loved ones.
        1. 0
          31 October 2025 20: 43
          Quote: Vasily_Ostrovsky
          I'll probably disappoint you, but don't get your hopes up...
          You won't upset me personally: I system and was demobilized twice at the tender age of 28…. - for excessive official zeal, aka didn't close his mouth when he should have.
          Znamenskaya Street has been 'rotten' for at least thirty years... I was there last time in '94... further is not literary... the moderators will not appreciate it.
  13. -3
    30 October 2025 23: 37
    A true raftsman. That's why the Americans aren't afraid of us. They know full well the intelligence and business acumen of our admirals and generals.
  14. +2
    31 October 2025 00: 18
    I'm just curious, for what reasons were the flaps opened in the other direction?
    There must be some kind of standardization, at least to make it easier to retrain crews.
    1. +1
      31 October 2025 09: 03
      Another possibility is that the actuator was simply flipped over to accommodate new equipment nearby. It's not like they're designing and building a whole new unit from scratch just to gain a few millimeters of space in the right place.
      1. +2
        31 October 2025 18: 48
        There are left-hand rotation valves. The direction of rotation is indicated on pipe fittings for a reason.
        In fact, the correct solution would be to have automatic valves that close automatically when the water flow occurs. This measure is also necessary at the inlet of other pipes carrying outside fluids—if a rupture occurs, the valve automatically shuts off the flow when the flow rate exceeds the pipe's permissible limit.
        1. +1
          31 October 2025 18: 52
          It would have been possible to install sensors; I don't think it would have affected the price of a multi-billion dollar submarine in any way.
          1. +1
            3 November 2025 00: 09
            There were, the author admitted in the note above. But the indicator was faulty.
        2. 0
          31 October 2025 19: 08
          Quote: ycuce234-san

          In fact, the correct solution would be to have automatic valves that close automatically with the flow of water itself.

          It's hard to say without knowing the specific design. To seal it with a water flow, you have to accept that some water will regularly get inside. It's a ventilation system, after all; how do you remove that water?
          1. 0
            31 October 2025 23: 58
            These valves operate like relays and are triggered when safe conditions are exceeded. Small leaks are low-risk and even beneficial, as they allow for early detection of problems.
            1. +1
              1 November 2025 00: 06
              Quote: ycuce234-san
              Minor leaks are not very dangerous and are even useful because they allow problems to be detected in time.

              Unfortunately, this approach can lead to forced shutdowns of the automatic system when minor leaks can't be prevented too often, but work needs to be done. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar was already in place. It's not for nothing that:
              The cover of the pop-up rescue device was firmly secured with a cable to the outside of the submarine's hull, both emergency rescue buoys were welded in place, and attempts to use the strong wheelhouse of the third compartment for airlock passage were unsuccessful—the flooding seacock was broken...
  15. -1
    31 October 2025 00: 26
    Thanks for the interesting article.
    Dad served in the Black Sea Fleet from 1969 to 1972 in Balaklava as a torpedo man. Even then, he saw the rottenness and corruption of warrant officers and officers, especially in Sevastopol.
    1. 0
      31 October 2025 12: 32
      If your father told you this, then he is weak and hasn’t seen anything.
  16. +5
    31 October 2025 06: 03
    To the author: I don't know why you wrote all this.
    But you neither know nor understand the circumstances or causes of this tragedy. But to make everything clear, I must explain.
    1. KU VMF-82 (Naval Regulations). It contains the article: "Installation Manager." The person responsible for the flooding of the 4th auxiliary machinery compartment is the Manager of the ship's ventilation intake and exhaust valves.
    2. On the ship, all crew personnel are assigned according to the Ship's Schedule. Upon the Commander's command: "Stand at your stations for diving," in accordance with his duties under the Ship's Schedule "During Submersion and Surface of the Submarine," the Ventilation Damper Manager is required to check their closure and switch to remote control. The dampers were opened at 23:35 p.m. on June 26, 1983, in the trim area of ​​DK-3.
    According to the ship's schedule, the 4th Compartment Commander was responsible for ensuring the compartment was sealed upon the "Prepare to dive" command. He failed to fulfill his duties.
    The operator of the "Wolfram" ship's general systems control panel sees the position of all the valves on the screen via an alarm. He saw that the pressure hoop was leaking, with the intake and exhaust ventilation valves open in the fourth compartment. THIS IS THE FIRST TECHNICAL ERROR.
    3. The BC-5 commander (sentenced to 8 years), the survivability division commander (KD-3) had to use the signaling system on the Wolfram launcher to ensure that the pressure hull was tight before giving the command to “Accept main ballast except medium.”
    Furthermore, the MAIN BALLAST TANK VENTILATION VALVES WILL NOT OPEN IF THE PK IS NOT HERMETIC.
    Who made the SECOND TECHNICAL ERROR, which always leads to disaster? Did the OKS control center operator unlock the control system themselves? Or did he do so on command from the mechanic or the third division commander?
    THAT'S IT. You can't ask the Flaps Manager and the Compartment Commander about it; they were already among the 14 people who were in Compartment 4 at 11:40 PM on June 26, 1983, and they died.
    1. 0
      3 November 2025 00: 14
      What a complicated explanation. And the author told you the admirals were to blame. That's the accepted way to explain things here on VO.
    2. +1
      4 November 2025 21: 55
      That's right. Only on the 670, the OKS control panel was called "Key 670," not "Wolfram."
      The position sensors (the pressure bars that acted on the SKPU sensor itself had rotted) and the nose ring flap of the ventilation system were faulty. The sensors were locked in the "closed" position, preventing the opening of the central group's central ventilation valve.
  17. +3
    31 October 2025 06: 07
    Everything else: organizational blunders, “bloody traces” behind some bosses - it’s all indirect.
  18. +2
    31 October 2025 06: 15
    Well, as for the commander, that’s why he is “first after God.”
    In Sarannaya Bay, before taking the DK-3 trim area and giving the command "All hands down," everyone consults with their own asses: where is it better to sit: in the commander's chair or in the dock
  19. 0
    1 November 2025 11: 02
    It's all sad and depressing—both that people died and that an innocent man was sent to prison, tarnishing his honor. But alas, there were many such episodes back then, when the Cold War's rage and madness drove the leadership crazy. I wonder how Comrade Yerofeyev slept afterward; did his conscience bother him? Apparently not, he slept soundly. His navy commander's shoulder straps warmed him. Because of scum like these, people died in peacetime...
  20. -1
    2 November 2025 12: 59
    Besides his involvement in the sinking of four submarines in various fleets—K-429/219/278/141—there was also a criminal case in 1998 for large-scale theft in the Northern Fleet. The defendant was Yerofeyev. Surprisingly, as in the cases of K-429 and K-278, he got away with it. The case was dropped. However, he was finally discharged from the service in 1999, at age 58, with an admiral's pension. He was a man who knew how to get himself out of trouble. He died quite recently, in 2022.
  21. 0
    2 November 2025 23: 36
    Well, left or right, but the ventilation holes weren't closed! Who was responsible for this? Who didn't check, who didn't give the order?
  22. 0
    3 November 2025 00: 21
    Quote: Vasily_Ostrovsky
    Yes, always!
    They taught us this in school, heh-heh...

    So the admirals knew too, since they graduated from the same school. wink
  23. +1
    4 November 2025 14: 30
    Somehow, the author overlooked why and, more importantly, how the submarine began to dive with the bow ventilation ring flaps open. The Klyuch SDSAU has a lock preventing the opening of the ventilation valves of the middle group of the central gas chambers if the overboard openings are not closed. The author also overlooked the glaring fact that the submarine had not declared a dive drill and, therefore, the necessary pre-dive procedures were not carried out, such as checking the pressure hull for leaks, connecting the seacocks of the depth gauges, etc.
    Without these nuances, the average person cannot understand the depth of the confusion that occurred on board.
  24. 0
    7 November 2025 09: 00
    Only Stalin could shoot and demote major commanders for failures; subsequently, each one had a "hairy" paw that supported him.