Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Soviet cruiser Vasily Chapayev

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet cruiser Vasily Chapayev

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham (talk)

Soviet cruiser Vasily Chapayev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the second nomination of a Kresta II-class cruiser for A-Class review and follows on from the work on Admiral Isachenkov (and work by others more capable than me on Marshal Voroshilov). I am nominating this article because I feel that it meets the criteria for A-Class. simongraham (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nick-D

edit

I have the following comments:

  • "1985 found the vessel undertaking anti-submarine exercises against US Navy submarines demonstrating the Soviet capability of joint operations between aircraft, ships and submarines" - this is a bit breathless, and over-complex for the lead
    • I have removed the sentence and added a more general comment.
  • Is there any commentary on whether using these ships to destroy NATO attack subs to clear the way for Yankee class Soviet subs was a good idea? It seems daft.
    • There is no information in Soviet sources so it is hard to tell. As the confrontation never happened in war, there is no evidence either way.
  • Did the Ka-25 helicopter have any anti-sub sensors of its own, or was it reliant on the ship to locate targets and direct attacks (which is what the current text implies)
    • Added explicit mention that the helicopter could carry sensors added to the section on sensors.
  • Why did the crew refuse to sail in 1976, and what happened to them?
    • Clarified. There is no mention of a reason in the sources, or whether the crew were punished.
  • "to build friendly relationships between the host countries and the Soviet Union." - seems an over-statement ('to contribute to' perhaps?)
    • Changed.
  • "1985 was a year of exercises" - the subsequent text doesn't really support this, as it describes what look like the same types of activities the ship undertook each year
    • Removed.
  • Is anything known of the ship's history between 1986 and 1991? There's nothing at present. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Apologies for being slow to respond here, but I thought that this article would benefit from other reviewers before I felt comfortable supporting. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Expect to start soon - Pendright (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following comments and look forward to your responses. Pendright (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • In 1982, Vasily Chapayev was allocated to support the BOR-4 spaceplane programme, and in 1984 [it] participated in a major Soviet search for a US Navy submarine near the Kamchatka Peninsula.
  • Suggest the above change
I have amended the sentence, and changed it to avoid the repeated phrase.
There is no data in the source.
<>Does "There is no data in the source" suggest that the sentence should stand as is? Pendright (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am wary of putting in anything that is addition to reputable sources. Can you point me to anything else that may help please? simongraham (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: - Pendright (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you should be, however, your source seems surprisingly limited on details on an event that is described as major. Under the circumstances, it seems like the best that can be done now is to make the sentence a bit clearer and more accurate - if you can live with the suggested changes then we'll mmove on.
Vasily Chapayev was allocated to support the BOR-4 spaceplane programme, and two years later, the vessel participated in a major Soviet search for a US Navy submarine [that was suspected of being] near the Kamchatka Peninsula [in the Russian Far East].
  • The comma after later is unnecessary
  • Add "that was suspected of being" -> The body indicates thart the sub was not identified as a US sub until four days later.
  • Add "in the Russian Far East" -> Gives readers an idea of the Peninsula's location without having to click the link. Pendright (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. simongraham (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1985, the ship took part in a simulated joint operations attack on the US base at Pearl Harbor and, during the following year, the first joint exercises between the Soviet and North Korean Navies.
  • in "the" simulated joint "operations"
This was one example, so I feel that the indefinite article is more appropriate.
<>In British Engish, according to my research, the definite article "the" is used in front of a noun when we believe the reader knows exactly what we are referring to. In any event, it's your call. Pendright (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Added the link, although the article seems to have a broader understanding of simulation including chess.
  • joint operations with whom?
Other parts of the Soviet armed forces. An alternative name for these are combined operations.
  • Suggest the sentence end after Pearl Harbor, and then begin a new sentence. Consider something like this for the second sentence: -> During the following year, the first joint exercises ocurred between the Soviet and North Korean Navies.
I have split the sentence and amended the wording.

General:

  • Ship articles ordinarily provide readers with a bit more informaton about the ship itself - such as its main battery and so on.
Added a bit about the main armament.
  • Describing why the ship was built would be an appropriate lesd addition.
Added a mention of the purpose and expansion of the role.

Add "Background section":

  • The Cold War is pivotol to the context of the article's storyline, -> Show readers the connection.
    • I have added a sentence.

Design and development:

  • Vasily Chapayev was the ninth ship of the class of ten Project 1134A Berkut A (NATO reporting name: 'Kresta II'-class) cruisers, [that was or were] designed by Vasily Anikeyev.[1]
Suggest the above changes
Done
  • The class were designated as large anti-submarine ships (Russian: Большой Противолодочный Корабль, BPK) in accordance with their primary mission of countering NATO ballistic missile submarines, particularly the US Navy fleet of Polaris-equipped submarines.
NATO is an alliance of sovereign countries; NATO relies on the military forces of its member countries to carry out an operation or mission as it does not possess military forces of its own. -> This is pertinent information that should be shared directly with readers.
Clarified.
  • However, before the ships began to be built, commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy Admiral Sergey Gorshkov changed the role of the ships to that of destroying NATO attack submarines to allow Soviet Project 667A Navaga (NATO reporting name: 'Yankee'-class) ballistic missile submarines to reach the central Atlantic and Pacific, from where the latter could launch their comparatively short-ranged ballistic missiles against targets in the United States.[2][3]
  • A rough count suggess this sentence contains about 70 words -> Comsider breaking it up
Split into two sentences.
  • When it is, think about this addition -> "changed the role of the ships to that of [being capable of] destroying NATO attack submarines"
Done.
  • The ship's complement was 343 officers and ratings.
suggest officers and "enlisted men" -> It's reader friedly ad it does not require a link
This is a good suggestion but I am not sure of the gender of the sailors.
  • Vasily Chapayev was propelled by two TV-12-1 geared steam turbines each powered by four high-pressure boilers, with the forward engine room powering the port screw and the aft [one] the starboard [screw].
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
  • [The ship's] T [t]otal power was 91,000 shaft horsepower (67,859 kW), giving a maximum speed of 34 knots (63 km/h; 39 mph).[6]
Suggest the above changes
Amended.

General:

Add the maximum fuel capacity and the type of fuel used?
Added with reference.

Armament:

  • The Ka-25 helicopter embarked on the ship was also capable of aiding in the search and destruction of submarines, and as such [it] could carry depth charges and torpedoes.[9]
Suggest the above change
Amended.
  • The vessel also had four AK-725 57 mm (2.2 in) dual-purpose guns situated in two twin mountings, one on either side aft of the funnel, to protect against surface and aerial threats.
Suggest the above change
Removed.
  • Two quintuple PT-53-1134A mountings for 533 mm (21 in) torpedoes were also fitted aft of the funnel which could be used in both the anti-shipping and anti-submarine role.[13]
  • Is it torpedos or torpedo tubes?
I believe the calibre relates to both.
<>Ships are fitted with torpedo tubes - not torpedos as such. Pendright (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended it, and the link in the infobox, to make that clear. simongraham (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should role be roles?
Amended.

Sensors and electronics warfare:

  • For fire-control purposes the vessel had Grom-M for the surface-to-air missiles, MR-103 Bars for the AK-725 and MR-123 Vympel for the AK-630.[4]
Add a comma after purposes
Added.
  • The ship's electronic warfare equipment included the MRP-15-16 Zaliv and two sets each of the MRP-11-12 and MRP-13-14 direction-finding systems, as well as the MRP-150 Gurzuf A and MRP-152 Gurzuf B radar-jamming devices.[15]
The ship's electronic "anti-warfare" equipment Pendright (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand. The linked article is called electronic warfare.

General:

  • Should the heading include [anti]-warfare?
    • There is no reference to this in the sources.

Construction and career:

  • Ordered on 11 June 1970 from the Zhdanov Shipyard[,] Vasily Chapayev, [was] allocated the yard number 729, [the ship] was laid down on 22 November 1973 and launched on 28 November 1974.[16]
Suggest the above changes
I have amended and split the sentence.
  • Vasily Chapayev [The cruiser] was named in honour of the Soviet Civil War commander Vasily Chapayev.
Suggest the above changes
Amended.

General:

  • Chronologically, the construction part of this secion would seem better placed under the Design and ddevolpment section.

1970s:

  • Captain 1st Rank A. A. Agadzhanov was transferred from Vladivostok to take command and [of[ the warship, and [it] departed Leningrad in 1977 for the port that would be home for the rest of the ship's career.[18]
  • Suggest the above changes
Amended.
  • What month in 1977
The sources do not say.
  • In June 1978,Vasily Chapayev joined a fleet of Soviet warships, including the Project 68bis (NATO reporting name: 'Sverdlov' class) cruiser Admiral Senyavin and the Project 58 (NATO reporting name: 'Kynda' class) cruiser Admiral Fokin, [to sail] in sailing to [for] Vietnam to promote peace

after the Sino-Vietnamese War.[20]

Suggest the above changes
Amended.
  • The crew was honoured for their service, with 36 receiving government commendations.
Honored by whom?
The sources are not explicit. Implicitly the Soviet authorities.
  • The vessel returned in March.[18]
Returned to its home port?
Clarified.

1980s and end of service:

  • Vasily Chapayev started the next decade in Vladivostok.
Suggest the above change
I have removed the sentence as the port is clear from the previous paragraph.
  • The vessel spent the year visiting countries in and around the [Indian] o[O]cean.
Added.
  • Suggest the above change
Amended.
  • The ship then travelled on to Ethiopia, where short preventative maintenance repairs were performed, and then subsequently [it] travelled to Maputo, Mozambique, and Socatra, Yemen, before returning to Vladivostok via Victoria and Vietnam.[18]
  • Was this travel generally to show the flag?
  • Suggest the above changes
Amended.
  • On 28 September 1984, the ship left Vladivostok as part of a large fleet of Soviet vessels led by the Project 1143 Krechyet (NATO reporting name: 'Kiev' class) aircraft carrier Novorossiysk on a mission to search for a US Navy nuclear submarine [reported] off the coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Suggest the above change
Amended.
  • Two days later, on 30 September, a radioactive signature consistent with a submarine was detected[,] and on 2 October, the Soviet Project 877 Paltus (NATO reporting name: 'Kilo' class) class submarine B-404 identified a US submarine in the Kuril Strait.
  • Suggest the above changes
Amended.
The sources do not say.
<>Should the sentence stand as it is? Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. simongraham (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The submarine was subsequently tracked by air and sea until 5 October.
Can you describe what all these ships were dong for about seven days and the outcome?
The sources do not give a lot of detail.
<>Add the details available Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. simongraham (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ships then all returned to [their home] port[s].[22]
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
  • After a short anti-submarine exercise in February, on 29 March 1985, Vasily Chapayev accompanied Nikolayev, Novorossiysk and a host of smaller vessels under the command of Vice-Admiral Rostislav Leonidovich Dymov to [for] the Pacific Ocean [to] undertake a major exercise to [for] test[ing] the joint operations capability of [within] the Soviet armed forces.
  • "After a short anti-submarine exercise in February," -> Drop this clause since it has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence.
  • suggest the above changes
I have amended these and removed the subclause.
  • The fleet progressed to the coast of Hawaii, and [they or it] proceeded to run a simulated attack on Pearl Habor.
  • Suggest the above change
Amended.
  • The logistices and exsecution involed in this military war game would seem extensive, yet less than 20 words are devoted to what took place leading up to and durng the the simulated (Military simulation) attack. -> Suggest puting some meant on the bones here - it appears there is or sbould be plenty of potential to elaborate.
That seems a reasonable assumption. However, the sources do not go into that much detail, including whether Vasily Chapayev had a command role.
<>Give readers the details avilable Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. simongraham (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The test proved the value of a co-ordinated attack by aircraft, ships and submarines using long-range cruise missiles.
  • Was it the test or the "outcome" of the test?
Amended.
  • Who made this pronouncement and on what basis?
The sources are not clear. Implicitly the Soviet authorities.
  • Between 15 and 17 October 1986, the ship was involved in the first joint exercise between the Soviet Union and the Korean People's Navy, simulating an amphibious attack on Rason.
How about a few details?
There is not much more in the sources. There is some information about the political fall-out, and particularly the effect it had on US relations with North Korea but nothing more on the ship's participation.
<>Add what is available Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added some context. simongraham (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crew was subsequently named amongst the most capable in the Soviet Navy at anti-submarine warfare.[23]
By whom
Added.

Overall:

  • The NATO reporting name link shows readers that it is a system of code names used by NATO to idemtify military warships, aircraft, or subnarines used by the Soviet Union and others. It utilizies one or two-syllable names instead of proper names. However, the article is not about NATO, it's about a Soviet ship built to counter a class of submarines under the command of NATO. -> So in what way or manner is the use of code names relevfant to this article?
My reasoning is based on the way that many of the sources prefer the NATO code names to the Soviet designation and, as therefore the readers may know these better, I suggest it is worth including them. For example, in the 1974 edition of Jane's, only NATO code names are given for the class, radar, helicopter etc.
<>I'm unmoved by your argument, but I bow to your wishes. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few third party comments about the ship from Friedman, Janes, or others would help give a bit of balance to the article, which it now lacks.
The editions of Conway's or Jane's I have give no comments on the vessel's service beyond bare facts and dates. Please can you direct me to the books that you mean.
<>I was fishing for bare facts - like, was the ship equal to ships of other nations, did certain features of it stand out against other ships internationally and so on. -> If your sources contain no such info, then scratch the comment. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit tricky as these were large anti-submarine vessels that do not seem to have direct counterparts in NATO. I have added a bit to the introduction paragraph for context.

@Simongraham: This is it for now! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Thank you for such an in-depth review. Please see my comments above. simongraham (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Some of your responses need further discussion and I've maked them with this <>. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Thank you. Do you have any additional sources that you would recommend please? simongraham (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: Sorry, I can not but Parsecboy might. Good luck! Pendright (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: Thank you. I believe these are done now. simongraham (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: Supporting - thamk you! Pendright (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

That's all. Assuming the sources can be corrected, both images appear to be licensed correctly. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Parsecboy. simongraham (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit

Long time no see. Happy to see this project resume. Will do this at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I look forward to seeing your comments. simongraham (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vasily Chapayev (Russian: Васи́лий Чапа́ев) was a Project" Unlink Russian here.
    • Unlinked.
  • "of the Soviet Navy named for Soviet commander Vasily Chapayev" Sounds odd to me.
    • Rewritten to remove the repeated adjective.
  • "operated by the members of NATO" Unlink NATO I think it's well known enough.
    • Removed.
  • "extensively in the Indian and Pacific Oceans" Unlink both oceans because they're well known.
    • Removed.
  • There are three howevers maybe remove one or two?
    • Reworded.
  • "range of 5,200 nautical miles (9,630 km; 5,984 mi)" Unlink kilometres and miles.
    • Removed.
  • "forward RBU-1000 6-barrel rocket" Per MOS:NUMERAL try to avoid similair formats of numbers next to each other.
    • Rephrased.
  • "had four AK-725 57 mm (2.2 in) dual-purpose guns" Same as above.
    • Rephrased.
  • "The vessel was named in honour of the Soviet Civil War" Replace Soviet with Russian or otherwise it'd be MOS:EGG.
    • Reworded.
  • "On 16 December 1977, the ship paid a visit to Mumbai, staying until 21 December" Replace Mumbai with Bombay 'causee that was the name in the 70s.
    • Changed
  • "visited Aden in the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen" Common name was South Yemen maybe use that instead?
    • Changed
  • "which was designed to splashdown in the Indian Ocean" Unlink Indian Ocean.
    • Unlinked.

That's everything from me. Sorry that it took way too long to review this totally forgot it. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Not a problem. Thank you for your comments. I believe these are done. simongraham (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Soviet_cruiser_Vasily_Chapayev&oldid=1153076218"