Night attack destroyers in the Russo-Japanese War

50
During the discussion of a series of articles devoted to the Varyag cruiser, a discussion arose about what could have happened if the Russian stationary did not fight the squadron S. Uriu on January 27 and were attacked by Japanese destroyers on Chemulpo roadstead with the onset of darkness. Opinions were divided - it was suggested that such an attack would have a deadly effectiveness and would certainly lead to the death of Russian stationary, but a number of respected readers questioned this outcome.

In order to determine the possible effectiveness of such an attack, we will analyze the results demonstrated by the Japanese and Russian destroyers in night battles, and we will begin, of course, with the first naval battle from which, in fact, the Russian-Japanese war began: on the Port Arthur squadron.

As is known, the latter stood on the outer roads in the number of 16 pennants in four lines staggered — the distance between the warships was 2 cable. Armadillos and cruisers stood with open fires, there were no anti-mine networks, but anti-mine guns were charged. The Japanese took, as it is commonly believed, three attacks, but only the first one was massive: within 17 minutes, from 23.33 to 23.50, 26 in January 1904 were eight Japanese destroyers fired at Russian ships 14 mines, of which 12 was sent to three-pipe ships. The Port Arthur squadron responded with 23.37 fire, that is, 4 minutes after the first Japanese mine shot, but the coastal guns did not take part in repelling the attack.

As a result of this attack, the 3 of the Russian ship was undermined: with an interval of five minutes in 23.40, the mine hit the Retvisan, in 23.45 - in the Tsesarevich and in 23.50 - in the Pallada. Naturally, the squadron realized that they had been subjected to a Japanese attack, and without any doubt they shot at enemy destroyers in the future. But the subsequent "attacks" were the actions of single Japanese ships - in 00.30 on 27 in January, the destroyer "Carp" and in 00.50 the destroyer "Oboro" fired one mine each, the first "into a ship of the Poltava type", and the second - into an unidentified four-pipe Russian ship, without achieving success.

When inspecting unexploded mines (there were a lot of such mines), it was found that they were supplied with Aubrey's device for correct operation over long distances, and with special knives for the eruption of torpedo networks. In other words, it was assumed that the destroyers would attack the squadron's ships from long distances, not coming close to them, and the Japanese had no doubt that the Russian ships would be protected by anti-mine networks.

In general, the following can be stated: the Japanese attack was more or less successful. It was a moonless night (the moon appeared in the sky only around 3 in the morning) the destroyers were seen from the Russian ships just before the attack itself, but, unfortunately, it is unclear at what distance it was made. The effectiveness of the first attack was 21,4%, but the subsequent “attacks” on the squadron snapping at all barrels (one mine from one destroyer) were already made explicitly for the pro forma - the Japanese destroyers could not get close to the distance the mines hit.

Subsequently, the Japanese made several attempts to block the exit from the inner harbor of Port Arthur, where Russian ships were forced to leave, and at the same time (according to the “Work historical Commission ”) attempts were made to detonate the battleship“ Retvisan ”, which, as a result of a successful mine attack on the night of January 27, was forced to run aground. In fact, the ship was surrounded by two "lines of defense" - the first of them was a home-made bon made up of logs tied together by an anchor rope removed from port barges. These logs were equipped with mine networks from the port side of the battleship (facing the shore), and from other squadron ships that had spare panels. This boom was located about 20 meters from the damaged ship, secured with special anchors, and the second line of defense was the mine’s starboard network of Retvisan. At night, servants were constantly on duty at the starboard artillery, spotlights were ready to turn on at any moment, and only half of the crew was asleep. In addition, two destroyers and several steam boats armed with 37-mm cannons were constantly on duty next to the blown up ship, not to mention the fact that the land batteries were ready to support the Retvisan with fire at any moment.


Retvizan stranded in Port Arthur


The first attack took place on the night from 10 to 11 in February, when the Japanese attempted to block the passage to the internal pool for the first time with the help of the firefighters. Interestingly, the enemy destroyer "Kagero" approached the battleship at a distance of three cables, but was noticed only after falling into the beam of a fortress searchlight - it happened around 02.45 in the morning of February 11 and the moon had not yet risen. "Retvizan" immediately opened fire on him, "Kagero" fired a mine, but unsuccessfully - she was later found on the shore, unexploded. Retvizan fired at Kagero for less than a minute, and then it slipped out of the beam, again becoming “invisible,” but the second Japanese destroyer, Siranui (who knows who discovered it) was immediately noticed, and Retvisan discovered fire on it from a distance 4-5 cable. He was supported by the destroyers, four mineboats, and, of course, coastal defense artillery, and then two more destroyers, the Marakumi and the Yugiri, opened behind the Siranui. The fire was transferred to them, but then Japanese steamers came to light, and one of them, according to our sailors, was heading straight for Retvisan and the fire was transferred to them now.

In general, it can be stated that the attempt to detonate Retvizan suffered a complete fiasco, and, moreover, the Japanese destroyers demonstrated poor combat skills: to miss the 3 cables on an aground battleship, and not even get a bon - you had to manage. But ... was there such an attempt at all?

We have not for nothing indicated that information about the attempt to undermine the "Retvizan" was taken from the domestic "Works of the historical commission", but the fact is that the Japanese have this point of view in the "Description of hostilities at sea in 37-38. Meiji (in 1904-1905) is not confirmed. They report that the target of the 5 fighter squad were Russian destroyers and patrol vessels, the attack of which could be stopped by Japanese firefighters. And, I must say, the Japanese account of events in this case looks much more logical and more plausible from this: their primary goal was to bar the entrance, and for this, of course, it was necessary to destroy the light Russian ships guarding the entrance to the inner harbor. At the same time, the mine attack of the grounded “Retvizan” did not give anything to solve this task — one or even several torpedo hits could not destroy the artillery of this ship. In addition, it is difficult to believe that the Japanese did not know and did not guess about the protection of the Russian battleship with anti-torpedo nets and bon - and in fact the chances of hitting the ship in these conditions were minimal.

Therefore, the Japanese version seems to be more correct, that the commander of the 5 th detachment of the destroyers found “anchored several ships and destroyers” attacked them with torpedoes - most likely we are talking about two destroyers and four mine-boats, which were near “Retvizan”, which caused Russians suspect that the battleship of the battleship was attacked ... Unfortunately, Meiji does not report the number of mines spent by the destroyers, it is only known that they were fired from all four destroyers, that is, their consumption could not be T he longer four. In any case, the Japanese did not hit anyone, however, taking into account the fact that only Kagero fired from a more or less short night fight distance (of the order of 3 kbt), and the others, apparently, fired from 5 cables and even further, especially in the case of destroyers, and even mine boats, then such a result can hardly be surprising.

The next day, the Russian cruisers “Bayan”, “Akold” and “Novik” went to sea. The Japanese, believing that these ships would remain on the outer raid for the night, sent destroyers for their attack, and these destroyers were found and driven away by the fire of the Russian destroyers, coastal batteries and Retvisan. At the same time, the Japanese did not find anyone (the cruisers actually left for the internal raid in the evening) and retreated, not smelly, having spent at least four torpedoes - judging by the descriptions, in most cases (if not all) the Japanese shot at the ships which only ghosted them, so of course there were no hits.

The battles of Matusevich’s detachment (destroyers “Vynylivy”, “Domination”, “Attentive”, “Fearless”), and also “Decisive” and “Guardian” with Japanese destroyers will not be considered, because, judging by everything, the Japanese in these combat episodes did not use mines, limiting artillery. But it is noteworthy that the Matusevich detachment attacked the 1 th detachment of destroyers after the moonrise, but from the Japanese ships, the Russian destroyers usually noticed at a distance no more than 300 meters, that is, slightly more than 1,5 cables.

In the evening of March 8, the 4 Squadron of Japanese fighters (Hayadori, Murasame, Asagiri, Harusame) attempted to attack the Russian guard-ships on the outer roadstead. However, approximately in 2 000 m from the entrance to the harbor (a little more than 10,5 kbt) the destroyers were found and shelled with coastal batteries and gunboats "Beaver" and "Brave". In the end, it all ended with the fact that "Hayadori" released one mine at random, from a long distance (it was found in the raid in the morning) and, of course, did not get anywhere, after which the destroyers left. True, on the same night, the 5 squad re-attempted to penetrate the raid using temporarily turned off lighting (the fortress turned off the searchlights briefly) but was also detected and driven away, unable to reach the torpedo attack, and that was the end of it.

The Japanese attempted a second attempt to enter the outer raid on the night of March 14 - according to their plan, one fighter unit was supposed to come up in the evening of March 13 and reconnoiter the situation - if Russian warships turned out to be on the external raid, they should be attacked and sunk with the onset of darkness. If there were none, then it was necessary to carry the observation. One detachment of destroyers had to accompany the firefighters until they were submerged, after which, after removing the surviving crews, retreat — he was also charged with the task of clearing the way for the transports in the event of a Russian counterattack. Two other detachments were to observe the raid, and divert attention to themselves, opening intense fire, when the firefighters would be detected, in case the Russian destroyers counterattack, they should have supported the direct guarding firefighters.

This plan was not successful. The head brander was discovered in the 20 cable from the aisle, and fire was immediately launched on it from the coast and guard ships. Then the Russian destroyers "Strong" and "Resolute" at full speed attacked the enemy. This night fight became a record for the quality of night torpedo shooting: “Strong” fired two mines, and “Decisive” - one, and either two were undermined, but there could even be three firefighters. Then "Strong", apparently having gotten into the taste, attacked what he took to be the Japanese squadron (while reloading torpedo tubes in a hurry) - these were the Japanese destroyers with whom he entered the battle. One of the enemy destroyers, the Tsubame, shot at the Strong with a mine, but missed. During the artillery battle, “Strong” got into the steam pipeline (fatal burns were received by 8 people, including the mechanical engineer Zverev), and then was seen and fired upon with their own coastal batteries, which was why they had to retreat and throw themselves onto the shore.


"Strong" after the fight on the night of March 14


On the one hand, it can be stated that the Russian destroyers achieved tremendous success - they attacked a detachment that was under the protection twice as large as the enemy (four destroyers), while the Russian ships did not suffer losses, and the effectiveness of their mine attack amounted to 66,7 or even 100% . But you need to understand that the conditions in which the “Strong” and “Decisive” acted were favorable enough for them - the Japanese crews were blinded by the light of searchlights, which illuminated the targets of the Russian destroyers.

Next torpedo application weapons became the last battle of the destroyer “Terrible”, the wounded Russian ship fired a mine from Ikadzuchi but didn’t hit it - however, this battle took place after the sun rose and could not be considered nightly. But the third attempt to block the exit to the external raid of Arthur, no doubt, is such. This time, the Japanese destroyers did not show themselves again - they sought to divert attention to themselves, shooting and shining with searchlights, but apparently they did not use mines. Russian minerals, on the contrary, were again successful: a mine boat from the Pobeda was blown up by one of the Japanese firefighters (to be fair, we’ll point out that it had already exploded and sank at that time). Two more firefighters were blown up by a mine boat from Peresvet and the Ambulance destroyer Skory. The boat from the battleship Retvizan also entered the torpedo attack, but she didn’t hit on - the shot didn’t follow, the torpedo slipped out of the vehicle, caught the boat in the rudder and hung on it. In general, one can see the high efficiency of the Russian mine weapons - 3 mines from four of them were released, that is, 75%.

But on the night of May 25, the Russians were unlucky - the Japanese, not trusting the firemen, tried to put up a minefield, but were fired from the guns of ships and fortresses. Two destroyers went on the attack, and the Ambulance fired two mines on a Japanese transport vehicle. Apparently, both mines did not hit anywhere (one of them was found the next day). The next night battle of the destroyers took place on the night of June 10, when Rear Admiral V.K. Witgeft, seeing the increased activity of enemy forces to mine the external raid, sent 7 destroyers and two mine cruisers into the sea, which collided with Japanese ships, but he was also artillery. Of interest is the distance of detection - the moon was shining, but the Japanese destroyers were on the dark part of the horizon. However, our sailors discovered them at a distance of 3-4 cable.

The next day, the Russian squadron sailed into the sea, meeting there battleships Kh. Togo., VK Vitgeft did not accept the battle, and retreated to Port Arthur, it was towards evening, the squadron could not go on an internal raid, and the Japanese attempted to solve the matter with a massive mine attack. However, the result was disappointing.

The retreating Russian ships were the first to attack the 14th destroyer detachment, with each of the four firing one mine (the first to shoot the Chidori at the Poltava battleship), but not one was successful. But the Russian destroyers (in the opinion of Japanese official history), having thrown into a counterattack, achieved a torpedo hit - five minutes after their shot, the Chidori received the same Whitehead mine. Despite the heavy injuries sustained, the Chidori still did not die, and was able to return to base on the Elliot Islands.

Night attack destroyers in the Russo-Japanese War

The same "Chidori"


Almost immediately, the Russian battleships attacked the 5 squadron of fighters, with three destroyers firing at least five torpedoes (not a single one hit), and the fourth "Siranui" never reached the position to attack, separated from the squadron, to further find a goal for yourself. Then the 1 squadron of destroyers attacked the squadron from the rear, three of the four destroyers fired at least one mine. Two destroyers after that retreated, and the flagship No.70, together with the non-gunner No.69, went “to seek happiness” further. Two destroyers of the 3 squadron attacked the Russian ships with three mines ("Usugomo" - 2 mines, "Carp" - one).

By this time, the Port Arthur squadron had already entered the outer raid, but, before it was still anchored, it was attacked by the 16 unit of the destroyers (at least four mines, possibly more), but this attack visibility, was severely knocked down by the Golden Mount searchlights and powerful artillery fire. Finally, "Siranui" saw his chance, attacking a mine "Sevastopol" (or "Poltava"), and then retreated, joining with his squad. Following them, three torpedoes on the Russian ships launched the destroyers No. XXUMX and No. XXUMX (one on the Diana cruiser, one on Peresvet or Pobeda, and another on an unidentified ship).

After that, there was a short break - until the moon came. After that, the 1 fighter squadron (three ships), the 20 th destroyer squadron (four ships) and previously participating in the Hayabus attack from the 14 squad rushed forward, but it was not a coordinated attack. At first, the 1 fighter squadron and the Hayabusa launched five torpedoes at the Russian ships stationed and retreated.

20-th detachment of destroyers went to the Tiger Peninsula, but at this time the squadron extinguished all sorts of lights, only ground searchlights of the fortress worked, which shone the sea around Vitgeft's ships, leaving them in the shadows. The 20 Squad was discovered, fired 5 torpedoes and retreated. Only one destroyer was able to get out of the 12 squad to attack, and the rest were unable to attack until dawn. The 4 Squad proved better, all the ship's 4 fired one by one and retreated. The 2 th fighter squadron, the 10 th and 21 detachments of the destroyers could not go on the attack.

In general, the Japanese destroyers fired torpedoes at Russian 11 ships in 39 on the night of June, but achieved only one torpedo hit: Chidori’s own destroyer (because there were no Russian counterattacks by the destroyers, and the only source) only a Japanese destroyer could be a mine that fell into it).

At the same time, at least 15 torpedoes were fired while the squadron was still in motion, 8 - at the time when the ships, having reached the outer raid, were still not anchored and 16 - by the squadron in place. Why the Japanese did not achieve any success?

To be continued!

50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    31 August 2018 07: 10
    Judging by the quality of weapons from the time of the REV, undoubtedly even such modest results in attempts to launch torpedo strikes are very laudable. And the smaller the warship, the bolder and more aggressive the commander on it, which is also quite natural (with rare exceptions). So that ours, that the Japanese destroyer teams deserve respect. The only difference is that, based on the situation, some had a better chance of success, others had less.
    The article for the review is a definite plus drinks good hi
    PS. There is absolutely no time to paint your thoughts in more detail ... sad
    1. +3
      31 August 2018 07: 53
      Quote: Rurikovich
      There is absolutely no time to paint your thoughts in more detail ...

      So it is coming Friday night :)))))
      1. 0
        1 September 2018 08: 48
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So it is coming Friday night :)))))

        On Friday evening, I arrived quite late from work due to a shecher, because because of technological collisions (an epic with a cracked bridge over the Pripyat), the first people of the country constantly come to see us, which, in turn, causes diarrhea-like feelings of the local leadership. The Prime Minister is coming today. And, of course, ordinary hard workers are disentangling smile Because often in the evenings I, tired-unshaven-hungry-and-evil, am absolutely not able to think according to the morning canons laughing
        But I constantly monitor your articles hi
  2. +3
    31 August 2018 08: 26
    Traditionally, when describing the characteristics of domestic and Japanese destroyers, they make one funny, but very serious mistake, which is more like a conscious forgery.
    Not only that, recalling that more guns were installed on the Japanese destroyers, they indicate that the 75 mm gun of the domestic destroyers was completely useless, since it did not have a high-explosive shell.
    And, given that part of the Japanese destroyers, instead of the stern 57 mm guns received a second 76 mm, the enemy's advantage looks overwhelming.
    However, they do not like to mention that the Japanese 76 mm gun also did not have a high-explosive shell.
    But, if the domestic 75 mm gun in the absence of a high-explosive shell was useless, it turns out that the Japanese destroyers, rearmed with a stern 76 mm gun, carried two useless guns.
    Based on the views of that time, the absence of a high-explosive shell for three-inch naval guns was not considered a mistake.
    On the contrary, only an armor-piercing projectile of this caliber, in the popular opinion, could cause significant damage to a destroyer class ship, damaging it to the CMU.
    1. 0
      31 August 2018 08: 50
      What about a land mine, that without a land mine 2 × 76 mm, 4 × 57 mm versus 1 × 75 mm, 3-4 × 47 mm is almost three times the advantage
    2. +4
      31 August 2018 09: 55
      This is true, but the 57mm gun has a slightly larger projectile than the 47mm. And 75mm at our fighters stood on the nose. The Japanese, 76mm (or how many pounds are there according to the English system?) Stood initially in utah, and then added a tank. Therefore, when the Japanese caught up with us (and basically it was just that), ours fought back only from 47mm.
      Well, the design of destroyers of that time must be remembered. The skin is thin, the body is weak. Even if you stuff it with blanks, that’s enough. with luck essno
      1. 0
        31 August 2018 11: 14
        That's it, Chidore, having received a mine on board, reached Elliott, and our battleships got other mines as if on board, more powerful.
        1. +2
          31 August 2018 11: 28
          Quote: Conductor
          That's it, Chidore, having received a mine on board, reached Elliott, and our battleships got other mines as if on board, more powerful.

          By the way, you have to look here, because the mines on the destroyers really were of different power. But in general - undermining the matter is. Our destroyer "Sentinel" was blown up by a Japanese mine, and escaped, one might say, with a "slight fright" - the flooding of the ramming compartment
      2. +1
        31 August 2018 12: 37
        Did the Japanese (British) guns have high-explosive shells?
        For 75mm KANE, Wiki-Wiki writes -
        The main purpose of the 75-mm Kane gun was primarily the fight against destroyers, torpedo gunboats and mine cruisers, protecting large ships from their torpedo attacks. According to the plan, the rate of fire of the gun was to ensure the destruction of the target. ABOUTthe chase was to be conducted by armor-piercing shells in order to penetrate the side, the coal bunker and disable the attack vehicle of the attacking torpedo ship.
        High-explosive shells for a 75-mm gun began to be produced only in the tenths of the twentieth century.

        It turns out coal bunkers were located along the sides to improve the protection of the ship!
        1. +1
          1 September 2018 14: 24
          hohol95: Did the Japanese (British) guns have HE shells?

          If about 76mm, then they had only HE shells. This tool is lighter than the Russian, and with no beginning. projectile speed (680m / s).
      3. +1
        31 August 2018 23: 49
        And there is. Caliber is mass and penetration. And the destroyer is 2/3 long boilers and cars. The higher the mass of the projectile, the greater the chance to penetrate it from the front or rear corners deep enough to break important steam lines or the boilers / machines themselves. Therefore, 8 dead from one hit at our destroyer.
    3. +2
      31 August 2018 12: 44
      1 × 76 mm / 40 Armstrong -
      Japan used only HE HE shells - because of an incorrect translation I can’t understand the difference with a British half-armor-piercing shell!
    4. +1
      1 September 2018 14: 18
      ignoto: However, they don’t like to mention that the Japanese 76 mm gun also didn’t have a high-explosive shell.

      Just the opposite! He has no armor-piercing, only high-explosive (5,67kg)
  3. +3
    31 August 2018 10: 30
    Good day, Andrey!

    Thank you for the article.
    IMHO, the futility of the night breakthrough "Varyag" has not yet become obvious No.
    So with great interest I will wait for the continuation ...
    1. +6
      31 August 2018 11: 29
      Quote: Ivanchester
      IMHO, the futility of the night breakthrough "Varyag" has not yet become obvious

      Without any doubt. But I didn’t fit into one article - I just finished the second, the last (there will be no series :))) - here is all the analytics and justifications :)
  4. +4
    31 August 2018 14: 02
    Well, I’m bored again about the battle for Weihaiwei (the battle at the final stage of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895), where the Japanese destroyers proved themselves worthy (apparently the difference is in the enemy).
    http://militera.lib.ru/h/nozikov_n/11.html Нозиков Н. Японо-китайская война 1894–1895 гг. — М.: Воениздат НКО СССР, 1939. — 104 с.
    ... two destroyers broke through to the Chinese flagship, but due to icing of the torpedo tubes, only half of their torpedoes could be launched into it. One of them hit the Dingyuan aboard near the stern. On the battleship, they managed to pull up the waterproof partitions, but a strong leak opened in them, the ship began to sink into the water. The Dingyuan was taken to the shore, where after a few hours he sank to the bottom.

    One destroyer approached the flagship battleship Ting Yuen 300 m and fired two mines at it, which, however, passed by. Having given full speed, the destroyer turned and began to leave, but ran into stones.
    The remaining destroyers tried to attack the Chinese ships, but could not release a single mine. The Japanese explain this fact by the fact that the openings on the nasal mine devices were frozen, and the mines could not exit.


    The next night, February 5, the Japanese repeated the attack, which now involved 4 destroyers from the elite 1st detachment (2 destroyers turned back due to damage). This time, the Chinese were expecting an attack. Admiral Ding personally stood guard at the Jiyuan cruiser. Floodlights rummaged through the bay. Despite all the measures taken, the Japanese managed to round the boom from the south, bypass patrols and approach the Chinese squadron unnoticed.
    Two destroyers, including the armored Kotaka, attacked and torpedoed the armored cruiser Laiyuan. Ten minutes after the torpedo explosion, the Laiyuan rolled over and sank, leaving a bottom on the surface.
    Two other destroyers torpedoed the Weiyuan training ship, which sank in shallow water. In their report, the Japanese reported the defeat of other Chinese ships, including both armadillos and another cruiser.




    That is - the actions of destroyers are quite successful.
    There is no doubt that 4 torpedo boats already on the roadstead, or breaking through the raid against two ships, could be successful.
    1. 0
      31 August 2018 14: 15
      There is no doubt that 4 torpedo boats already on the roadstead, or breaking through the raid against two ships, could be successful.


      Of course they could, and no one argues with that.

      It is doubtful that their chances of destroying the Varyag at night were higher than that of the entire Japanese squadron the next day.
    2. +1
      31 August 2018 23: 56
      As for Weihaiwei do not agree. As far as I remember, the Japanese at that time had the task of capturing the surviving ships of the Chinese fleet that had taken refuge in Weihaiwei. There, the bill was already weeks / days before the assault on the base. The question is, why do destroyers sink ships that they were going to capture? :)

      I'm not joking, really in the descriptions there are such questions. It was believed that these were purely virtual newspaper victories to maintain the spirit. The Chinese wrote that they themselves drowned the same Laiyuan. Type Varyag :)

      By the way, they both tried to destroy both armadillos, but unfortunately the Japanese still got intact.
  5. +1
    31 August 2018 18: 17
    And segmented shells? What thread statistics do they have?
    1. 0
      1 September 2018 14: 37
      And segmented shells?

      This is a very interesting question. Such were available for large calibers. I hope someone from the experts will be able to answer.
  6. -2
    31 August 2018 22: 04
    The Russian-Japanese war convincingly showed the meaninglessness of large surface corps, destroyers locked up the entire Russian fleet in the port .... in Tsushima it was destroyers that sank the entire squadron, large Japanese ships acted only as bait and distracted attention from destroyers and their impacts lower than
    1. +2
      1 September 2018 22: 05
      Totally agree with you!
      I also think that only destroyers should be included in the second squadron. That they would ask the Japanese pepper! lol
      1. 0
        3 September 2018 11: 02
        Quote: Ivanchester
        Totally agree with you!
        I also think that only destroyers should be included in the second squadron. That they would ask the Japanese pepper! lol

        No-no-no ... it was necessary to equip 2 TOE with the most effective RWS ships - minzags. smile
        Suffice it to recall the same "Cupid" - the only ship of that war, on account of which there were two EBRs, sunk in one exit.
        1. 0
          3 September 2018 11: 08
          Quote: Alexey RA
          No, no, no ... it was necessary to equip the 2 TOE with the most effective RW ships - minzags

          Here is no flight of thought. The destroyer, it’s small, so the TA has little to do with it. It was necessary to take as a basis the most efficient RIF Amur ship, put 20 torpedo tubes on it, and two such prodigies would make Russia the mistress of the oceans! laughing
    2. 0
      1 September 2018 23: 54
      Well, you write nonsense! A ship ready for battle with serviceable artillery is practically invulnerable to destroyers of those years.
      The simplest example of Edmen - for three volleys from his 105mm guns drowned the French Muske who attacked him
      1. 0
        2 September 2018 21: 45
        however, during tsushima all the battleships were sunk by the destroyers
        1. 0
          2 September 2018 22: 14
          Quote: vladimir1155
          however, during tsushima all the battleships were sunk by the destroyers

          What happened to the "Borodino" and "Emperor Alexander III" is not known exactly, the reports of the commanders of the Japanese destroyers contain no indication of either torpedo attacks against these battleships, or the scattering of mine bundles.
          There is information that the mine bundles were to be dropped along the way of our movement from the "Resolute" captured by the Japanese, but because of the fresh weather the order was canceled.
          As for the cause of the Oslyabi's death, everything is unambiguous - artillery fire.
          But "Prince Suvorov" and "Navarin", yes, these were sunk by torpedo boats.
        2. 0
          3 September 2018 11: 06
          Quote: vladimir1155
          however, during tsushima all the battleships were sunk by the destroyers

          A third of Japanese EDBs were sunk by a single minzag. Does this mean that you need to abandon large ships and build some MZ? wink
  7. +1
    1 September 2018 00: 12
    A rather interesting description of the fierce battle of small warships. Thank! :)
    Although, as always, there are some minor remarks. :)

    In general, we can state the following - a sudden attack by the Japanese more or less failed.

    But the Japanese recognized the attack on Port Arthur as completely unsuccessful. And they even wanted to make organizational conclusions. You've read and quoted Polutov. Do you remember the wonderful phrase of Commander Asama? "Well, what did you expect from this petty bastard?" :)

    In any case, the Japanese didn’t hit anyone, however, given the fact that only Kagero fired from a more or less short range for a night fight (about 3 kb), and the rest, most likely, shot from 5 cables and even further, especially on destroyers, and even mine boats, a similar result can hardly surprise.

    Of course, slip can not surprise even with 3 cable. The then Japanese mines had a stroke of 800 meters, and although it was possible to reduce the speed to 11 knots to launch them farther, but with the absence of gyroscopes it was unrealistic to get 300 meters.

    The boat from the battleship “Retvisan” also tried to launch a torpedo attack, but it did not work out - there was no shot, the torpedo, slipping out of the vehicle, caught the helms of the boat and hung on it. In general, you can see the high efficiency of Russian mine weapons - 3 mines out of four fired, that is 75%, hit the target

    Dear author, it seems that he forgot that the boats were armed with throwing mines :) I would say that a miss from 20 meters is unusual .. Probably just this one moody mine did not explode.

    But in general, quite interesting. Thank you very much for that. :)
    1. +2
      2 September 2018 19: 58
      Dear author, it seems forgot that the boats were armed with missile launchers :)

      Not only. On "Avos" there were also drag towers
      The boat was equipped with a gasoline engine of the Lutsky system; its armament consisted of a bow apparatus for propelling mines and two towing torpedo tubes on the sides.
      Yes, and there were whiteheads on the "Retvizanchik"
      Two hours ahead of the course, three Japanese four-pipe destroyers suddenly appeared. They went across in slow motion, literally substituting for a torpedo shot. Kater managed to get close to the 35 meters and release Whitehead's mine on the left side of the middle destroyer. And the next instant, behind the engine room of the "Japanese" a column of water shot up and there was a roar of explosion.
      Another thing is that the mines were obsolete with a small amount of explosives.
  8. +4
    1 September 2018 01: 55
    It was a moonless night (the moon appeared in the sky only around 3 in the morning), the destroyers were seen from Russian ships just before the attack, but, unfortunately, it is not clear at what distance it was made.

    During the first attack, the flagship destroyer fired a torpedo from six hundred meters, the remaining three - estimated from a distance of four hundred to five hundred meters.
    Later, the Japanese attacked from different distances, some from nine hundred, some from one thousand five hundred meters. Who had enough courage :-)
    The Japanese made, as is commonly believed, three attacks, but only the first was massive: during 17 minutes, from 23.33 to 23.50, on 26 on January 1904, eight Japanese destroyers launched 14 mines on Russian ships

    In total, they fired nineteen torpedoes that night.
    When examining unexploded mines (there were many of them), it was found that they were equipped with an Aubrey device for correct action over long distances, and with special knives for cutting through torpedo nets

    Knives supplied not all torpedoes. So, of the six torpedoes fired by the 2 squad, only two had a cutter for networks.
    In general, in the battle on the night of June 11, Japanese destroyers fired 39 torpedoes at the Russian ships, but achieved only one torpedo hit: their own destroyer Chidori (because in fact there was no Russian counter-attack by destroyers, and the only "source" the mine that fell into it could only be a Japanese destroyer)

    In fact, there was no hit. The destroyer "Chidori" (千 鳥) fired a torpedo upon completion of the combat turn, which exploded almost immediately. The ship shook violently, doused with water, and the Japanese decided at the first moment that they were torpedoed. But then everything became clear, and the ship safely returned to base.
    1. +2
      1 September 2018 08: 39
      Quote: Comrade
      In fact, there was no hit. The destroyer "Chidori" (千 鳥) fired a torpedo upon completion of the combat turn, which exploded almost immediately. The ship shook violently, doused with water, and the Japanese decided at the first moment that they were torpedoed. But then everything became clear, and the ship returned safely to base.

      Valentine hi , You are a valuable supplier of information about the RPE, sometimes giving such clarifications that our information about a particular episode takes on a mythic touch. Yes
      Yes, by the way, someone promised us an article on the period of the REV wink
      1. +2
        2 September 2018 03: 14
        Hello Andrey !
        Quote: Rurikovich
        By the way, someone promised us an article on the period of the REV

        Yes, we have had such heat for two months and it is worth that all thoughts are only about one thing, how to cool. You can safely go out into the street with a birch broom, a complete feeling that you are in the sauna :-) But I will certainly keep my word.
        Yes, here is a photo following my commentary, this is a look at the Tsesarevich's torpedo hole from the inside (sometimes identified as the Retvizan's hole). The faces of our sailors in the background perfectly convey the scale :-)

        53 kg shimozy no joke, imagine this hole against the background of a minoship 45 meters long and 150 tons displacement. To drown the same one at night after the Tsushima battle, one 10 '' high-explosive shell from a coastal defense battleship was enough, and there pyroxylin 6,7 kg.
    2. +2
      2 September 2018 12: 32
      Greetings, dear Valentine!
      Thank you very much for clarifying, I confess, I counted on them :)))))
      Quote: Comrade
      In fact, there was no hit. The destroyer "Chidori" (千 鳥) fired a torpedo upon completion of the combat turn, which exploded almost immediately.

      Alas for me, during the descriptions I did this - on the split-screen of the monitor the official Meiji, on the second half of the screen - our Work of the historical commission, and forward - to compare the texts. But, of course, Japanese officialdom is the maximum that I have. Your Secret History data is priceless hi
  9. +2
    1 September 2018 14: 34
    +++ Again, a wonderful article from Andrei, where the facts are collected and chewed for an ignoramus like me))) Seriously, I thought that the Russian torpedoes never hit the whole war, but it turned out that this was only true for 2ToE ...
  10. +1
    2 September 2018 11: 21
    Interesting stuff.
    The question immediately arises, why did not the Japanese command come up with the obvious idea of ​​maximizing the massing of forces in the first surprise attack? 14 torpedoes on the whole fleet, which (with proper use) can cause a lot of problems, look unconvincing. And, of course, the weakness of technology and the imperfection of tactics played a role. Be at least 4-6 pipes on destroyers, and volley fire is provided in the instructions, the score would be devastating.
    However, the Japanese made conclusions and, having only experience in the REV, created the most effective torpedo weapon at the beginning of World War II. And in technical terms, and in relation to tactics and training teams.

    By the way, when did the torpedoes begin to equip themselves with self-liquidator?
    1. +1
      2 September 2018 11: 55
      According to the Japanese themselves, outdated intelligence! On the eve of 1, the TOE went to sea in full force and the Japanese simply did not know where the ships were, so they divided their forces.
      The classical torpedo attack by Japanese destroyers during WWII was carried out only once, the overall effectiveness of torpedoes even in WWII from destroyers remained low
      1. 0
        2 September 2018 16: 56
        Well, there already heavy cruisers did not hesitate to shoot torpedoes. And they hit.
      2. 0
        2 September 2018 21: 49
        that is, you suppose that the three torpedoes fired by Marinesco were less effective than all the actions of the USSR Navy during the war? .... I think otherwise, it was one salvo of Marinesco that brought more victories than all of the Soviet naval arilitillery
        1. 0
          2 September 2018 23: 06
          Read my post carefully! [quote] [/ quote] the overall effectiveness of torpedoes even in WWII from destroyers remained low
          Is there anything said about the use of torpedoes submarines? And yes, even the effectiveness of the use of torpedoes on submarines was lower than the artillery they used, which U-boat showed brilliantly
        2. 0
          3 September 2018 01: 23
          Of course, Gunther Prien, who penetrated Scapa Flow and sank the Royal Ouk or Takakazu Kinashi, sank the aircraft carrier Wasp in one torpedo salvo and damaged the battleship South Dacota, as well as William Stovall, who torpedoed the cruiser with two salvoes from the stern and bow tubes. Atago "and" Takao "at Leite are crying bloody tears of envy for Marinescu.
          1. 0
            3 September 2018 01: 35
            Gg You are able to distinguish the general efficiency from episodic cases?
            1. 0
              3 September 2018 10: 14
              And what about the overall effectiveness of the Soviet Navy and submarines in particular? Having an overwhelming superiority in ships in ALL theaters, except for the Arctic, they could not solve the problem of conquering supremacy at sea and disrupting German shipping. The sunk tonnage figures are, to put it mildly, scanty in comparison with the German "wolves" or the Americans in the Pacific. Not a single large ship sunk (cruiser class and above).
              The same Marinesco has only 2 confirmed victories - “Gustloff” and “Steuben” - will he order them to be considered not “isolated cases”?
              1. 0
                3 September 2018 10: 41
                Please forgive me for my carelessness! On the smartphone, the kama is not correctly displayed addressedly! You answered vladimir1155 and I accepted that to me and even with sarcasm. So I completely agree with you. I ask you to once again excuse my inattention to me !!! hi hi hi
      3. 0
        3 September 2018 11: 12
        Only one? Specifically, where and when?
        1. 0
          3 September 2018 11: 33
          November 30, 1942 Fight at Tassafaronga or as the Japanese call it Night battle at Cape Lung
          1. +1
            3 September 2018 11: 56
            Perhaps, yes, there are no more pure examples of torpedo attacks by destroyers.
            But if you take the total damage incurred by the Allies with torpedoes from Japanese surface ships, then it is impressive.
            In this sense, it is not entirely correct to evaluate the ratio of torpedoes fired and hit the target - given the significantly increased distances and the lack of radars for the Japanese to control torpedo fire at night
            1. 0
              3 September 2018 12: 24
              Hmm, no one had such radars at that time, according to my information. All were calculated manually and entered data into the machine guns of torpedo firing and somehow it makes no difference day or night. At night, the error with determining the distance and speed of the target. The Japanese estimated percent 7-11 hits from all of their ships during the war. Of course, if you take into account the caliber of their Long Lens, then yes the damage is impressive ... Yes, damn impressive is the fact that they were able to create such a torpedo and automatic reloading of these same torpedoes
              1. 0
                3 September 2018 13: 15
                Quote: Nehist
                Hmm, so according to my information no one had such radars at that time

                Inaccurately expressed. Of course, we mean just a radar, which allows you to determine the course and speed of the target in conditions of limited visibility with acceptable accuracy. The Americans on the destroyers were stations like SG, the Japanese had nothing like that.
                1. -4
                  5 September 2018 14: 05
                  Soviet submariners and Marinesko in particular are heroes to which your "effective managers" from the USA and Japan will still grow and grow. Firstly, ours worked in a shallow sea with the overwhelming superiority of the enemy, crawled into the sea through nets and minefields, and not just like an American chasing a lone battleship in the open sea without cover, having solved only one problem of its slow speed through the zigzags of a battleship, they can only fight more stupid than the Americans hangers-on satellites like dill, in the Second World War and traitors to their homeland, the Bendera Vlasovites, and the Romanians and Italians with the Spaniards only robbed and skipped ... the ineffectiveness of torpedo attacks from the Eminians is based on the general inefficiency of noticeable bulky surface ships, which was outdated in 1903
                  1. The comment was deleted.