Military Review

Destroyer feat "Terrible"

26
Russian-Japanese war was lost. But, despite the defeats and setbacks, there was a place for achievement in this military campaign. Now, the story will be about the destroyer "The Terrible", and its crew, who have shown heroic resistance to the Japanese ships.




Destroyer became part of the Russian fleet March 1, 1904. His commander was appointed Konstantin Yurasovsky, who was the captain of the second rank. The mechanical engineer on the destroyer was Pavel Dmitriev, and the navigator officer was Midshipman Andrei Akinfeev. The artillery officer on the ship was Yermiy Maleev. Maleev was the only one in the crew who had served in the Far East for several years.

On March 30 the destroyer, as part of the 8 ships, went to the island of Sapshantau. By 22 hours the sky was clouded with clouds, it started to rain, fog filled the water. Visibility was close to zero. About two in the night, the squad saw the silhouettes of several ships (6). Due to weather conditions, it was impossible to make out their belonging to this or that fleet, it was decided to wait. But, as soon as the “Terrible” gave his call signs, they opened fire on the destroyer. It was an enemy.

The battle began. The first Japanese projectile destroyed the destroyer nose gun. Yurasovsky, the commander of the ship, also died; the situation was difficult. Then, Lieutenant Maleev took command in his own hands. The destroyer was leaving in the direction of Port Arthur, at top speed, firing from the enemy.

One of the Russian torpedoes caused heavy damage to the Japanese cruiser. The ship went to drift. To the rescue of another comrade hurried another cruiser. Now the pursuers are left with only 4-D. The situation only began to straighten out, as ... a Japanese shell hit the torpedo of the feed apparatus. Most of the people who were on the deck at that moment died. Of the officers, only Maleev survived.

The ships got closer, some 70 meters remained between them. "Perish, but do not give up!" - said Maleev. The ship slowly sank. During this time, the remnants of the team managed to make several shots, causing great damage to the enemy.

31 March 1904 of the Year, “Terrible”, fearlessly fighting, went under water in 6 hours 15 minutes. The feat of Russian sailors and officers will remain forever in stories of our fleet. In the Russian fleet, ships appeared that proudly bore the names of battle heroes — Lieutenant Maleev, Mechanical Engineer Dmitriev, Captain Yurasovsky. Two years later, the new destroyer “The Terrible” was launched.

Destroyer feat "Terrible"
The officers of the destroyer "The Terrible"
Originator:
http://www.ote4estvo.ru
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk April 29 2014 08: 58
    +3
    The feat of the "Terrible" is undoubtedly one of the glorious pages of the heroic history of the Russian fleet.
    Directly on the article, the fact of cruising the cruiser raises very big doubts.
  2. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul April 29 2014 08: 59
    +7
    Destroyer feat "Terrible"
    Article plus, the author tried, but too crumpled. It was possible to dig more material.
    The war began with a sudden attack by the Japanese fleet on the Russian squadron in the roads of Port Arthur on the night of February 8, 1904, causing significant damage to it. However, the arrival of Admiral S. O. Makarov changed the situation, and our ships soon switched to vigorous action.

    On the night of April 13, on the instructions of the admiral, eight Russian destroyers, including the Terrible, went to sea. They were sent to find and shell the Japanese maneuver base, preparing for the landing of troops on the mainland.

    At about one in the morning in the dense fog the destroyers “Terrible” and “Courageous” lost sight of their detachment, turned back and walked at a slow speed to approach Port Arthur by dawn. However, the "Terrible" was surrounded by a Japanese detachment, consisting of two cruisers and six destroyers. Rejecting the offer to surrender, the captain of the 2nd rank K.K. Yurasovsky decided to resist to the end. An unequal battle began. Enemy shell hit the torpedo tube "Scary", and as a result of the explosion killed the captain and several sailors. Soon all the artillery of the ship went out of order. Until the last minutes, Lieutenant Maleev shot at the enemy with a machine gun.

    From numerous holes and damage, the destroyer began to sink into the water. Of the 52 crew, only five survived. During the battle, the destroyer “Brave”, which was ahead, turned back and tried to help, but was driven off by the fire of Japanese ships. Thus, the feat of the cruiser "Varyag" was not an isolated phenomenon in this war.

    The day of the death of the destroyer "Terrible" was extremely unlucky for the entire Russian fleet. Upon learning of the Japanese attack, Admiral S.O. Makarov immediately sent the Bayan cruiser to the rescue, and after him the entire Port Arthur squadron headed by the flagship battleship Petropavlovsk set sail.

    But, unfortunately, it was already late, and on the way back at 9 o’clock. 43 minutes the flagship was blown up on two mines and sank almost immediately, dragging to the bottom of the squadron commander Admiral S.O. Makarov, chief of staff M.P. Molas, well-known artist V.V. Vereshchagin, 27 officers and 620 crew sailors.

    This was one of those fatal accidents that had an extremely adverse effect on the entire course of hostilities, and in the face of Makarov, Russia lost its best naval commander at that time.

    hi
  3. Good cat
    Good cat April 29 2014 09: 00
    +3
    I wonder who put a minus?
    1. avt
      avt April 29 2014 09: 28
      +7
      Quote: Good cat
      I wonder who put a minus?

      Yes, some kind of ukrotrol rode out of harm. But here in the photo at the head of the article is not "Terrible" of the times of the Russian - Japanese, but quite a post-war "volunteer" built at the plant "Lange and Son" and enrolled in the Practical Squadron in 1906.
      1. Kapdva
        Kapdva April 29 2014 10: 47
        +4
        I completely agree. The scary thing in Port Arthur was like the Falcon. But the crew’s feat was no less because of this. Although you could find a photo for historical certainty. Apparently, they put the minus because of this.
        1. Moore
          Moore April 29 2014 11: 47
          +5
          Well, yes, like "Falcon" - like that.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2014 11: 08
      +12
      I put the minus
      The fact is that if you take up the good cause of memory of the ancestors who heroically fought and fell in an unequal battle, then you can strain a little and make an adequate article
      In the first place, in the photograph it is by no means "Terrible", who died heroically under Arthur, but his descendant - the destroyer of the "Ukraine" type, built after the RYAV. Secondly, as far as I know, a good photo of the Scary destroyer has not survived (I did not come across, at least) except for a photo of its death (below)
      But if so, then it would be possible to insert a photo of the same type of destroyer, they are on the internet, but at least this one (I will give in another comment) Let's say the author decided that since there is no "Terrible", let there be his descendant, this is normal but then the text should have indicated that this is not the "Terrible".
      Unfortunately, "Terrible" did not hit anyone with a torpedo in that battle. This in no way diminishes the dignity of the Russian sailors - almost at the very beginning of the battle, a torpedo in a torpedo tube exploded from being hit by an enemy shell, after which the destroyer was clearly not able to approach enemy cruisers at a torpedo launch distance - with such and such damage. And to shoot the torpedoes of that time with a chance of success could be from five hundred meters, and better still closer.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2014 11: 09
        +3
        Photo of the same ship
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2014 11: 10
          +6
          Death photo
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 30 2014 01: 20
      -1
      I set the second minus.
  4. Kapdva
    Kapdva April 29 2014 10: 48
    +1
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/130/tfba696.jpg Примерно такой
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Kapdva
    Kapdva April 29 2014 10: 50
    +1
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/206/udwq925.jpg Момент гибели миноносца Страшный 31 марта 1904 г
  7. Cossacks
    Cossacks April 29 2014 11: 56
    +3
    It's nice that a lot of people are reading their story, Such articles are very necessary. This is better than reading about Tymoshenko, Poroshenko, etc. ...
    PS And wish, all the same, you need to insert brief technical specifications such as the year of construction, displacement, speed.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 30 2014 01: 17
      +1
      Such as this - articles are not needed. The author is poorly (or rather not at all) owns the material. Andrey from Chelyabinsk rummaged and dug up photos of that battle, and what kind of work did the author do? The article does not contain ANY link! Those. it is even patriotic, but "gag"
  8. Lyton
    Lyton April 29 2014 12: 30
    +1
    May God give us in a moment of danger for our Motherland to do exactly the same as the terrible destroyer sailors who did not disgrace Andreevsky Flag. Andrey from Chelyabinsk well done.
  9. Yarik
    Yarik April 29 2014 14: 27
    +2
    As far as I remember, I was going to Arthur. And it was really scary, because 20 nodes instead of the declared 26 issued. Given the Japanese 57-mm and our 47-mm ... Well, what to talk about. As usual in Russia, courage and personal courage.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2014 15: 24
      +1
      Quote: Yarik
      As far as I remember, I was going to Arthur.

      Exactly
      Quote: Yarik
      And it was really scary, because instead of the declared 20 nodes it issued 26 nodes.

      Ummm ... but don’t you give me a link? And then, you know, they write everything, for example - here is http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2004_02/03.htm
      Prior to the outbreak of war with Japan, nine Falcon-type fighters were part of the Port Arthur Pacific squadron; two (“Terrible” and “Slim”) were preparing for sea trials and the last (“Static”) was being completed. Contract speed (26,5 node) could not develop only one ship - the lead "Resolute". On the measured mile, he showed the result of the 25,75 node, which was considered sufficient, and "in order to avoid boiler tearing," further attempts to achieve the design move were stopped. All other destroyers on the test runs reached speeds near 27 nodes, but there was a strong vibration of the hull.

      The “Terrible” and “Slim” fighters were taken into the treasury of 1 on March 1904 of the year, the latter without testing for full speed. But the completion of the "semi-finished" "Statue" 7 February was suspended. On the initiative of the representative of the board of the Nevsky Plant, engineer I.I. Gippius (he replaced V.N.Kitaev at the beginning of the 1903 year), they decided to use this destroyer as a source of spare parts. Perhaps, for the first time in world practice in Port Arthur, the aggregate method of repairing ships found wide application, when failed nodes and mechanisms of the "falcons" were quickly replaced by serviceable ones from the "Static" one, and only then were restored in the workshops. The result of this method exceeded all expectations: during the first months of the war, repairs on the mechanical part of fighters never took more than a day. True, in July of the 1904 of the year the “Statue” was still completed - by that time the destroyers had suffered heavy losses, and the squadron was in dire need of ships of this class.

      As for the fact that the destroyers in everyday life did not reach the speeds obtained at the measured mile - this was the trouble of absolutely all the ships of that era. Recall even the Japanese armored cruisers - some of them, with a passport speed of 21-22 knots in the RPN, hardly gave 19 for a short time, for example.
      Quote: Yarik
      Given the Japanese 57 mm and our 47 mm.

      This difference didn’t play a special kind - that 47-mm, that 57-mm were equally unsuitable for defeating the destroyers of the enemy
    2. Crang
      Crang April 29 2014 21: 14
      0
      Our destroyers of that period had standard weapons - 1 - 75mm and 3 - 47mm guns, 2 - 7,62mm machine guns, 2 - 381mm TA. Extreme speed 26,5uz. Not so bad.
  10. Yarik
    Yarik April 29 2014 14: 30
    0
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk (1) Today, 11: 08 ↑ New
    I put the minus


    So I was surprised. At 240 tons is too big. Such in the years of the REV are called mine cruisers.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2014 15: 26
      +1
      Quote: Yarik
      So I was surprised. On 240 tons too big.

      Of course big, it's about 500 tons of normal displacement :)
  11. Artem1967
    Artem1967 April 29 2014 18: 57
    +1
    Quote: Gomunkul
    This was one of those fatal accidents that had an extremely adverse effect on the entire course of hostilities, and in the face of Makarov, Russia lost its best naval commander at that time.

    This whole war, from beginning to end, was unfortunate for Russia, despite the heroism and dedication of the Russian soldiers.
    Absolutely mediocre military planning and political preparations for the war, as a result of which Russia was practically isolated, overlapped in the most negative way on the undeveloped theater infrastructure and tactical errors in the deployment of Pacific Fleet squadrons.
    The approach of war was felt in everything (it is enough to read the memoirs of contemporaries and official reports to the higher headquarters), so why the most modern and fast light cruiser of the 1st rank "Varyag" hung around in Chemulpo as an ordinary stationary, which the "Korean" could have successfully performed. ?
    Why weren't the cruising squadron of Vladivostok and Port Arthur squadron connected? To beat the enemy in parts, this is what we have allowed the Japanese.
    Why, finally, the entire fleet was not transferred to Vladivostok, where there was a dock, a fortress and incomparably better supply and basing conditions. Would the Japanese easily capture Port Arthur? Perhaps, but a battle won does not mean victory in a war. But our fleet would have free hands to act on communications and against Hokkaido, which could lead to landing on this island. Here it’s worth interrupting, otherwise you can win the fateful war for Russia am
    Honor and glory to the warriors of Russia, who stood to the end in the most hopeless battles! We remember you!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2014 19: 23
      +2
      Quote: Artem1967
      so why the most modern and fast light cruiser of the 1st rank "Varyag"

      "Varyag" was not the most modern cruiser of our Pacific forces ("Askold" and "Bogatyr" were much better) and certainly was not the fastest. With its 17 knots ...
      Quote: Artem1967
      Why weren't the cruising squadron of Vladivostok and Port Arthur squadron connected? To beat the enemy in parts, this is what we have allowed the Japanese.

      Because it was more than a reasonable step - a trio of armored cruisers, generally unsuitable for squadron combat (I'm talking about Rurik / Russia / Thunderhead) pulled 4 armored cruisers Kamimura onto themselves, which greatly weakened Togo in the same Yellow Sea. In general, it must be considered that the Japanese allocated much more powerful forces to parry wok ships. So here everything is right
      Quote: Artem1967
      Why, finally, the entire fleet was not transferred to Vladivostok, where there was a dock, a fortress and incomparably better supply and basing conditions.

      The conditions in Vladivostok at that time were no better; there was no reason to count on supplies (the trans-Siberian railroad was busy hastily transferring troops and their supplies), but fleet supplies, of which there were a hell of a great deal, could not have been obtained from Arthur.
      On the whole and in general, we can only regret that the fleet was not transferred to Vladivostok, but this is still the afterlife
      1. avt
        avt April 29 2014 19: 44
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        "Varyag" was not the most modern cruiser of our Pacific forces ("Askold" and "Bogatyr" were much better) and certainly was not the fastest. With its 17 knots ...

        The main reason was the overheating of the thrust bearings of the propeller shafts, the maximum that the cruiser was squeezing at the time of taking command of Rudnev was 17,5 knots. Askold is certainly handsome good , and it was done well, the fate of the battle is remarkable, but the Bogatyr was more thought out, although they really wanted to remove the 75mm, but they rearmed only on the Black Sea Fleet in World War I. The Red Navy, especially at the Black Sea Fleet, found him already rearmed with the Obukhov 130mm.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2014 20: 10
          +2
          Quote: avt
          Askold is certainly a handsome man, good, and it was made well, the fate of the battle is wonderful, but the Bogatyr was more thought out

          How can I say, dear avt! The problem is that the 6 "turret artillery, which was on the Bogatyr, being, on the one hand, an unconditional step into the future, on the other hand turned out to be ... somewhat premature. The turret installations lost to the deck artillery in the rate of fire and aiming speed, so salvo On the other hand, we didn’t shoot especially with volleys ... In general, I also think that “Bogatyr” is preferable, but I think that the difference with “Askold” is not so great as is commonly believed
          1. avt
            avt April 29 2014 21: 44
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The problem is that tower artillery 6 ", standing on the" Bogatyr ", being, on the one hand, an unconditional step into the future, on the other hand, turned out to be ... somewhat premature.

            There was such a topic after the Japanese company - it was proposed to change everything and 75mm to single 152mm machines, but in the end, it was only at the Black Sea Fleet that they re-equipped with 130mm, well, which, by the Comintern, finished military activities in the Black Sea Fleet. The Profintern "seems to have become" Red Crimea ", and" Memory of Mercury "-" Comintern "
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but I think that the difference with "Askold" is not so great as is commonly believed

            "Askold" is a handsome five-pipe and walker a little quicker than "Bogatyrs", although in terms of armament he is practically equal. it seems that the Arabs were not impressed - only two pipes, where there are up to five! laughing Historical fact however.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2014 22: 34
              +2
              Quote: avt
              what the Arabs were not impressed with - just two pipes, where up to five!

              Here hezh ... they say the truth, live a century, study a century, but just die a fool anyway laughing A charming story, but I did not hear it, thank you very much! :)
          2. Andrey77
            Andrey77 4 May 2014 14: 49
            0
            Tower artillery increases the displacement of the ship, in contrast to the deck. Well, and as you indicated - in the rate of fire.
  12. KGDU10
    KGDU10 10 October 2014 23: 25
    0
    The photo shows a destroyer of the "Ukraine" type, built in 1906. The Terrible counter-destroyer, which is discussed in the article, belonged to the Sokol-class series of ships. They were built before the Russo-Japanese War in 1899-1904.