When you say that the 18,500-yard figure has long been proven incorrect, does that mean authorities on the Guadalcanal battle have established that the official report is incorrect, or simply that you personally rejected it long ago?
I respectfully disagree with the necessity for an authority. Dave did it quite convincingly on his own with a simple time and distance explanation. This isn't rocket science, all an interested and well informed layman needs to draw a correct conclusion is good information.
Although it might not be a perfect analogy, I don't need a zoologist to tell me whether some four legged animal I see is a dog or a cat. I do need information such as whether it says meow meow or bow wow wow, whether it eats or turns its nose at dog or cat food, and whether it is always eager to please or coolly distant.
When you say that the 18,500-yard figure has long been proven incorrect, does that mean authorities on the Guadalcanal battle have established that the official report is incorrect, or simply that you personally rejected it long ago?
I respectfully disagree with the necessity for an authority. Dave did it quite convincingly on his own with a simple time and distance explanation. This isn't rocket science, all an interested and well informed layman needs to draw a correct conclusion is good information.
Although it might not be a perfect analogy, I don't need a zoologist to tell me whether some four legged animal I see is a dog or a cat. I do need information such as whether it says meow meow or bow wow wow, whether it eats or turns its nose at dog or cat food, and whether it is always eager to please or coolly distant.
So you believe that Washington and South Dakota falsified their battle reports for some reason.
So you believe that Washington and South Dakota falsified their battle reports for some reason.
I don't know how what I said would lead to that conclusion, especially the "falsified" part. There are several things in between that disconnect the "if actual distances different, then battle report distances falsified" logic statement.
They certainly did not intentionally falsify anything. One must understand that the reports were compiled after the fact- attempting to peice together a very confusing night action. It's an amalgamation of various reports and claims by various departments and multiple commands. Strictly speaking it is a secondary document or at least within a grey area of being a primary or a secondary document. I enccountered this kind of thing when assisting another graduate student in a study of combat kill claims by fighter aces during WWII. The professor over seeing the research demanded that he list combat action reports as secondary documents and not give them the weight of a primary document. Its inevitable that errors in all good faith will occur.
The report contains serious errors beside the possible 18,500 yards for opening fire error, and the chaotic chronology. For example, it claims direct hits were scored with the second salvo vs Hashimoto's warships, and the South Dakota claims to have sunk at least two units from Hashimoto's group. In reality Hashimoto's warships remained unscathed during this episode. The USN battleships never scored any hits at all during the battle east of Savo. For Washington it only served as a bull pen session for the main event that occured west of Savo some 30 to 40 minutes latter, and at a range of 8,400 yards.
The two most authoritive historians on this battle (Morison and Hammel), and whom have had the time and opprotunity to closely examine all the available evidence, are the two that do not take the 18,500 yard figure for opening fire vs the Hashimoto group at face value.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
I think it would be easy to make a mistake when claiming a hit on an enemy ship, or claiming that you shot down another aircraft.
Wouldn't the opening time and range of an engagement be recorded by the quartermaster at the moment it occurred? The opening engagement range would have been recorded by a rating detailed to keeping the FC log, wouldn't it? I would think these things would be a part of the ship's combat logs kept whenever fire is opened, and not subject to interpretation at all. No one seems to question the ranges Bismarck or PoW claimed for opening fire at Denmarck Strait, but Washington's report is being questioned and I don't understand the difference.
I've lost a lot of respect for Morrison since I read "Black Shoe Carrier Admiral". He definitely had an axe to grind and he let that influence his writing about Fletcher, and I wonder then about other things he wrote about.
The range of the first radar contacts were recorded and it was ~9 miles. Yet 11, or 22, or 24, minutes later the range was 500 yards greater? It doesn't add up. The times of events recorded by the South Dakota logs and the Washington logs are off by as much as 10 minutes. Although I can't know for sure obviously, I suspect that the ranges in yards of first radar contacts got mixed up with the range of opening fire.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
