Kirishima and Hiei versus Washington

[alecsandros]

When you say at most 18 hits where does this come from?
Which hits don't you believe are real in the above source?

Several hits are very closely together. This could mean that it was in fact one single shell which hit there, possibly triggering internal explosions or ruptures which were mistakenly identified as other shell hits. This idea is supported by teh fact that the author compiled the testimonies of several eye-witnesses.

The specific hits, based upon the link you provided: Firstly No 8-9 and No 2-3 and possibly no 4-5 and 13-15 are very close together.

Besides that, the report presents a very small number of 127mm shell hits (a total of 17), despite the fact that Wasington claimed 40 hits. That is why I suspect that in the heat of battle the sailors and officers of teh Kirishima failed to properly identify (or accurately remember) each and every type of shell which hit the ship. My impression is that they have mistakenly identified or mistakenly remembered some of the 127mm shells as 406mm ones.

All the best,
Alex

[Bgile]

Washington was only firing four 5" guns at Kirishima. While 40 hits would be possible, that's quite a lot for just four guns. Was this actually claimed by Washington or was it just a guestimate generated by someone? It's kind of hard for me to imagine they could have actually counted all those with everything else going on, but who knows?

[Bgile]

alecsandros,

You seem to be assuming that the hits that were close together occurred at the same time. They could have been separated in time so it was obvious they were multiple hits. Just a thought.

It's hard for me to imagine someone mistaking a 5" hit for a 16" hit, but maybe it's possible.

[yellowtail3]

It's hard for me to imagine someone mistaking a 5" hit for a 16" hit, but maybe it's possible.

I dunno... if it hits the compartment you're in or close nearby, it might seem pretty big...

[alecsandros]

alecsandros,

You seem to be assuming that the hits that were close together occurred at the same time. They could have been separated in time so it was obvious they were multiple hits. Just a thought.

It's hard for me to imagine someone mistaking a 5" hit for a 16" hit, but maybe it's possible.

Steve, I am not certain about that. It's a possibility. And, as long as we have several different eye-witness reports, I can't pronounce myself.

Washington reported about 40-127 mm hits on the Kirishima. It seems excessive, indeed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

[lwd]

When you say at most 18 hits where does this come from?
Which hits don't you believe are real in the above source?

Several hits are very closely together. This could mean that it was in fact one single shell which hit there, possibly triggering internal explosions or ruptures which were mistakenly identified as other shell hits. This idea is supported by teh fact that the author compiled the testimonies of several eye-witnesses.

The specific hits, based upon the link you provided: Firstly No 8-9 and No 2-3 and possibly no 4-5 and 13-15 are very close together.

So becuase they are close together you dismiss them arbitrarily? Statistically one would actually expect to see a number of hits close together.

Besides that, the report presents a very small number of 127mm shell hits (a total of 17), despite the fact that Wasington claimed 40 hits. That is why I suspect that in the heat of battle the sailors and officers of teh Kirishima failed to properly identify (or accurately remember) each and every type of shell which hit the ship. My impression is that they have mistakenly identified or mistakenly remembered some of the 127mm shells as 406mm ones.

Or they may simply not have been able to determine where the 5" hits occured. Consider that these were not AP rounds and given the confligration and possible secondary explosions it's not at all unreasonable that the location of some, indeed of many, of the 5" hits were not discernable. Indeed there could well have been more 16" hits as well. AP rounds that went "through and through" the superstructure would also not be easy to determine. Saying there were at most 18 hits seems unfounded to me. Given the document above 20 seems like a good estimate. It could have been less or it could have been more but I see no logical reason to establlish a hard cut off at 18.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I like more Kirishima and Hiei vs. South Dakota. That changes a lot many things.

[yellowtail3]

I like more Kirishima and Hiei vs. South Dakota. That changes a lot many things.

It would give the Washington opportunity to paint two Jap BBs on her bridge...

[Karl Heidenreich]

It would give the Washington opportunity to paint two Jap BBs on her bridge...

Perhaps in another ocassion... not that night.

[alecsandros]

I like more Kirishima and Hiei vs. South Dakota. That changes a lot many things.

That would be quite funny A remake of "Bismarck vs the everybody", only this time no shooting from the Bismarck. Just a quiet and clear target

[Bgile]

I like more Kirishima and Hiei vs. South Dakota. That changes a lot many things.

That would be quite funny A remake of "Bismarck vs the everybody", only this time no shooting from the Bismarck. Just a quiet and clear target

South Dakota had a partial electrical power loss for less than 5 minutes. She continued to fire at the Japanese throughout the battle, and did exactly the same amount of damage to her opponents as Bismarck did in her last battle. It isn't easy to fire back effectively when it's dark, you are illuminated by searchlights from alternating sources, and you are being hit repeatedly.

[alecsandros]

[...]It isn't easy to fire back effectively when it's dark, you are illuminated by searchlights from alternating sources, and you are being hit repeatedly.

No offense intended, Steve. It just seemed funny :)

[Bgile]

[...]It isn't easy to fire back effectively when it's dark, you are illuminated by searchlights from alternating sources, and you are being hit repeatedly.

No offense intended, Steve. It just seemed funny :)

No problem; I'm sure I'm more touchy than I should be. Karl has used this one incident to argue that all six ships in the class were worthless.

[yellowtail3]

Karl has used this one incident to argue that all six ships in the class were worthless.

A consistent argument, that, though utterly unconvincing.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

South Dakota had a partial electrical power loss for less than 5 minutes. She continued to fire at the Japanese throughout the battle, and did exactly the same amount of damage to her opponents as Bismarck did in her last battle. It isn't easy to fire back effectively when it's dark, you are illuminated by searchlights from alternating sources, and you are being hit repeatedly.

You are not mentioning that BEFORE the electrical problem South Dak, using the RDFC, didn´t hit any target at 8K yards away and those same "targets" landed tens of hits on South Dak without the RDFC... in the dark. You are not mentioning that Kirishima`s 14" could have been lethal if being AP rounds instead of shore bombardment ammo. You are not mentioning that Bismarck was doing 7 knots and cannot manouver during her last battle.

No problem; I'm sure I'm more touchy than I should be. Karl has used this one incident to argue that all six ships in the class were worthless.

How narrow are minds around here. If I do not accept that those ships were the BEST then it is assumed that I´m implying they are the worst... simply lack of mature thinking here.

I´m not implying nothing of that sort. So... in order for you to be happy I must say that those carrier escorts were the greatest naval achievement. So, explain to us why is it that the USN came afterwards with the Iowa design and, after that, decided to change the whole concept and came with the Montanas? If they decided to do that was, basically, because the same USN was not that convinced of the greatness of those vessels.... I do remember some caisson tests performed just before WWII...