"As it was Washington’s radars were unable to spot the fall of shot relative to the targets."
..... This is incorrect according to Washington's action report. Radar spotting of fall of shot was mentioned as having been done in the earlier part of the action for both main battery and secondary battery fire. In the shoot against Kirishima, it was simply noted that fall of shot was optically visible; no comment was made with respect to any inability of its FC radar to spot.
B
Guadalcanal naval campaign
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1658
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign
Hi Byron,
On pg 22 of the action report you will find this comment:
In the first phase splashes could be observed because the main battery was firing at a phantom radar contact. Splashes observed near the SB targets (Phase one) were 16" splashes from South Dakota falling outside of 400 yards of the target.
It is known that experienced radar operators can sometimes discriminate shell splashes and other over lapping echoes within the resolution cell on A-scopes by properly manipulating the gain of his receiver.
On pg 22 of the action report you will find this comment:
Davis added that it was not known why this was so but speculated that it might have been that the receiver gain was set too high. It was more likely that the shells were landing within 400 yards of the target.During the second phase (combat with Kirishima) no splashes were observed by FC (mk3) operators even though a particular attempt was made to do so.
In the first phase splashes could be observed because the main battery was firing at a phantom radar contact. Splashes observed near the SB targets (Phase one) were 16" splashes from South Dakota falling outside of 400 yards of the target.
It is known that experienced radar operators can sometimes discriminate shell splashes and other over lapping echoes within the resolution cell on A-scopes by properly manipulating the gain of his receiver.
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1658
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am
Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign
..... Interesting. Missed that bit on p.22.
B
B
Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign
Hi,
Actually Guadalcanal wasn't the first time that the IJN employed naval gunfire support against opposing land forces. They had done this in the NEI campaign earlier as a matter of fact.
Actually Guadalcanal wasn't the first time that the IJN employed naval gunfire support against opposing land forces. They had done this in the NEI campaign earlier as a matter of fact.
Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign
And also at Wake Island, which was assaulted immediately after the PH attack.Dod Grile wrote:Hi,
Actually Guadalcanal wasn't the first time that the IJN employed naval gunfire support against opposing land forces. They had done this in the NEI campaign earlier as a matter of fact.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign
Shell splashes were counted optically. Lee estimated perhaps 8 hits. Some of the hits were extremely close together and probably occurred at the same time. Those shells which struck below the waterline were counted as misses.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call
Jim
Jim