IJNS Kirishima Damage & Loss Analysis

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
Byron Angel

IJNS Kirishima Damage & Loss Analysis

Postby Byron Angel » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:00 am

Very interesting article posted on Naweaps by Robert Lundgren:

Go here -

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... alysis.pdf


Merry Christmas to all,

Byron

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby RF » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:02 am

There is a huge amount of detail here which will take some digesting.

I had thought Kirishims had been classed as a battlecruiser though rather than battleship?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby lwd » Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:45 pm

I believe she was reclassified when she was rebuilt.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby Bgile » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:17 pm

From the combinedfleet site:

"These four sister ships were the first modern battlecruisers in the Japanese arsenal. They were designed by Britain's Sir George Thurston, and strongly influenced the design of the forthcoming Tiger-class battlecruisers. Kongo was actually built by Vickers (and was the last Japanese capital ship to be built outside of Japan), while the remaining three were built in Japanese yards. During the inter-war years, all of them were upgraded in terms of propulsion and protection, and were re-rated as battleships. They were useful ships, fast and well-armed, but even after their upgrade their protection left much to be desired, as Kirishima discovered much to her cost at the hands of U.S.S. Washington off of Savo Island."

In any case, most modern battleships would have been in trouble after receiving that kind of short range punishment so the fact that they had thinner armor than many of their contemporaries might not be all that relevant in this particular case.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby lwd » Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:46 pm

Indeed I'd argue the Hiei makes a much better case for the protection being a bit light. I can't think of a single BB that would have been in good shape if it recieved the hits that Kirishima did.

Byron Angel

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby Byron Angel » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:58 pm

lwd wrote:Indeed I'd argue the Hiei makes a much better case for the protection being a bit light. I can't think of a single BB that would have been in good shape if it recieved the hits that Kirishima did.



..... Very true. Doing a quick AP analysis, the US 1942 period 2700-lb 16-in AP projectile would fully penetrate anything up to 16 inches of contemporary quality KC vertical plate at 10,000 yards range and 30deg obliquity.


Byron

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby Kyler » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:15 pm

Very interesting article, though I think some further investigation is needed though most of that needs to be in the form of the wreck itself.
Hopefully in the future someone else will do a further examination of the wreck and verify some the information in the article.

Though, I would have hoped for a bibliography, having been attached so it would be easier to find some of his sources.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

Lutscha
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby Lutscha » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:04 pm

This has been around for a few months. Rob already answered questions here: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tml?page=1

Just ask him about his sources.

culverin
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: Hampshire. England.

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby culverin » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:20 pm

Has any further research been done on this wreck since the original prognosis by R. Lundgren,
many have submitted observations on forums, but has any definitive conclusion been established and published.
Do their shipwrecks have any appeal to the Japanese themselves.
There has always been the debate whether we have Kirishima, or her sister Hiei.
One or the other remain to be discovered.
Only a few decades ago it was believed most battleships/ battlecruisers lost to enemy action would always sit upright. With an increasing number being sighted in their fateful resting places, virtually all are in fact inverted, as here.
A full broadside. The traditional English salute.
Thanks. Sean.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: IJNS KIRISHIMA DAMAGE & LOSS ANALYSIS

Postby Steve Crandell » Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:25 pm

culverin wrote:Has any further research been done on this wreck since the original prognosis by R. Lundgren,
many have submitted observations on forums, but has any definitive conclusion been established and published.
Do their shipwrecks have any appeal to the Japanese themselves.
There has always been the debate whether we have Kirishima, or her sister Hiei.
One or the other remain to be discovered.
Only a few decades ago it was believed most battleships/ battlecruisers lost to enemy action would always sit upright. With an increasing number being sighted in their fateful resting places, virtually all are in fact inverted, as here.


I just noticed this and wanted to comment. Most ships sink when they lose stability and turn turtle. If they are in relatively shallow water, that is how they will be found on the bottom. If they are in deep water, hydrodynamic effects will cause them to right themselves as they sink, and so they end up upright on the bottom. This is no doubt what happend with Bismarck, which sank with her bottom showing (the main battery turrets fell out) and is sitting upright on the bottom.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: IJNS Kirishima Damage & Loss Analysis

Postby alecsandros » Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:42 pm

... Very interesting Steve.

What is still unknown to me is if a definitive id of the sunken vessel was done ? Many say it could be the Hiei... which sank very close to the Kirishima, and was also riddled with shell holes.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: IJNS Kirishima Damage & Loss Analysis

Postby Steve Crandell » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:46 pm

alecsandros wrote:... Very interesting Steve.

What is still unknown to me is if a definitive id of the sunken vessel was done ? Many say it could be the Hiei... which sank very close to the Kirishima, and was also riddled with shell holes.


One of them would have 16" diameter holes in it, but after all this time I'm not sure that would be apparent, what with the marine growth.

User avatar
frontkampfer
Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 am
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ - USA

Re: IJNS Kirishima Damage & Loss Analysis

Postby frontkampfer » Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:16 am

Byron,

It was a very good article and I found it convincing. I may not be a Grognard on armour penetration at some angle and other minutia but it seems that Lundgren has a plausible explanation on how damaged Kirishima was and how it sank IMHO. I'm with you on this one!
"I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass!"


Return to “Naval Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest