Guadalcanal naval campaign

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1658
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign

Post by Byron Angel »

"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
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign

Post by Dave Saxton »

Hi Byron,

On pg 22 of the action report you will find this comment:
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.
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.

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.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1658
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign

Post by Byron Angel »

..... Interesting. Missed that bit on p.22.

B
Dod Grile
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:31 am

Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign

Post by Dod Grile »

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.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign

Post by RF »

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.
And also at Wake Island, which was assaulted immediately after the PH attack.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Guadalcanal naval campaign

Post by aurora »

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
Post Reply