Kirishima and Hiei versus Washington

[alecsandros]

Hello,
Today I am realy bored, so I'm thinking about this: what good would it do to have the Hiei alongside the Kirishima in Nov 1942?

My opinion is that, while Kirishima would succumb under Washington's fire, Hiei would deliver several shells into the American BB. Not to many, though, because the entire rape of Kirishima lasted under 5 minutes. After that, the Washington could choose the Hiei as a target practice and send it also to the bottom of the sea.

[Bgile]

The outcome would depend largely on who saw who, and when. Washington had radar which was working well, but if she came under heavy fire at some point like South Dakota did, the other Japanese ship could have escaped with little damage after doing a lot of damage to Washington as Kirishima did to South Dakota. Multi ship night engagements are very confusing and it's hard to predict what is going to happen.

[alecsandros]

Steve, I somehow doubt the Hiei could have done heavy damage to Washington in a couple of minutes.

[Bgile]

Steve, I somehow doubt the Hiei could have done heavy damage to Washington in a couple of minutes.

Well, I said that because a significant part of the damage to South Dakota is credited to Kirishima in the latest writing. The IJN cruisers don't seem to have shot as well, judging by the type of hits.

[alecsandros]

Steve, I somehow doubt the Hiei could have done heavy damage to Washington in a couple of minutes.

Well, I said that because a significant part of the damage to South Dakota is credited to Kirishima in the latest writing. The IJN cruisers don't seem to have shot as well, judging by the type of hits.

I'm pretty sure the Kirishima failed to do any significant damage to the South Dakota. The extensive damage analyis of teh ship showed 41 hits, out of which only one was heavy caliber, and that failed to penetrate (it hit a fw barbette). The rest of the shells were 203 and 127mm.
But even if Hiei would actualy hit the Washington several times, I doubt it could do much with those guns against such a target.

Regards,
Alex

[lwd]

At least one and possibly two of the other hits are sometimes attributed to 14" shells but they hit relativly superficial areas. In a long range fight I might actually give Washsington an edge in this engagment the same is true of any place where her radar gives her an edge. Two on one are pretty bad odds but the Washington was designed to hold up to 14" rounds and the Hiei and Kirishima were not designed to hold up to 16" ones. Consider that Hiei took heavy damage from 8" rounds.

[Bgile]

Here is a link to Robert Lundgren's articles on the Guadalcanal fight involving South Dakota and Washington: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... ndgren.htm

He has done a really incredible amount of research from both US and Japanese sources, and feels that about 50% of the damage to South Dakota was caused by Kirishima, including five or six 14" shells.

If Hiei did the same to Washington it isn't going to disable her, but it might prevent the loss of Kirishima if Washington's main FC position is hit.

[alecsandros]

Here is a link to Robert Lundgren's articles on the Guadalcanal fight involving South Dakota and Washington: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... ndgren.htm

He has done a really incredible amount of research from both US and Japanese sources, and feels that about 50% of the damage to South Dakota was caused by Kirishima, including five or six 14" shells.

If Hiei did the same to Washington it isn't going to disable her, but it might prevent the loss of Kirishima if Washington's main FC position is hit.

Steve, with respect to the work done by mr Lundgren, I remember several analysis performed by big-league experts (including Bill Jurens) which shows that a single 14" shell directly hit the SoDak. I don't want to be rigid, but this is the currently most accepted view...

[Bgile]

Here is a link to Robert Lundgren's articles on the Guadalcanal fight involving South Dakota and Washington: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... ndgren.htm

He has done a really incredible amount of research from both US and Japanese sources, and feels that about 50% of the damage to South Dakota was caused by Kirishima, including five or six 14" shells.

If Hiei did the same to Washington it isn't going to disable her, but it might prevent the loss of Kirishima if Washington's main FC position is hit.

Steve, with respect to the work done by mr Lundgren, I remember several analysis performed by big-league experts (including Bill Jurens) which shows that a single 14" shell directly hit the SoDak. I don't want to be rigid, but this is the currently most accepted view...

Weren't those all done before Mr Lundgren interviewed all those Japanese crew members and dived on the wreck? Where do you get your info that the single hit crowd is the "currently most accepted" view? Are you also thinking the 20+ hits from Washington on Kirishima is wrong because that was Washington's estimate?

[alecsandros]

Weren't those all done before Mr Lundgren interviewed all those Japanese crew members and dived on the wreck? Where do you get your info that the single hit crowd is the "currently most accepted" view? Are you also thinking the 20+ hits from Washington on Kirishima is wrong because that was Washington's estimate?

I) About the number of hits on the Kirishima.
1) There weren't "20+ hits", but 18 at the most (several hits are so closely packed that they could have been provoked by only one shell triggering other internal explosions. Moreover, I doubt the sailors on the Kirishima would have been able to discern each and every time the difference between 406 and 127mm impacts, as the article seems to state).
2) There is no sure way to verify this, because the wreck is upside down and in poor condition, so it can't be thoroughly examined.
3) The proposition "there were more than 9 hits" is argumented by several Japanese officers interviewed by mr Lundgren. Their testimonies are valuable, of course, but were prone to subjectiveness as every other "eye witness on a burning ship" testimony.
4) The proposition "there were 8-9 hits" is argumented by several American officers and sailors and is backed up by the official Japanese account of the battle.
Bottom line: I can not accept as certain "20 - 406mm hits on the Kirishima". From my point of view, a more thoughtfull approach would be "Kirishima was probably hit by 9 - 15 406mm shells, possibly 18".

II) About Kirishima's damage over the SoDak.
There is a 100 pg + report about the damage analysis conducted by the Americans immediately after the battle. There are several places in this very forum in which reputed authors have brought that report into view, and argumented that it was both complete and correctly assessed. I have yet to see a naval board of enquiry unable to discern between a 8" and 14" shell hit.

[Bgile]

There is also the fact that Washington sank Kirishima. Most studies would imply that nine hits would not be sufficient, especially when we have confirmed hits on turrets and barbettes, which aren't going to cause a ship to sink the way Kirishima did.

In practice firings against target hulks it's not unusual for an AP hit to be missed by the firing ship, even in daylight. If an AP shell goes off inside the target ship, you probably aren't going to see the explosion. Sometimes you see a flash from the point of impact, but not always. Underwater hits tend to be observed as "short".

[alecsandros]

That seems quite right.
I don't dismiss the possibility of 15+ 406mm shells hit on the Kirishima. I just can't be certain about it.

Regards,
Alex

[lwd]

..I) About the number of hits on the Kirishima.
1) There weren't "20+ hits", but 18 at the most (several hits are so closely packed that they could have been provoked by only one shell triggering other internal explosions. Moreover, I doubt the sailors on the Kirishima would have been able to discern each and every time the difference between 406 and 127mm impacts, as the article seems to state).

Have you looked at: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... alysis.pdf

[alecsandros]

Have you looked at: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... alysis.pdf

Lee, we have talked about this issue several times. You know my point of view.

[lwd]

Have you looked at: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... alysis.pdf

Lee, we have talked about this issue several times. You know my point of view.

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