USS Laffey at Guadalcanal Nov. 13th 1942

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: USS Laffey at Guadalcanal Nov. 13th 1942

Re: Info Source

by Tiornu » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:54 pm

From memory, it was fixed loading at +5deg.

Re: Info Source

by Guest » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:15 pm

Tiornu wrote:
Cannot read Japanese, it looked like five degrees on the drawings. My fault.
No, no, you're quite right. The original limit was at -5 degrees. When it came time to modernize their ships, the Japanese took a unique approach to increasing their gun elevation; they lowered the trunnions and working platform. This allowed them to get 43deg elevation, but it cost a couple degrees of depression, which I doubt they missed.
If you don't mind, I'd be interested in any material you have on the original design. Could you send me an e-mail, my screen name @alltel.net ? Thanks much.
They probably also put in entirely new elevation gear, got rid of the original all angle loading and substituted with fixed angle loading.

by Guest » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:13 pm

I suspect the sailor give his own marksmenship too much credit. It seems hard to believe that in the blinding face of a lit searchlight he could have aimed effectively at the actual bulb to put it out.

by Filipe Ramires » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:53 pm

Wasn't on this one battle, due to such close quarters action, that in one of the USN DD's one member of the crew shot off a Japanese searchlight with a rifle?????? Just curious... I think I've read that somewhere.

Re: Info Source

by Tiornu » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:46 pm

Cannot read Japanese, it looked like five degrees on the drawings. My fault.
No, no, you're quite right. The original limit was at -5 degrees. When it came time to modernize their ships, the Japanese took a unique approach to increasing their gun elevation; they lowered the trunnions and working platform. This allowed them to get 43deg elevation, but it cost a couple degrees of depression, which I doubt they missed.
If you don't mind, I'd be interested in any material you have on the original design. Could you send me an e-mail, my screen name @alltel.net ? Thanks much.

by Guest » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:12 pm

Cage mast was more susceptible to wind and the effects of heavy rolling. At least one cage mast in the USN collapsed during high wind and heavy rolling.

by richter111 » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:07 pm

I read a engineering report made when the USS Texas went from the cage mast to the tripod mast. Not being an engineer, most of it went over my head, but the gist was the concerns were combat damage, and heavy sea/storm damage.

The report pretty much said the tri-pod masts were the best thing since sliced bread, and all the fears were for naught.

That was the US Navy report, I would guess (and usually gets me in hot water every time) that the Japanese masts were just as good. (all things being equal)

Ric

by Guest » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:22 pm

Tim Jacobs wrote:The pic is of Laffey, DD-459, not Cushing. Cushing was leading, Laffey second in line.

Hiei was sighted bearing down directly on Laffey from port. The CO ordered emergency power to get out of the way. Surviving bridge crew reported they thought "collision was inevitable." Also, one of the machine gun officers related Hiei passed "directly astern" of Laffey, clearing by what seemed to be less than 20 feet.

I've never been on watch on a ship, but does that sound like 800 yds?
If Hiei had the normal Japanese pagoda mast, then it is barely possible, but overwhelmingly unlikely, that it could be toppled if one of the legs of its tripod core is cut by extraordinarily luck multiple hits from the 5" gun. The size of the possibility can be evaluated by the fact that no other capital ship tripod has been known to topple as result of gun fire damage to its legs.

However, of all the modernized old battleships in the IJN, Hiei alone lost her original pagoda tripod mast and received instead a completely new and fully modern enclosed tower bridge. So I think the possibility of her bridge toppling to gun fire is essentially non-existent.

Re: Info Source

by ar » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:13 pm

Tiornu wrote:Gun depression in the Kongos was -3 degrees after modernization.
Cannot read Japanese, it looked like five degrees on the drawings. My fault.

Re: Info Source

by Tiornu » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:53 pm

Gun depression in the Kongos was -3 degrees after modernization.

by ar » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:33 pm

Werner wrote:It might be that a gun could depress for cleaning, but there be not enough room for the recoil to fire at that depression.

It was a common practice in the RN to fire at depression levels to creat a splash brrage against torpedo attacks by aircraft.

by Werner » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:18 pm

It might be that a gun could depress for cleaning, but there be not enough room for the recoil to fire at that depression.

by Guest » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:00 pm

Besides, pushing a barrel cleaner down the muzzle of the 14" guns at +5 degree elevation would be interesting.

by Guest » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:59 pm

The range for 14" gun at +5 degrees would be in the 10,000 yard ball park.

by Werner » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:46 pm

AR, is that +5 or -5 degrees?

Re: Info Source

by ar » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:26 am

Gone Asiatic wrote:Perhaps the sources of the story about guns unable to depress due to such close range are American speculation. There probably were no survivors from Hiei`s firecontrol team or turret captains after the following day`s air attacks. More likely, the night time conditions and rapid bearing change between Laffey and Hiei were too much for the cumbersome Japanese firecontrol system to handle - systems designed for a long range sea-fight, not a point blank knife fight.
According to the official plans of he ship, of which I have a copy, the guns are able to depress to five degrees. Other Japanese battleship classes also had this feature.

Info Source

by Gone Asiatic » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:53 am

Perhaps the sources of the story about guns unable to depress due to such close range are American speculation. There probably were no survivors from Hiei`s firecontrol team or turret captains after the following day`s air attacks. More likely, the night time conditions and rapid bearing change between Laffey and Hiei were too much for the cumbersome Japanese firecontrol system to handle - systems designed for a long range sea-fight, not a point blank knife fight.

by Tiornu » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:37 am

The trunnion height for a Kongo's No 2 turret is somewhere around 40 feet, which puts it right around on level with Laffey's bridge. Even without depressing, Hiei's highest guns could hit Laffey at point-blank range.

by Guest » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:11 pm

Werner wrote:I'm sure with a -5 degree stop the main armament had about 800 yards' inside range.
You are not trying to hit water. So the minimum range is where ever the round will hit the superstructure, which is probably not far from the ship.

by Werner » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:49 pm

I'm sure with a -5 degree stop the main armament had about 800 yards' inside range.

Top