USS Laffey at Guadalcanal Nov. 13th 1942

[Tiornu]

It's interesting to note that Kirishima's crew reported amputating a huge chunk of SoDak's bridge and wrecking a forward turret whose guns canted upward.

[Guest]

I also think it is baloney that Hiei's guns can't depress far enough. The 6" casemate guns are pretty low to start with, and these mounts have a substantial maximum depression, and could certainly hit water, let along a destroyer's superstructure, within a couple of hundred yards of the ship.

Regarding the fire control, at the range involve no fire control would be needed. The 6" guns have their layers and elevation men's obervation apertures pretty close to either side of the barrel. They can sight along the barrel and get the correct depression and pretty near the correct bearing.

More likely the rapid change in bearing is too much for the guns to keep up.




the drawing show's Hiei's 14" at a considerable elevation, at least 15 or 20 degrees

[Guest]

It's interesting to note that Kirishima's crew reported amputating a huge chunk of SoDak's bridge and wrecking a forward turret whose guns canted upward.

That makes me wonder how accurate were the traditional depiction of the last moments of the Bismark, with her main 15" barrels tilted at crazy angles and the black of main turrets blown out.

[Tiornu]

Regarding the fire control, at the range involve no fire control would be needed.

The ability of guns to fire in local control does not mean they would be doing so. By the time the order came to go into local control, the need would be over. But you're right about the training speed of the guns themselves, at least for the main battery, which could turn only a couple degrees per second. In any case, I agree that it was the speed of movement rather than gun depression.

That makes me wonder how accurate were the traditional depiction of the last moments of the Bismark

We at least have a few details to rely on for Bismarck. We know that one forward turret lost hydraulics, leaving the guns to run down to maximum depression. One gun burst, as I recall. Bismarck-ophiles can probably tell you more specifics. But how that figures into popular artwork, well....

[Cadman]

I also think it is baloney that Hiei's guns can't depress far enough. The 6" casemate guns are pretty low to start with, and these mounts have a substantial maximum depression, and could certainly hit water, let along a destroyer's superstructure, within a couple of hundred yards of the ship.

The 14" guns can't depress far enough to do damage. The six inch guns did take some ships under fire, however the Laffey did a number on the bridge and most guns had to go to local control.

the drawing show's Hiei's 14" at a considerable elevation, at least 15 or 20 degrees

She was firing on a distant ship at that time. Frisco, Atlanta, or Juneau.

[Werner]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Tiornu]

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.

[Gone Asiatic]

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.

[ar]

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.

[Werner]

AR, is that +5 or -5 degrees?

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Werner]

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

[ar]

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.

[Tiornu]

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

[ar]

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

Cannot read Japanese, it looked like five degrees on the drawings. My fault.

[Guest]

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.

[richter111]

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

[Guest]

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.