USS Laffey at Guadalcanal Nov. 13th 1942

Post by **Cadman** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:35 am

Take a look at this cover art from Model Art #7. It shows the USS Laffey at Guadalcanal on Friday November 13, 1942. Based on the recorded accounts of the action, I can't figure out whether this is an accurate painting or not. Anyone who has tried to study the tracks of the ships there have any insight? My thoughts are that the image the actual engagement should be a mirror image of that.

Filipe Ramires · Post by **Filipe Ramires** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:12 pm

Hmmm, I did study this battle some years ago and what I remember is that the first USN line of DD's were actually attacking on the other side of Hiei compared to the image here. If I recall correctly Laffey was the second ship, after Cushing, and took a serious beating right in the begining of the battle. Actually this battle was far from being good for the USN destroyers...out of 8 4 were sunk and only 1 of the others got through the battle undamaged. The DD lines were Cushing, Laffey, Sterret and O'Bannon in the first one and Barton, Monssen, Aaron Ward and Fletcher in the second...not entirely sure, from memory here, of the order of the second line.

Tim Jacobs · Post by **Tim Jacobs** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:48 pm

According to accounts in "Guadalcanal Decision at Sea" by Eric Hammel, the Laffey nearly collided with Hiei (pgs 155-157). (ISBN 0-517-56952-3)

They sighted Hiei at very close range on a collision course. Laffey trained all guns with fire concentrated on Hiei's pagoda bridge. Range was too close for Hiei's 14 and 6 inch batteries to depress far enough to engage. Laffey's spread of four torps was fired so close that they didn't have the required 500 yds to arm. Laffey's CO called for emergency power to clear Hiei's bows before Hiei would have sliced through Laffey. So, with that account in mind, I think the picture is correct from the stand point of how close the ships are together.

However, Laffey reported the pagoda bridge collapsed onto number 2 turret during this close quarters encounter, so the pagoda bridge still erect would not be correct.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:12 pm

According to Morrison, the Cushing was on the port beam of the approaching Hiei (on a collision course), but Cushing was already losing speed and both started turning to the starboard as soon as the other was sighted. Ranges were probably never less than 800 yards. This was Cushing's last maneuver as she went dead in the water as she swung out to fire torpedos.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:14 pm

Tim Jacobs wrote:However, Laffey reported the pagoda bridge collapsed onto number 2 turret during this close quarters encounter, so the pagoda bridge still erect would not be correct.

Reports of this nature are probably lighting and shadow effects at night recorded by the mind's eye in the heat of battle. If this had happened, Admiral Abe would have beed distinctly uncomfortable in this phase, standing on the Flag Bridge as he was.

Tim Jacobs · Post by **Tim Jacobs** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:57 pm

Again from Hammel's book, pg 156:

"Hiei's communications were thoroughly disrupted by Laffey's shells, and many Japanese officers and sailors manning the flagship's bridge were killed or seriously injured by gunfire or in the collapse. Among the dead was Admiral Abe's chief of staff. Abe was only slightly injured in the conflagration, but he was so dazed that he was unable to exert any influence upon the course of the battle from that moment on."

Filipe Ramires · Post by **Filipe Ramires** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:10 pm

Actually this is the first time I heard of Hiei's bridge collapsing early in the battle. I can only assume that 5' shells at point blank range did that, thing that rises me some doubts though. It is known that the bridge was in fact riddled with AA fire from the DD's passing by and that many officers were killed or injured.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:21 pm

I'm sure if BuShips had known this, it would have added ammunition for them to resist the requests from operators to land control towers in favor of lighter, open structures on heavy ships.

Many ship or conversion projects completed in late '42 & '43 had their conning towers landed or reduced in scale - look at Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the latter's CT coming from one of the Brooklyns when their bridges were cut back.

By 1944, the swing was going back to full conning towers, as in Alaska and Fargo, BuShips saying 'if the commander wishes to stand out in the open and be killed, we have no objection, but some means should be provided to protect the conning position as long as the ship lives, else she will go out of control and ruin the formation.'

In fact, Admirals Scott & Callahan were both killed in this battle, neither having availed themselves of a conning tower.

Tim Jacobs · Post by **Tim Jacobs** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:39 pm

I skimmed other parts of the book describing Hiei's eventual demise. The only ref to the bridge "collapsing" was from Laffey survivors. There is a clear indicator later in the book that makes it rather unlikely, the torpedo planes that attacked after daylight indicated all four main batteries aimed in their direction and fired. If the bridge had fallen on number 2 turret, I doubt it could have trained out.

Also, doing a google search, I can't find any refs to a "collapse." Many sources indicate the bridge was savaged by close range fire from several US DDs and report extensive fires in the bridge.

So, back to the original question about the picture, yes, Laffey got that close to Hiei during the battle.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:50 pm

Tim Jacobs wrote:So, back to the original question about the picture, yes, Laffey got that close to Hiei during the battle.

I don't know. I think 800 yards is about as close as they got. Also on the angles, the two ships would be turning to their respective starboards at that range, showing the other ship's quarter.

In this presentation, Cushing is maybe 150 yards from Hiei.

If Cushing fired at 800 yards, Hiei would have advanced a hundred yards or so into the torpedoes' path, too short a run for them to arm.

This presentation is more like Hoel or Johnston at Samar.

Tim Jacobs · Post by **Tim Jacobs** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:52 pm

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?

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:07 pm

Sorry, was reading about the wrong ship. 20 feet may as well be a collision. That is a toss from the potato locker. I wonder if it was really that close.

Filipe Ramires · Post by **Filipe Ramires** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:41 pm

Werner wrote:In fact, Admirals Scott & Callahan were both killed in this battle, neither having availed themselves of a conning tower.

Yes, true. Atlanta's bridge was hit by 8' shells from San Francisco that killed Scott. Callahan got killed when San Francisco's bridge was hit by 14' shells from Hiei. Regardless of the type of bridge both ships could have these shells would most likely push through and do damage inside...even more fired at near point blank range.

Filipe Ramires · Post by **Filipe Ramires** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:43 pm

Werner wrote:This presentation is more like Hoel or Johnston at Samar.

Not sure. I don't think they got that close to Kongo and Haruna. But haven't read much on Samar either.

Tiornu · Post by **Tiornu** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

I think we can rest assured that Hiei's bridge did not collapse and that it was mistaken observation during the chaos of a most chaotic battle.
Though often repeated, the claim that Hiei's guns could not depress sufficiently to hit the passing destroyer is incorrect. What is very possible, however, is that the FC systems could not cope with the rapid target movement.

Post by **Cadman** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:49 am

I agree no bridge collapse. Optical illusion due to the combination of total blackness and sudden illuminations. It is interesting to read some early accounts of this battle vs the later more enlightened versions.

Post by **Cadman** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:44 pm

According to Grace and Hammel, the Laffey crossed the Hiei's T by 30 yards. Guns and torpedo tubes were trained to port to fire, so that may be the most accurate painting of this portion of the battle I have yet seen. I was looking at an old Navis Magazine diorama that shows Laffey passing astern of her and can't seem to make that work.

Ship Model Gallery · Post by **MartinJQuinn** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:10 pm

Cadman wrote:According to Grace and Hammel, the Laffey crossed the Hiei's T by 30 yards. Guns and torpedo tubes were trained to port to fire, so that may be the most accurate painting of this portion of the battle I have yet seen. I was looking at an old Navis Magazine diorama that shows Laffey passing astern of her and can't seem to make that work.

Is a diorama in the works?

Post by **Cadman** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:57 pm

Yes, in more ways than one.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:14 pm

Laffey could have almost used her depth charge thrower on the Hiei.

In fact, if Laffey did cross Hiei's T at extreme close range without being run over, she could have severely damaged Hiei by simply rolling all her depth charges into the water and let them explode underneath Hiei's keel.