Search this Topic:
Apr 15 17 1:22 AM
17. This hit struck between frames 46 and 47 about one foot above the third deck. It penetrated longitudinal torpedo bulkhead No. 2 and detonated on the 12.2-inch longitudinal armor bulkhead about 2 feet 2 inches above the third deck. The armor was not indented, but the projectile left a black circle about 6 inches in diameter within a partial black ring about 8 inches in diameter on the face of the armor. The force of the explosion blew the third deck down 3-1/2 inches over a 15 by 30 inch area and fragments penetrated the third deck between bulkheads No. 2 and the longitudinal armor bulkhead in two places. Torpedo bulkhead No. 2 above the third deck was blown outboard between frames 46 and 47 by the force of the explosion. The following tanks were reported flooded as a result of the hit; A-11-F, A-21-F, A-23-F, A-33-F and A-39-F. Although it was not mentioned in the report, A-27-V probably flooded also.18.This projectile most likely landed short of South Dakota and was about to ricochet as the hit was below the waterline and the projectile was rising. From the black circles which the projectile left on the armor, it is estimated that this was an 8-inch AP projectile.
35. An estimated 8-inch AP projectile hit the shell at the second deck, frame 109-1/2. The projectile pierced the shell at a seam between a 25-pound and a 50-pound STS strake, furrowed through the 20-pound STS second deck, pierced 10-pound longitudinal torpedo bulkhead No. 2 and penetrated the 12.2-inch longitudinal armor bulkhead to a depth of 7 to 8 inches at the top edge of the armor. Fragments went aft and pierced and distorted frames 109-112 and penetrated the third deck between torpedo bulkhead No. 2 and longitudinal armor bulkhead. Although the hole in the shell was above the waterline, compartments B-71-F, B-75-V, B-77-F, and B-79-F flooded as a result of this hit. This was reported by South Dakota to have been a 6-inch projectile, but it is not believed that a 6-inch projectile would have penetrated so much armor.
Apr 15 17 5:38 AM
Apr 15 17 4:39 PM
Apr 15 17 5:17 PM
Apr 15 17 5:33 PM
bill jurens wrote:As a warning to readers, it's important to note that the previous memo is actually a Lundgren/Okun expansion of original source documentation, so is not really BuShips related at all. The difficulty lies in separating the original source document material from the subsequently superimposed (and often somewhat imaginative) interpretation. This represents the essentially fatal flaw in the Lundgren paper on the Guadalcanal South Dakota action; it's written in such a way that it's often impossible to clearly define where original source documentation leaves off and the expansion and interpretation begin. Sadly, this renders it essentially useless for subsequent serious research.Bill Jurens
Apr 16 17 11:32 PM
ikeda wrote:What evasion crap?In post #249 I was referring to hit 25.In post #260 I was referring to hit 4.What hit Capn Carl was referring to, I'm still not completely sure, he never would give a straight answer..
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.