USS Lexington (CV-2) wreck found .. 4 March 2018 [revised]

[old iron]

old iron wrote:
USS Washington was engaged in the only battleship-battleship engagement in the Pacific.

Well .. "only" with the exception of the Battle of Surigao Strait (25 October 1944), that is.

Sorry, I do stand corrected! (Although perhaps I could argue that Surigao was less a battle than an execution...)

[old iron]

I know this is getting off-topic but news (to me) of the USS South Dakota - Washington rivalry makes for some interesting reading. The South Dakota wikipedia page presents that ship as pretty much the hero of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, with bare mention of the USS Washington, and presents a fine example of biased history put before the public. The electrical issues are mentioned in a single sentence as something that happened "that night."

A much more informative and critical discussion can be found on https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/101785-uss-south-dakota-as-a-tier-8-premium/ .

Apparently, the two ships were later never placed in port together because of brawls between the sailors. The South Dakota was first into port after the Guadalcanal fray and the captain appears to have taken full credit for the victory, much as in the Wikipedia page, which riled the Washington crew considerably. The rivalry, as evidenced by the wikipedia page, appears to still be active (the Washington wikipedia page is much more nuanced).

[Robert61267]

There was also bad blood over who was the flagship. Washington had been while operating in the Atlantic, but SoDak was built as a flagship specifically, hence her two missing 5-inch mounts given up for added flag facilities. Indeed, Willis Lee originally made her his flagship just for this reason, but for reasons I can't recall shifted over to Washington. The back and forth about which ship was more important, which was the flagship, etc., also contributed to the bad blood.

[Clifford Bossie]

The book Neptune's Inferno gives a good account of the naval battles of the Guadalcanal campaign. Rather fittingly it covers the loss of the Juneau and the sinking of the Kirishima.

The sad thing is that much of the damage to the South Dakota was self inflicted: Electrical failure due to tying down circuit breaker panels so that they failed in series, setting her own stern afire which allowed the Japanese to better observe her, cutting between burning US destroyers and the Japanese ships. Yet through all of that she survived at least 26 hits, including a 14" shell. While taking punishment from the Japanese Navy she did keep their attention while the Washington lined up to pummel the Kirishima into a burning wreck.

It is often overlooked that more US sailors died in the waters off of Guadalcanal than marines and soldiers ashore.

[Mmarland]

Just to follow up on Juneau, as mentioned the veteran I met from USS Northampton, has old news clippings in his scrap book.
After the Northampton went down we went state side for several months as they were assembling new crew for USS Iowa. The
clipping is from Boston Globe dated Jan 12, 1943. This is the same day, as per Wikipedia that the Sullivan family was informed of the
loss of the 5 sons.

"haven't figured out how to post an image of the clipping"

[Robert61267]

she did keep their attention while the Washington lined up to pummel the Kirishima into a burning wreck.

The timing of Washington's salvos against Kirishima indicates a sufficient time lag to view them as different events. The Japanese also sighted Washington several times and were aware that they were up against two battleships. Captain Davis simply handled his ship more smartly than Captain Gatch, allowing her to remain more or less undetected when the penultimate moment came. The good news for the navy was that while riddled, SoDak was more or less a soft kill, and was never in any real danger of sinking. Had her damage control teams handled things better, she likely never would have lost electrical power at the crucial moment; the South Dakotas may have had the most rugged design of any treaty battleship. Part of me wonders how much of this was due to experience from operating with the Royal Navy and if any hard won lessons had been passed on, or if it was simple luck? Any ideas?

[airnutz]

"haven't figured out how to post an image of the clipping"

Try this free pic hosting site. No sign-up or log on, just start using it. Haven't explored signing up for an account...no need to for my infrequent use. Below the Upload an Share Your Images, is a big blue button you clic on, START UPLOADING. The default selection works fine. The stuff below the blue button is spam. Works well and quick. Have fun!
https://imgbb.com

[hurricane_yank]

I know they did a TV special on the USS Indianapolis when it was found - anyone hear if they are planning on doing one for the Lexington?

[Robert61267]

Speaking of the Indy, Ned Beach was always of the opinion the I-58 sank her using Kaitens based upon the amount of damage sustained. Others say she didn't carry Kaitens, only standard torpedoes. Did our favorite group of explorers find any obvious torpedo damage which would support which weapon sank her, one way or another?

[old iron]

Robert61267 said:

Ned Beach was always of the opinion the I-58 sank her using Kaitens based upon the amount of damage sustained. Others say she didn't carry Kaitens, only standard torpedoes.

Would a Kaiten (which had a human pilot) have more or less explosives that a traditional long-lance torpedo? Actually, I went ahead and answered the question myself, via Wikipedia: A type 1 Kaiten had a warhead of 1550 kg, while a type 93 long-lance had 490 kg. FYI, the Kaiten were not fired from the traditional torpedo tube, but were lashed to the submarine deck; the pilot could climb into the Kaiten while the submarine was submerged, using a hatch on the bottom to enter the Kaiten.

I have always heard that the Kaiten was not used on the Indy, but the ship seemed to go down very quick for a single traditional torpedo hit. Interesting question. If it was a Kaiten there should be fragments from the rear of the craft on the sea floor, though these could be well separated from the sunken ship.

[lmritger]

Robert61267 said:
Would a Kaiten (which had a human pilot) have more or less explosives that a traditional long-lance torpedo? Actually, I went ahead and answered the question myself, via Wikipedia: A type 1 Kaiten had a warhead of 1550 kg, while a type 93 long-lance had 490 kg. FYI, the Kaiten were not fired from the traditional torpedo tube, but were lashed to the submarine deck; the pilot could climb into the Kaiten while the submarine was submerged, using a hatch on the bottom to enter the Kaiten.

I have always heard that the Kaiten was not used on the Indy, but the ship seemed to go down very quick for a single traditional torpedo hit. Interesting question. If it was a Kaiten there should be fragments from the rear of the craft on the sea floor, though these could be well separated from the sunken ship.

Well, considering the entire bow was ripped away from the ship in the vicinity of the forward turret barbette, that seems a bit severe for around 1000lbs of explosive from a standard Long Lance, although not completely unfeasible. Wasn't there another cruiser in that class which took a Long Lance hit but survived? Can't recall off-hand.

Lynn

[Clifford Bossie]

she did keep their attention while the Washington lined up to pummel the Kirishima into a burning wreck.

The timing of Washington's salvos against Kirishima indicates a sufficient time lag to view them as different events. The Japanese also sighted Washington several times and were aware that they were up against two battleships. Captain Davis simply handled his ship more smartly than Captain Gatch, allowing her to remain more or less undetected when the penultimate moment came. The good news for the navy was that while riddled, SoDak was more or less a soft kill, and was never in any real danger of sinking. Had her damage control teams handled things better, she likely never would have lost electrical power at the crucial moment; the South Dakotas may have had the most rugged design of any treaty battleship. Part of me wonders how much of this was due to experience from operating with the Royal Navy and if any hard won lessons had been passed on, or if it was simple luck? Any ideas?

Several sources consider the South Dakota class to be better armored ships than the North Carolina class. Or at least more survivable. (still not Iowa tough!) Had the SoDak not had the electrical issue it most likely would have been her that put the Kirishima on the bottom. The So Dak fared pretty well from the hits on her. That class was a tough class of ships.

Some sources state that the Kirishima was scuttled. Yet some Japanese sources dispute this. A good summary of what is believed to have happened: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... alysis.pdf There also were most likely more than nine 16"hits on the Kirishima.

There is some online speculation as to "what if" the Japanese navy had sent the Yamato (or Mushashi) in place of the Kirishima. First there has to be a belief that the IJN would risk the "hotel Yamato" in battle.

Though the Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway and the battles off Guadalcanal are separated by months it is logical to see the progression of naval battles leading through all of them. It would be interesting to see the wrecks of the Japanese carriers at Midway as well as the Wasp and Hornet.

For anyone interested in the battles off the Canal as viewed by the Japanese I would recommend the book Destroyer Captain by Tameichi Hara. It is a good read and the first source that I read giving Admiral Nagumo a fair treatment. Many of the engagements described took place off shore of islands that my father was engaged in combat on!

[Clifford Bossie]

[Robert61267]

Several sources consider the South Dakota class to be better armored ships than the North Carolina class. Or at least more survivable. (still not Iowa tough!)

Yep! Their armor was distributed over a smaller area due to their shorter length, so it could be concentrated where it counted. Same armor and tonnage, more or less, just concentrated more. The North Carolinas were armored against 14-inch shellfire, but armed with 16 inchers. So, some view them as inadequately armored in that that they couldn't defeat the projectiles they themselves were armed with. They were also inadequately protected against torpedo hits, but then most ships were at that time given that no one really realized just how powerful the Long Lance was. North Carolina could have been lost to that single torpedo hit were things just slightly different. Being the first treaty battleships the US built, there were bound to be compromises but the two North Carolinas were still very efficient and battleworthy ships, all things considered. The South Dakotas were certainly better in many respects, however.

I'd actually argue against the Iowas being any tougher than the south Dakota's. A lot of their extra tonnage went to machinery and propulsion, not necessarily extra armor. The turn-in at the #1 turret designed to help them achieve 30+ knots actually made them far more vulnerable there to hits, as their magazines were now closer to the outer hull of the ship and in theory more easily compromised. Real mega-toughness would have come about with the Montanas, but we sadly never got to see any of them!

Well, considering the entire bow was ripped away from the ship in the vicinity of the forward turret barbette, that seems a bit severe for around 1000lbs of explosive from a standard Long Lance, although not completely unfeasible. Wasn't there another cruiser in that class which took a Long Lance hit but survived? Can't recall off-hand.

Her sister Portland took a hit in her stern during the Barroom Brawl and survived. There are pictures of her damage on Navsource, and its pretty sobering. Whats remarkable about that hit was that it should have caused great leakage around the shaft glands and such, and yet she still made it and continued fighting that night and the next morning, albeit completely immobilized. The slightly earlier but very closely related Northampton and Chicago took multiple hits before very slowly sinking, so the prewar classes were certainly capable of taking damage and not quickly succumbing. Even the lighter and even older Pensacola took a Long Lance and survived. All of this makes me wonder if Either Ned Beach was right, or if Indy took multiple hits and we just don't know it.

[Clifford Bossie]

Robert61267 said:

Ned Beach was always of the opinion the I-58 sank her using Kaitens based upon the amount of damage sustained. Others say she didn't carry Kaitens, only standard torpedoes.

Would a Kaiten (which had a human pilot) have more or less explosives that a traditional long-lance torpedo? Actually, I went ahead and answered the question myself, via Wikipedia: A type 1 Kaiten had a warhead of 1550 kg, while a type 93 long-lance had 490 kg. FYI, the Kaiten were not fired from the traditional torpedo tube, but were lashed to the submarine deck; the pilot could climb into the Kaiten while the submarine was submerged, using a hatch on the bottom to enter the Kaiten.

I have always heard that the Kaiten was not used on the Indy, but the ship seemed to go down very quick for a single traditional torpedo hit. Interesting question. If it was a Kaiten there should be fragments from the rear of the craft on the sea floor, though these could be well separated from the sunken ship.

The Indy was not hit by a Type 93 "Long Lance", she was hit by at least two type 95 torpedoes. The Long Lance was a surface launched 24" torpedo, the Type 95 was a submarine launched 21" torpedo with a 405 kg warhead. The I-58's captain, Lt. Cdr. Hashimoto fired six torpedoes of which he observed two strike the Indianapolis. (The book I-Boat Captain states three hit.)While the I-58 did carry Kaitens Hashimoto chose not to employ them as they were cumbersome and noisy to launch and he felt he would lose the element of surprise in an attempt to launch them. It has always been the position of the Japanese that Kaitens were not used to sink the Indianapolis and there is no evidence that they were.