# Talk:Japanese battleship Kirishima

When Iwabuchi orders the port engine room flooded I believe this is where the rumors of scuttling come from but this is the only machinery compartment I have evidence he ordered to flood and it was to correct a starboard list making abandoning operations difficult. As the weight began to shift from starboard to port the free surface effect increases the speed at which this shift takes place and this overwhelms her natural righting arm that is attempting to keep her upright. She can't stop the momentum and capsizes to port. She then settles by the stern and sinks in a vertical position but due to the negative GM can not right herself before she hits bottom and settles upside down. 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/9460/t/Kirishima.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutyfree (talk • contribs) 11:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

After Reading further about this ship and it's class, it was originally built as a Battlecruiser, then upgraded to a "Pocket Battleship"  Having it under a title of Battleship is confusing I think. Cjmulvey (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The Title of the page is Japanese battleship Kirishima, but the Article itself and other articles state that the Kirishima is a Battlecruiser.  Cjmulvey (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We just made a decision over at Japanese battleship Haruna to switch to American English, is everyone on board with that? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one working on all five articles for the Kongo class. Convert to AmEng with extreme prejudice. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted a section of the story of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal because recent scholarship (James Hornfischer - Neptune's Inferno) shows it to be in error. First the Helena emerged from the battle essentially undamaged so she was certainly not struck multiple times by Kirishima. Second Hiei did not cripple the Atlanta which was actually done in by torpedos. Furthermore as cited in Hornfischer's book the gunfire damage that killed Admiral Scott came not from the Japanese but rather from the USS San Francisco. As evidence the killing shell was an 8" (and the only 8" guns that night were American) and die was found which matched that used by the San Francisco to identify her shell splashes. 
Ski206 (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The title needs renamed to accurately describe the vessel as it was not a battleship but a 'battlecruiser'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.186 (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC) 

in the infobox 16=8*1 (152 guns) and 8=8*2 (127 guns)
the statement that the second reconstruction improved the speed is at odd with what said in the Kongo-class article
151.29.146.245 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the infobox, including removing a link to an article about a Japanese 5" gun that the ship never carried, but someone ought to do more with that and standardize it around as-built or after 1st/2nd reconstruction.
I'm not sure what you mean about the speed discrepancy. The Kongo-class article correctly notes that the second reconstruction improved their speed. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)