Talk:Kongō-class battlecruiser

message: The text described both ships has heavily damaged which is kind of misleading considering what happened to each ship.
South Dakota's gunfire damage report summed it up like this: The ship left the area under her own, full, power.
Kirishima had her steering wrecked which only allowed a circular course. given the other damage and the fact that daylight meant airstrikes the ship was scuttled.
I described South Dakota's damage as minor, and the Kirishima as crippled. (A ship without steering can't put up much of a fight, see Bismarck) Anynobody 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heavy" damage on both ''South Dakota'' and ''Kirishima'' 

message: Regarding,
"The armoured belt near the bow and stern of the vessels was strengthened with an additional 3 inches (76 mm) of cemented armour"
As the exent of the main 8"/6" belt (A to Y barbette) is not defined in the previous sentences this sentence implies that the said 8"/6" belt was strengthened at the bow/stern with an additional 3" of plate, i.e. the belt at the bow & stern was heavier than that of the central citadel. This is obviously not the case, I would suggest something more like:
"Towards the bow & stern, beyond the central section of the ship containing the magazine & machinery spaces, the belt was reduced to 3 inches (76mm)"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belt armour  

message: In all articles concerning the Kongo-Class, the secondary armament after the reconstruction is said to be 8 127 mm Dual-Purpose-Cannons in twin mounts, while it really consisted of 12 guns in twin mounts (as evidenced by fotos, line drawings, models, pretty much everything, even pictures in the articles themselves), so, why is it not stated in the Armament section? The german Wikipedia got that right. Just asking, maybe i'm overlooking something.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.40.194.251 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late-war secondary armament 

message: I'm confused about the armament (and what the guy says above just makes it worse). The pages for almost all of these ships, and the main page say that the armament is "16x1 6" guns". Maybe that was true in the original version, but all the models I find and pictures I see show 7 single gun mounts along the hull on either side, for a total of 14 x 1, and 8 other guns in twin mounts up in the superstructure, presumably the 5" DP guns added after the refit. I just can't see where the "16 single guns" comes in (or the "12 x 5in guns in twin mounts" either). I can't find any photos showing anything besides 14 single and 4 twin mounts, whatever the caliber may be of the guns. This is an official US Navy drawing from the war. http://www.coatneyhistory.com/Kongo.htm It may be wrong, but it matches all the photos and all the built models I find looking around the internet. I haven't seen anything other than this layout on any of the ships. The guns and armor are highlighted in black; you can clearly see 14 singles on the hull and 4 twins on the deck.
It looks as if there might have been a eighth gun mounted in the little "nook" towards the bow at one point, but it is blanked off in all the pictures from the WWII era. I have heard of older battleships having their forwardmost hull guns removed because they were subject to a lot of waves when the ship was under way. 
My thinking is that the original armament was 16 single 6" guns in the hull, and 4 single 3" guns on the deck. When the ships were refit, they removed the forward 6" gun leaving 14 total, and swapped the 4 x 1 3" guns for 4 x 2 5" guns (12.7 cm/40 Type 89 naval gun to be exact). Haven't seen any of these supposedly ubiquitous drawings or photos showing 12 guns in twin mounts; I have to wonder if the guy is talking about the 25mm AA guns; there were a number of twin-mounted Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Guns mounted in various locations around the superstructure, and the Japanese trend on most ships was to add those by the dozen as the war went on. If they did add a bunch of Type 89's, it was a late war modification and not one from the rebuild..45Colt 15:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armament 

message: There's a date cite error on the article. I can't see it and I can't easily find it without copying the text of to a sandbox, which I am not currently  allowed to do....  All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK found it. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite error

message: Only gives the 2.75 for the later deck armour. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Not in source