I looked at Tennessee’s and California’s report in detail and it seems that their approach was very different than that of the West Virginia. A few pages before that data sheet from California, it mentions that they were holding salvo fire until a radar spot was applied and the solution from the rangekeeper was checked. Tennessee appeared to be firing at precisely timed intervals of exactly 45 seconds, primarily half salvos from the front turrets in order to conserve ammunition.
Out of the three action reports I’ve gone over, only West Virginia’s report mentions the use of rapid salvo fire, which means that California and Tennessee were probably waiting for a solution from the splashes of the previous salvo before firing the next one while West Virginia was not.
West Virginia also reports on being low on ammunition with only 110 AP shells left after the engagement. I previously mentioned that the “stress test” USS Idaho had demonstrated that running low on ammunition would also impact firing cycles due to having to transfer the shells and charges from the farthest corners of their storage spaces as the closer ones get expended. Despite all this, West Virginia achieved a 35-38 second reload in two of her salvos at a range of 20 km.
All this demonstrates that yet again, it is extremely unfair to implement one ship based on performance tests with ideal conditions and yet for another ship refuse to implement the best reload value recorded in combat situation where conditions are far from ideal.