IJN gunners were quoted as being skeptical of using them because the AA shells weren't well documented.  It's not that they were considered damaging to the bores, it's that their wear factor on the gun liners was uncertain.  There's a better article about it I read somewhere, but what it basically boiled down to was that the IJN had extremely precise wear factors for most AP and HC / HE shells, allowing them to calculate ballistics for each shot.  But they didn't have good tables worked out for the beehive AA shells and were therefore worried about not being able to know exact wear calculations on a given gun liner for later shots.  It's debatable how different the wear even would have been, since they used a pretty standardized driving band and powder load.

Either way, on the few occasions when they were used, our pilots pretty much just went "oh, hey, fireworks."  The large-bore AA shells ended up being basically useless in combat.

Ford Mark IA?

Dport would probably be the one to ask, but I don't think CIWS is really going to be effective against the missiles the Kirov would fire.  My non-classified understanding is that the SOviet missiles were optomized to penetrate a carrier deck.  I leave the pros to wrestle with whether the fusing in the probable warhead on a Shipwreck or Sunburn will work as designed when slapped into a battleship.

Kirov vs Missouri with Harpoon missiles and CIWS, the equipment the ship was carrying during the 1908's?  I would go with the Missouri.

So it appears that there is a discrepancy in accounts. None is apparently definitive. Read the others in the Google search.

My assertion was that the Kirishima was scuttled by Japanese effort, not that it wouldn't have gone down from American damage, which was fatal.

QFT

The US Navy accepted her as being scuttled:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-33.html
"Interrogation of: Lieut.-Comdr. TOKUNO, Horishi, IJN, who was Assistant Gunnery Officer of the Kirishima (BB) at GUADALCANAL, 12-14 November 1942 and at MIDWAY, 4-6 June 1942. He was Gunnery Officer of the Minegumo (DD) which was sunk in a night action at VILLA, 6 March 1943.

Interrogated by: Captain C. Shands, USN.  ...
Q. Did the Kirishima sink as a result of the gunfire?
A. No. Shortly after the American ships opened fire the steering of the Kirishima was so badly damaged that we were unable to steer or repair it. We kept turning in a circle but couldn't get away. We slowed down to try to steer with the engines but it was no use. Our engines were not badly damaged, but we were receiving many hits from the Washington. Then the Captain decided that since we couldn't steer and the engines were damaged that it would be better to scuttle the ship. He then gave the order to open the Kingston valves. We did not receive any torpedo hits."

Actually CIWS would have been effective, how effective depends on how many missiles actually get to the ship.  The missile has to get to the target first, and to do that it not only has to penetrate the hard kill capability that would have been present via SM2 missiles from the CG and FFG, and possibly Sea Sparrow from the DD, then it needs to get past the soft kill as well.  Mid course guidance can be disrupted (or destroyed), jamming and spoofing can fool the seeker, etc..  US EW capability of the period was pretty good, fortunately we never had to find out if it was up to the task of dealing with SHIPWRECK.  I won't address SUNBURN since that system is not on KIROV class ships.



If a single SHIPWRECK did get to a BB the probability would be the ship would survive, in a degraded state, a possible mission kill.  More then one leaker, the chances of the ship surviving drops off pretty dramatically.   NATO didn't call them SHIPWRECK for nothing.