Talk:Amagi-class battlecruiser

Hyphen

Congratulations for featuring an article with an incorrectly spelled title. No one has apparently noticed it. Has none of you heard of hyphens? - 81.182.83.210 (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, but this is the common name for all articles of this type (see some others on majestic titan). Perhaps it's time to change WP:SHIPNAME? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates

From the cancellation section:

Atago and Takao were canceled on 31 July 1924, and broken up for scrap that year.

In 1923 the Great Kantō earthquake in Tokyo caused significant stress damage to the hull of Amagi. The structure was too heavily damaged to be usable, and conversion work was abandoned. Amagi was stricken from the navy list and sold for scrapping, which began on 14 April 1924.

...as this currently reads, the earthquake in September 23 damaged the hull making it unusable, it was sold for scrapping in April 24, and then the other two ships were cancelled in July 24. It doesn't quite make sense to cancel the two less complete ships after you've already scrapped one of the two more complete ones - either the date should be 1923, or the reasoning for cancelling two of the Amagi's needs clarifying. Shimgray | talk | 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but perhaps this will clarify things: after Amagi was damaged in the September 1923 quake, Tosa was designated in December 1923 for conversion to a carrier, in Amagi's place—so Atago and Takao had to be canceled, per the Treaty. Maralia (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

Why does it say the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on 6 December 1941? - Denimadept (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Totals

In the info box, things don't quite add up to me, 4 planned, 0 completed, 4 cancelled, fine, but then 1 scrapped and 3 lost - that's make 8 by my book ? --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where it's rough to fit things into an infobox in a sensible way.

• None of the 4 planned ships were completed as designed (hence "Cancelled: 4").
• "Lost: 1" refers to Akagi, which was converted to an aircraft carrier (ergo not completed as designed) and then sunk at Midway.
• "Scrapped: 3" refers to the scrapping of the other 3, never-completed ships: Amagi, Takao and Atago.

If you have a better idea how to present this in the limited confines of an infobox, I'm all ears :) Maralia (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maralia, fancy bumping into you! Not to worry - I was obviously in a nit-picky mood ! The only thing I could suggest is another statistic, something like 'modified' to indicate a vessel converted to a different final design, or maybe just a simple 'built' indicating how many were finished ? --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Takao, Formosa vs. Mount Takao

Conway says that the fourth ship Takao was to be named after Takao (Kaohsiung), Formosa, but this is pretty implausible.

1. Every other Japanese battlecruiser, and virtually all type A cruisers, were named after mountains.
2. The Type A cruiser Takao, which re-used the name of the cancelled battleship, is stated to be named after Mount Takao.
3. Two previous Takaos (1, 2) were definitely named after the mountain, because at that time there was no town of Takao.
4. I've never heard of any Japanese warship named after a settlement.
5. Takao was an obscure colonial town. It would have been like naming four big new RN ships Temeraire, Spitfire, Swiftsure, and Goose Bay. It's ridiculous. (Maybe not John C. Stennis ridiculous, but it's not like the IJN had a Senator from Formosa to pander to...)

TiC ^(talk) 01:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A-ha, I nailed down a citation... okay, I moved the anomalous Conway version to a note, and the main body now states Mount Takao. TiC ^(talk) 11:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amagi-class battlecruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510065717/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-a/akagi2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-a/akagi2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

section background

reading this section, I understand that Japan built 2 kongo, 2 Fuso, 0 Ise and 2 Nagato (instead of 4-2-2-2). pietro2001:760:2C00:8001:6147:5924:75AF:BD63 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Side armor is incorrectly stated

It is stated in the infobox that the Side armor thickness is 9.8in (250 mm). This is incorrect as Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 contradicters this claim with a claim of 10 in (254 mm). This figure for the thickness of the side armor of the Amagi class is also given in; Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy Conway's All the World's Battleships ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:151E:8231:C0E:535F:B41:62C3 (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

replacement by age

The phrase

Fusō and the >>> first two <<< Kongō ships would be past their replacement age.

is suspect, because the Kongo-class and Fuso-class articles give these completion dates

• Kongō 16 August 1913
• Hiei 4 August 1914
• Kirishima & Haruna 19 April 1915
• Fusō 8 November 1915
• Yamashiro 31 March 1917

pietro (I have forgotten logging, now I am the italian Suppongoche [means: I feel that ... something is dubious]) 151.29.37.171 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Suppongoche (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that's accurate; the plan called for twelve capital ships less than eight years old. By the time the Tosas were completed in 1923, all of those vessels save Yamashiro would have been at least eight years old. By beginning construction of the Amagis, they would have resolved the age problem with regard to the four Kongōs. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. I believe of having said "5 vessels, not 3 as stated in the text, were over-age". I believe that you have answered me "No, you are wrong because 5 vessels were over-age". There is a huge problem with my english?Suppongoche (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)