Talk:Yamato-class battleship/Archive 1

″

Archive 1

Deployment

In the deployment section in mentions that none of the Yamato class battleships or Bismarck ever engaged an enemy battleship. This is untrue - the Bismarck engaged the battlecruiser HMS Hood and the battleship HMS Prince of Wales in the battle of Denmark Strait, sinking the Hood. Korandder 09:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording is broken into two sentences. The "Neither" refers only to Mushashi and Yamato. --Durin 12:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Durin, thanks for the clarification on the wording. I wrote the deployment section a while back and never meant to imply that the Bismarck never engaged enemy battleships, only the Yamato and Musashi. Glad you saw that. User:SWO1975 — Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

From the info box....

Trial displacement of 68,200 British tons (69,294 tonnes) 
Standard displacement of 64,000 British tons (65,027 tonnes)
Maximum displacement of 72,000 British tons (72,820 tonnes)

The tons to tonnes conversion is clearly not consistent but I have no idea which of the figures are incorrect! Can someone with access to an accurate source tidy that up please. --LiamE 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This article should not have passed a B class review as it does not have inline citations to show where material is sourced. Hove downgraded to start.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of 6.1" guns?

One of the pictures they have for the yamato show's it with only 6 of it's 6.1" guns. Did they took some out to put more AA guns? If so someone post a reply to this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.65.197 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

She had the two amidships 6.1in triples removed for six 5in dual DP guns. 213.214.191.166 (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The text says "In 1944, Yamato—the sole remaining member of the class—underwent significant anti-aircraft upgrades, with the configuration of secondary armament changed to six 6.1-inch (15 cm) guns,[55] ... in preparation for operations in Leyte Gulf.[56]" Yamato was not "the sole remaining member of the class" UNTIL Leyte Gulf (October 1944) since Musashi was sunk in the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea that was part of the Battle of Leyte Gulf. An aerial photo of Yamato under attack during that battle already shows only two (fore and aft) 6.1" turrets. The question is, was Musashi similarly upgraded before Leyte? Also, 6.1" is equal to c. 155 mm (15.5 cm), not 150mm/15cm (which is usually referred to as 5.9").--Death Bredon (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

for safekeeping

Ships in class

Ship #	Ship	Builder	Laid down	Launched	Completed	Fate
1	Yamato (大和)	Kure Naval Arsenal	4 November 1937	8 August 1940	16 December 1941	Sunk during the Ten-gō sakusen on 7 April 1945
2	Musashi (武蔵)	Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard	29 March 1938	1 November 1940	5 August 1942	Sunk during the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea on 24 October 1944.
110	Shinano (信濃)	Yokosuka Naval Arsenal	4 May 1940			Construction stopped in spring 1942. Converted to aircraft carrier on September 1942.
111	Kii (紀伊)	Kure Naval Arsenal	7 November 1940			Discontinued on March 1942 and scrapped. Materials were used for Ise and Hyūga.
797						Kai-Yamato class. Cancelled on 30 June 1942

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Climie.ca (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Doctrines & tactics

Sorry, I missed the A-class review of this. A few things strike me:

• Talking about the background to the ships. What about the 'out-ranging' concept?

• Is it worth pointing out that not only were they bigger than any other battleship, they were bigger than any other battleship the US could even theoretically design?

• Is the symbolism of the names mentioned anywhere?

• There is very little information about why the ships were used as they were. What was their role and how did their deployment fulfill it?

• Armour - how was armour distributed? How much protection did it actually provide? What was the quality of the steel used?

• Armament - the 'underwater shots' idea should probably be mentioned.

I strongly recommend Kaigun by Evans & Peattie as a valuable book for the bilbiography. Regards, The Land (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Today, we military maniacs in Japan conclude that Yamato was not built for 'out-ranging', nor IJN did not intend it. Because (1)Yamato's armour was designed for main battle range as 20000m-30000m. Over 28000m far, 16in SHS would become critical for Yamato(though thay did not know SHS), and over 32000m, normal 16in shell also critical. (2)it was very dificult to hit enemy battleship over 30000m far and out-ranging was not effective.

Yamato was the old name of Nara prefecture, and it was old name of Japan also. So Yamato was somewhat symbol of Japanese navy for soldiers. But Yamato class was the militaly secret, so people in Japan believed Nagato class was the strongest for the entire war period.

Yamato class battleships was expected to form 1st (main-battleship)squadron with Nagato class battleships. IJN was afraid of numerical inferiority of battleships, so they could not use Yamato on minor battles. Yamatos ware only for decisive battles! Kongo class was expected for advanced guard with cruisers and destroyers, so IJN can use them on minor battles.

Fuel was not so big problem, Yamato's consumption ratio was larger than Kongo indeed, but its battle ability is far more than Kongo, so Yamato was economical over all. But night of solomon strait was not proper area for Yamato, since 8 inches shells and torpedoes would become critical threat on very close fight even for Yamato.

J.F.Dunnigan says that Class A armour of Iowa was equivalent to about 25% more thickness in terms of armour of Yamato. But we military maniacs in Japan think that VH armour of Yamato was same quality as class A, or at least only 10% inferior to class A.(mainly refence to "ZOKU KAIGUN-SEIKOU-MONOGATARI(A continued Story of R&D of Steel at the Navy)" by Kazuo Horikawa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.192.90.85 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to the fact that the US Navy was limited to ships with a beam no larger than 108 feet to allow the ships to cross through the Panama canal, thus it was thought the US would not build ships with guns of greater caliber than 16 inches. In a battleship dominated naval war, Japan could potentially take an advantage by having 18 inch gunned battleships, with the later, larger 20 inch gunned battleships built in the mid to late forties, with the Yamato class upgraded to 20 inch guns in twin mount turrets. For the US to counter they would have to build ships that would not fit through the canal. I believe that is correct and I think it would be worth noting in the piece, but I do not have a solid reference to support it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The new History Channel video discusses this at 21'35" - 22'25". --Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thinking towards FA nomination

Perhaps it would be a good idea if people thought about changes that need to be made to the article before it can be nominated as a FA? If people are stuck perhaps looking at Montana class battleship and Iowa class battleship might be helpful given they're both FA. John Smith's (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with comparing those articles to this one is the large amount of information that was kept by the U.S. on those ships and the length the Iowa-class have been around...also, the Japanese destroyed most of the info about the Yamato-class in the aftermath of the Second World War. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant more in regards to structure, format, etc - not necessarily content. John Smith's (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

aircraft

The Yamato class had below decks hanger space for five aircraft, and carried two catapults on the fantail. That implies the Yamato class could carry up to seven aircraft, enough to put up a reasonable size combat air patrol. Most American battleships had two catapults (no below decks hanger space) and deployed two or at most three floatplanes for scouting purposes. Does anyone have authoritive sources on the actual and theoretical employment of aircraft by the Yamato class? Naaman Brown (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will look at my sources on Friday and see if anything materializes. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First, this is a great article and I love it. How did they land those planes, anyone? If they had floaters they should be very clumsy as fighter planes and my theory is that those where rather used for intelligence and/or directing artillery fire. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they were more recon/spotter planes - in the Battle off Samar, her float-planes confirmed her hits on enemy ships. They would have also done occasional sub patrol likely. Cam ^(Chat) 04:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just confirming what Cam said. Kaigun doctrine was to use cruiser and battleship floatplanes for scouting and recon so that the carrier bombers and torpedo planes could be reserved completely for strike missions. For example, at the Battle of Midway one of the reasons that the US carriers were sighted so late was because of mechanical problems with the cruiser or battleship floatplane assigned to that scouting patrol leg. In night actions, such as at the Battle of Savo Island, cruiser or battleship floatplanes were to drop flares over the enemy ships. Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

why is there not any information about the planes on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.22.245 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

Reynolds on p. 284 says that Shinano "was launched in Tokyo Bay on 11 November 1944 and commissioned one week later. ... Soon after her commissioning on 18 November, Shinano was loaded with...". This conflicts with CombinedFleet.com's 5 October and 19 November... :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

[1]? Trying to ascertain this without burdening WP:RS/N more.... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That page is signed by "Michael Hansen". Although he sourced his information to several books, that page itself probably doesn't qualify. Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC copyedit and comments

I've been working on a copyedit of the article before an eventual FAC nomination and have found several items that should be considered before the nomination is advanced:

Lead

• The ships are referred to as 72,800 metric tons at full load, which doesn't match what's in the infobox. Also, given that the infobox uses long tons first (with a metric ton conversion), it would be better to have the lead match the units and conversion, as well as the amounts.

Fixed, went back through my books, the figure in the infobox is accurate.

• The guns fired a projectile in pounds up to a distance in kilometers: should probably have either kg & km OR lbs & nmi.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Design

• Paragraph 1 (P1): first paragraph is uncited

It's just sort of giving an introduction to what's going to be said throughout the next paragraphs, so I'm not entirely sure it needs them. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• P2: Not sure of the significance of note A1 to this article, other than to contradict(?) the statement in the body of the article. If the details of Yamishiro and Fuso are relevant to this article, that relevance needs to be made more clear; if Yamishiro was not "reconstructed or significantly modernized", the body text should read Although most of Japan's battleships built prior to the Yamato class…

Removed the note. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• P2, Last sentence (S): I'm guessing that even though other countries were treaty-bound to not build larger vessels, they were, nonetheless, capable of building them. The conclusion of the sentence should probably be reworded to something along the lines of … and free to build larger warships than the other major maritime powers.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• P3: There's a mixture of "US", "U.S.", and "United States"—choose one abbreviation or the other; there's really not a need to spell out "United States" either

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• P4, S2: Is the figure in "tons" metric tons or long tons? When it's determined, it also needs a conversion

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• P4, S2: Logically this sentence doesn't work for me. At design time, there was no way of knowing that these would be the largest ever built; yet built, certainly. Since they did turn out to be the largest ever built, I think the conclusion of the sentence should be broken out onto its own.

Though even with the proposed Montana design of 1945, they were still the largest ever constructed. Nevertheless, I have fixed it. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ships, Shinano

• As with P4 of "Design", the "ton" figures should be disambiguated and converted
• I see farther up on the talk page there was a name associated with the fourth hull. Since construction on Hii apparently began, this article would be the appropriate place to discuss its particulars, however limited they may be.

The difficulty is that - other than up this talk page - I've never seen a fourth and fifth ship names mentioned. I'll ask Cla68 if he's got anything on them. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Aspects of the Yamato class

• What is the reason for the separation of this section from "Design"? The subsections all seem to be design aspects…

I'm modelling the page primarily off of Iowa class battleship, and it has separate subsections for its armament, armour and propulsion and radar systems after the ones on the ships, and I simply couldn't figure out any other term to describe them than 'aspects'. Cam ^(Chat) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Armament

• P1: Is there any way to indicate the largest-ever-gun bit without using two different meanings of caliber in the same sentence?
• P1, n A3: I copyedited this note, but fail to see the significance here of the shell's possible nickname
• P2: Gun sizes here are given in inches first, but in the infobox as centimeters first.

Propulsion

• Can you check the source for the phrase "installed horsepower"? Should that be "indicated horsepower" or is it a unit I'm unfamiliar with?

Proposed Super Yamato class battleships

• Significance to this article: any other than the name?

Cultural significance

• Any examples of Yamato's appearance in popular culture? Not that this should be a trivia section, but listing a typical mention might help the reader understand the point a little better.

— Bellhalla (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Great feedback! I've added a couple of examples [2]. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Online photo archive

I recently discovered this photo archive. Many of these images I haven't seen before. I'll try to go through and upload some of the good ones to the related Commons' galleries. Cla68 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this worth including?

According to the Washington Post, Jane's Fighting Ships first listed the Yamato and the Musashi in 1944, and a gave them a displacement of 45,000 tons each. Another interesting example of how wrong the West was. Is it worth including? See: Tobin, Richard (October 1, 1944). "U.S. Navy Outnumbers Jap 10 to 1". The Washington Post. p. B1. This same claim seems to have been widely reported in the American media. Cool3 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a little bit pertaining to this in the first para of the "Ships" section; I think that it would be good there. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Very odd claim

Does anyone know what to make of this: "Experiments at extracting fuel from soy beans proved so successful that it was used by the super battleship Yamato during its suicidal sortie southwest of Kyushu during the closing days of the war, the [United States Navy technical mission to Japan] said." From a United Press article that appeared in the Washington Post. See "Jap Death Ray Found by Navy Mission". The Washington Post. April 22, 1946. p. 3.. Cool3 (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The same claim is repeated in a recent book, Michael Adams' The Best War Ever. See [3] What do you think? Include the information? Certainly interesting and significant if true. Cool3 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It would merit inclusion in the Yamato battleship page, but not necessarily in this one, since it doesn't really pertain to both of them enough to actually fit anywhere. Cam ^(Chat) 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Link for addition to the Yamato Class Battleships Wiki Page

Hello. I am new to Wiki and a caveman vis-a-vis understanding all the software, but MBK004 has just been kind enough to send me a note of suggestion, so - here I go:

I am an amateur historian, retired military officer, Phi Beta Kappa. I have created the web's only comprehensive archive photo gallery (photos in public domain) of the Battleships Yamato and Musashi. Dozens of Musashi/Yamato battle photos from Leyte, Samar and Okinawa taken by USN planes, too. The site does not spam, sell, advertise or benefit me in any way shape or form.

Under Wiki's policy I can't place a link to the site on the Yamato page myself (since I am the site's author and admin so-to-speak), but I invite other readers to peruse the site and decide whether they think it might be of use as an external link to this page.

Here is the address to the site: http://webspace.webring.com/people/kb/bucketfoot_al/

Do let me know your thoughts.

Thank you.

Al Simmons

--Al Simmons (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If the photos are PD (as should be the case for Japanese photos of this period) they should be uploaded to Wikicommons so they can be used in this article and all the other relevant articles in the many different Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Nick. Upload your images to the commons and we can place a commons link in the class and ships articles linking to the pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, there are some great photos there. If you uploaded them to the Wikimedia Commons, that'd be great—all Commons pictures can be used here on Wikipedia. You could link your site back from the photos if/when you upload them (the "source" box). A quick thought though; Commons requires that there be proof that the photos are in the public domain. Can you provide that? If you can, they would be an amazing addition to the articles here on Wikipedia. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the photos look to be covered by either {{PD-USGov}} (as they were taken by US military aviators during attacks on the ships) or either {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} and {{PD-Japan}}. It's certainly an extremely valuable collection of photos on these ships, and they'd be of great use to Wikipedias around the world (for instance, the very-detailed looking Japanese Wikipedia article is sadly under-illustrated). It if can't be established that the Japanese photos are PD then a link to the website would be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me - establish that archive military photos that have appeared in (mostly) Japanese books and other obscure publication, and have nearly all been gotten from the National Archives are in the public domain? Listen, I have ONE life to live, and in THAT one I don't have enough time to do the basics - like moving to DC and spending the next 3 years trying to satisfy such inane requests (unless someone is willing to fund me).

I don't mean to be flippant, but it is OBVIOUS that these archive photos, all 64-70 years old, are in the public domain and since they are being used for purely educational purposes, that should alleviate any possible restrictions which would deal with commercial use (if they would even be applicable). Back on topic, I won't argue with y'all any more, you have your sandbox here and far be it for an old crotchety geezer like me to try to discourse with kids half my age who can make me go 'poof' with a click of the button.

If you are interested for me to upload any of these photos, then please have it cleared with the powers that be, so that I do not go through the trouble only to have someone - or something mechanical - automatically delete them. Can any of you perform that inquiry? If the answer is yes, and permission is granted, then kindly point me to the uploading instructions (which I dearly hope are very simple instructions for loading the pictures - you gotta remember my IQ is only 139 and I am only the graduate of the #15 law school in this country, so I am a little slow on the uptake.)

*Sarcasm off*. Yes, I am a curmudgeon, and yes, I am having a very bad day totally unrelated to this board - but I have no desire to make this my 5th job. I am glad that some of you have recognized the uniqueness and value of my labor of love for the history of the Yamato - and if I can plug it into WIKI under the rules, I'd like to. But I'm gonna need help (as asked above, albeit tongue-in cheek).

P.S. If you are offended by my tone instead of finding this post humorous, remember that my sense of humor is quite idiosyncratic and anyone who knows me would get a chuckle reading the above, knowing the proper context. Think of a frustrated Will Ferrell, or better yet, Steve Martin character - from his early days in the 1970s-80s of course....

--Al Simmons (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, my eyebrows were a little raised until I saw that last paragraph. ;-) I'm going to try to respond to all of your points and questions, but I may miss one or more; feel free to ask if you have any questions. First: I misspoke in saying that Commons requires public domain. They require freely licensed content, which includes PD. Second, "purely educational" does not fall under "freely licensed", I'm afraid. :| Having said that, if you can give where the pictures originally came from—say, a book and page, a website link, etc.—and they were not published for ten years after they were taken (which I would think is true—the secrecy surrounding the Yamatos was nothing short of amazing), then they should all be good for Commons.

The link to upload pictures to Commons is here. Just please add the appropriate license tag, if you can; if not, I'll go through and add them if I have too. The three that would apply here are {{PD-USGov-Navy}}, {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} and {{PD-Japan}}. Thanks a lot; you have no idea how much we appreciate this! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed! Great info! All of the Aerial photos fit under the USN Gov't definition you linked - and the Japanese photos (few as they are) all fell into the hands of the US military at the end of WW2 and were likely sourced from there as well for the sources (books) I got them from. I am amazed, given that the Japanese have literally scoured the US National Archives for every photo of the Yamato and Musashi (and all of the photos on my web site are available in various Japanese books on the two ships), that the Japanese language version of the WIKI Yam site is so poorly supplied with photos.

Now a question for you: Assuming we can get past the legalese (which does not appear to be the problem as I believe every archive photo on my site came from US sources (either taken by USN personnel or taken from Japanese records by the US after the war), would you recommend uploading all of the photos or just a few representative ones? I have no problem going either way, and since I moved my site to a provider that gives me a lot more webspace, I am going to go back eventually and 'uncrop' some of the aerial bombing shots (without shrinking them) in order to show more detail - this will be particularly beneficial vis-a-vis some of the high altitude Sho-Go bombing/torpedo shots of the Musashi.

Let me know. Thanks!

--Al Simmons (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Al, I've seen this but have to go to work at this moment. Will reply tonight. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 11:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, all would be better—pictures like those aren't very common—but it's your choice. If you have only the time for some, then by all means only upload a few. Just make sure that Commons doesn't already have the same picture in commons:Category:Battleship Yamato or commons:Category:Battleship Musashi. ;-) The only thing I request is that you tag the Japanese photos with {{PD-Japan-Oldphoto}} because it isn't quite clear what the status of this wartime 'loot' is according to US copyright law. See Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images for more. In my opinion, tagging it with the Japan template would be safer. Cheers friend, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I'm rather busy at the moment but I will start uploading a few photos at a time as soon as I have a few days off. And I will probably have a few questions, so - stay tuned.  ;>)

--Al Simmons (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Largest, heaviest and most heavily-armed..."

But what is "largest" supposed to mean if it doesn't mean "heaviest?" The Yamatos weren't larger than the Iowas in terms of length, after all, they were slightly shorter. Killed the "largest" claim for being misleading. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good call. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Deck armor thickness?

The claim in the text is:

Deck armour—75 millimetres (3.0 in) thick—was composed of a nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy. Ballistics tests at the proving ground at Kamegabuki demonstrated the deck alloy to be superior to the homogeneous Vickers plates by 10–15%

Yet this is in apparent direct conflict with the data in the sidebar of deck armor being 8-9 inches - which is the true thickness?

If some parts are 8-9 inches, and other parts are only 3 inches, then both the claim in the text and the sidebar need to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory JH (talk • contribs) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There are three decks with armor - but only one of them is the "armored deck" with 8-9 inch armor. The two decks above it have a much weaker protection - up to 3 inches.Alexpl (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Secret intimidation?

Japan went to great lengths to hide the size of the ship and its guns, wanting enemies to think the ship carried 16 inch guns. This was successful; Americans didn’t learn how big the ships and their guns were until the end of the war. How does one reconcile this with the intent to intimidate as stated: "Many in Japan's Naval and Military Command also hoped these vessels would intimidate the United States into acquiescing to Japanese actions in the Pacific." --207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose to remove the quote unless I soon see a reasonable explanation about how Japan expected to intimidate with ships whose true capabilities were being hidden or even deliberately downplayed. Elsewhere in this same article it is made clear that Americans still thought the ships had 16 inch guns months after Yamato was sunk. It seems to me that Japan was trying to do whatever is the opposite of intimidation. --207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Most Powerful Battleship Ever Built

The contributors deleting properly referenced sources in the case of reputable published authors, in this particular case Jentschura p. 39 quote, "were the largest and most powerful battleships ever built" are just about saying the same as Jentschura's quotation with their "heaviest and most powerfully armed..." So its somewhat difficult to understand why the contributor(s) is (are) creating what Wiki calls an editorial war by continuously deleting properly referenced sources. Wiki policy is the preference of properly referenced material and not POVs (Personal Point of Views).

The contributors "heaviest and most powerfully armed..." verses the published source's "were the largest and most powerful battleships ever built" basically state the same thing. So whats this editors war all about? The published author's quoted reference is simply a partial cumulative collection of the Yamato classes size, armament, engine power, speed, and fire control optics, among other aspects, that together created the "largest and most powerful battleships ever built." Another words the published source and the "warring editors" are saying the same thing! But the Jentschura is a published reference and the contributor is not (in this case). Wikipedia's policy is that they prefer published sources whenever practical.

"If" by chance the contributors that delete the referenced material and refer to insert their personal descriptions (heaviest and most powerfully armed) then that wording can also have a double meaning. It could mean that the Yamato class battleships were the heaviest and most powerfully armed but were not the most powerful battleships ever built. Which most probably stands the best reason for the constant deletion of referenced sources. As it appears to be a lot within the past few weeks. The involved contributors most likely have another battleship in mind as the most "powerful battleship ever built."

"If" this is the case then that argument will have no ending as no battleship during WWII or WWI for that matter ever sunk another battleship during a ONE on ONE sea engagement: 1. The only one that comes close was the USS Washington blasting the IJN Kirishima to a wreck. But thats only because Washington sneaked up on the Kirishima while she was blasting the battleship USS South Dakota to a wreck. 2. Bismarck was disabled by obsolete WWI style aircraft launched from aircraft carriers, and then she committed suicide (scuttled as proven by Dr. Ballard during his expedition in the latter 20th century). 3. Graf Spee also committed suicide (scuttled). But this was an 11" gun battlecruiser, and not a battleship. She had smaller armament than US Large Cruisers which were 12" gunned.

In short, there is no reason for deleting properly sourced material. The purpose is to allow readers to research the material themselves if they wish to challenge the Wikipedia Article. By consistently removing properly referenced sources, the contributor(s) is (are) doing an injustice to both Wikipedia and the public who depend upon the Wikipedia Encyclopedia for properly written and reference information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the editor reverting this, I don't have a really strong opinion on it, and I have no interest in joining the edit war. But it strikes me that a direct quote in Wikipedia is warranted when the quote is either historically important or it says something important in a particularly good way. Neither is true of this quote, which, while accurate enough, is utterly banal in its choice of wording. Frankly, using a quote here seems just a little silly. --Yaush (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say two things;

1. "powerfully armed" is less ambiguous, and less open to interpretation. "Powerful" could mean general combat efficiency (which can be debated to death) or it can mean powerful in the physical science sense, i.e. powerplant and horsepower.
2. Jentschura is a strong source for facts. But on matters of interpretation (for instance, the general combat efficiency of the class) he is only one source amongst many. You can find naval design experts saying Iowa was best or Vanguard was best but they are all just stating opinion

So I would personally prefer the non-quote version. The Land (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don’t really mean to take sides in this matter, but I did understand perfectly the objection to the word “largest” since large can mean different things. I’ll grant that when someone speaks of a large person he usually means a heavy person, but sometimes it means a tall person, just as a small person can be either light weight or a short person. Saying that the Yamato class was the heaviest is not open to dispute, if you say it is the largest, someone might point out that Iowa was longer. Yes, there are some people who might think that largest would mean longest. I also have at least a little objection to calling the Swordfish torpedo planes “world war I style.” True, they were biplanes with fabric covering and non retractable landing gear, but I would say that they would have outperformed World War I planes by a large margin, and were designed much closer to WWII than WWI. I would prefer to call the Swordfish an early thirties style plane. --207.30.62.198 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for attempting to bring this to a discussion. I attempted to address it as well on the discussion page for the Yamato. I've been watching this back and forth for some time and have been extremely disappointed in it, for the same reason that IP 70.88.54.218 points out, that the two versions are essentially saying the same thing, with a subtle semantic difference. I agree with The Land and IP 207.30.62.198 that the term largest could be disputed as meaning the longest, which I believe would go to the Iowa s, but the change to most powerfully armed seems appropriate, as the 460 mm guns were the largest bore naval rifles ever set afloat. Thus I would prefer using the phrase "heaviest and most powerfully armed". As to the quote, I would leave it out, but use that reference as the supporting citation. I think that would be the best version, but any version used thus far would be adequate to get the idea across that the Yamatos were intended to trump all other battleships at sea. Regardless, the issue should be discussed and not handled as it has been thus far. The snubbing of the IP editors, whom you would hope would be encouraged to help advance the encyclopedia, has been poor form. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit war is getting out of hand, and the assumptions of bad faith in some of the revert-comments are becoming blatant. Short of the editors concerned growing up, how do we bring this to some kind of resolution? --Yaush (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Put simply the Jentschura quote is misleading and objectively false; the Yamatos were not the largest battleships ever built in every way (the Iowas were longer, I'm fairly sure Fuso was taller), they were only the largest by displacement. Any number of books could be cited on the relative lengths of the two vessels to show the quote is not accurate. Deliberately using an imprecise quote is not what WP:CITE is about. Herr Gruber (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides being largest in displacement, they were also largest in breadth. So that means in two of four ways of measuring "size" they were the largest. Each of your other two examples is only largest in one measurement. So it could be argued that the Yamato-class was "more largest" than any other class. Just saying. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Still, it says largest, not most largest. In terms of which dimension you think of a ship being "large" in it's usually length, and they weren't the longest. The Yamatos weren't the largest BBs in every dimension, so it makes sense to state the precise way in which they were special (they were heaviest). Like I said on the page for Yamato, you could find any number of quotes which simply say The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world, but it would be misleading to use one of those quotes with a ref over simply being specific and saying it's the largest by floor area. As another point, HMS Hood was only two feet shorter than Yamato but at deep load was over 20,000 tons lighter; expressing this would require saying what dimension the two ships were alike in. It would be very misleading to say either that one ship was substantially smaller than the other, or that the two ships were almost equally large. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is deleting bibliography sources and properly referrenced sources; in this case double referenced sources. The definitions of heavy, largest, biggest, etc. are not excessively important. But breaking procedure and robbing the readership (Wiki readers) of researchable information (from the bibliography section) is wrong! Also Jenschura is not the only author here, its actually four now...Worth, Jentschura, Dieter, and Jung. So those need to be taken into consideration also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.18.5 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth isn't exactly a high-quality source. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Ed, so you've dissed one out of four sources. That still leaves three sources you yourself admit as "high-quality sources" all saying something that you seem to feel it's still appropriate to delete.... That doesn't sound quite right here. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My response was due to a recent edit. The other three sources are good, but there's no need to quote one historian's opinion, doubly so when the dominant narrative goes against the claim that they were the "most powerful". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite like Worth's book, and he does write that these were "the most powerful battleships of all time". However, quoting only this passes over his rather good analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the ships, as well as the concept which lead to their construction (of which he's very critical). There's a case to be made for the article having a section discussing historians views of the ships given that this has attracted a lot of attention. I agree that quoting random historians without taking their full views into account is a bad idea. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless which book is quoted, it doesn't change the POV by the author and we won't use POV statements. There are enough statements or data available the Iowas were more powerful or at least a more balanced design (better protection/armor layout, more accurate and faster firing guns to name some. --Denniss (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, vast amounts has been written about which was the 'best' battleship design of World War II, and there are several credible contenders. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The other problem is these comparisons are always WW2 Iowa versus Yamato. Unfortunately, Cold War Iowa was also a battleship that was constructed, and could carry 32 cruise missiles which could all have nuclear warheads if you felt like it, and 18 inch guns don't really beat the ability to destroy a medium-sized country. A match between an 80s Iowa and Yamato would just come down to if there was anything left of Yamato to sink after the first hit.

Really, we should change the heading to be exact there too and say she mounted the largest primary guns by calibre rather than the most powerful armament. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There still has not been an explanation for deleting reference books from the bibliograhy section. Such as Richard Worths battleship book. I've replaced it in the section. Furthermore, a contributors referencing of quotes or other information from reliable books is not a POV. An editors opinion of an author, such as Jentschura, would be a POV. Secondly, would not historians or readers agree that an 18" gun would be more powerful than a 16", 15", 14" and so forth gun? After all todays 120mm tank guns are considered far more powerful than WWII era 37mm, 45mm, 88mm, etc tank guns. The caliber rule should also apply to battlehips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.45.70 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Could that be because Worth is not referenced in the article? I'm not debating your other points; they appear to have been refuted above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Powerful" is a misleading and vague term that fails to explain in what specific way these ships were powerful. It could refer to main armament, overall armament, engine power, or any combination of those. At least once of those is demonstrably not true (Yamato did not have the most powerful overall armament because the 80s Iowa refits could carry nuclear weapons), so the article should clearly state in what way the Yamato was remarkable. References are used to provide clarity, not to force ambiguity. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Who would have won?

If yamato or musashi had faced any of the US battleships, or even the any of the british batleships on a 1v1 basis, who would have won the battle?

nimitz1943 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimitz1943 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a near run thing. I believe I am not too far from right in saying the Iowa's had a less powerful armament but could fire faster, had better fire control and were better protected structurally. It was discussed at some length on the talk page for the article on the Yamato and could be found here. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile

While much back and forth has gone on over minor wording changes, have any of you guys checked out what the German's did with their page on the Yamato class? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-Klasse It's beautiful. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yamato versus british and french battleships

Did any of the british or french battleships had any chance of defeating the Yamato class?

Nimitz 1943 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimitz1943 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is meant to be used to discuss improvements to this article. There are tons of internet discussion boards where this topic can be debated. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yamato at the Battle of Leyte Gulf

The Yamato did not escort carriers at the battle of Leyte Gulf. It was part of Kurita's "Centre Force". The carriers were in the "Northern Force" commande by Ozawa. Captain S.W. Roskill War at Sea Volume 3 Part 2 page 211. Ken farrington (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Ken Farrington

Hi there. The text inadvertently implied that Yamato was still part of the carrier escort group. I've clarified this. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancies

I found some discrepancies from this article and an article Japanese battleship Yamato.

The discrepancies are:

1. In the article Yamato-class battleship thickness of the thicker part of the armoured deck is 230 mm (9 in) but in the article Japanese battleship Yamato it is 226.5 mm (8.92 in)

2. both articles stand for information that Yamato had 162 25 mm AA-guns in spring 1944 onwards as her final maximum amount. But there is also mentions that amount of the guns was increased twice after spring, which was not possible if Yamato had her final AA-complement already in spring 1944. Featured picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yamato1945.png, http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm and German Wikipedia all stands for 152 AA-guns as maximum. German Wikipedia also informs that amount of the guns was 98 in spring 1944 and 113 in summer 1944. Over all there is only one reference for 162 guns mentioned in articles. Besides there is a foto, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yamato_hit_by_bomb.jpg, wich shows to them who are familiarize themselves with Yamato that there wasn't 162 guns at least in 1944.

3. Both articles inform that Yamato's 15.5 cm wing turrets were removed in 1943, but again http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm and German Wikipedia inform that they were not removed before 1944, at the same time when 127 mm guns were added.

4. In Yamato-class battleship it is mentioned that Yamatos's AA-armament was upgraded in March 1945. Reference of this information is http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm. A problem is that this website don't have the information. --84.249.89.206 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

re 2, 162 guns is referenced to a reliable source so far as I can see. The German wikipedia article seems lacking in references and wikipedia articles are not reliable sources (so that calls into question your assertion in 3 as well. The removal of turrets is referenced to Garzke and Dulin who generally have a high reputation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No 4 is as you say not in the text. I went back through a year of article history but didn't see how when it was added. Possibly a mis-interpretation or a rewrite of a sentence resulting in changed meaning. I have edited it to reflect the source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No. 1 is the most serious issue - as you say one article gives 9 inches, the other 8.92 inches, but the source has 9.1 inches and doesn't explain the meaning of the 25% either. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Garzke and Dulin is probably a good source, but it is also old. Forexample the wreck of Yamato was discovered after publishing of the book. And if you compare fallowing photos, you will note, as I mentioned, that there wasn't 162 guns at least in 1944. The photos are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yamato_hit_by_bomb.jpg taken in late 1944 and http://www.designcowboys.net/Yamato/Images/superstructure.jpg taken in early 1945. In 1945 there is clearly larger amount of guns. --84.249.89.206 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is also good to note that all new scale models of yamato has ether 150 or 152 guns although models aren't probably reliable sources. --84.249.89.206 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Japanese articles on the two redlinks

Fukuda Keiji is ja:福田啓二 and Taigei was later converted into a CV Ryuho ja:龍鳳 (空母). Please incorporate into the article.--124.27.138.216 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The conversion of Taigei is mentioned in the Ryujo article. It is not relevant here. Yaush (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"The design of the Yamato-class battleships was shaped by expansionist movements"

This whole paragraph is problematic. The Yamatos were designed specifically to outclass the Iowas, whose likely characteristics the Japanese made some very shrewd guesses about, based on the American requirement that capital ships be able to traverse the Panama Canal. This statement about "expansionist movements" is not wrong, but that's mostly because it's too vague and meandering to be wrong. --Yaush (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Yamato-class battleship

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Yamato-class battleship's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "c8":

• From Japanese battleship Musashi: Chesneau, p. 178
• From Nagato-class battleship: Campbell, p. 198

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Misleading text re: armament weight

After seeing a video on Youtube that claimed the mass of the Yamato's nine guns was greater than that of an entire New York Class battleship, I came here to check the article. Sure enough, the specific punctuation and wording of the primary armaments section could lead a very sloppy researcher to believe that each gun weighed 2774 tons, despite the weight of the guns being clearly stated at 174 tons in the very next sentence. There's no accounting for idiots, but I've made some minor changes to the punctuation and text to make it absolutely unambiguous that the complete turrets weighed 2774 tons, not the individual guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.34.240 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

comment

the table says that the fourth vessel was named Kii and the text below that was never named. perhaps never OFFICIALLY named?

I have read (for the where, I only remember that the source was not really reliable) that the 120 mm guns were effective for AA fire beyond distance X and the 25 mm weapons until x<X and that the range x-to-X where the attackers were little disturbed corresponded to the delivery distance of the torpedos. If true should be interesting.

pietro --151.29.43.111 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)