Talk:Japanese battleship Yamato/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've noticed the ongoing edit war over this sentence fragment in the lede. Although there seems to be little difference between the two, reading around including elsewhere on this page I believe the first version may be a better reflection of consensus. The second is given as a direct quotation. However, the potential issue with quoting a single source in the lede is that unless that source is a perfect reflection of all available sources, which can be difficult to establish, it affords the opinion of one writer an unduly prominent position. This doesn't really apply in the article body where there is space to discuss nuances in what sources claim. For that reason I've removed both quote and source. Hopefully this can signal an end to the edit warring; if not, and discussion to resolve this is not forthcoming, article protection can be considered as a next step. EyeSerene^talk 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the editors deleting "Worth's Fleets of World War II" book don't want to EXPLAIN why they are doing it. So if they cannot or will not give a valid reply or explanation as to why they are continuously removing that book from the bibliography, then it must be a good reference book! Therefore, it must be worth (no pun intended) editing the definition of the Yamato battleship to what they really were..."the most powerful battlewagons ever built." Now if someone can supply some data such as velocities of 16" vs 18", trajectories of those two shells, etc. then maybe we can come up with some intelligent conversations on the matter of what really "was" the most powerful warship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.45.70 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yamato: 9 18-inch guns. 9x1.46 ton rounds = 13.14 ton broadside.

1980s Iowa refit: up to 32 Tomahawks with nuclear warheads. 32x150kt warheads = 4,800,000 ton "broadside."

So yeah, that's why we don't use stupid words like "powerful" without quantifying them. Also, YOU are the one who bears a burden of proof here since YOU are the one arguing for inclusion. The fact that you can source a vague statement does not magically turn it into an accurate one. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Yamato1945.png will be appearing as picture of the day on August 8, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A line drawing of the Japanese battleship Yamato, the lead ship of the Yamato class of battleships that served with the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Named after the ancient Japanese Yamato Province, she was launched on 8 August 1940 and served as the flagship of the Japanese Combined Fleet in 1942.Image: Alexpl

From the article: Yamato's main battery consisted of nine 46 cm (18.1 in) 45 Caliber Type 94 naval guns—the largest caliber of naval artillery ever fitted to a warship

I've complained about this use of caliber before--it's confusing when land artillery uses caliber as another term for bore, but this isn't the case with naval guns.

From the Wiki article on Dreadnought (explanation of the term caliber in relation to Naval Rifles):

For naval rifles, the initial change was to actual bore, thus facilitating the manufacture of standard projectiles. They then began to measure the effective length (and therefore range) of the weapon in calibers. These were (and are) a measure of the standardized bore of the barrel versus the rifled bore of the barrel. In other words, a 12/45 is 12"X45= the length of the rifled bore of that gun in inches. This explains the differences in both peneration and long range performance of various naval rifles over the years. In addition to the possible improvements in overall performance (ie muzzle velocity and striking force), the increase in barrel length also allowed, in some circumstances, an increase in projectile size as well. For example, the American 14/45, as introduced in the New York class ships, fired a 1250lb. projectile. Later improvements to the design, lengthening the rifle itself and also altering the breech, allowed a 1400lb. projectile and, overall, a greater barrel life. Again we see this pattern with the US 16" guns. The initial design was 45 calibers in length and fired a 2200lb. shell. The later re-design to 50 calibre not only allowed a higher velocity but also a heavier 2700lb. shell, which ultimately came to be accepted as the greatest naval shell ever deployed in combat.

50.113.52.175 (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In text it is said that Yamato had 162 25 mm AA-guns in years 1944 onwards as 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. Drawing File:Yamato1945.png, [[1]] 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 --84.249.89.206 (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion here Talk:Yamato-class_battleship#Discrepancies regarding differences between the two (Featured) articles. Including that already mentioned above under #AA-guns. Further there seems to be a three-way difference with an armour value - this article and the other article have different numbers and neither matches the source cited for both. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"hit's"

Should be:

"hits"

68.98.178.36 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The phrasing is correct in context: "At 12:45 a single torpedo struck Yamato far forward on her port side, sending extreme shocks throughout the ship. Because many of the hit's survivors were later killed..." ie, Yamato was hit by a torpedo. Many survivors of the torpedo hit were later killed.  — daranz [ t ] 02:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a full scale model of this ship (as well as the Akagi) at the Yamato Memorial sim in Second life. It is beautifully detailed and well worth seeing. Barleybob (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really any more notable than any other videogame appearance, though. Or any more than the very nice Yamato model they slung in free with Shade 7. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Under the section "Operation Ten Go," the next to last paragraph states that as the ship rolled "she created a suction" that drew swimming survivors back into the ship. This is one of the common misconceptions concerning sinking ships. A capsizing or sinking ship does not create "suction" in the water. Water is an incompressible fluid, and a sinking mass creates a lot of turbulence, but no suction. It is in fact possible to be drawn back into a sinking ship, but this occurs because of an inrush of water through portholes, open hatches, or breaches in the hull which lead into compartments not previously flooded. The statement concerning "suction" from the sinking ship should be changed, it makes the article seem amateurish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.214.134 (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Verifiablity, not truth. If the cited sources say she created suction, then that's what the article says. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For clarification on this issue, the cited source states: “At 1423 the ship capsized so rapidly that many men were trapped or sucked into the hull by the undertow.” Nordqucg (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Article says:

" Left behind was only a slow escort carrier task force armed against ground forces with no hope of protecting vulnerable troop transports from the Yamato."

" The massive guns of Yamato would not be turned against battleships, but in the Battle Off Samar would instead be a seemingly mismatched showdown against the industrial production of small and inexpensive light ships and carriers. Nevertheless desperate sailors and aviators delivered accurate 5 in shellfire and torpedoes from ships as small as destroyer escorts."

The sentence reduces to "The massive guns would be a mismatched showdown." But that is nonsense. Guns are not a showdown. Did you mean: "The massive guns . . . would be mismatched IN a showdown"?

, 6 August 2013 (UTC))

The first one makes sense. "No hope of protecting (them) from the Yamato." You're also ignoring the context of the surrounding lines, which make it clear it's Admiral Halsey's slow escort carrier task force. The only problem in that sentence is "armed against ground forces" which doesn't really make any sense. It just needs a few commas in there.

The second quote doesn't make sense, though. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

During the Battle of Samar, Admiral Halsey commanded the Third Fleet and Admiral Kincaid commanded the Seventh Fleet. The “slow escort carrier task force” left behind, known as Taffy 3, was commanded by Rear Admiral Clifton A. F. Sprague. That task force had the mission of protecting General MacArthur’s troops during their landing on Leyte from attack by Japanese ground forces. That is why they were “armed against ground forces”, leaving them woefully unprepared to defend against the Yamato and the rest of Vice Admiral Kurita’s Center Force. (1)

1. James D. Hornfischer, The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors : The Extraordinary World War II Story of the U.S. Navy's Finest Hour, (Bantam; Reprint edition, 2005).

As for the two sentences under discussion, may I suggest something such as the following for clarification:

“The massive guns of the Yamato would not be turned against battleships, but turned instead, in a mismatched showdown, against small and inexpensive light ships and carriers during the Battle of Samar.”

“The Japanese were unaware that Admiral Halsey's Third Fleet had been successfully lured away by a feint, leaving behind only a slow escort carrier task force which, having been armed for attack against ground forces, had no hope of protecting vulnerable troop transports against an attack from the Yamato.” Nordqucg (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This line, for example, "Yamato's symbolic might was such that some Japanese citizens held the belief that their country could never fall as long as the ship was able to fight.[58]" is simply not supported by the source. The source from which that idea is taken was a quote of one man who was talking about what he thought as a young pro-military boy. There is nothing in the article at all to suggest this idea was anything more than hyperbole from a single individual. There's certainly no evidence presented to suggest that it was something generally thought by the vague "some Japanese" as implied in this wiki page. I suggest that it be removed unless sources indicating some kind of trend in thinking can be established. "A-bomb survivors leery of battleship hype" - The Yomiuri Shimbun http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/08-10-06/discussion.cgi.64.html 86.161.244.214 (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Japanese battleship Yamato has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove the word "caliber" when talking about the 18" guns on this battleship. The guns were 46 cm (centimeter) not 45 cl (caliber) - very different standards. A 45 caliber gun is 0.5 inch, very different from an 18 inch gun like these two battleships have (both Musashi and Yamato battleship pages need correcting). Follow the link to the wikipedia page on the gun itself for more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_cm/45_Type_94_naval_gun Robtsgt (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks- Rob

Read the definition of caliber as used by the artillery: caliber (artillery).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it true that "many of the ship's survivors were later killed by strafing"? If so, were there any war crimes prosecutions?Royalcourtier (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• None of the sources I've read mention anything about war crimes prosecutions against American pilots for strafing runs against survivors in the water (this practice was used by both sides at various points in the Pacific theatre).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

The following appears in the Battle off Samar section: "...a spread of torpedoes heading for Yamato were spotted".... Should this read "...a spread...was spotted"...? Fred4570 (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that with so called collective nouns the verb is allowed to be in plural, possibly less in British English than in American English. They say that there are rules to decide whether to use plural or singular, but they say also that these rules are somewhat confusing even for native speakers 194.174.73.33 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The statement "Dubbed "Hotel Yamato" by the Japanese cruiser and destroyer crews stationed in the South Pacific," needs {{failed verification|date=September 2016}} appended to it. The cited source says only "YAMATO, the world’s mightiest battleship, remains at Truk as a “hotel” from 29 August 1942 until 8 May 1943."

It's not clear that the quotation marks indicate anything more than a metaphor made up by the author of the reference; there is no indication that the phrase is contemporary, or who used it. Maybe other ships' crews did call it that, but the source doesn't support that statement.

Here are some other uses of the term, none of which are quite on point:

• http://battleshipyamato.info/battles.html (but sourced to its own crew, not others)
• http://www.catchthispilum.com/april-7th-1945-operation-ten-go-yamato-sinks/ (same problem as current source)
• http://www.microworks.net/pacific/battles/santa_cruz.htm (again, no idea who called it that)
• https://www.onwar.com/weapons/warships/boats/IJN_Yamato.html (cites wikipedia, so not useful)

71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Done nyuszika7h (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

These are the former references that weren't cited. I'm storing them here for future use.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Climie.ca (talk • contribs) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese battleship Yamato. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-xz/yamato-k.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627054009/http://yamato.kure-city.jp/english/eng.indd.pdf to http://yamato.kure-city.jp/english/eng.indd.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326194030/http://www.yamato-museum.com/concept/pdf/ref09_3_eng.pdf to http://www.yamato-museum.com/concept/pdf/ref09_3_eng.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Japanese battleship Yamato. 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/20100617024336/http://www.tamiya.com/japan/products/8966x_yamato/index.htm to http://www.tamiya.com/japan/products/8966x_yamato/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305072157/http://www.hollywood-ch.com/news/09121302.html to http://www.hollywood-ch.com/news/09121302.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325035351/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-xz/yamato.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-xz/yamato.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If it was one of the forward magazines that blew up, isn't it odd that the front 2/3 is intact and the stern is separate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.67.251 (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Building and ship comparison to the Pentagon2.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The second to last paragraph under section Operation Ten-Go states that survivors were strafed by fighters after the ship's sinking. But the citation for this (#21 - "Combined Fleet – tabular history of Yamato". Parshall, Jon; Bob Hackett, Sander Kingsepp, & Allyn Nevitt. 2009) makes no mention of the strafing of survivors. This addition of strafing survivors was made by user AnnaGoFast at 20:55, 25 December 2016. Under the talk section it appears that this account was hacked at some point. If a citation can be provided it should be included at this point, otherwise the verbiage should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windswords2 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The comment is sourced now, but the source looks like a blogish sort of thing and may not pass RS standards; another problems is there is nothing in the cite that contains anything about the men in the water being strafed, so I will remove that portion.50.111.19.178 (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That sentence is still up w/o proper attribution. The reference used doesn't actually say that. Hesweeney (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

In the section "Cultural significance" (which intermixes museums and magna), there is a line that reads;

As post-war Japanese tried to redefine the purpose of their lives, Yamato became a symbol of heroism and of their desire to regain a sense of masculinity after their country's defeat in the war.^[1][2]

I don't have access to these refs, does one of them actually say this and if so, is it relevant here? - wolf 02:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the listed crew complement (statistics section on the right of the page) lists: Complement 3,233 While later in the article it states: Yamato sank rapidly, losing an estimated 3,055 of her 3,332 crew

1 of those numbers is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A465:6897:1:B041:1888:7BB0:C2CD (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ships complement likely varies for each time it sails. (Hohum ^@) 12:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)