Talk:Fusō-class battleship

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuso class battleship → Fusō class battleship — The lead ship of the class is at Japanese battleship Fusō, with the macron over the o, so accordingly, the class should be at the same name. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly sensible. Shimgray | talk | 00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Turret #4

Why did the builder raise turret #4 on a high mount, while #3 sits on a normal low mount? It can only fire broadside, so why bother with added top weight? East of Borschov 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fusō class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Comments

   1. Why did Fusō undergo two upgrades while Yamashiro only one? Was it needed for something part way through the upgrade? You should put a line or two in specifying why this was the case.
      1. Oddly enough, none of my sources specify the gap. My guess would be that they realized halfway through Yamashiro's that they'd missed some stuff on Fuso that would have proved useful, so finished her that way and then went back and added it onto Fuso later, but I don't know for sure. I'll keep looking through what I have, though I doubt I'll find anything. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
   2. Could you provide the names of the two ships in original Japanese?
      1. Quite easily, though my tradition has been to keep that in the individual ship articles. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
         1. That works. In that case, just link to the ships in the body of the text - I only saw it in the lead. —Ed!^(talk) 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
   3. Please put all of the references into {{cite book}} templates.
      1. Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass

5. It is stable:

   Pass

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass

7. Overall:

   On Hold The article is outstanding, far above GA standards. Just a few things to add, then I'd suggest taking it straight to an ACR. —Ed!^(talk) 19:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. Passing the GA review. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 16:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

—Ed!^(talk) 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with British and American battleships

The the opening paragraph it is noted:

They were completed from 1915 to 1917, both in Japanese shipyards. When launched, they outclassed all battleships of both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy in terms of speed and firepower.

Yet the broadly contemporaneous Queen Elizabeth class battleships built for the Royal Navy were, at 24kt, at least one knot faster, and possessed the more powerful BL 15"/42 Mk1 gun which fired a 1920lb shell, as opposed to the Fusō's 14" (with a shell that was closer in weight and performance to the British MkV (H) 13.5" gun). The QEs were also considerably better-armoured, with a maximum thickness of 13" on the belt and turret face (against 12"), plus 10" on the barbette sides (vice 8.1"), though this detail isn't particularly relevant.

Britain at the time was Japan's naval ally and these ships were designed with the United States in mind as the potential enemy. Given the above I propose removing the "Royal Navy" from the intro. I'll let this stand for a while and see what others think before doing anything. Paddyboot (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"This design was superior to its American counterparts in armament, armor and speed,"

Like the previous poster who objected to the inclusion of RN ships I think the statement is untrue with respect to American ones as well. The first question is which ship represents a contemporary. Given that the Nevada class was laid down the same year as the Fusos they seem to be the most relevant. There is no doubt that the Fuso was faster than the Nevada class so that point is accurate. But a battleship is an amalgamation of different qualities and as a whole I think the Fuso class can been seen to be inferior to the Nevadas. The Nevadas introduced "all or nothing" armor protection and were the first battleships truly designed to fight at long range. And while the Fusos did have two additional gun barrels by comparison experience with midship mounted turrets showed problems with shot dispersion as a result of steam lines passing around the magazines as well as restricted arcs of fire.

I would propose simply deleting the sentence in question as the easiest solution but it may be more accurate to state something along the lines of "The design was intended to outclass contemporary RN and American battleships thus following the doctrine the Japanese had used since the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95 of compensating for quantitative inferiority with qualitative superiority." Thoughts??? Ski206 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Pre-FAC notes

• Regarding the question from a year ago in the section just above: absolutely right, I'll remove "Royal Navy" from the intro. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • They had the same armament as the Pennsylvania-class battleships of the same vintage, so I really don't think that they were superior to their contemporaries other than in speed (most foreign BBs of the period had speeds of only 21 knots).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• I've added a hatnote pointing to the ironclad of the same name.
• Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation says, "The name Fuso translates to hibiscus, an ancient name for Japan used by the Chinese", but without a reference. Names of Japan#Classical flowery names says, "Fusō (扶桑)", also without a reference. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to double the infobox, one to show their starting specs and the other show them in 1944. I think it will be easier to remember. I'll also delete all the cites in the infobox as everything will be presented in the main body with cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Some of this is more relevant to the article on Fusō itself, but according to Rohwer, Jurgen (2005). Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland: US Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-119-2.:
  • pp. 168 and 169: On 28 May 1942, Fusō and the rest of the 2nd Battleship Squadron set sail with the Aleutian Support Group, commanded by Vice-Admiral Takasu, and for that matter with most of the Imperial Fleet. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • p. 325: On 12 May 1944, Fusō and the rest of the 3rd Battle Squadron left Japan as part of Operation "A-Go", intended to defend along the Marianas. They joined up with elements of the 1st Mobile Fleet on 16 May.
  • p. 328: A "covering force" of Fusō, two cruisers and five destroyers left from Tawi-Tawi on 31 May (during the same operation) for Davao.
  • pp. 366 and 367 cover the Battle of Leyte Gulf. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

?

What does this even mean? "The location of the third and fourth turrets proved particularly problematic to the design of the class because the amidships turrets were not superfiring as in the subsequent Ise-class battleships. This further increased the length of the ships because the barrels of the upper turret protruded over the lower turret, requiring more space than a pair of superfiring turrets." "Protruded over the lower turret" sounds like it is describing a superfiring turret, but these turrets had a funnel between them. The length was increased because the higher gun DIDN'T protrude over the lower gun, which would have saved that many feet. I also echo the previous persons question as to why they bothered to raise the aft turret if it wasn't superfiring, but I suppose that is a question for another place..45Colt 12:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Conversion to carrier

Can someone add more detail on the planned conversions? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)