Talk:Japanese battleship Yamato/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Space Battleship Yamato

An extremely minor cultural footnote: my memory may be playing tricks, but wasn't there some anime around the late 1970s/early 1980s named something like "Battleship Yamato", with the original ship salvaged and retrofitted as a space cruiser?

Yes. Uchu senkan Yamato, or Space Battleship Yamato. It aired in 1977. RickK 23:00, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Probably best known to American TV audiences as Star Blazers. Salsa Shark 08:29, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Evolving

What does "elvolving" mean? --Golbez 17:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

It means I cant spel ! :P I meant "evolving" ; if this doesn't make sense, I intend to say something like "in evolution", "manoeuvering"... ("sabaki"). Please help if needed ! Thanks ! :) Rama 20:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Why is the page moving so much between "Japanese battleship Yamato" and "HIJMS Yamato" ? Rama 10:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• It ought to be HIJMS Yamato.--Mtnerd 21:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"HIJMS" is an invented ship prefix, used by some historians for consistency with HMS, USS etc. However, the Imperial Japanese Navy didn't use ship prefixes and so, following the guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), neither do we. You can see for yourself that on the Japanese Wikipedia the article on this ship is named 大和 (戦艦) — yamato (senkan), that is, "Yamato (battleship)". Gdr 12:48, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Too much anime

The following sections was removed, they are in fact based on to the anime Space Battleship Yamato and not this battleship.

The sci-fi computer game StarCraft features the powerful spell, Yamato gun.

In the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, the Galaxy-class sister ship to the Enterprise-D is named the Yamato.

From the Galaxy-class starship page - According to technical illustrator and modeller Rick Sternbach, the name is not a deliberate reference to the Japanese anime series Space Battleship Yamato (or Star Blazers in North America), even though he and several other members of the production staff are fans of Japanese animation. Sternbach stated at AnimeCon 1991 that the writers independently coined the ship's name without his input. Identity0 06:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Zipang"

Could someone who have seen "Zipang" draft a Zipang_(anime) article ? This would undoubtly be the most elegant and informative way to address the reference to the anime at the end of the Yamato article... Thank you very much ! (on a suggestion of Gdr, see my talk page). Rama 14:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yamato's design

I'm thinking about editing the sentence "The class was designed to be superior to Iowa-class battleships in all respects." The Yamato predates the Iowa class by several years, and so was not designed with the Iowa class in mind. In addition, the statement is false: the Iowa class is significantly faster, and other Yamato vs. Iowa arguments could certainly be made. I was thinking about editing it to read "The class was designed to be superior to any ship the United States was likely to produce." Does this sound alright? TomTheHand the yamato is a god among warships it could easily beat any battleship. even the newer Iowa class and considering the amount of infultration they had in hawii they probably planed for the iowa class or something close to the iowa[[--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)]]

If I recall corectly, the Japanese started the design specifically to counter the threat of US battleships fitted with 405mm main guns; to this respect, saying that they had the Iowa class in mind is defendable... Of course the "all respect" thing is always very hard to maintain :p Overall, I think the version you suggest is a good one, if nobody objects you can go for it !

(hint: you can sign your name with "~~~~")Rama 08:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added my name. Thanks, Rama. This is my first time posting, so I don't really know what I'm doing yet! --TomTheHand 19:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to catch on pretty well ! ;) Don't hesitate to ask if you have trouble, and have fun ! Rama 20:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have objected, so I've gone ahead and made the minor edit. --TomTheHand 04:38, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Any word on wether Yamato is still the largest battleship ever buit? The article doesn't make it clear. --Max J

Yes, the Yamato was the largest battleship ever built, but much larger warships have been built since then (American aircraft carriers). The last battleship was built over 50 years ago. TomTheHand 17:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether some languages will not make "battleship" ambiguous for foreign readers; in English, "battleship" as the sense of "big heavily armoured warship", and is identified with "capital ship" up to the 1930s, but not completely afterward, and I suppose that it is safe to say that this role is not given to aircraft carriers, strategic nuclear submarines, or large missile cruisers (depending on the Navy). Just idle musing over the latest question :p Rama 17:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Battleships are a specific type of warship, just as "cruiser," "submarine," or "aircraft carrier" are specific types of warship. Even native English speakers who unfamiliar with naval vessels will sometimes use "battleship" and "warship" interchangeably, but it is incorrect to do so. Perhaps the way to go is to wikify "battleship" so that people can click over to the battleship article and learn what a battleship is. I'm going to do that. TomTheHand 18:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Battleship" is already wikified, so never mind! ;-) TomTheHand 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Something certainly needs clarifying. Yamato was to be superior to any USN ship likely to use the Panama Canal, which means any USN BB. Since existing BBs were limited to 406mm, she had to be able to withstand 406mm fire. Her designers selected massive armor to make her invulnerable, which forced compromises; her hull fineness, coupled with inadequate horsepower, meant she would always be too slow to operate with CVs, which were already in the '30s a bigger threat than BBs, & IJN "BuShips" was too much in the grip of a flawed Mahanian doctrine to see it.

Furthermore, IJN tactical doctrine called for being able to outrange an enemy, & 46cm (& proposed 50cm) were intended to do that; in fact, postwar trials found the 46cm little better than existing US 406s. So IJN had built a 60000 ton dino vulnerable to small animals (aircraft)...

I would argue that your points apply to virtually all battleships, and Yamato was not unusually slow. On the range issue, her guns outranged Iowa's by about 8.5%, and that's the best case; she outranges North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee by almost 25% and Colorado by over 30%. TomTheHand 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what "defensive arrangements" the article is talking about; does it mean armor? If so, better to be clear.

Also, where does that 65000 ton figure come from? It isn't in agreement with any I've seen (including the usual Japanese nonsense of 74000 tons, or the USN 64000 tons standard usually quoted). And I question "weighed"; it was a displacement number, not strictly a weight (a complicated issue, I know).

This 65,027 figure puzzled me as well, but it turns out that 64,000 British tons is 65,027 metric tons (or tonnes). This is problematic to writing about Japanese warships (and many other subjects, I'm sure) since many were designed using British tons and most primary source materials use that unit. Personally, I prefer to use the units in my source material, but in any case, this illustrates the importance of distinguishing between tons and tonnes. Spventi 06:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, that boiler performance doesn't sound "low powered" to me; it seems right in line with IJN standard at the time. USN used higher boiler temp & pres, seeing a need for long legs on transpacific ops; IJN, figuring to fight the "decisive battle" called for by Mahan close to home, was content with lower, so shorter range. This also explains why she wasn't used in the Solomons. As well, recall she was one of the two biggest, most important, most prestigious, most precious ships in IJN; what Adm would risk losing her? Yamamoto & Koga didn't... Trekphiler 12:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I was also interested in the "superior to any USN ship likely to use the Panama Canal" part; in WWII, the USA was actively working to construct a third, and larger, set of locks in the canal, mainly to be able to move new, larger battleships such as the Montana class battleships. I wonder if they also had in mind ships with 18" guns. Yamato would easily have fit in the new locks, which were scrapped after the war. — Johantheghost 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yamato pre-dates plans to expand the Panama canal. Therefore, there is no contradiction in stating that she was designed to be superior to Panamax battleships. TomTheHand 21:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the ballistic information gathered on the Iowa class and the Yamoto class main batteries, the actual penetrating capabilities were superior for the Iowa class guns. The reports can be found in several issues of Warship International along with all of the math and diagrams associated with the results. Part of the problem comes in with the issue of which 16" gun and munitions the original design was planned to overcome - the original design as available (to the IJN planners) when Yamoto was planned, was not that which the Iowa ships were fitted. Nor were the AP shells the same, nor the propellents, The caliber of the guns made enough of a difference, when combined with the improved gunpowder charges, that the Iowa guns were superior in penetrating power, if not in range. Another factor is that the Yamoto had 6 main guns compared with 9 on the Iowas. And, there were 4 compared to 2 ships per class. In actual usage, that would typically translate to a tremendous weight advantage for the American ships - a ship vs ship battle with no other factors would have been non-existent. So, while they were designed to be superior to (then) existing American designs, they were not superior to the Iowas. Various comparisons can be found in Warship International. The secondary battery is another issue, but that's not what is being discussed. RSW

Just a couple of nit-picks: First, the Yamatos had 9 main guns, the same as the Iowas. Second, it is not clear-cut which gun offered greater penetrating capabilities; according to Nathan Okun's formulas (http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.htm) Yamato's guns offer superior belt penetration at all ranges and superior deck penetration at ranges less than 34,000 yards or so. At greater distances, deck penetration is so great that Yamato's small deficit is irrelevant; either gun would penetrate. In addition, Yamato's higher muzzle velocity offers greater range and lower time in flight for a given range.

It is almost certainly true that Iowa's guns were more efficient than Yamato's, and a ship could likely mount 12 16"/50s for the weight of 9 46 cm/45s and be better off for it. However, on a barrel-for-barrel basis Yamato's guns were more powerful than Iowa's.

I'm not sure that the 4 Iowas vs 2 Yamatos comparison is valid; that only happened between April and October of 1944. Between August 1942 and February 1943, there were two Yamatos and zero Iowas.

I kind of took this and ran with it, but I shouldn't have. I guess I'm wondering what the point is. The article doesn't state that the Yamatos were superior to the Iowas; that was removed over a year and a half ago. They were more powerful than the Iowas in many ways, main armament being one of them, but inferior in perhaps more important ways (secondary armament, fire control, cost, speed). The Yamatos were most definitely designed by the Japanese to be superior to any ship that they felt the Americans were likely to produce. Whether they were superior or not is a separate issue; superiority on an individual basis was what the designers specifically set out to achieve. TomTheHand 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) dude this is about blowen the other ship out of the water not cost!--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to mess with the text here, but both ships were not only the largest battleships ever constructed, they were the largest warships constructed until I suppose the newer carriers in the 1960s or so. Student7 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

QUERY

My father, Solomon B. Levine, was a U.S. Navy interpreter during WWII. Later he became a highly respected expert on Japanese labor relations. He told me some firsthand stories when I was young about an encounter with a designer of the Yamato, but, unfortunately, I never got the details fully clarified before he died. I'm hoping that someone reading this can help me sort out the fact from the fiction. My father was a meticulously honest man, so that any distortions were no doubt those of my kid mind misunderstanding or confabulating what he said in recalling it. But here is his story, as I remember him telling it to me:

One of my father's jobs was the interrogation of a Japanese prisoners of war. In this capacity he was assigned to translate for an engineer with a high naval rank who was an important designer of the Yamato. I remember his name as Kitayama and his rank as admiral, but I am not sure if either is accurate. "Kitayama" had been schooled in the west and spoke English fluently. He was being interrogated by naval design experts who were eager to know how their Japanese counterparts had solved the daunting engineering problems and developed the unique features of the ship, arguably the most technologically advanced of its time. My father, who had at this point spoken Japanese for all of two years, was assigned presumably because of his expertise in mathematics.

According to my dad's account, Kitayama proceeded for awhile with his debriefing in English, saying a sentence or two, then going to the blackboard to write out some complex mathematical equation. But Kitayama seemed to take a shine to my dad and, after a couple of days, he declared that Levine-san was not getting enough practice and that, henceforth, he would only answer in Japanese. So he answered the next series of questions in Japanese, and my dad did his best to translate. But after each one, he would say, "That was very good, Levine-san, but what I really said was..." and march back to the blackboard and write more equations.

Kitayama gave my dad his sword, supposedly a family heirloom, as a parting gift. It was a beautifully wrought piece and extremely sharp. He hid it in our attic in fear that his kids would injure themselves with it. Of course, we knew exactly where it was, and whenever possible, would slip off upstairs and play samurai. It's a miracle we all still have all our limbs and eyes. After an appeal from the Japanese government in the late 1960s (I think) to return historical objects taken as war booty, he sent it back it to Japan.

If anyone knows any more about Kitayama - his role in the design of the Yamato, his rank, if, indeed, that is his name - I would appreciate it being posted here. 72.67.123.189 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Michael A. Levine

Opening The class was designed to be superior to Iowa-class . . . History please: Yamato and Musashi were launched in 1940; Iowa was launched in 1942. So the Iowa Class were designed to answer the Yamato Class, not the other way around. In fact, the USN Washington and North Carolina (launched the same year as Yamato) were re-designed during construction from 14-inch main guns to 16-inch main guns because US Navy believed the Yamato Class would have 16 inch main guns. (Planning of battleships preceeded launch by years. At the time the Yamato class were designed, the latest US battleships were the Colorado class, which were "answers" to the previous Japanese Nagato Class.) Stefan Terzibaschitsch Die Schlachtschiffe der US Navy im 2 Weltkrieg, (Munich 1977) argues convincingly that US Navy battleship design from the time of the IJN Kongo (1912) and USN Oklahoma (1914) lagged and answered Imperial Japanese Navy initiatives. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that. The article doesn't say they were meant to counter the Iowas however. It simply mentions that they were designed as a general response to American industrial power, which was far superior to anything the Japanese could ever hope to replicate (though you wouldn't know that by comparing their car companies;) Cam ^(Chat) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yamato Name

What is the basis for saying flat out that the Yamato was "named after the ancient Japanese Yamato Province"? The Japanese wikipedia page and other sources I have seen stress the significance of Yamato as describing the whole of ancient Japan. Given the push of mythical concepts of Japanese history pushed during the World War II era I find it a hard to believe that Japan's most significant warship was merely named after a geographic area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.130.6.8 (talk • contribs) .

Hmmm a quick dig around the net reveals that this is the only place that makes that claim. Can anyone provide a source for that statement ? There are a sizeable number of alternate possibilities Yamato. Still I wouldn't rule it out: USS Virginia. Megapixie 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The name, according to the sources I've seen, was taken from a formal, "mystical" reference to Japan, or an ancient name. Trekphiler 11:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yamato is the heart of ancient Japan (just like "France" can refer to the area surrounding Paris, "Ile de France"), so it makes some sense. Also, though it might look strange to Westerners, Japanese ships were typically names after regions, mountains or natural elements, rather than after people or features ("Dreadnought"). Rama 12:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, Japanese battleships were named for old (pre-Meiji Restoration) provinces. Cruisers were named for rivers, and dreadnaughts for mountains. Yamato was an old province -- specifically, the "home province" of imperial rule.

Anyone interested in this subject should read Bill Lise's article on the subject at http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-098.htm. Spventi 03:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

According to several books i read years ago(which is why i sadly cant recall which ones), the class is in fact the Musashi-class but has been commonly misnamed Yamato-class due to it being the ship finished first. DW75

90.227.204.204 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Readability and overall content

I am new to Wiki and would like to get my feet wet by editing this article for readability, but before I do so, I'd like to discuss my intentions just so I don't walk on anybody's toes.

I would really like to bring this article into line with the Iowa-class battleships article, both in format and content. One problem I have is that I work with Japanese language sources so some of what I do might not be verifiable in English. I sure hope that isn't a problem. I'd be perfectly willing to leave this article alone and start a new "Yamato-class battleships" article if that is the consensus.

Finally, I'd like to modify the sentence that reads "superior to any USN ship likely to use the Panama Canal," which I find too vague to be meaningful. I would like to say something like "more powerful offensively and with stronger defensive armor than any USN ship that could pass through the Panama Canal at that time." There is an interesting comparison of battleships at <http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm>, which shows that there are many aspects in which the Yamato-class was not superior to its contemporaries in every aspect.

Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts. Spventi 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Spventi, welcome to Wikipedia. As a general rule, it is ok to be BOLD in updating pages. Also, there is already a Yamato class battleship article which is very short, and could use some more info. There is a lot of info in this article which is probably more appropriately placed in the article about the entire class.

There are also a lot of users who take Japanese pages (and other languages) and translate them for the English Wikipedia. You may want to check out the Japan Topics Notice Board. Neier 05:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and advice. I'll go ahead and revise this article as well as expand the Yamato class battleship stub. Spventi 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

main gun calibre

Does anybody know for sure the main gun calibre in mm ? I have several books, some use 460 mm and others 457 mm. --Denniss 08:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

a piddling difference surely - but put that there is discrepancy about it in the article as a note. GraemeLeggett

Actually, I disagree about putting the discrepency in the article. All the Japanese material I have ever seen says 46 cm. Surely the 457 figure comes from converting 18 inches into millimeters. I could be wrong, but I'm reasonably sure that 46 cm is the official nominal size. Spventi 10:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Could it not be something related to the diametre of the projectiles and the inner diametre or the barrels ? Rama 12:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Spventi. All of the really technical sources I've read listed the guns as 46cm or 460mm. I think 457mm is just a conversion from the misconception that the Yamatos carried "eighteen inch guns." TomTheHand 13:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gun caliber

This brings up a good point, worth more research. Up until the time between World War I and World War II, the Japanese used the English system of measurement. Sometime before WW II, they started using the metric system.

The above statement is a good example of just how difficult this subject is. By "the Japanese," do you mean the entire country or are you speaking specifically of the Imperial Japanese Navy? Japan ratified the Convention du Metre in 1886, but a law passed in 1891 made traditional Japapnese units the standard. The English system was also officially adopted in 1909, so there were three different standards in use until a bill making metric the sole standard was passed in 1921. See <http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm#japan> for more detail.

But the question that is really difficult to answer is: "What units were used in the design of IJN ordnance in general and the Yamato's guns in particular?"

I agree with 147.240.236.9 that many of these measurements were conversions from inches, but the Yamato's 46 cm guns were not designed until the '30s. (In other words, well after conversion to the metric system) Furthermore, many Japan naval officers were trained in France and often used the Japanese word sanchi to refer to the size of naval ordnance (instead of the standard word for centimeters, senchi), so it seems to me that most IJN design work after 1921 was probably done in centimeters, and numbers that were conversions were probably for ordnance that was purchased from Britian or the US. This is obviously speculation on my part, however, and I have yet to find any corroborating documentation. Spventi 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As such, they 'rounded' the sizes of their gun calibers. For example, the guns of their heavy cruisers were stated to be 20cm; their actual size was 8-inch. 8 inches is 20.3cm; 20 cm is about 7.9 inches. In many books, including Janes Fighting Ships, the size is given as 7.9 inches. This is just 8 inches rounded to 20 cm, and then re-converted. Similarly, their 5.5 inch guns were given as 14 cm; 3 inch guns were given as 75 mm; 1 inch guns (equivalent to British one pounters) as 25 mm; 50 caliber machine guns were listed as 13mm; 14 inch guns were 36 cm. 16 inch guns were called 40 cm in some places, 40.6 cm in others.

Which then brings up the question again: What was the true diameter of Yamato's guns? Were they true 46 cm (18.11 in), built to the metric system? Or were they true 18 inch (45.7 cm), built to the English system, and 'rounded' to 46 cm? All of the official references I have seen state 18.11 in or 46 cm. But this is without considering the 'rounding' issue. (The guns were publically announced as "40.6 cm special", leadint the US analysts and others to think that they were 16 inch.)

This needs more research. 147.240.236.9 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ships it destroyed?

How many and what ships did it destroy?

Yamato was involved in the battle off Samar at Leyte Gulf. She was one of four Japanese battleships involved, escorted by a number of cruisers and destroyers. In that battle, two American destroyers, one destroyer escort and one escort carrier were sunk before the American destroyers and carriers chased off the battleship force. I don't know if it's known which ship sank which, but that's the only battle Yamato was involved in where she might have sank anything. TomTheHand 14:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the book, Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, goes into detail on which Japanese ships actually landed their shells on the four US ships that were sunk in the battle. I don't have possession of that book anymore, but if someone has it, they perhaps could answer your question as to whether any of the 100+ 18-in shells that Yamato fired in that battle were able to find a target. Cla68 18:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I was going to ask the same question - I'm borrowing that book from the library to find out. Krupo 01:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally got the book, reading through; the Gambier Bay is the name of the American escort carrier that sank in the battle. It was hit by seemingly all the Japanese ships (too many to count). It was in the battle off Samar that the Yamato first fired its guns at enemy ships. Being the tallest ship in the battle, it had the greatest visual range, not to mention the most powerful guns. p. 360 of the book says it fired the first salvo of the battle. American destroyers Hoeel and Johnston also sank in the battle, as well as the Destroyer Escort Samuel B. Roberts. The Yamato probably scored hits on some of those four sihps - finally answers the question as much as possible. Krupo 08:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Auxillary rudder

>There was also a smaller auxiliary rudder installed (at frame 219) which was virtually useless.

Considering the fate of german battleship Bismarck, an auxillary rudder can never be useless, in fact it is a very wise choce to provide one!

Unless the auxiliary rudder is too small and poorly located to steer your ship, as was the case here. TomTheHand 13:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the term "auxiliary" is a mischaracterization, since it implies that the smaller rudder might have been used "in conjuction" with the main rudder. That was not the case, however; it was really an "emergency rudder" for use only if the main rudder was disabled. Unfortunately, it proved useless when tested. Spventi 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Machine-gunning of survivors

A sentence has been added to this article indicating that there were reports that Yamato survivors were machine-gunned in the water by US aircraft.

I am inclined to delete it because:

1) It is undocumented hearsay.

2) Such incidents were commonly reported in the aftermath of naval battles during WWII, and therefore even though it is noteworthy (if true), it is hardly a unique circumstance.

3) The incident is not germane to the main topic of this article, which is the ship itself.

4) The incident is described thoroughly and in an objective manner in the article on the Operation_Ten-Go, to which there is a link.

Does anyone think it should remain, or can I go ahead and delete it? Spventi 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit contradictory :

1) We do have a reference (Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, 301.)

2) Two wrongs do not make one right, and certainly do not cancel the event

3) The article legitimately details the ship and connex topics like "Trivia". As such, I find the alleged straffing of the crew more relevant than posterior anime.

4) Is is relevant to Operation Ten-Go, and even more to the Yamato. Besides, this point pretty much cancels points 1) and 2). Rama 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What is contradictory? There is NO mention of the Hara book in the Yamato article. The fact that you happen to know of a reference does not mean that the article is properly referenced. So, what we have at the moment is an ungrammatical sentence that was tacked onto the end of paragraph and "looks" like little more than vandalism. My concern here is to maintain proper editorial standards for this article, and references to "alleged" incidents have no place in encyclopedia articles UNLESS they can be properly documented. So keep your moronic "two wrongs do not make a right" moralizing to yourself, thank you.

Spventi 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Spventi, keep it civil. :) --Piet Delport 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes sir, commander Piet Delport. Actually, considering the time and effort that a few of us have made trying to build a consensus about how to handle the issue of properly referencing the comment in question, I'd say that your insistence on repeatedly deleting the link without discussing why is the least civil of all. Especially since now I have to go back and for the third time add the needs citation note again.

Thanks so much for your help in finding an amicable solution to this problem.

Spventi 09:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "without discussing why"? For your convenience, i will repeat the comments and discussion in the edit log here:

2006-05-19, Piet Delport

the paragraph already opens with a link to that article; there's no need to link it again (and *definitely* no need to do it as an external link)

2006-05-20, Denniss (talk · contribs)

Rev, no internal wikilinks as weblinks, no weblinks inside articles unless really needed, no need to link to Operation Ten-Go twice from the same paragraph

2006-05-21, Piet Delport

Please, there is really no need to duplicate the link to Operation Ten-Go twice in the same paragraph. Please refer to WP:MOS-L, which explains Wikipedia's linking guidelines.

Anyway, back to the real issue: As i've already explained in the response on my user talk page, while it's great that you want to add better citation, this article is not the right place for it. (It's only one passing mention inside a summary paragraph; if you copied in citations for everything else the summary mentions, it would be drowned in them, and distract from an article that's supposed to be primarily about the ship, not the battle.) A much better place for the full citation is the main article about the battle, Operation Ten-Go, which the paragraph in question already references. Will you be willing to move the tag there? --Piet Delport 14:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments that you have not completely read this section or participated in the consensus building here, which is what I meant by "without discussing why." If you had read this section, you would know that I myself have already made the comment that this article is about the ship not the battle and that the Operation Ten-Go article contains an objectively stated dicussion of the issue that is properly referenced, which is why a footnote pointing there was added.

The correct way to do this is to add here the same footnote and bibiliographic information used in Operation Ten-Go article, although I really don't care to do that myself since I am in favor of removing the statement altogether from this article. Other people have expressed the opinion that the statement should be included; however, and a footnoot pointing to the Operation Ten-Go article seemed like a decent compromise even if it was a bit irregular.

Btw, not to whip a dead horse, but if you still don't see the need for a citation here, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your facts. The statement in question is a serious allegation of a war crime, and should be treated carefully.

Spventi 21:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Spventi, i assure you, i have read the relevant discussion in this section, and i'm quite familiar with Wikipedia's citation guidelines. I agree with you completely that it's a serious statement requiring citation, but duplicating the same citation for both the main article and this summary paragraph is senseless. Similarly, it's entirely unnecesary to duplicate the same link to Operation Ten-Go twice within the same summary paragraph to make a reference. --Piet Delport 22:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If it can be backed up by a source it should be included. It's a warcrime. If it was the Japanese or Germans machine gunning people in the water - I'm pretty certain it would be included. Megapixie 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including it. But as it stands, it "looks" like vandalism. Doesn't that bother you? It bothers me.

Spventi 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added the "citation needed". I agree that it does read like it's "tacked on" - but it probably needs to be expanded into a complete sentence / paragraph, rather than being removed. But I don't have a copy of the source mentioned - and I can't find anything on the net to back it up. Megapixie 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is properly referenced in the Operation_Ten-Go article, so I see no problem with adding that reference to this article, too. I disagree with including it in this article, however, because 1) this article does not go into that level of detail and 2) the incident is described and documented quite properly in the Operation_Ten-Go article, so I feel that there is no need to duplicate that content here. That is just my opinion, though, and if other people think it should be included, so be it. If it is included, however, the entire Combat section ought to be expanded to include that level of detail.

Spventi 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote about the "machine-gunning" incident in the Operation Ten-Go article. I feel that it is appropriate to talk about it in that article. However, in this case, I think this article is specifically about the ship, and only generally about the ship's and ship's crew's actions, which are covered in more detail in other articles (Battle of Leyte Gulf, Ten-Go, etc.). Therefore, I don't believe it's appropriate to talk about that one incident in this article. Anyone who follows the link embedded in this article to Ten-Go will be able to read about it there. Just my two-cents and I'm going to go ahead and remove that section. Cla68 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep it in both places. It does concern the final fate of the ship, and it's not a long section, and overall the article isn't too long. Keep for completeness. Megapixie 22:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, but, I think you feel more strongly about it than I do, for whatever reason. Cla68 04:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the retention of the "machine-gunned" comment. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that that comment has somehow removed. I would like to have it back because it's the Yamato's crew being killed, and relevant to the ship's history. In the article itself it doesn't even mentions it, as important it is. --190.49.170.142 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. We (being Cla68 and I) are currently in the middle of a full rewrite of all the Yamato-Class articles. If, during the course of our rewrite, we come across reliable sources that mention the machine-gunning of survivors, we will definitely add it back in. For the time being, however, we're still in the process of verifying the content that's there as it is. All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 06:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert of recent move

I just moved it back to the old name. IanManka decided to break convention. This one is even cited as a specific example on what to name ships! —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me being stupid. I was rewriting Yamato, and for some reason or another, I thought that moving this page would make the disambiguation page flow better. Actually, looking back on my "reason" to move this page, it never should have been done -- I should have read the section in the MOS within the disambiguation! I should next time check the talk page before moving pages. Lesson learned. Sorry for any inconvienences my error has caused. If any of you wish to yell/scold/ask questions, please see my talk page. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 10:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Better to make a mistake and learn from it than to do nothing! --Piet Delport 10:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yamato's Sinking Possible Due To American Kamikaze's?

I was watching a documentary on the Canadian History Channel, a documentary hosted by CTV's Lloyd Robertson who hosts the CTV National News as well. At the end of his commentary he made note the the Yamato's sinking was due to the only American intentional kamikaze strike. Is this true, because on all other sites Ive looked at it says nothing about Yamato being hit by kamikaze American planes.

Setting aside the plausibility of an American kamikaze, it would be unrealistic for a kamikaze to penetrate to the vital spaces of a battleship. Kamikaze successes were pretty much entirely based on attacking essentially unarmored destroyers or aircraft carriers covered in planes (loaded with fuel and bombs). No, the sinking of the Yamato did not have anything to do with an American kamikaze strike. TomTheHand 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Really a suicide mission?

Yamato's final mission is often described as a suicide mission. I have seen two descriptions of the Japanese plan for Yamato during Ten-Go: (1) She was to draw American forces away from the island of Okinawa, thus truly a suicide mission. (2) She was to beach herself on Okinawa and be used as a gun platform against the invading Americans. It seems to me that #2 would not necessarily be a suicide mission. If the Japanese had been able to drive the Americans back into the sea, then the Yamato could conceivably have been refloated and used again, as was done with the ships at Pearl Harbor. It seems to me that American historians are too quick to call this a suicide mission. It was a longshot, but that is not new in warfare. Would you call Pickett's Charge a suicide mission? Westwind273 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Historian John Toland's book "The Rising Sun" (for which he won a Pulitzer Prize) refers to (2) as their objective. In his book he says the Japanese did view it as a suicide mission, but they could not bear to leave the Yamato at the dock while their comrades were under siege at Okinawa. I don't think there's any other way to look at it other than "suicide" since the Yamato had no air support since the Americans had crushed the Japanese airforce at Saipan. P. Moore 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Yamato also carry only enough fuel for the mission so it won't be having enough fuel to return? So isn't that then a suicidal mission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure Havoc (talk • contribs) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I first heard "the planned suicide with one way fuel supply" theory but more recent sources I have seen say (a) that the intent was to beach the ship at Okinawa and use it as an unsinkable gun platform to drive back the invasion fleet, (b) that the command and crew may have been prepared for a suicide mission but (c) that the fuel tanks, while not topped off, were loaded with enough fuel for a round trip from base to Okinawa and back, so it was not intended as a suicide mission. If the ship had been beached and thus unsinkable, with 24 5" and 125 25mm AA, it might very well have held its own against air attack and accomplished its mission. However the fact that the allies could throw over 300 aircraft from a dozen carriers at Yamato while still in deep water made it unintentionally suicidal.Naaman Brown (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the book A Glorious Way to Die the official orders for the mission called for only enough fuel to get to Okinawa. The head of the fuel depot figured out how to use fuel that was normally not recoverable from the tanks, and thus was not "on the books" in order to actually give them enough to get there and come back if need be. So from the standpoint of the official orders it was a one-way, and thus suicide, mission. Fred8615 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because it had only enough fuel to get to Okinawa does not seem in and of itself suididal. If the Japanese had succeeded in throwing the Americans off Okinawa, then the Yamato could have been refloated and refuled at Okinawa. Again, it was a long shot, but I sense the tendency to only ascribe "suicide mission" to the enemy's actions. By comparison, was the defense of Wake Island (early in the war) a "suicide mission"? --Westwind273 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Just because it had only enough fuel to get to Okinawa does not seem in and of itself suididal." Then what exactly would you call it??? Especially when you consider the fact that aerial kamikazes did always carry enough fuel to return if they could not find suitable targets. They were even supposed to return lacking such targets, but rarely if ever did so because they were either shot down, or so gung ho to die they attacked any ship they came across. Yamato's orders, and the fuel orders make it quite clear. She was not to return to Japan. Fred8615 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Crew size?

This article claims a complement of 2750, but the Japanese version claims 3300. --π! 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not completely sure, but 3300 seems to be the intended, or planned number of crewmen. I remember reading somewhere, that the ship left to it's last mission with the full crew of 3300 men. But I can't be certain, as I have no reference. --88.112.23.15 11:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I added a subtle note to show that one external link has..ahem..lifted content from this entry. I didn't delete the reference as it does add a few photographs. TarenCapel 13:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment

This is a fine article, with an infobox, pictures, and a fair bit of length and detail. But for such a major topic, it is pretty short. Please expand. LordAmeth 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Survivor count inconsistency

This seems to be rather common in articles about war, but the count is given as both 269 and 280. Some sourcing would be good. --Kizor 09:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

yamato banner help

i want a cool user banner thing for the yamato battleship to go on my user page
that says something cool does any one have any ideas--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

please let me know of any idea's --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Who was actually credited with the sinking of the Yamato?

According to the Cruise Book (Second Cruise of Air Group Nine, 1944 - 1945) Air Group Nine was credited with the sinking of the Yamato. The picture in the article showing the magazine explosion was taken by the Air Group Nine commanding officer. 72.15.243.10 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Move text

I believe some of the text in "Construction" and "Unique design features" should be transferred over to the Yamato class battleship article. Listing specific details which are shared with Musashi seems redundant. Oberiko (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

the unique design was only present in the yamato i belive but if we move this stuff around i could create a disgamubration page thingamabob --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed reference in Legacy section?

Yesterday I added the following in the Legacy and in Pop Culture section:

In the TV series Star Trek: the Next Generation, a sister of the flagship USS Enterprise is named USS Yamato, and designated NCC-1305-E. It is featured in two episodes of the series: first as an illusion in "Where Silence Has Lease", and second in "Contagion", in which an alien device cripples the ship's systems and leads to a fatal warp core breach.

I believed it to be pertinent to the article for two significant reasons. For one, in the context of the show, it should be significant that the former flagship of the Japanese navy should be honored with a namesake in the flagship class of the Federation armada. Second, the fictional ship (like the real one) was attacked and succumbed to an internal explosion.

The edit was almost immediately redacted as "irrelevant". I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but it seems that if we're going to bother with a Pop Culture section in the article, actual citations of references from pop culture are at the very essence of those sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerobandwidth (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues not addressed so far in the article

The following topics related to the ship aren't currently addressed in the article. I hope to add info on these sometime in the future if no one else does, but I don't think their omission necessarily disqualifies the article from A-class or FA level consideration:

• Yamato was witheld from the critical Guadalcanal Campaign for additional reasons besides fuel consumption, including the fact that no land bombardment shells had been manufactured for her 18-inch guns, the waters around Guadalcanal were considered too restricted (small) for the ship to maneuver adequately, and Yamamoto was cautious about risking his battleships because he wanted to make sure they were available for the "decisive battle" that he hoped to draw the US Navy into.
• Because Yamato basically sat at Truk for eight months, the other IJN crews, especially the cruiser and destroyer crews who were engaged in constant combat with Allied forces, began to derisively refer to the ship as the "Yamato hotel".

I will definitely add that in. Cam ^(Chat) 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Although the ship was constructed with strong armor protection, severe design and construction deficiencies marred her structural strength, making the ship much weaker defensively than she appeared on paper. This was borne out by the crippling damage she received whenever she was torpedoed, although the top-side armor proved to be effective against aerial bombs.

I addressed this a bit in the actual class article, and I'd kinda like to leave the more technical details in the parent article (similar to what Tom has done with the Iowas). Cam ^(Chat) 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, although I don't know for sure that Musashi had the same structural defects, since it was constructed at a different shipyard, although it did, presumably use the same construction design. Cla68 (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I do know that Musashi had other structural defects that I have yet to come across in my research on Yamato, notably a lack of armour near the bow and poor jointing between the upper and lower belts. Cam ^(Chat) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• The name of the ship Yamato was a poetic name often used to refer to the nation of Japan itself. Therefore, the ship carried significant symbolism in its presence and implied power for the IJN and the Empire of Japan.

Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced claim re submarine Flying Fish

The article states "On 17 August 1942, Yamato departed Kure for Truk. Eleven days later, the submarine USS Flying Fish spotted Yamato, firing four torpedoes at the battleship.". But our USS Flying Fish article does not name Yamoto. Someone making a guess here? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Or a typo in the date? From the Flying Fish article: "On 28 August, only three days after arriving on station, Flying Fish sighted the masts of a Japanese battleship, guarded by two destroyers and air cover." —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yept, it was a date typo (28th, and I have multiple sources to confirm that). Cam ^(Chat) 23:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not on about dates, but a lack of cite/reference for Flying Fish firing at Yamoto. At least one ref will do to justify the claim. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref #1, in the sentence directly after, covers the sentence. It's a general rule with articles like this to not link multiple sentences in a row with the same ref...I've seen WP:OVERLINK quoted for this, though I don't know if it is specifically in the policy. I did the same thing in Alaska-class cruiser and Lexington-class battlecruiser. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tks for that. Still seem curious that this article has Flying Fish firing four torpedoes at Yamoto but the Flying Fish article does not identify Yamoto as the target. No matter, I've fixed the date. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the 28th with multiple sources to confirm that... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that that particular text in the Flying Fish article comes from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships which was published in 1959, most likely before it was known that Yamato was the sub's target that day. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Doesn't matter tho. If the ref justifies inclusion of the info in Yamoto, then it justifies mention/inclusion in Flying Fish too. Also, we seem to be at cross purposes regarding the date. The reference clearly states the following -- "17 August 1942:Yamamoto and his staff depart Kure for Truk" followed by "28 August 1942:Near Truk. YAMATO is attacked by LtCdr (later Vice Admiral) Glynn R. Donaho's USS FLYING FISH (SS-229)."I amended the article to show Yamoto leaving Kure 17 August and being attacked ll days later, 28 August, but that was reverted. I am going to make one more revert, a good faith edit based on the reference information I have quoted here. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha. ha. ha. ha. *Slaps self* Sorry, that was me being an idiot and just looking at the diff—not reading the sentence before reverting. :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

media

I moved section Media from Yamato class battleship.[1] But revered.[2] I think Yamato (film) and Space Battleship Yamato are suitable here. Because they are more relevant to Japanese battleship Yamato than Yamato class battleship.--Bukubku (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I add this in See also. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Commanding Officers

The list of captains is non-controversial, and can be found in numerous written and on-line sources, [3], Skulski's Battleship Yamato and Mitsuru's Requim for Battleship Yamato, to name just a couple, as well as per a direct translation from the equivalent Japanese wikipedia article. I will re-add to article unless reasonable objection is raised here shortly. --MChew (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Objection: I am in the process of attempting to create a featured topic of the Yamato-Class battleship articles, of which this is one. In doing so, I am basing most of my work off of the FT of Iowa class battleship, as well as the layout of each page. Battleship articles that are already FA do not include a list of commanders; not so much because of controversiality but because of the fact that it's out of place and it disrupts the text too much. Cam ^(Chat) 07:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cam. Also, if it is referenced as you say, perhaps a stand-alone list is warranted. In light of List of Commanding Officers of the USS Nevada (BB-36)? -MBK₀₀₄ 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was just heading here to link to that article, MBK. :)

A list would be good, as it's basically a space-eater in this article; it won't help the casual reader! However, if it's in a list and linked from this article so the people who need the info can find it... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The names of the different commanding officers should be interwoven into the text of the history section. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Other deleted content

There was also an objection to the earlier version of ten-go, and the legacy section. As far as I can see, the version that is there now is very, very small (it was made into a feature movie about the incident in Japan) compared to the earlier unreferenced version which appears to have been duplicated across many websites, but erased from WP. Seems there should be some reference to the cultural legacy since the ship appears to still be very much a matter of national pride / legend to the Japanese and jaw-dropping awe to the rest of the world (it certainly made an impression on the poor sailors in the battle off samar who ended up in harm's way) How can this lost material be put back without stepping on toes??? The article may have an A class rating, but seems very, very sparse compared to say the Iowa battleship or even the destroyer USS Johnston pages. There also seems to be a completely different story on the Japanese language article that somebody could translate. Bachcell (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's loads of stuff that's been duped off of here that isn't that good. The older section of Ten-Go was 1) Waaaay too long and 2) unreferenced. It should be noted that Cla68 has said that he would write a bit on the legacy of the Yamato, which is on this article's to-do list. That said, it needs to be referenced and unbiased, both of which the previous one was not. Cam ^(Chat) 05:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted edit

The current version of the battle of Leyte gulf only mentions the battle off samar as a 1 paragraph footnote, though this was the only battle where it saw real combat where it was shooting at other ships.

Kurita's Centre Force navigated the San Bernardino Strait, attacking a small force of escort carriers and destroyers shortly after dawn.[20] In the initial stages of the Battle off Samar, Yamato engaged enemy surface forces for the first time, confirming hits on an escort carrier, a destroyer, and a destroyer escort.[20] When, after confirming primary battery hits on USS Gambier Bay, a spread of American torpedoes trailed towards Yamato, the battleship was forced to withdraw from the fighting, and was unable to rejoin the battle.

It doesn't mention that Kurita thought it was fleet carriers and cruisers, or that the force that was led by Yamato was mauled badly enough that Kurita ordered the fleet to turn around for home. All it says is the Yamato scored hits on ships and then left the battle. That seems to be a pretty important ommission, especially since the accounts for that battle for less infamous ships such as USS Johnston (DD-557) and USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) are far more detailed. The entire article is very small and sparse compared to the forest of articles devote to the Iowa and its class, though this tends to be true for Japanese vs US ships. The deleted section contained many references, and I don't believe anybody disputes any of the facts that were there. Was deletion of this section really an improvement? This duel showed how the Japanese put their resources into building the world biggest battleship, while the Americans built lots of escort carriers, which is probably part of the reason the US won, but is there any place to say this? Bachcell (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if they're referenced, they're poorly written in a style that it totally unencyclopedic. If they're going to be included, they need to be de-sensationalized and rewritten. Cam ^(Chat) 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the sections in both Samual B. Roberts and Johnson are waaaay too long. If you want to go into that much detail with the personalized accounts, write a book. The point of wiki isn't to debate the issue, that's what historiography is for. Again, write a book if you want to debate it. Cam ^(Chat) 23:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, those are taken almost verbatim from DANFS. Not commenting on the rest of this yet. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

{{Spoken Wikipedia In Progress | Senos66 (talk) | 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC) }

Suggested Link for addition to the Battleship Yamato 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) 05:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

contradiction

The purpose of the Yamato class (18.1" guns and 72,000 tons) was to over-awe the US government into avoiding fighting Japan. They were such a well-kept military secret that most Western navies and governments believed the Yamatos were 16" gunned 45,000 ton battleships as late as 1945. Is there an authoritative source that explains how that was supposed to work? Naaman Brown (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Which type of information do you look for? The production of both units proceeded with a maximum of secrecy and their government didnt give away any official info. And estimating the exact tonnage and weapons calibre from a blurry aerial photograph is difficult.Alexpl (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that was not their purpose. Their purpose was to take on multiple U.S. battleships in a battle line should war come. As such, it is perfectly understandable that the Japanese wanted to keep the exact specifications of the Yamato's a secret. Cam wrote a good section here that may explain this better. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly clear to me the purpose of building the Yamato class was to win a naval war, not deter one. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps keeping the specifications secret served both purposes (in the Japanese's eyes, at least)—capable of engaging multiple battleships, they could significantly contribute to winning a war (thinking here in the context of 1930s naval strategy), while keeping mum would allow the Japanese to declare war when they were ready. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That is plausable. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kawanishi N1K1

The reference to the "Shiden" or "George" Kawanishi fighters in this article shows up in red and notes that a page for that plane is not available. That page does exist in Wikipedia, although it also is not referenced under the "Kawanishi" page. I don't know how to change the mention of that fighter so it points to the relevant description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.57.172 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC) That's the Kawanishi N1K1 mentioned under the 1945 operations and sinkinc section.

Fixed by adding redirect page to Kawanishi N1K. Hohum (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Named after "Yamato Province"???

As a Japanese speaker, I found this assertion surprising. Yamato (大和) may have been the name of a province, but most of us know it as a traditional and patriotic name for Japan. I therefore find it unconvincing that "Yamato Province" was the origin of this ship's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.55.193 (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Discovery of wreck

why isnt there any mention of the wreck and its discovery? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.15.173 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to ask that. Wasn't the wreck rediscovered sometime within the last few years? I seem to recall PBS had a special detailing it. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's reminds me, we should include a section on the wreck itself and how it was discovered in 1985. I think that will bring the article full circle. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Needs More Maps

A problem with wikipedia is that all related articles should have maps of all relevant operations of a given ship for visual reference. Oh and one more thing; wow. In the words of Captain Piccard (or commander Riker, I forget);

"She's a predator..."

Through and through the Yamato was a predator, blown up by her own weapons. You GOTTA love the irony.

67.148.120.104 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Problems with the sinking

I haven't finished adding information from Garzke and Dulin yet (sorry), but there are some contradictions between that book and this article. G&D say that the aft magazines exploded, though this could be a consequence of the battleship being discovered in the same year the book was published. However, they say that Yamato's XO saw that the temperatures in the aft magazines were in the danger zone. This is in direct contradiction of Combined Fleet ("Though this contradicted all prior assumptions, ironically, this matched the testimony of YAMATO' s XO Nomura who had all along reported seeing a red light flash for No.1 magazine just before the capsize."). I am not sure how to reconcile these conflicting viewpoints...

They also say that 23 officers + 246 enlisted men survived out of a total of 3332 men onboard. (The higher complement may be a result of the greatly increased AA battery. A similar effect was seen on many U.S. warships during the war.) Lastly, they say that Yamato was hit with 13 torpedoes (11 certain, 2 probable) and 8 bombs + many near-misses with bombs. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

First, on the issue of which magazines exploded, it's entirely possible that the aft magazines exploded initially, and linkages between magazines within the ship's bowels caused the forward two to be set off. When the fact that the Yamato's wreck is broken at the bow is considered, it seems to me almost certain that the forward magazines went off. The question therefore is both whether the aft magazines detonated, and if this is the case then in what order. On the issue of complement during the suicide mission, one of my sources I believe mentions something about additional ground-troops/marines on the Yamato. Once I've recovered from jet-lag, I'll take a look through my sources and see what I come up with. Cam ^(Chat) 02:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree with the bow broken thought. :) The problem is finding a source for that theory, and I'm not sure that would even be possible—has anyone actually gone inside the wreck? Interesting, I hadn't heard anything about marines on the last trip. Just as an FYI, I should be adding a lot more from Garzke and Dulin over the next week or so; they have a very detailed account of the sinking. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Sourcing the theory is particularly difficult. The only known incident of that that I'm aware of is the old HMCS Athabaskan, and that was based almost entirely on eyewitness accounts and original blueprints of the ship (neither of which exist in copious amounts for the Yamato, unfortunately), so that would be very difficult to prove. Cam ^(Chat) 05:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the ship's death toll here on CombinedFleet's message forum. One reason that it's difficult to determine exactly how many died on Yamato is that the large fleet HQ staff on the ship were not counted as part of the ship's crew complement. Skulski's book goes into the question of where and how the ship exploded and I'll try to look at it tonight and report here what it says. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Skulski (1988) states that the aft magazines detonated, probably because the aft bomb hit fires traveled down the shell hoists as the ship capsized. Again, this contradicts CombinedFleet which appears to base its conclusions on the Japanese expedition's to the wreck findings in 1985. I, personally, would go with what CombinedFleet says. Cla68 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit notes

Comments, questions etc below as usual. EyeSerene^talk 10:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Will leave until last Done - removed the mention of the wreck discovery until that section is added back to the article. EyeSerene^talk 13:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Design and construction

• Should there be a mention of the Washington Naval Treaty in relation to the design?
  • Done here —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added a brief summary to the article, copying the sources from Yamato class battleship. I think it help in understanding why Japan designed the class (I don't think it's good to encourage the reader too much to jump out of an article in order to get directly relevant information!) Hope the sources are ok - they may need consolidating/adding to refs list if the books used aren't already there. EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Yamato was the lead ship of the Yamato class of heavy battleships, designed by the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1937" Was the class or Yamato designed in 1937?
  • Fixed, changed to "late 1930s" —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• "It was hoped..." By whom?

• "Fearful that the United States would learn of the class' true characteristics..." This implies that the class was designed in secret for some reason and there was deception involved, but there's nothing in the text to explain this (perhaps relates to my first point above?)
  • I think this is already in Yamato class battleship? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• "designed to be capable of engaging multiple enemy targets" All battleships could do this; was there something special about Yamato? (I think what the text is getting at is "multiple enemy capital ships simultaneously"?)
  • multiple enemy battleships, fixed :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• From the context, the class was designed with combat against numerically-superior opponents in mind (ie the RN and more specifically the USN). Can the sources support this adding clarification to the article?

Armament

• The text gives two configurations, initial and 1944 refit, but the infobox gives initial and 1945.

Trials and initial operations

• We have Yamato retreating to Hashirajima after Midway, then departing from Kure in the next paragraph. Obviously she went back to Kure from Hashirajima at some point; can we clarify this?
  • Fixed the best I could, sources skip over this point. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1943: Movement between bases

• "She sailed in late September with Nagato, three carriers and smaller warships to intercept US Task Force 15..." Presumably no contact was made?

1944: Combat

• Some inconsistencies in italicisation in this section (mainly Operation names, not sure which way you want to go with that so I've left it).

• First Striking Force: I've kept this consistent through the section, but you've also given "Force A" and I believe "Centre Force" & variants are also used in some sources. Do we need to mention that?

I think that both of these are a consequence of mine and Cam's writing and sources. I think that operation names have to be of the form Operation Name or Operation "Name"; go ahead and change any that you see to one of these as you go continue to go through the article please. :)

G&D (the source I used) referred to the fleet as Force A, while I'll bet that Cam's sources said the Centre/er Force. We should probably just change it to one use unless you think both are needed to change up the prose. A tangent point from this: are there problems with American v. British English? I know that I write in the former, while I believe that Cam writes in the latter. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I was checking with you re the op names was the italicisation (per MOS:ITALICS) of foreign words. I'll try to get them consistent. Re Kurita's force, personally I think sticking to one version throughout is best for reader understanding, but I'll mention the others in a bracket as you've done. Re the spelling variants, I have noticed a mixture in the article :) I've left that alone; what would be your preferred version (or does it matter as long as words are consistent)? EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably Operation "name", given that we already use italics for the vessel names. As for Kurita's force, let's stick with "Centre Force", given that that is what all of my sources that refer to the battle name his force as. Cam ^(Chat) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed the strike force name. What do you think about the version of English to use (at the moment it's a bit of a mishmash, some of which is my fault!) EyeSerene^talk 12:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1945: Final operations and sinking

• "Yamato obtained a first radio contact with aircraft at 1000." This doesn't seem to fit the previous sentences where Yamato had been shooting at shadowing Allied aircraft. Is it referring to a radio intercept of an inbound strike force, a radar contact, or something else?

Wreck discovery

• Who discovered the wreck?

• Who is NHK?

• Is spacecruiseryamato a reliable source?

Fate of the crew?

the german wikipedia article on the yamato states that US Air Force planes were shooting at the drifting japanese sailors who had abandoned the sinking Yamato... anyone with furter info on this? Was that common practise in that time? Afaik it was illegal in terms of international law (well, i know, there is >>no<< international law for the U.S.A...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.146.142 (talk) 22:04, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

• Read about the USN Submarine USS Wahoo; recently found near Japan (sunk during WWII). It's commander ordered the machinegunning of sunken ship survivors. He may have help prolonged that type of thing. Or helped to escalate it!

That would have been a real trick as the USAF wasn't formed until AFTER WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.74.32 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys, this really made me laugh, someone logging on from an IP in Germany, is on a WWII page giving America 'the business' for it's regard of international law. That really made me chuckle...thanks guys AnkaraX (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Aham, but what about the REAL answer to the quiestion? --190.49.174.12 (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In the book: Hara, Tameichi (1961). "The Last Sortie". Japanese Destroyer Captain. New York & Toronto: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-27894-1. Hara, Yahagi's captain, reports that he personally witnessed US fighter planes strafing Japanese survivors in the water. Also, the website for the NOVA documentary displays another eyewitness to the same thing: Naoyoshi Ishida (September 2005). "Survivor Stories: Ishida". Sinking the Supership. NOVA. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, there was no violation of any "international law" that may have existed at that time because these Japanese sailors were uniformed combatants IN A BATTLE. The Japanese began killing allied merchant personnel to keep them from getting back "into rotation," and they had been killing allied soldiers and sailors who were in-the-water from ship sinkings for quite some time. Since these sailors would also have been put back into combat against the Allies, they were targeted. This was standard orders from COMPAC for at least two years. This was WAR, folks. HammerFilms1 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)hammerfilms1

Why didn't Japan dismantle their battleships?

At the Pearl Harbor attack Japan proved that the battleship was obsolete. Yamato was not even used until the end of the war in 1945. It must have cost them a lot to maintain it. The 3000 crew could have been used elsewhere in the fleet. The steel of the ship could have been used to build other ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.1.121 (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight Pearl Harbor and the sinking of POW + Repulse signified the end of the battleship, but this wasn't fully recognized until later in the war. In addition, the Japanese commanders believed that their would still be a "decisive battle" at some point in the war. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there was a certain amount of inertia in the system too - battleships were the prestige units for so long that it took a while for people to accept their time was over (Britain even commissioned a brand new battleship, HMS Vanguard, in 1946, after the war). EyeSerene^talk 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To an extent, they did dismantle several. Shinano was converted to a carrier (albeit with a severely flawed armour/bulkhead structure), while the hull of the fourth Yamato ship was scrapped and the materials used to help convert Ise and Hyuga into hybrid carrier-battleships (again, similar flaws as above). The difference was that the mega-battleships like Yamato and Musashi were held as prestige vessels, while the Kongo class actually served a useful purpose given their versatility and high speed. The Fuso class was too outdated, while the Nagato class was held in reserve for that "Decisive Battle" thing. So, to an extent, it did happen. Cam ^(Chat) 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember, the Japanese almost got their "decisive battle" at Leyte Gulf. Bull's blunder left the invasion fleet exposed to most of Japan's remaining battleships, including Yamato, only they turned back when they were on the verge of breaking through. Of course, Wilmott argues, convincingly, that even if the Japanese had destroyed the Leyte invasion fleet, it wouldn't have made a difference on the ultimate outcome of the Pacific war. Also, even if they had converted the Yamato class battleships to carriers, they still would have needed to man them with trained aviators, which they may or may not would have been able to do during the war. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To add, battleships were known to be vulnerable to airpower well before Pearl Harbor and the Repulse/PoW sinkings. Pearl Harbor occured because the US wasn't expecting a Japanese attack that far from their bases. The Repulse/PoW were to be kept under an umbrella of fighter cover, but the fighters weren't able to find the ships. The battleship also wasn't considered obsolete just because they were no longer the primary arbiters of naval supremacy. They were still quite useful in the amphibious bombardment role for example. The United States didn't get rid of the last of their World War 2 battleships until the 90s primarily due to their utility in invasion support.Sperril (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

the wreck of the Yamato

Hasn't the wreck of the Yamato been located in recent years and some discussion been given to raising it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The wreck was first inspected in 1985. It lies in over 1000 feet of water. There is not any serious discussion about raising it because the ship is broken into 2 major pieces. Sperril (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

Why is this article called "Japanese Battleship Yamato"? How many non-Japanese ones exist? I.e. shouldn't the article name be simplified? Ingolfson (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• The German battleship Bismarck is titled the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.22.214 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The name of this article adheres to the appropriate naming conventions: WP:NC-SHIPS. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's that way so we have a uniform naming system among all of the battleship articles that don't have a country prefix (ie non-American/British/Argentinian/German Empire). Battleship Yamato redirects here anyway. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Torpedo armament?

I've currently read in a - not very professional - German ship encyclopedia that Yamato was armed with 10 torpedo tubes. I did not believe it as I've never found this in another reliable source, but I got sceptic when I came over this photo of the famous 1/10 Yamato model in Kure. You can see five strange openings on the ship's port side which also exist (I've seen it on another photo) on the starboard side. Those strange openings could be surface torpedo tubes - and there are 10 of them. Is it possible that Yamato actually had torpedo tubes? And what about that openings? Greetings, Ogbader (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely possible, and it wouldn't surprise me. The Japanese had a habit of putting torpedoes (as well as their crappy 25mm autocannons) on practically anything that floated. In some cases, this was particularly useful; it made their cruiser squadrons insanely dangerous and justifiably feared. I've heard of torpedoes on the original configurations for the Kongo and Fuso battleships, but I've never read anywhere of torpedoes on Yamato. That said, I'll go back and check my sources again to be sure. I somehow doubt it had them, but I would not be entirely surprised if I was wrong. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick answer! As I said, no reliable source I know about the Yamato tells about a torpedo armament, but I'm very interested in what you'll find out because I do not own very much literature about her. Most is about Japanese navy in general. Greetings, Ogbader (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. None of my sources mention it. I'll ask User:Cla68. He's got a lot more resources than I do on the Imperial Japanese Navy. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, meanwhile I've got some news: I found a hint in a quite professional German book on the Japanese navy (it is certainly not a Yamato book, it tells the navy's story from 1868 until today): Joachim Wätzig: Die japanische Flotte (The Japanese navy), Berlin 1996. There is a chart comparing the most advanced battleships in WW2 on p. 186, and it says "8 or 10" torpedo tubes for Yamato. Greetings, Ogbader (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no torpedoes. Janusz Skulski's drawings in his book Anatomy of the Ship: The Battleship Yamato, shows six openings, not five, although one is slightly forward of the other five. And the spaces abreast the rear 155mm turret were for boat stowage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Watts nor Jentschura's technical books on the IJN's inventory list the Yamato battleships as having torpedo tubes. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers! Greetings Ogbader (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in table 7, page 15, Janusz Skulski mentions that "Lastest sources suggest 6-10 torpedo tubes, possibly underwater." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.14.166 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Armament

"Yamato's main battery consisted of nine 46 cm (18.1 in) 45 Calibre Type 94 naval guns — the largest calibre of naval artillery ever fitted to a warship"

I could be wrong, but for handguns and such calibre is the same as bore diameter, for naval guns it is the bore to barrel length ratio. Several U.S. battleships had 50 calibre naval artillery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.209.21 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For naval guns both usages are correct, if confusing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle participation

What is the convention used to state that a ship took a part in a battle? Nagato is a good example of a vessel that on many occasions was a part of the battlefleet, was even the Japanese flagship, and yet is said to only have participated in the battle of Leyte Gulf ("She saw action only once, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf") and at that she is only said to have participated in the battle off Samar. Did Atago participate in the battle of Leyte Gulf? I would think the answer would be yes, and if so would it not make sense to list the battles the vessel participated in, whether or not the ship fired its main armament or took hits from an enemy vessel? Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The above point being that though the Atago did not fire her main guns in the battle of Leyte Gulf, she was part of the center force and was sunk in the battle. Certainly the sailors that died there or that were pulled out of the sea would feel they had participated.

Super battle ships

There is some back and forth on the wording of the lead. What is the contention? Certainly the Yamato class were the largest in terms of tonnage, but not the longest, as that goes to the Iowa class I believe. Is "large" tied to the ships length? I believe that is the convention, as that was how liners that competed for the distinction in the inter-war years were described, the largest liner being considered the one with greatest length. As to powerful vs. powerfully armed, I would prefer wording them the most powerfully armed, but the heaviest gunned might be the best descriptor. Most powerful, would that be determined on the basis of the caliber of her main armament, the metal weight of her broadside, or the rate of weight put out over a period of time? It seems to me these terms are discussed somewhere, and we should find a key and come to a consensus. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In theory, "most powerful" normally talks about the weight of an individual shell ( in the case of the Yamato class, it would be the 3,219 lb APC shells ) and how much kinetic energy it had ( which also means how much powder it uses ), because conventional theory of the time held that the the more of both that you had, the better it would get through armor, but conventional theory was not always correct. The USN 16" 2,700 lb super heavy AP shells, when fired from the 16"/50 Mk 7 guns of the Iowa class, were nearly equal in penetration to the IJN 18" shells of the Yamato, and the fact that the Iowa class could fire faster, at all ranges except those in which the 18" guns of the Yamato class had little to no change in elevation, means that the throw weight of the Iowa class, was nearly equal to that of the Yamato class - in fact, at long and extended ranges the throw weight of the Iowa's could exceed that of the Yamato class, when the ROF of the Yamato guns would drop to as low as 1.5 rounds per min, because of the length of time to train the guns to the proper elevation for loading and then train them back to shooting elevation. The tipping point for the Yamato is when her average rate of fire increases to 1.7 rounds a minute, where the throw weight difference of the 2 classes is only 650 lbs - less than 1/4 the weight of a single USN 16" shell.
In short between the two classes, it is not going to be a matter who actually has the biggest guns, but who gets the most hits, because powerful guns do not mean much if you miss with them, and the Yamato class had 3 strikes against it - less than good fire control, armor of somewhat poorer quality ( even if it did have more armor to begin with than the Iowa class ), and a crew that did not have much in the way of actual combat time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory JH (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I thought that was the case, that rate of fire gave an edge to the Iowas, and if you were to factor in accuracy with the Iowas radar guided fired control system the advantage would clearly be to the Iowas. For the purpose of this article though I do believe it is best to leave it as it is, as that would be a lot of information to try to convey and there would be a certain amount of controversey to sort through.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be much of an edge for the Iowas. I believe it was the US Naval Academy or some other dept of the USN, that ran several war game scenario's between the Iowa and Yamato, and essentially the results came out that the Yamato would likely be sunk, but the Iowa would be scrapped ( and may not even make it back to port because she would be so heavily damaged ).

The Iowa's biggest advantage, would be her speed. They had enough, that they could hold the Yamato at arms length, and barring something like a Bismarck hit, the Iowa could then break action, if needed - unless the Yamato could pull of an ambush, something along the lines of what happened to Taffy 3. The Iowa's biggest problem is not being able to range on the Yamato at long range, but just bracketing the Yamato due to simple shell dispersion - it took the Sharnhorst 3 salvo's to hit HMS Glorious at 26,250 - 26,500 yrds, which is on record as the longest hit in ship vs ship shooting. Accuracy for the Iowa's, in WW2, was such that against a Bismarck size target, that at 30,000 yrds, there was only a 2.7% chance of hit on a broadside target and a 1.4% chance of hit on a end on target, and the Yamato is not all that much bigger - so you are looking at maybe 30 hits for all 16" ammunition on board, not just armor piercing shells, so unless there were some lucky hit's on the Yamato's superstructure that took out the range finder, which would have allowed the Iowa to get closer, there would have been a real risk of the Iowa running out of ammunition, in an extended range fight - the good news is that the Iowa carried about 30% more ammunition that the Yamato, so the IJN could afford an extended range fight even less than the USN could. --Gregory JH (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to Gunbirddriver's original post, the distinction of being the "largest" liner should fall under overall length is incorrect but instead overall tonnage. Here is the quotation from the SS Normandie's page to support this claim.

"Normandie had a successful year but RMS Queen Mary, Cunard White Star Line's superliner, entered service in the summer of 1936. Cunard White Star said the Queen Mary would surpass 80,000 tons. At 79,280 tons, Normandie would no longer be the world’s largest. French Line increased Normandie’s size, mainly through the addition of an enclosed tourist lounge on the aft boat deck. Following these and other alterations, Normandie was 83,423 gross tons. Exceeding the Queen Mary by 2,000 tons, she would remain the world’s largest in terms of overall measured gross tonnage and length."

Note the RMS Queen Mary was shorter than the SS Normandie and had the French Line not increased their flagship's gross tonnage, the RMS Queen Mary would have had the distinction of being the world's largest liner. Another example can be seen in the USS Enterprise which is the longest U.S. carrier but isn't the largest as her predecessor the Nimitz-class carriers are over 100,000 long tons versus USS Enterprise's 93,000 long tons. The easiest way to understand this is to think of it in terms of volume. The Yamato class should thereby get the distinction of being the world's largest battleship. Whether she was the most powerful is a whole different topic and quite honestly pointless as battleship's were obsolete already. They had their uses but their impact on the Pacific war was miniscule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.210.195 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is the quote uses imprecise terms; "largest" can mean tallest, longest, widest, heaviest, some combination of the above, or all of the above. 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). Same as, for example, you could call The Pentagon the "world's largest office building" and could probably find sources by reliable authors which say that in as many words, but it's better to say it's the world's largest by floor area since there are plenty of offices taller than it and the statement is more precise. Saying they're the most "powerful" but not qualifying what that term is actually supposed to mean is similarly useless; citing vague language in place of precision is not the purpose of WP:CITE.

Also, tonnage in ocean liners is a measure of carrying capacity (ie useful volume) which is a measure of the ship's overall size, but warships are measured by displacement (actual weight). A warship with a lot of armour can be physically smaller but weight a lot more, so it's far less accurate to use "largest" in connection with displacement figures. 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) 13:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)