This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
46 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wouldn't "Japanese 40 cm/45 Type 94 gun" have been a better name, putting the article name into better context. Real name is a bit of a misomer since we are translating anyhow. GraemeLeggett 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I was pretty sure the range was around 45,500-46,000 yards; sources confirm that. It could be a yard/meter conversion mistake (and then it's 45,600), but I'm uncertain, as there can be some inofficial sources or review of figures (past mistakes). I've changed the range figure, but reply if that's wrong. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Were these guns ever figured in anger? Raul654 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed both of these unreferenced comments, pending sources.
If anyone can provide a link or accurate reference to a source that indicates Japanese 46cm shells were of inferior quality, I'd like to see it.
The "matched only by the us 16 inch 50 caliber" reference is nonsense.
The 40 cm/45 is 519 lbs heavier per shell... again, find me a credible source of documentation that states that the penetration of the World War II era US 16 inch heavy was superior or on par, and we'll include it.
Thanks.
CanadianPhaedrus (
talk)CanadianPhaedrus
I find a reference in one of the US SBS interrogations of Japanese naval officials after WW II, where the officer states that the main guns were commonly referred to as "type 41 special", even though most everyone knew they were larger. I haven't found any references other than this article that indicates that 40cm was used as a 'cover' size. What is the source of the 40cm size?
Also, many of the US SBS articles indicate that the actual size was 45cm, and this article shows 46cm. Since there seems to be at least one shell left in existance I assume this size came from actual measurement. Is there some reason to explain why the few officers that seemingly knew the size thought it was 45cm instead of 46cm? Loren.wilton ( talk) 11:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
All of the US SBS articles that mention these guns include comments about the great secrecy about the actual size. Even officers in charge of the guns didn't 'officially' know the size of the piece. Doesn't this rather unusual fact deserve some explicit mention?
Thanks, Loren.wilton ( talk) 11:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, this is my first post here so if it's in the wrong place, appologies.
These guns were designated 40.6cm Type-X or Type Special. The translation from Japanese of the suffix is not exact but the calibre is. The 40.6cm designation was chosen as it's 16", the standard calibre for primary armament on battleships of the day. This was a deliberate ruse to hide their true size of 46cm (18.1") which didn't become known to the Allies (like much about Yamato & Musashi) until they entered the shipyards where the ships had been built. The calibre 15.7" is clearly an conversion error from 40cm which is, simply, not correct. They were intended to be thought of as 16" not some strange new calibre that would have drawn unwanted attention.
Regards all
109.205.116.162 ( talk) 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Big Nev
Can we consider editing the opening sentence to read: "The Japanese 40 cm/45 Type 94 naval guns were, with the possible exception of Mons Meg, the largest calibre guns ever mounted on any warship."? Both the Mons Meg and Michael (ship) pages read to the effect that this old beast of a gun was possibly, though not certainly, mounted on Great Michael at some point. Neither article contains a citation for these statements, but I have found one at the Scottish Education site, [1]. At 520mm it was a much larger caliber than these more modern weapons. Thanks.-- Raynscloud ( talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The title here ("40 cm/45 Type 94") was obscure, so I've moved it to "40 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun", to say what it is. Also, it's in keeeping with the other entries in the categories. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
PS I notice there was a discussion about this a while ago, but the page was still there, so I've done it anyway. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge the various discussions above, but there are no longer any mention of misnaming as deception in the article, so should this article's name be changed to 46 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun? Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 03:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this a mirror of Wikipedia or was this taken from the Gutenberg project? Take a look at this http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/40_cm/45_type_94_naval_gun . Tirronan ( talk) 18:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
46 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wouldn't "Japanese 40 cm/45 Type 94 gun" have been a better name, putting the article name into better context. Real name is a bit of a misomer since we are translating anyhow. GraemeLeggett 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I was pretty sure the range was around 45,500-46,000 yards; sources confirm that. It could be a yard/meter conversion mistake (and then it's 45,600), but I'm uncertain, as there can be some inofficial sources or review of figures (past mistakes). I've changed the range figure, but reply if that's wrong. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Were these guns ever figured in anger? Raul654 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed both of these unreferenced comments, pending sources.
If anyone can provide a link or accurate reference to a source that indicates Japanese 46cm shells were of inferior quality, I'd like to see it.
The "matched only by the us 16 inch 50 caliber" reference is nonsense.
The 40 cm/45 is 519 lbs heavier per shell... again, find me a credible source of documentation that states that the penetration of the World War II era US 16 inch heavy was superior or on par, and we'll include it.
Thanks.
CanadianPhaedrus (
talk)CanadianPhaedrus
I find a reference in one of the US SBS interrogations of Japanese naval officials after WW II, where the officer states that the main guns were commonly referred to as "type 41 special", even though most everyone knew they were larger. I haven't found any references other than this article that indicates that 40cm was used as a 'cover' size. What is the source of the 40cm size?
Also, many of the US SBS articles indicate that the actual size was 45cm, and this article shows 46cm. Since there seems to be at least one shell left in existance I assume this size came from actual measurement. Is there some reason to explain why the few officers that seemingly knew the size thought it was 45cm instead of 46cm? Loren.wilton ( talk) 11:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
All of the US SBS articles that mention these guns include comments about the great secrecy about the actual size. Even officers in charge of the guns didn't 'officially' know the size of the piece. Doesn't this rather unusual fact deserve some explicit mention?
Thanks, Loren.wilton ( talk) 11:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, this is my first post here so if it's in the wrong place, appologies.
These guns were designated 40.6cm Type-X or Type Special. The translation from Japanese of the suffix is not exact but the calibre is. The 40.6cm designation was chosen as it's 16", the standard calibre for primary armament on battleships of the day. This was a deliberate ruse to hide their true size of 46cm (18.1") which didn't become known to the Allies (like much about Yamato & Musashi) until they entered the shipyards where the ships had been built. The calibre 15.7" is clearly an conversion error from 40cm which is, simply, not correct. They were intended to be thought of as 16" not some strange new calibre that would have drawn unwanted attention.
Regards all
109.205.116.162 ( talk) 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Big Nev
Can we consider editing the opening sentence to read: "The Japanese 40 cm/45 Type 94 naval guns were, with the possible exception of Mons Meg, the largest calibre guns ever mounted on any warship."? Both the Mons Meg and Michael (ship) pages read to the effect that this old beast of a gun was possibly, though not certainly, mounted on Great Michael at some point. Neither article contains a citation for these statements, but I have found one at the Scottish Education site, [1]. At 520mm it was a much larger caliber than these more modern weapons. Thanks.-- Raynscloud ( talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The title here ("40 cm/45 Type 94") was obscure, so I've moved it to "40 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun", to say what it is. Also, it's in keeeping with the other entries in the categories. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
PS I notice there was a discussion about this a while ago, but the page was still there, so I've done it anyway. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge the various discussions above, but there are no longer any mention of misnaming as deception in the article, so should this article's name be changed to 46 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun? Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 03:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this a mirror of Wikipedia or was this taken from the Gutenberg project? Take a look at this http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/40_cm/45_type_94_naval_gun . Tirronan ( talk) 18:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)