![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
What does "elvolving" mean? -- Golbez 17:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Why is the page moving so much between "Japanese battleship Yamato" and "HIJMS Yamato" ? Rama 10:05, 29 Oct 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)
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.
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)
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)]]
Any word on wether Yamato is still the largest battleship ever buit? The article doesn't make it clear. --Max J
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'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).
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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.
90.227.204.204 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
How many and what ships did it destroy?
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)
>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!
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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
This article claims a complement of 2750, but the Japanese version claims 3300. -- π! 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Cla68 ( talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{Spoken Wikipedia In Progress | Senos66 ( talk) | 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC) }
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
Comments, questions etc below as usual. EyeSerene talk 10:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
What does "elvolving" mean? -- Golbez 17:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Why is the page moving so much between "Japanese battleship Yamato" and "HIJMS Yamato" ? Rama 10:05, 29 Oct 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)
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.
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)
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)]]
Any word on wether Yamato is still the largest battleship ever buit? The article doesn't make it clear. --Max J
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'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).
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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.
90.227.204.204 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
How many and what ships did it destroy?
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)
>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!
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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
This article claims a complement of 2750, but the Japanese version claims 3300. -- π! 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Cla68 ( talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{Spoken Wikipedia In Progress | Senos66 ( talk) | 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC) }
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
Comments, questions etc below as usual. EyeSerene talk 10:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)