This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japanese battleship Nagato 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 |
Japanese battleship Nagato is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Japanese battleship Nagato is part of the Battleships of Japan series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 8, 2018. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am looking at the article and some of the pictures show a ship with two funnels while others show it with one. The Nagato class page has a single funnel. Are the images incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.208.147 ( talk) 21:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Nagato, the last surviving Japanese battleship … capsized and sank
Do I understand this correctly – do no Japanese battleships from the period survive to this day? Somehow I think that's a shame. Shinobu ( talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too impressed with the photograph above the info box - its got no caption (probably because the accompanying description has no information other than the ship's name), no where, when, etc and it has more than a hint of a double image. The line drawing might be better. But I am reluctant to change it without consensus. What do others think?
RASAM ( talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The Japanese had a limited number of major assets, and were unable to produce more. They spent a fair amount of time at safe anchorages to protect them from unnecessary loss, the primary fear being submarine attack, which became a greater and greater threat as the war ground on. Despite their effective use of the aircraft carrier through the first six months of the war, the carrier being the main source of power projection was not understood by the higher command structure. Younger officers like Minoru Genda well understood the importance of airpower in naval engagements, and was to have said the battleship force was useful for little more than building piers with, but even Yamamoto held the belief that the war would be won by a decisive battle fought by their battleship forces (note the powerful battle force he was sailing in during the battle of Midway, though he was three hundred miles to the east of the actual fighting). This was true up until Midway, when the American carrier forces so devastated the Japanese without ever providing an opportunity for a surface action. After Midway it was clear that the carrier was the key element of power projection, and the Japanese changed their ideas about supporting their remaining carrier forces. Your thoughts about fuel concerns were certainly a factor as the war dragged on, but the assertion that the battleship was obsolete (though largely true) would have made the admiralty cringe. It was not an idea that they could readily accept, or overtly plan with that as the guiding principle. I believe the lead was better as it was. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"In order to maintain parity with United States naval air arm, the Fourth Naval Replenishment Program of FY 1939 authorized the construction of a new fleet carrier named TAIHO. The Third Vinson Plan (i.e. Fleet Expansion Bill) passed in 1940 authorized already three new carriers and in response the Fifth Replenishment Program was hastily drawn up in Japan." http://www.combinedfleet.com/kojinshavolume6.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.23 ( talk) 11:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The following are a number of different sources that essentially speak of the gradual realization by naval commanders that the war would be a carrier dominated war. This was true for the commands of both the United States and Japan, but the point was brought home harshly to the USN at Pearl Harbor, and to Japan six months later at Midway.
from Garzke, William; Dulin, Robert. Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. United States Naval Institute. p. 3.
ISBN
0870211013. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help)
"... however, it was not until December 1941 when the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sunk by Japanese aircraft in the South China Sea and the American battlefleet was severely damaged at Pearl Harbor that the importance of the battleship was seriously questioned." p. 3
"In June of 1942, after the loss of four fleet carriers in the Battle of Midway, the Japanese decided to convert warship #110 to an aircraft carrier to be named Shinano. " p. 78
"The Fifth Fleet Replenishment Program: Five more capital ships were projected by this program - three battleships and two battlecruisers." p. 84
"The last two ships projected in the 1942 program, Warships No. 798 and 799, were to have been battleships of a new design armed with 510mm/45 caliber guns. This was consistent with the Japanese policy of individual superiority, since the Japanese expected the United States would learn the actual armament of the Yamato-class ships when they became operational." p. 85
---
from Fontenoy, Paul (2006). Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated History of their Impact. ABC-CLIO.
ISBN
185109573. {{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help):
"During the 1930's more senior naval officers began advocating a larger role for carriers. They envisaged carrier aircraft forming the first line of the fleet's defense and dominating its offensive operations, with battleships and auxiliary warships operating in support of the carriers. Over the course of the six years of World War II, their vision became reality as aircraft carriers supplanted battleships, becoming the new capital ship of the world's fleet." p. 67
"Unlike the Imperial Japanese Navy, the United States Navy made major efforts to increase the numbers of its pilots and establish training programs that would meet the requirements of a major war well before the conflict came." p. 94
---
from Parshall, Jonathan (2005). Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway. Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books.
ISBN
1-57488-923-0. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help):
"Thus, the Japanese believed that bringing greater fire power to bear at decisive ranges they would be able to defeat more numerous opponents. The seeds of this dogma had already been planted during the Navy's formative years, as the Japanese naturally adopted the policies of their mentors, the Royal Navy, which advocated an aggressive attitude toward naval engagements. But Tsushima cemented the notion that that big guns were the final arbiter of any naval encounter, a belief further reinforced by the clash of heavily armed battle lines at Jutland." p. 404
If you wish to discuss it further you are welcome to comment on my talk page. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 00:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What is with the last sentences? It says it is one of the most popular diving sites, and then that "diving resumed after a hiatus...". Perhaps some mention of what hiatus, when it started, and why would help make this statement more relevant? .45Colt 19:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This article used to be in British English ("armour", "defence") but now seems to be in USEnglish. Why was it changed? -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 11:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The battleships expended as nuclear targets in Operation Crossroads (Arkansas, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Nagato) were the only surviving combat battleships of their classes. Arkansas' sister (Wyoming) had been repurposed as a gunnery experimental ship. New York's sister (Texas) had been retired as a war ememorial. The sisters of Nevada and Pennsylvania (Oklahoma and Arizona) were the permanent battleship loses in the Pearl Harbor attack. Nagato's sister (Mutsu) had accidentally exploded in harbor. As the orphan survivors of their classes, they were expendable. But the battleship fleet at Operation crossroads was the third largest battleship fleet in the world at that time, which I found interesting. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I added this photo to Commons recently. Someone just told me that it's the Nagato.
. Can anyone confirm that, and if it is, should the pic be used in the article? -- GravityIsForSuckers ( talk) 19:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japanese battleship Nagato 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 |
Japanese battleship Nagato is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Japanese battleship Nagato is part of the Battleships of Japan series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 8, 2018. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am looking at the article and some of the pictures show a ship with two funnels while others show it with one. The Nagato class page has a single funnel. Are the images incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.208.147 ( talk) 21:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Nagato, the last surviving Japanese battleship … capsized and sank
Do I understand this correctly – do no Japanese battleships from the period survive to this day? Somehow I think that's a shame. Shinobu ( talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too impressed with the photograph above the info box - its got no caption (probably because the accompanying description has no information other than the ship's name), no where, when, etc and it has more than a hint of a double image. The line drawing might be better. But I am reluctant to change it without consensus. What do others think?
RASAM ( talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The Japanese had a limited number of major assets, and were unable to produce more. They spent a fair amount of time at safe anchorages to protect them from unnecessary loss, the primary fear being submarine attack, which became a greater and greater threat as the war ground on. Despite their effective use of the aircraft carrier through the first six months of the war, the carrier being the main source of power projection was not understood by the higher command structure. Younger officers like Minoru Genda well understood the importance of airpower in naval engagements, and was to have said the battleship force was useful for little more than building piers with, but even Yamamoto held the belief that the war would be won by a decisive battle fought by their battleship forces (note the powerful battle force he was sailing in during the battle of Midway, though he was three hundred miles to the east of the actual fighting). This was true up until Midway, when the American carrier forces so devastated the Japanese without ever providing an opportunity for a surface action. After Midway it was clear that the carrier was the key element of power projection, and the Japanese changed their ideas about supporting their remaining carrier forces. Your thoughts about fuel concerns were certainly a factor as the war dragged on, but the assertion that the battleship was obsolete (though largely true) would have made the admiralty cringe. It was not an idea that they could readily accept, or overtly plan with that as the guiding principle. I believe the lead was better as it was. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"In order to maintain parity with United States naval air arm, the Fourth Naval Replenishment Program of FY 1939 authorized the construction of a new fleet carrier named TAIHO. The Third Vinson Plan (i.e. Fleet Expansion Bill) passed in 1940 authorized already three new carriers and in response the Fifth Replenishment Program was hastily drawn up in Japan." http://www.combinedfleet.com/kojinshavolume6.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.23 ( talk) 11:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The following are a number of different sources that essentially speak of the gradual realization by naval commanders that the war would be a carrier dominated war. This was true for the commands of both the United States and Japan, but the point was brought home harshly to the USN at Pearl Harbor, and to Japan six months later at Midway.
from Garzke, William; Dulin, Robert. Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. United States Naval Institute. p. 3.
ISBN
0870211013. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help)
"... however, it was not until December 1941 when the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sunk by Japanese aircraft in the South China Sea and the American battlefleet was severely damaged at Pearl Harbor that the importance of the battleship was seriously questioned." p. 3
"In June of 1942, after the loss of four fleet carriers in the Battle of Midway, the Japanese decided to convert warship #110 to an aircraft carrier to be named Shinano. " p. 78
"The Fifth Fleet Replenishment Program: Five more capital ships were projected by this program - three battleships and two battlecruisers." p. 84
"The last two ships projected in the 1942 program, Warships No. 798 and 799, were to have been battleships of a new design armed with 510mm/45 caliber guns. This was consistent with the Japanese policy of individual superiority, since the Japanese expected the United States would learn the actual armament of the Yamato-class ships when they became operational." p. 85
---
from Fontenoy, Paul (2006). Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated History of their Impact. ABC-CLIO.
ISBN
185109573. {{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help):
"During the 1930's more senior naval officers began advocating a larger role for carriers. They envisaged carrier aircraft forming the first line of the fleet's defense and dominating its offensive operations, with battleships and auxiliary warships operating in support of the carriers. Over the course of the six years of World War II, their vision became reality as aircraft carriers supplanted battleships, becoming the new capital ship of the world's fleet." p. 67
"Unlike the Imperial Japanese Navy, the United States Navy made major efforts to increase the numbers of its pilots and establish training programs that would meet the requirements of a major war well before the conflict came." p. 94
---
from Parshall, Jonathan (2005). Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway. Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books.
ISBN
1-57488-923-0. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help):
"Thus, the Japanese believed that bringing greater fire power to bear at decisive ranges they would be able to defeat more numerous opponents. The seeds of this dogma had already been planted during the Navy's formative years, as the Japanese naturally adopted the policies of their mentors, the Royal Navy, which advocated an aggressive attitude toward naval engagements. But Tsushima cemented the notion that that big guns were the final arbiter of any naval encounter, a belief further reinforced by the clash of heavily armed battle lines at Jutland." p. 404
If you wish to discuss it further you are welcome to comment on my talk page. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 00:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What is with the last sentences? It says it is one of the most popular diving sites, and then that "diving resumed after a hiatus...". Perhaps some mention of what hiatus, when it started, and why would help make this statement more relevant? .45Colt 19:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This article used to be in British English ("armour", "defence") but now seems to be in USEnglish. Why was it changed? -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 11:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The battleships expended as nuclear targets in Operation Crossroads (Arkansas, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Nagato) were the only surviving combat battleships of their classes. Arkansas' sister (Wyoming) had been repurposed as a gunnery experimental ship. New York's sister (Texas) had been retired as a war ememorial. The sisters of Nevada and Pennsylvania (Oklahoma and Arizona) were the permanent battleship loses in the Pearl Harbor attack. Nagato's sister (Mutsu) had accidentally exploded in harbor. As the orphan survivors of their classes, they were expendable. But the battleship fleet at Operation crossroads was the third largest battleship fleet in the world at that time, which I found interesting. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I added this photo to Commons recently. Someone just told me that it's the Nagato.
. Can anyone confirm that, and if it is, should the pic be used in the article? -- GravityIsForSuckers ( talk) 19:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)