Talk:Imperial Japanese Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imperial Japanese Navy 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. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Imperial Japanese Navy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 28, 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
More information... P:WAR This article has been selected for the War Portal featured article queue.
Related task forces... Japanese military history task force Maritime warfare task force World War II task force

	Imperial Japanese Navy is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Oishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Pre-Modern Japanese Studies Mailing List Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

I edited this page on April 30 by nadding a new paragraph. It still needs to be finished and internal Wikipedia links need to be added. If you are adding to the new paragraph, please try to mention some of the combat episodes the IJN experienced in WW II. Also, perhaps we could create a paragrap (or new article) on the technology of the IJN.

Contents 1 Admiral Yi 2 The "Characters for 'Imperial Japanese Navy' " image 3 Hat off 4 Netherlands 5 Slight reorder 6 "great difficulty in developing new and more competitive designs during the war" 7 Satsuma vs. Dreadnought error 8 Mass obsolescence?

[edit] Admiral Yi

I added the fact that Admiral Yi was the deity of the navy. Is something wrong with that? Here is my site:

• http://www.e-paranoids.com/y/yi/yi_sun_sin.html

Many other sites say the exact same thing, and I know that Wikipedia once had the same statement posted. -Wikimachine-

You are wrong. I have read that before battle of Tsushima, admiral Togo visited Yi's mousoleum and prayed for victory. That's all. Each of major IJN ships had a small altar dedicated to Amaterasu. --Ypacaraí 00:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I serched for the story of Adm.Yi and Adm.Togo, and found above episode (Adm.Togo prayed to Adm.Yi) is baseless. There are other legends on relation of those admirals but generally they are baseless. --Ypacaraí 04:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Since the Yi Sunshin utterance of Admiral Togo does not have a basis, it desires to delete from the text. (There is no record in all the points of the time of an utterance, a place, an object, and a recording medium, and it inquires with creation from a novel. An utterance does not exist in the quotation sauce of the text, either.)Yasumi 06:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Let's clear some stuffs out, my fellow Ypacarai.

• "Each of major IJN ships had a small altar dedicated to Amaterasu" does not prove my statement wrong.

• You do not have any evidences to support your argument (but I do), and, therefore (this is to all other Wikipedians as well), until you have found evidence to disprove my claim, leave what I have edited alone. -Wikimachine-

See Talk:Yi Sun-sin --Ypacaraí 22:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi Wikimachine. Any Wikipedian has the right to challenge what you write, and ask you to back-up your claims. Can you provide a few more independent proof (beyond Korean sites, which might be biased on such a subject)? Regards. PHG 22:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The "Characters for 'Imperial Japanese Navy' " image

Since this navy does not exist after 1947, isn't it better that one used the "Kyujitai" (see the characters near the top of the article) there instead, which is the form used before 1947? The characters in the image would not have been used at all at the time of the army's existence. -- KittySaturn 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for the comment. PHG 12:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hat off

Whoever wrote this page, good work. I'm impressed. FWBOarticle

Same here. Very nice and detailed article. The image-work is fantastic. Aaрон Кинни (t) 13:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netherlands

I changed the use of Holland in "(especially Southeast Asian oil and raw materials) that were far away, and controlled by foreign countries (Britain, the United States and Holland)" in the paragraph of interwar years into "the Netherlands" as that is the only correct name of this nation or it's predecessors! check the Netherlands naming conventions for more information--Ameer™ 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight reorder

May I suggest that the "Japanese Military" template be moved from "See Also" to the top of the page, as it is on the Imperial Japanese Army page. It includes ensign of the Japanese Navy, though smaller.

I didn't want to change it without asking for other's opinions, due to the article's featured status.--Lewk_of_Serthic 02:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sir Lewk. It's kind of a clumsy, incomplete template box, and above all non-standard (there's somewhere a Wiki definition for template boxes as having to be strictly chronological and so on). Since it exists, it is a plus, but I suggest we should rather keep it at the bottom of the page. Regards. PHG 03:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "great difficulty in developing new and more competitive designs during the war"

I read in a book on WW II Japanese aircraft that, almost like Germany, they did develop advanced airplanes but were not able to produce them in large quantities. (Germany charted out the whole coourse of Cold War aircraft.) They did have jet engines and high speed fighters. There seems to have been very little gasoline toward the end, so little that the US took the defensive armament off the B 29 (an aircraft that was in mass scale production with known weaknesses). 03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Maybe we could add a line on these special weapon developments. PHG 06:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on jet-propulsion aircraft development, particularly the Nakajima Kikka. PHG 08:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if memory serves, the B-29 didn't have to have a lot of firepower because it flew high enough that it was out of range of most japanese defensive aircraft. Raul654 09:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satsuma vs. Dreadnought error

This page incorrect in stating that the battleship Satsuma was the first 'all-big-gun' warship to be designed, laid down, and (it seems to suggest) launched in the world, and glaringly wrong in charging that she preceded the Dreadnought by a year. As is noted on Dreadnought's page, she was ordered in 1905, laid down on October 2, 1905, and launched on February 10, 1906. Meanwhile, the page for Satsuma shows that she was designed (and presumably ordered) in 1904, laid down in May, 1905, and launched on the 15th November, 1906 - and not completed until March 1910.

Now, the Royal Navy is hardly likely to order a ship that has yet to be designed (in fact, designs for 'all-big-gun' warships had been floating around for quite a while by this point), so we may presume that the design for Dreadnought existed prior to her 1905 order date - which it infact did; next, while Satsuma was laid down before Dreadnought, the difference between the two dates is less then 5 months, not a year; thirdly, as is shown elsewhere on this very website (and backed up in print) Dreadnought was launched 9 months before Satsuma; finally, while Dreadnought was commissioned into service in December, 1906, while Satsuma wasn't even completed until March of 1910.

Given this, exactly how did the author of this article come to the conclusion that Satsuma was "the first ship in the world to be designed and laid down as an "all-big-gun" battleship, one year before the British HMS Dreadnought"? This is misleading at best, and is otherwise downright false.

It is a shame that such an inaccurate piece of information could exist within a featured article. I would change the entry myself, but that seemed like the sort of thing that might start an argument, so I'm leaving it up to the author or other editors to work out what to do with this.

Rik

Thanks for the comments. So the Satsuma was ordered about one year before the Dreadnought (I don't have the exact months yet), and therefore also apparently designed about one year before (since, as you point out, designs normally precede orders), especially as the British Navy only moved in reaction to foreign interest in "All big gun battleships": "Aware of developments abroad, the commitee concluded quickly; design was rushed and the keel laid down in October 1905" Jane's Battleships p100), and laid-down 5 months before. So a more exact wording would be something like "Satsuma was "the first ship in the world to be designed and laid down as an "all-big-gun" battleship, about one year before the British HMS Dreadnought", although I agree the "concept" of all-big guns had been around since 1903 (Cuniberti concept). Regards PHG 21:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass obsolescence?

I recently read that, by the early 1940s, the Japanese fleet was experiencing "mass obsolescence", ie a significant proportion of its fleet was becoming out-dated at the same time (destroyers were a particular example). Given the strategy of qualitative advantage, this would have been serious. The article doesn't refer to this, so is it a valid point? Folks at 137 08:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be an interesting fact. Would you have a few references? I suppose it was not the case for aircraft carriers, and for destroyers, I think they were actually at the forefront in the 30s (and were the quite efficient tactical workhorse of the Navy during the war, especially with torpedoes that were never surpassed) Regards PHG 09:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for the quotes. I did a quick rummidge through [1]: 70 of the Japanese destroyers in 1940 (approx) were 10+ years old (incl 20 Fubuki). Age isn't everything, but presumably they would not be up to date. According to Type 93 torpedo, "long-lance" was deployed in 1935: would the older destroyers be able to use it - did they? Folks at 137 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant text is in "The Second World War in the East" by H P Wilmott, pub 1999, pages 45-47. The author notes that "at the outbreak of the Pacific war the Imperial Navy was owner of 111 destroyers. Of this total thirty - the twelve Minekaze class members of the 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920 programmes, three Momi class members of the 1918 and 1920 programmes, six Wakatake class members of the 1921 programme and nine members of the Kamikaze clas programme ..." He goes on to detail another 31 destroyers from programmes in the 1920s and 1931. Wilmott points out that the modern Yugumo and Akizuki classes would only have replaced ageing units and overall numbers would actually decline, particularly worrying given US naval expansion. For a navy that sought its edge from quality, this was serious. He also points out that he found no documentary evidence to support an official "go-now-or-never" policy but "the reality is noted". Not sure of the situation with capital ships. Folks at 137 08:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)