Talk:Japanese battleship Yamato

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese battleship Yamato article.
Article policies

An event in this article is a April 7 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Contents

[edit] Fate of the crew?

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

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)

[edit] Space Battleship Yamato

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

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

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

[edit] Evolving

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

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

[edit] Article name

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

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

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

[edit] Too much anime

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Zipang"

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

[edit] Yamato's design

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

If I recall corectly, the Japanese started the design specifically to counter the threat of US battleships fitted with 405mm main guns; to this respect, saying that they had the Iowa class in mind is defendable... Of course the "all respect" thing is always very hard to maintain :p Overall, I think the version you suggest is a good one, if nobody objects you can go for it !
(hint: you can sign your name with "~~~~")Rama 08:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've added my name. Thanks, Rama. This is my first time posting, so I don't really know what I'm doing yet! --TomTheHand 19:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
You seem to catch on pretty well ! ;) Don't hesitate to ask if you have trouble, and have fun ! Rama 20:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nobody seems to have objected, so I've gone ahead and made the minor edit. --TomTheHand 04:38, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

Yes, the Yamato was the largest battleship ever built, but much larger warships have been built since then (American aircraft carriers). The last battleship was built over 50 years ago. TomTheHand 17:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether some languages will not make "battleship" ambiguous for foreign readers; in English, "battleship" as the sense of "big heavily armoured warship", and is identified with "capital ship" up to the 1930s, but not completely afterward, and I suppose that it is safe to say that this role is not given to aircraft carriers, strategic nuclear submarines, or large missile cruisers (depending on the Navy). Just idle musing over the latest question :p Rama 17:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Battleships are a specific type of warship, just as "cruiser," "submarine," or "aircraft carrier" are specific types of warship. Even native English speakers who unfamiliar with naval vessels will sometimes use "battleship" and "warship" interchangeably, but it is incorrect to do so. Perhaps the way to go is to wikify "battleship" so that people can click over to the battleship article and learn what a battleship is. I'm going to do that. TomTheHand 18:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
"Battleship" is already wikified, so never mind! ;-) TomTheHand 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I was also interested in the "superior to any USN ship likely to use the Panama Canal" part; in WWII, the USA was actively working to construct a third, and larger, set of locks in the canal, mainly to be able to move new, larger battleships such as the Montana class battleships. I wonder if they also had in mind ships with 18" guns. Yamato would easily have fit in the new locks, which were scrapped after the war. — Johantheghost 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yamato pre-dates plans to expand the Panama canal. Therefore, there is no contradiction in stating that she was designed to be superior to Panamax battleships. TomTheHand 21:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the ballistic information gathered on the Iowa class and the Yamoto class main batteries, the actual penetrating capabilities were superior for the Iowa class guns. The reports can be found in several issues of Warship International along with all of the math and diagrams associated with the results. Part of the problem comes in with the issue of which 16" gun and munitions the original design was planned to overcome - the original design as available (to the IJN planners) when Yamoto was planned, was not that which the Iowa ships were fitted. Nor were the AP shells the same, nor the propellents, The caliber of the guns made enough of a difference, when combined with the improved gunpowder charges, that the Iowa guns were superior in penetrating power, if not in range. Another factor is that the Yamoto had 6 main guns compared with 9 on the Iowas. And, there were 4 compared to 2 ships per class. In actual usage, that would typically translate to a tremendous weight advantage for the American ships - a ship vs ship battle with no other factors would have been non-existent. So, while they were designed to be superior to (then) existing American designs, they were not superior to the Iowas. Various comparisons can be found in Warship International. The secondary battery is another issue, but that's not what is being discussed. RSW
Just a couple of nit-picks: First, the Yamatos had 9 main guns, the same as the Iowas. Second, it is not clear-cut which gun offered greater penetrating capabilities; according to Nathan Okun's formulas (http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.htm) Yamato's guns offer superior belt penetration at all ranges and superior deck penetration at ranges less than 34,000 yards or so. At greater distances, deck penetration is so great that Yamato's small deficit is irrelevant; either gun would penetrate. In addition, Yamato's higher muzzle velocity offers greater range and lower time in flight for a given range.
It is almost certainly true that Iowa's guns were more efficient than Yamato's, and a ship could likely mount 12 16"/50s for the weight of 9 46 cm/45s and be better off for it. However, on a barrel-for-barrel basis Yamato's guns were more powerful than Iowa's.
I'm not sure that the 4 Iowas vs 2 Yamatos comparison is valid; that only happened between April and October of 1944. Between August 1942 and February 1943, there were two Yamatos and zero Iowas.
I kind of took this and ran with it, but I shouldn't have. I guess I'm wondering what the point is. The article doesn't state that the Yamatos were superior to the Iowas; that was removed over a year and a half ago. They were more powerful than the Iowas in many ways, main armament being one of them, but inferior in perhaps more important ways (secondary armament, fire control, cost, speed). The Yamatos were most definitely designed by the Japanese to be superior to any ship that they felt the Americans were likely to produce. Whether they were superior or not is a separate issue; superiority on an individual basis was what the designers specifically set out to achieve. TomTheHand 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) dude this is about blowen the other ship out of the water not cost!--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yamato Name

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

Hmmm a quick dig around the net reveals that this is the only place that makes that claim. Can anyone provide a source for that statement ? There are a sizeable number of alternate possibilities Yamato. Still I wouldn't rule it out: USS Virginia. Megapixie 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The name, according to the sources I've seen, was taken from a formal, "mystical" reference to Japan, or an ancient name. Trekphiler 11:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Yamato is the heart of ancient Japan (just like "France" can refer to the area surrounding Paris, "Ile de France"), so it makes some sense. Also, though it might look strange to Westerners, Japanese ships were typically names after regions, mountains or natural elements, rather than after people or features ("Dreadnought"). Rama 12:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Anyone interested in this subject should read Bill Lise's article on the subject at http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-098.htm. Spventi 03:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
According to several books i read years ago(which is why i sadly cant recall which ones), the class is in fact the Musashi-class but has been commonly misnamed Yamato-class due to it being the ship finished first. DW75

90.227.204.204 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Readability and overall content

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

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

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

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

Spventi, welcome to Wikipedia. As a general rule, it is ok to be BOLD in updating pages. Also, there is already a Yamato class battleship article which is very short, and could use some more info. There is a lot of info in this article which is probably more appropriately placed in the article about the entire class.
There are also a lot of users who take Japanese pages (and other languages) and translate them for the English Wikipedia. You may want to check out the Japan Topics Notice Board. Neier 05:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and advice. I'll go ahead and revise this article as well as expand the Yamato class battleship stub. Spventi 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] main gun calibre

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

a piddling difference surely - but put that there is discrepancy about it in the article as a note. GraemeLeggett
Actually, I disagree about putting the discrepency in the article. All the Japanese material I have ever seen says 46 cm. Surely the 457 figure comes from converting 18 inches into millimeters. I could be wrong, but I'm reasonably sure that 46 cm is the official nominal size. Spventi 10:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Could it not be something related to the diametre of the projectiles and the inner diametre or the barrels ? Rama 12:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Spventi. All of the really technical sources I've read listed the guns as 46cm or 460mm. I think 457mm is just a conversion from the misconception that the Yamatos carried "eighteen inch guns." TomTheHand 13:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun caliber

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

The above statement is a good example of just how difficult this subject is. By "the Japanese," do you mean the entire country or are you speaking specifically of the Imperial Japanese Navy? Japan ratified the Convention du Metre in 1886, but a law passed in 1891 made traditional Japapnese units the standard. The English system was also officially adopted in 1909, so there were three different standards in use until a bill making metric the sole standard was passed in 1921. See <http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm#japan> for more detail.
But the question that is really difficult to answer is: "What units were used in the design of IJN ordnance in general and the Yamato's guns in particular?"
I agree with 147.240.236.9 that many of these measurements were conversions from inches, but the Yamato's 46 cm guns were not designed until the '30s. (In other words, well after conversion to the metric system) Furthermore, many Japan naval officers were trained in France and often used the Japanese word sanchi to refer to the size of naval ordnance (instead of the standard word for centimeters, senchi), so it seems to me that most IJN design work after 1921 was probably done in centimeters, and numbers that were conversions were probably for ordnance that was purchased from Britian or the US. This is obviously speculation on my part, however, and I have yet to find any corroborating documentation. Spventi 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Ships it destroyed?

How many and what ships did it destroy?

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

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

Funny, I was going to ask the same question - I'm borrowing that book from the library to find out. Krupo 01:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Finally got the book, reading through; the Gambier Bay is the name of the American escort carrier that sank in the battle. It was hit by seemingly all the Japanese ships (too many to count). It was in the battle off Samar that the Yamato first fired its guns at enemy ships. Being the tallest ship in the battle, it had the greatest visual range, not to mention the most powerful guns. p. 360 of the book says it fired the first salvo of the battle. American destroyers Hoeel and Johnston also sank in the battle, as well as the Destroyer Escort Samuel B. Roberts. The Yamato probably scored hits on some of those four sihps - finally answers the question as much as possible. Krupo 08:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auxillary rudder

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

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

Unless the auxiliary rudder is too small and poorly located to steer your ship, as was the case here. TomTheHand 13:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the term "auxiliary" is a mischaracterization, since it implies that the smaller rudder might have been used "in conjuction" with the main rudder. That was not the case, however; it was really an "emergency rudder" for use only if the main rudder was disabled. Unfortunately, it proved useless when tested. Spventi 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machine-gunning of survivors

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

I am inclined to delete it because:

1) It is undocumented hearsay.

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

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

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

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

This is a bit contradictory :
1) We do have a reference (Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, 301.)
2) Two wrongs do not make one right, and certainly do not cancel the event
3) The article legitimately details the ship and connex topics like "Trivia". As such, I find the alleged straffing of the crew more relevant than posterior anime.
4) Is is relevant to Operation Ten-Go, and even more to the Yamato. Besides, this point pretty much cancels points 1) and 2). Rama 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
What is contradictory? There is NO mention of the Hara book in the Yamato article. The fact that you happen to know of a reference does not mean that the article is properly referenced. So, what we have at the moment is an ungrammatical sentence that was tacked onto the end of paragraph and "looks" like little more than vandalism. My concern here is to maintain proper editorial standards for this article, and references to "alleged" incidents have no place in encyclopedia articles UNLESS they can be properly documented. So keep your moronic "two wrongs do not make a right" moralizing to yourself, thank you.
Spventi 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Spventi, keep it civil. :) --Piet Delport 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes sir, commander Piet Delport. Actually, considering the time and effort that a few of us have made trying to build a consensus about how to handle the issue of properly referencing the comment in question, I'd say that your insistence on repeatedly deleting the link without discussing why is the least civil of all. Especially since now I have to go back and for the third time add the needs citation note again.
Thanks so much for your help in finding an amicable solution to this problem.
Spventi 09:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, "without discussing why"? For your convenience, i will repeat the comments and discussion in the edit log here:
2006-05-19, Piet Delport
the paragraph already opens with a link to that article; there's no need to link it again (and *definitely* no need to do it as an external link)
2006-05-20, Denniss (talk · contribs)
Rev, no internal wikilinks as weblinks, no weblinks inside articles unless really needed, no need to link to Operation Ten-Go twice from the same paragraph
2006-05-21, Piet Delport
Please, there is really no need to duplicate the link to Operation Ten-Go twice in the same paragraph. Please refer to WP:MOS-L, which explains Wikipedia's linking guidelines.
Anyway, back to the real issue: As i've already explained in the response on my user talk page, while it's great that you want to add better citation, this article is not the right place for it. (It's only one passing mention inside a summary paragraph; if you copied in citations for everything else the summary mentions, it would be drowned in them, and distract from an article that's supposed to be primarily about the ship, not the battle.) A much better place for the full citation is the main article about the battle, Operation Ten-Go, which the paragraph in question already references. Will you be willing to move the tag there? --Piet Delport 14:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It's clear from your comments that you have not completely read this section or participated in the consensus building here, which is what I meant by "without discussing why." If you had read this section, you would know that I myself have already made the comment that this article is about the ship not the battle and that the Operation Ten-Go article contains an objectively stated dicussion of the issue that is properly referenced, which is why a footnote pointing there was added.
The correct way to do this is to add here the same footnote and bibiliographic information used in Operation Ten-Go article, although I really don't care to do that myself since I am in favor of removing the statement altogether from this article. Other people have expressed the opinion that the statement should be included; however, and a footnoot pointing to the Operation Ten-Go article seemed like a decent compromise even if it was a bit irregular.
Btw, not to whip a dead horse, but if you still don't see the need for a citation here, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your facts. The statement in question is a serious allegation of a war crime, and should be treated carefully.
Spventi 21:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Spventi, i assure you, i have read the relevant discussion in this section, and i'm quite familiar with Wikipedia's citation guidelines. I agree with you completely that it's a serious statement requiring citation, but duplicating the same citation for both the main article and this summary paragraph is senseless. Similarly, it's entirely unnecesary to duplicate the same link to Operation Ten-Go twice within the same summary paragraph to make a reference. --Piet Delport 22:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If it can be backed up by a source it should be included. It's a warcrime. If it was the Japanese or Germans machine gunning people in the water - I'm pretty certain it would be included. Megapixie 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to including it. But as it stands, it "looks" like vandalism. Doesn't that bother you? It bothers me.
Spventi 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added the "citation needed". I agree that it does read like it's "tacked on" - but it probably needs to be expanded into a complete sentence / paragraph, rather than being removed. But I don't have a copy of the source mentioned - and I can't find anything on the net to back it up. Megapixie 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is properly referenced in the Operation_Ten-Go article, so I see no problem with adding that reference to this article, too. I disagree with including it in this article, however, because 1) this article does not go into that level of detail and 2) the incident is described and documented quite properly in the Operation_Ten-Go article, so I feel that there is no need to duplicate that content here. That is just my opinion, though, and if other people think it should be included, so be it. If it is included, however, the entire Combat section ought to be expanded to include that level of detail.
Spventi 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I think it's better to keep it in both places. It does concern the final fate of the ship, and it's not a long section, and overall the article isn't too long. Keep for completeness. Megapixie 22:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree, but, I think you feel more strongly about it than I do, for whatever reason. Cla68 04:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I support the retention of the "machine-gunned" comment. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of recent move

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

Sorry, that was me being stupid. I was rewriting Yamato, and for some reason or another, I thought that moving this page would make the disambiguation page flow better. Actually, looking back on my "reason" to move this page, it never should have been done -- I should have read the section in the MOS within the disambiguation! I should next time check the talk page before moving pages. Lesson learned. Sorry for any inconvienences my error has caused. If any of you wish to yell/scold/ask questions, please see my talk page. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 10:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Better to make a mistake and learn from it than to do nothing! --Piet Delport 10:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yamato's Sinking Possible Due To American Kamikaze's?

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

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

[edit] Really a suicide mission?

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

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

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

[edit] Crew size?

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

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

[edit] External Links

I added a subtle note to show that one external link has..ahem..lifted content from this entry. I didn't delete the reference as it does add a few photographs. TarenCapel

[edit] WP:MILHIST Assessment

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

[edit] Survivor count inconsistency

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

[edit] yamato banner help

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

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

[edit] Who was actually credited with the sinking of the Yamato?

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

[edit] Move text

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

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

[edit] Removed reference in Legacy section?

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

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

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

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