Talk:Japanese battleship Musashi

Crew

taking more than 1023 of her 2399 crew with her; 1376 of the crew were rescued by the destroyers Kiyoshimo and Shimakaze.

If 1376 were rescued, how could "more than 1023" of a total 2399 have been lost? --Calair 04:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

1023 of her 2399 official crewmembers are listed as having gone down with her. She was, however, still carrying 134 survivors from Maya, which had sunk earlier. Of that total of 2533, 1376 were rescued - leaving 1157 casualities, including 1023 members of Musashi's own crew and the 134 from Maya. (It seems that the Maya survivors left at that point were the badly wounded ones, those that could be transported had been transferred to Shimakaze earlier. This might explain why none of them survived.)

Built on a Slipway?

I read somewhere (I think it was the book Axis and Neutral Battleships in WWII) that a slipway "was strengthened for Musashi". Was this ship built on a slipway? Yamato and Shinano were built in graving docks. Could something this heavy have been built on a slipway, and if it was, might have broken a record for largest ship built on a slip? This is a piece of info that the article needs. 173.65.239.63 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense about raising the Musashi

There's this nonsense section in the wikipedia article now about raising the musashi. Yes, there have been some articles in the Philippine press. But, they are in relation to ideas at this stage so fanciful and speculative that they should no more be in this article than national enquirer stuff about JFK should be in the JFK article. the idea of refloating the musashi fails so many basic sanity checks that this idea does not belong in wikipedia just because some bored journalist wrote a piece on the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.16.244 (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There are no authoritative sources of information for this story.Lostdistance (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the section to a single sentence about the initial report. If there is no confirmation of the report within (say) 6 months then I propose the section be removed.Lostdistance (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the current information is very important. I think you should have left it in. I did not put it back Michael R Wild (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dive to the wreck or video of it?

I know the sea is very deep where the Musashi sank (4000 deep, but unsure if that's meters or feet). However, did anyone find or explore the wreck? That would be nice info for the article. 195.70.32.136 08:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the wreck has never been found. It sank in water about 4,300 feet deep (1.3 km). Megapixie 09:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be an simple project for David Mearns, after his success with the Bismarck/Hood and Sydney/Kormoran searches, but somehow I don't think the Japanese or Filipino governments would be willing to finance even a small search. Grant | Talk 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Name origin

Was this ship named after Miyamoto Musashi? Siyavash 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The ships of the Yamato class carried the names of various ancient Japanese provinces. TomTheHand 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There was actually a third Yamato class battleship called Shinano that was converted into an aircraft carrier [which is odd because she never actually fought], and was sunk by a US sub in 1945. Cam 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right. You'll find a link to Shinano in the box at the bottom of the Musashi article. TomTheHand 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My father wrote a book "The Battle of Sibuyan Sea..." . He is a historian. The book has mentioned my father's estimated coordinate of where the Musashi sank. He has mentioned also the estimated location of the sunk Musashi in reference to an island in the Philippines. I can accompany any Japanese Organization interested to make a preliminary survey/video of the location. The organization should have a complete underwater video and gps facilities and also budget. From the island (birthplace of my parents), we can hire a pump-boat to locate the target area and make engineering observations. If anyone is interested please email me privately at: esfamatigan@yahoo.com . Please make a short introduction of yourself/ your organization. And please make a short discussion on why we need to cooperate on this project. Thanks. Ernesto S. Famatigan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.92.212 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese battleship Musashi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Well-written:

• Lead needs to be expanded to two paragraphs per WP:LEAD

Done. Cam ^(Chat) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'With each vessel of the Yamato class displacing well over 70,000 tons, it was hoped that the firepower of Musashi and her sister-ships could offset American industrial power' - Repeated use of 'Musashi and her sister-ships', please rephrase
• 'The keel of Musashi was laid down 29 March 1938 at Mitsubishi's Nagasaki shipyard, designated "Battleship No. 2"' - Unless the shipyard was designated that, it needs 'and was designated' before the name

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Should the launching date and the commissioning date be swapped to give the article a stable timeline? It's a tad confusing otherwise.
• 'Fifteen days later, acting on codes deciphered by Ultra, Yamamoto was killed while en-route from New Britain to Ballale.' - who was acting on codes?

fixed. American fighter squadrons. Cam ^(Chat) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'Transferring to Kure on 1 July 1943, Musashi drydocked the same day' - For us non-naval experts, can it be expanded upon what this means?
• 'The remainder of 1943 was spent in Truk Lagoon, with Captain Asakura Bunji assuming command of Musashi on 7 December 1943' - What happened to the other CO?

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'when she undocked on 22 April, Musashi's secondary battery was composed of six 6.1-inch guns, 12 5-inch guns, one hundred-thirty 25-mm guns, and four 13-mm machine-guns' - Capitalize first word

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'the counterattack planned for the American landings at Leyte.' - 'planned against the American landings at Leyte' sounds better

fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'On 24 October 1944, Kurita's centre force came under heavy air-attack by five separate strikes of American carrier task forces' - 'from' not 'of American carrier task forces'

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'Early in the assaults, American carrier pilots learned to capitalize on Musashi's structural weaknesses near the bow, heavily damaging the battleship in the first three raids' - What structural weaknesses? And can we expand at all on these attacks - when did they happen, for example, what aircraft were involved? Did the ship knock down any of her attackers?

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'Musashi sank at 19:36,[4] having taken some seventeen bomb and nineteen torpedoes hits.[17] 1,023 of her 2,399-man crew died in the sinking' - Okay, this needs a slight rewrite, it isn't really clear from the previous sentence that she took enough damage to sink. And again, was it the cumulative effect of the raids that did the ship in? Or one single hit, for example? Also, the last part: the crew numbers should really be mentioned at the start of the article as well, if you have them for when she was launched, and 'the sinking' doesn't sound right; 'when she sank' is better.

I will clarify this. It was just the cumulative effect of continual attacks and hits - the fact that it took 36 hits to sink her demonstrates her sheer protection capabilities. Cam ^(Chat) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Factually accurate and verifiable:

• 'Because of the vessel's size, the Nagasaki dockyards and construction equipment had to be heavily modified to fit Musashi's hull' - Not really a criticism, but do we have any further info on what these modifications were? I won't oppose on this, btw.

done. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• What was the ship named after?

It already mentions that in the lead. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Broad in its coverage:

• Now, I'm no expert in naval articles, but shouldn't this article have stuff on the ship's armaments, armour and other things like that? Is there any reason it doesn't? It just seems to me that the article is a tad bare-bones. But of course I'm not familiar with naval sources; is this all the information available on the ship?

My general plan was to put the majority of that information in the flagship article (Yamato class battleship). I had a blurb in Yamato's article which I've slightly modified and transferred to this article. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'Musashi lead a large fleet under Admiral Koga' - Wikilnik this Admiral if possible?

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'Almost immediately after leaving Palau, Musashi and her escorts were attacked by the TunnyTemplate:WP Ships USS instances, which fired six torpedoes at the battleship' - Can we fully wikilink Tunny, as it's not very clear what it is.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• One of your refs is missing a page number - please add it.

fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes that website a Reliable Site? And if it is, why isn't the info about the survivors being rescued and transferred to other areas been included?

See this. Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Passes

1. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Passes

1. Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Passes

This is a good article, but I feel the issues highlighted above need addressing before I can pass it as a Good Article. Skinny87 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm more than satisfied with these changes; I'll pass it as a Good Article now. Well done! Skinny87 (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hemp rope curtains

Hi, I've just reverted a reversion related to this fact. I don't have handy the reference where I'm now accessing Wikipedia, dut I've read about it in a japanese book about the Musashi (which is in english); I'll look for it and appropriately reference that fact.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Link for addition to the Battleship Musashi Wiki Page

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) 05:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

202.103.135.100 (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been going to pages correcting coords, but I'm not sure why this one needs correcting. The coords given at the top of the page agree with those at this source. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

But the infobox has different coords with a different source, pointing to a location about 20 miles away...

—WWoods (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-whack! TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 06:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the wreck doesn't appear to have been located, how worthwhile is it to provide GPS locations? Incidentally, I came across a third set of co-ordinates much closer to the coastline, but there was no source for the information. Mephistophelian (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Since both coordinates are sourced and both sources are potentially reliable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:SOURCES), a compromise would be to list both coordinates together in the Infobox, at least until the wreck is found or some other event more accurately qualifies the coordinates. BrainMarble (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The fate of Musashi's commanders

What happened to her last captain when she sank? hmssolent\Let's convene 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The wreck

Is the exact location where the battleship Musashi sank known? And, like in the case of the battleship Yamato, were there any attempts to visit the wreck site? 222.165.42.62 (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

AA-armament

In the infobox it is said that Musashi had 32 triple and 25 single 25mm AA-guns in 1944, but in File:Musashi1944.png there is 37 triples and two singles. Is the problem in the sources or in the picture? I have no account so i can't do anything for that.

If somebody fixes the fault I hope he does the some for article Japanese battleship Yamato which has a same problem with its picture File:Yamato1945.png. In case of Yamato the mistake is clearly coming from a source: The source Johnston and McAuley, p. 123 says that Yamato had 162 25mm guns 1944 onwards as her last AA-complement. But after spring 1944 it is said that amount of guns was increased twice, which was not possible if she had all those AA-guns already in spring. This can be proved by compareing photos of Yamato and from http://www.battleshipyamato.info/.--84.249.89.206 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Main Gun Size

There appears to be an error in the first paragraph in the statement that the Musashi had nine 46-inch (116.8 cm) main guns. I believe 46-cm (18.1-inch) is correct. Those numbers are stated in at least two other places in the article. Fred4570 (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, but only one in the lead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Notes

• I'd like to see more from Mark Stille (Imperial Japanese Navy Battleships) in the article, he confirms some things and adds details: - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• p. 42: On March 29 1944, the torpedo that hit made a 19-foot hole, letting in 3,000 tons of water.
• p. 42: "By May, Musashi rejoined Yamato at Lingga."
• p. 42: The June 10 operation was Operation Kon.
• p. 42: The ship was not damaged during the Battle of the Philippine Sea.
• p. 42: In the Battle of Leyte Gulf, "Musashi became the primary target"
• p. 43 "the remainder of Force "A" suffered relatively little." - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Japanese munition ship Kashino

As a note mainly to myself, this article should briefly note the unusual role of the Japanese munition ship Kashino in the construction of the ship. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR

I see this article was started in UK English. When and why was it changed? --John (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but Milhist editors in general (including Hawkeye7, who's Australian) prefer to use AmEng for the late stages of the Pacific War, since almost all the sources we use (including the reference in this article that was published in London) and almost all the editors involved use AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It was already in AmEng by Nov 2012. [1]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Editor preference isn't a valid exception to WP:ENGVAR. What should we do? As this is the second time this has come up recently I think it might be worth a discussion at project talk. Meantime I think this article should go back to UkEng, as that is our policy. Is that ok? --John (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. We're not responsible for the actions of earlier editors who switched it from BritEng to AmEng; we used the variety of English that we found it in and should not have to convert it back.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If project talk means WT:MIL, please do discuss it at project talk. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see WT:WikiProject_Military_history#Talk:Japanese_battleship_Musashi.23ENGVAR. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I approve of bringing this issue to a wider discussion. In the meantime it might be worth checking when improving an article which has no obvious ties to one of the major English-speaking countries (such as this one) which dialect it was originally written in so as to avoid this issue. --John (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I could care less about what form an article used when it was begun x years ago; I only care about what it had when I started work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see it was changed in 2005. --John (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the first non-stub version in 2004 had a mix of BrEng and AmEng. ENGVAR states that in this situation, the first post-stub edit that uses one variety breaks the tie, which in this case appears to be this edit from April 2005 that used "armour".

Nevertheless, so long as it's not a contentious issue (see, for instance, Rutabaga/Swede), is there actually a problem here? Is there truly any sense in reverting a change that was made eight years ago so we can slavishly follow a rule that has no real benefit in this particular case? Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think so, and no real value gained by changing. There's no strong ties to one variety of English here. I lean to using International English, since there are no strong ties to the U.S. that I can see. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is a very contentious issue. I've copedited it to British English. We don't want to be seen to support any violations of WP:ENGVAR in military articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, although I wish you'd devoted the time to something more productive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Stepping away from ENGVAR and ignoring all rules, shouldn't the practical rule be that the variant of English used should be whatever variant the person editing and substantially improving the article wants to use (if the subject matter indicates no inherent preference)? If Sturm and Dank want to use American English, they're the ones who've put the sweat equity into it to get it p to FAC. Not suggesting ownership, but not many editors are willing to put in the work to meticulously overhaul articles up to FAC quality, and this trifling issue shouldn't be a stumbling block. Cdtew (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, because then we would get into the situation where the next editor feels entitled to change it. The rule was put in to prevent edit wars over the English variant. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Hawkeye7, although I've been known to switch an article to AmEng if it only uses a few words of another variant and I'm going to be doing a major expansion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)