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)

I'm please to see this many people respond to this issue, but I'd be obliged if some of y'all here could help to review the article for FAC. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One note: does the phrase "breaks the tie" mean literally breaking a Tie (draw) or does it mean that the editor's changes "break the tie" with the previous variant of English used? This is especially confusing to me because the prior section discusses "national ties". If the latter meaning were the case, then there would be a strong argument in favor of retaining American English in this article. If the former meaning - resolving a draw - is the case, then the MOS needs to be clarified. I have always read that policy to mean the second interpretation, and didnt even think of it as the former - which makes fine logical sense - until this discussion. Maybe I'm just that stupid (to be fair, I'm used to statutory interpretation, where a single word used in any given section is presumed to have the same meaning throughout the section). Cdtew (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I so often get "an imposition on otherwise productive editors" like this that I have long regarded it as situation normal. I understand how hard it is to try to write in another variety of English. You assume that the article was consistently in AmEng; but this is arguable, because it was still using the American military date format (day first), which we are only allowed to use that in AmEng articles on the modern American military (WP:STRONGNAT). Strict adherence to WP:ENGVAR keeps the Military History Project on the moral high ground, which makes it easier to defend our articles against the bots and trolls. And while a loose adherence to the MOS is normally okay, we cannot do that in a featured article, because one of the FAC requirements is that it does adhere to the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a gigantic and unneeded storm in a teacup that I'm surprised anyone actually has a problem with. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Hawkeye, as you can see from my edited comment above, I realize I've likely been misinterpreting ENGVAR anyways. Didn't mean the "imposition" comment to seem petulant, and as most people who've reviewed my work can likely attest, I try to be extremely accommodating. I just think its too arbitrary of a rule (and poorly written - see above) but that's probably best reserved for a commentary on the MOS itself, which - given how those discussions go, I'm not going near. Cdtew (talk)

• Thanks for all the comments; of course it does not matter in the big scheme of things, but MoS compliance is one of the criteria for FA and it is quite easy to check. I'm glad it is taken care of now; I finished (I think) the work Hawkeye started. --John (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO If a ship from a non-English locality is involved in fighting only with British forces, then use British English, if it is involved in fighting only with American fores, then use American English. There are actual WP:TIES due to engagement in battle against forces using one type of English or another. If the ship is involved in fighting amongst multiple English using forces, for which there are multiple English variants, then use one of those variants, and not some other English dialect which has no ties to the ship. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that if a French ship fought an American ship that the article about the French ship should be in AmEng, but rather whatever the editor is most comfortable with. ENGVAR and Ties primarily exist to keep people from constantly edit warring over their preferred variant, but some people place too much weight on them, IMO, and your interpretation leads me to suspect that you are one of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If a French ship fought a British ship, then the French ship is a part of British military history, if the only English using forces it fought against were British, then per TIES, it should use British, and not Australian English. I believe your interpretation implies that the French ship is not part of British military history. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Anon -- it should neither be British English or American English that describes the ship, but French English! "Ze magneefecent French sheep bombarded ze stupid British boat until zey surrendered like cowards." Cdtew (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to sprinkle phrases like "perfidious Albion" throughout the article as well if it was a defeated French ship! And biftek!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you don't think that such ships would constitute part of the military histories of the countries that fought with them. That's a disappointingly narrow view on how small a nation's military history is. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but the strongest tie that a ship has is to its longest-term owner. And if that's a non-Anglosphere nation then the first editor to write about the ship gets to make the call as which variant of English to use. This is me, disappointing people yet again!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Named after?

"Miyamoto Musashi ... was a ronin, a kind of Japanese knight-errant, and a master of the long-sword. ...[I]n the 20th century they named the largest battleship ever built (and probably the largest that ever will be) after him."

So, which was it? This doesn't seem like the best source, but it seems more likely than a "historical province". Any thoughts? --John (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

See Japanese ship-naming conventions and I've now cited it. Good catch, I thought that I'd done that earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I see, so this source is incorrect. I thought it sounded unlikely. Thanks for providing a source and for the background article. --John (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Direction of final capsize

Padfield (p 287) has Musashi rolling "suddenly to port" before sinking following her increasing starboard list. Is this plausible? --John (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Her final list was to port so, yeah, it's correct, but kinda pointless detail, don't you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath/impact/legacy

I'd like to see something in the article about what the overall impact of the ship's career and its final battle were. Even if this is quite short and quite negative I think it should be there. I don't think I feel strongly about this to oppose FA over it, buit I do think it is fairly important. --John (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not something that the sources usually cover. Ship histories are far more focused on the technical and operational side than analyzing the ship's significance or impact. If there is something mentioned, I usually cover it, like with HMS Hood.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be able to include a sentence from an author speculating about Musashi's huge cost vs. its negligible impact in any major battle, and there is a bit of cultural legacy in the class article (though I don't think that should be repeated here). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, In popular culture was definitely not what I meant. I need to reread my book; as I recall he has Musashi successfully drawing the US forces out but then the other Japanese force not being able to take advantage. Essentially the ship's sacrifice was futile. --John (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since there's no specific history of Musashi herself, the sorts of comments that Ed mentions would be about the ships of the class and better off in the class article, IMO. Something like Hood was easy because she was the only ship of her class completed.

A quick glance at the Battle of Leyte Gulf article should suffice as the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, where Musashi was sunk, was a day before the most of the other battles in the overall battle like Samar, Surigao Strait and Cape Engano and had little to no effect on the conduct of the campaign itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Artillery Caliber

"Musashi's main battery consisted of nine 45-calibre 46 cm (18.1 in) Type 94 guns"

Is this supposed to mean that the barrels were ~21 meters (45x46) long? I think the sentence could be clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.142.50 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent times

There's a small inconsistency near the end: "At 19:30 her list reached 12 degrees and her crew was ordered to prepare to abandon ship, which they did fifteen minutes later [at 19:45?] when the list reached 30 degrees. Musashi capsized at 19:36" -- John of Reading (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

American forces

If the ship "did not come in contact with American forces", then how was "Musashi ...sunk by an estimated 19 torpedo and 17 bomb hits from American carrier aircraft" ?

The planes are most certainly "American forces." Therefore, my correction of "did not come in contact with American surface forces" should not have been reverted. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Kanji name

I saw this:大和 in the first line. This is not read as Musashi, but Yamato, right?

My2ndAngelic (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

now corrected. --MChew (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wreck of Musashi Discovered

We may want to brace for a flurry of updates. The wreck of the Musashi was just discovered, and the photographs are currently being uploaded onto Paul G. Allen's Twitter. Already two photographs have been uploaded, one of the bow and another of a valve. Twitter feed can be found here. https://twitter.com/PaulGAllen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.171.185 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

Doing a count of the torpedo's that were launched and hit i counted 22 confirmed not 19

AngelaDarcwill (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

Insert space, first sentence, second paragraph, Design and Description section:

Musashihad a length of 244 metres

108.171.131.188 (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Already done Another user has already fulfilled this request. Thank you for noticing. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

redundant typo in introduction

Read this sentence from the article carefully, to see the redundancy "and armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 inch) 46 Centimeter Type 94 main guns. Neither ship survived the war."

98.118.62.140 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

contradictory specification in body of article ?

Read this from the article: "Musashi '​s main battery consisted of nine 45-calibre 46 cm (18.1 in) Type 94 guns ". Based on my limited understanding of naval weapons nomenclature, I am uncertain if this contains errors, but I think it does.

98.118.62.140 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Caliber means both shell diameter and the ratio between shell diameter and barrel length. See caliber (artillery)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

Please provide the following wikilink (in 'Discovery' section):  ROV → Remotely operated underwater vehicle 71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: current link (Remotely operated vehicle) is a disambiguation page (but is not labeled as such).   Please change link to: Remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROUV).  71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So where is Allen's discovery located?

There are currently two different positions given for the ship (13°07′N 122°32′E and 12°50′N 122°35′E) but the location of Paul Allen's discovery is not. Allen's location is apparently in a different place since the depth is different. If for some reason the location was not disclosed, the fact should be noted. Does no one know where it is? __209.179.16.230 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sinking location is often different than wreck location as ship often drift before hitting bottom. Somebody will add the location once Allen announces it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just curious - why the delay in announcing the location? It's not a secret. I remember the excitement when the location of my great uncle's submarine location was announced. I would have thought the location would have been announced when the discovery was reported. __209.179.16.230 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No idea; perhaps he doesn't want to be pestered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There are all sorts of laws and protocols that apply to naval wrecks and war graves (of which, lets all remember, this is one) and it may not be possible/sensible to disclose the location at present. I imagine that a service will be conducted for the families of the men killed in the sinking above the wreck site in the near future. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unit presentation style

My recent attempts to make this article use a consistent unit presentation style in accordance with WP:MOSNUM have been reverted, with the (I think, spurious) justification that as a featured article, it must ipso facto be MOS-compliant already. But the ultimate justification given by the reverting editor related to source-based units, a concept which has repeatedly been proposed and rejected on MOS talk. What is the correct unit presentation style, and why? Archon 2488 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Explosion after sinking

The article notes that Musashi likely broke apart after her sinking, and alludes to that being due to an explosion. While I doubt speculation is appropriate for the discovery part of the article, would it be ok to include the current theory on the cause of this explosion? While no evidence points to this explicitly, it's theorized that as Musashi sank, her boilers exploded after coming in contact with the relatively cold water rushing in; and that explosion is what blew the ship apart. Boiler explosions in ships were a common event during sinking, and could even lead to a ship being ripped apart. One perfect example of the power of a ship board boiler explosion is found in the Lusitania, which as a result of her boilers detonation, sank far faster than the damage she sustained from the torpedo attack should have allowed for. I was thinking of something along the lines of: While the exact cause of the underwater explosion is not currently known, or may ever be known, it is theorized that Musashi's boilers exploded as she sank, and thus caused much of the damage visible in the mid-ship and engine room area. Boiler explosions could be particularly devastating on board a ship, as was demonstrated during the sinking of the Lusitania. (link to Lusitania article, and boiler explosion article.) It's just a thought, that's all. Kitsunedawn (will sign when I get off work)