Talk:Design A-150 battleship

Related to H class?

Nazi Germany, ally of Imperial Japan, also planned a giant battleship with 20" guns. Perhaps these two parallel projects from two allied nations were somehow linked?

No, they were definitely not linked. The German battleship you are talking about was the 1944 design of the H Class Battleship, which itself was just an enlarged version of the 1939 H Class design. Two ships of the latter had been laid down early in 1939, but construction was cancelled shortly after the war had broken out. Ulsterman 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased comparison of shell weight

The comparison section is very well done, except for a minor bit of phrasing which I corrected. In reality the Iowa class wasn't only the most "powerful" American battleship behind the Yamatos, it was the most "powerful". (I put powerful in quotes because targeting, speed, and armor determine a good battleship too.) Anynobody 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

dude the yamato out guns the iowa 10x —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs)

One thing I'll point out while I'm here is the weight of broadside/rate of fire issue. From List of broadsides of major World War II ships, we can take the Yamato's weight of fire at 28,971 tons, at 1.5 per minute. So, in 2 minutes, Yamato would fire 3 salvoes, totalling 86,373 tons. Iowa has a weight of fire of 24,300 tons, at 2 salvoes per minute. So, in 2 minutes, Iowa would fire 4 salvoes at 97,200 tons, over 10,000 tons greater than Yamato's. Add onto that superior American gunnery control, radar, etc.. Who outguns who now? Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed true, except that I think you mean pounds rather than tons? Benea (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, funny how you can get mixed up sometimes :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

yo i said out guns like as in nuber of guns including ainti-aircraft,etc the yamato wins in sheer firepower plus 1.5 salvos per minute .. is that possible? can you fire half a salvo or would you quickly load the rest of the guns. but still the japanese were like atoumated machiens arboard their battle ships so it think the yamato could avarege the 2 salvos per minute set by the iwoa plus like howmany years were in between the iwo and yamato i mean the yamto was a god in its time the amiracans feard it and thats why the built the um..iwoa class but the yamato was sunk before the were completed by a massive air attack by three carriers and i think it took like 13 (i am problay wrong about the number) derect hits before it was sunk. could the iwoa take the same amount of punishment and live?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ha the the yamato took direct hits form more then 10,000 pounds of bombs and keep goin like it was nothin the oly thing that can and did sink the ship is the amircan forsight to use the airplane at see not the battleship not to mention the other two ships in the yamato class although one was scrpped to make an aircrft carrier because the japs finnaly relised that planes not battleships would win the war. --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) what about range does the yamato fire father then the iwoa plus the yamato has a bigger beam and more antiaircraft guns and i think the iwo couldn't hold it's own against three aircraft carriers for as long as the yamato did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that the purposes of talkpages are to discuss improvements to the article, and not the place for a general discussion of battleship capabilities. Benea (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"As it was, the United States built ten battleships (the North Carolina-, South Dakota-, and Iowa-class battleships), while the Japanese completed just two." This is not true, japanese had two Yamato class battleships, but many more other classes of battleships. If you compare, Yamato is not comperable with Iowa or King george V. Both these ships are around 50k tons, yamato is 72k tons. If Montana battleships were built, they would be compatitors to Yamato. It is like comparing todays Kirov cruiser with Ticonderoga cruiser. For the arguement above, I dont think it is irrelevant to the article as it contains a section called "competition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.242.29 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Design A-150 battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll take up the challenge and review this very soon Ranger Steve (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for submitting Design A-150 Battleship for Good Review. I've had a good read and assesed the article against the 6 GA Criteria, so I hope you find my comments useful.

1. Writing.

You might like to think about re-ordering the article somewhat. I'd probably break the Design section into Background, Specifications and Armaments subsections, then create a new section called Construction (or lack of it!) to finish the article with. This would allow you to move some references into the body of the text from the lead as I describe below.

I wish I could, but there is simply not enough information to warrant "Specifications" section. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See what you think of this sort of layout. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Prose I'd say there are a few areas where the prose could possibly be tidied up a bit. Specifically I'm thinking of:

• In the lead - However, the ships' keels were never laid, as the Japanese halted all work on battleships so that a demand for "aircraft carriers, cruisers, and smaller ships" could be sated. I might be inclined to change this around to something like: However, so that the Imperial Japanese Navy's demand for aircraft carriers... could be sated, work on Battleships was halted and the ships' keels were never laid. The sentance is repeated in the body of the text and can be properly quoted and referenced there.

• Done, and the lead reference is there for the quote; I believe that quotes should be properly referenced even in the lead. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tend to avoid it unless its an explosive assertion, but its open to individual style so it's your call! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• In Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, the authors William H. Garzke and Robert O. Dulin argue that these ships ...... Couldn't this be rewritten along the lines of It has been argued for the lead, and then repeat the statement as it is currently written in the armament section (referenced accordingly). Also the reference to the extensive secondary armament seems superfluous next to the 20 inchers in the lead paragraph.

• You would be right, except that I've been faulted for not attributing 'extraordinary claims' directly to reputable people. :) I've also moved the reference to where I wanted it orginally, to provide a source for the quote. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true, I know the feeling, but I'd say as long as the sentance were repeated in the prose with the correct attribution and ref, you're ok. It just seems a little too much detail in the lead which is just an overview. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Both of the above points would allow you to simplify the lead section and remove refs from it. See WP:LEADCITE for guidance on keeping the lead section simple.
• Later design studies, began after the completion of plans for the Yamato class (1938–39) focused upon a ship with a displacement nearer to that of the Yamato's. The grammar needs tidying here. Perhaps Later design studies begun after the completion of plans for the Yamato Class, focused...

• Believe this is fixed. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• ...similar to the fate of papers relating to the Yamato class... Could use other words (like documents) to avoid repetition.

• Good thought. Have done. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• However, the things that made them such good weapons, perhaps change to something along the lines of The weapon's key advantages that made it so successful (the high muzzle....
• Overall, the weapons compared very well with other contemporary weapons. Maybe change to contemporary designs.

Wow, what I wrote originally was rather bad. Have changed and thanks —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• It might be nice to try and incorporate the two notes into the main body of the text as well. At least the first one.

• How? I put the first one into a note because I couldn't find a spot for it in the prose :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style

• Small amount of overlinking (keels, turrets, cruisers etc..).
• Probably be best to remove wikilinks from inside the quotations. This will be fine if you make the sentance about carriers/cruisers in the lead a statement rather than a quote (as suggested above) and ref the complete quote in the body of the text later, minus wikilinks.

• I like to wikilink stuff once if it appears in the lead, then in its first occurence in the article for ease of clicking (so you don't have to go and 'find' an link). I eliminated the links within quotations in the lead, but have left them in the actual article as I believe that they help the reader... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think I'd like to see more wikilinks - to knots, gun laying, anti aircraft, the guns, etc..

• • Have added links to knot (speed, gun laying and anti-aircraft warfare. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• The incorporation of the 20 inch guns into the design is mentioned 3 times. I think I'd be inclined to keep it in the lead, clear it out of the design (specification) section and detail it in the armament.

• I disagree here. The choice of 20" guns was a major factor in why the ship was design the way it was, and therefore should be included in the design section (IMHO). Also, I count only two times where it is mentioned in "Design" :P —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, meant three times including the lead. I did actually end up keeping it in the specifiaction section of my sandbox version as well! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Could you provide a better title for the external link, just explaining what it is? As it would appear to be a paper, WP:CITET may offer some guidance.

• I've remved at, as it dealt mainly with the Yamato-class battleships, not this class. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I imagine there should be a Japanese name that could be included in this article. The edit history lists one that might be correct.

• I remved that because I think it was the Japanese name for "Super Yamato". I'll leave a message at WT:JAPAN when I get on next and see what I can do. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

When I get time I'll look into this too. I used to live in Japan.... Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Factually Accurate and Verifiable

• For the technical details of the ship and its armament, it might be an idea to ref a few more of the specifications individually rather than just at the end of a paragraph. I have no doubt all the information is in the 2 books listed, but it isn't immediately clear from the solitary references attached to the last sentence.
• A few statements that might need a different source include

• The successful construction of a 480 mm (18.9 in) gun in 1920–1921 made the Japanese confident that a 510 mm (20.1 in) could be constructed.

• No, that's covered in Garzke and Dulin. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just repeat the ref at the end of the sentence then. It isn't immediately clear that the ref at the end of the para related to the sentence at the start (by then its on a slightly different topic). Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• however, similar to the fate of papers relating to the Yamato class, most papers and all plans relating to the class were destroyed in the confusion at the end of the war, meaning that the full specifications of the ships are not known.

• Have added two refs for that. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm also a little worried about the website as a ref for The 100 mm (3.9 in)/65 caliber anti-aircraft guns were the best anti-aircraft guns produced by Japan during the Second World War. I'm sure this is accurate looking at the website's own refs, but is there a more authoritative ref that could be used?

• Probably, but none that are accessible to me. For what it is worth, I had emailed DeGuilian—who happens to be a weapons expert, by the way ;)—who said that that statement is his opinion that is shared by many of the books and sources he has looked at. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good research!

3. Broadness I see no major probs here. It covers a wide range of known details without being overly technical. However, you might want to relate the article to other events in Japan at the time (Sino-Japanese war etc...), and why they were building these ships. I notice from the edit history that there was some info on this previously, and some of it could be useful to establish the context of these big ships and the race to build them (properly referenced of course).

The problem is that the information in there before was about the Design B-65 cruisers, not A-150, and I don't want to violate WP:SYN. :| —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral No probs.

5. Stable Would certainly appear to be.

6. Images All good, although maybe change the caption for An artist's interpretation... by R.Allison just to make it clear at first glance that it is an interpretation.

• Done. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gotta say this is a fascinating article - I never had any idea they were hoping to build a 20" gun. That said it's not quite a Good Article just yet, but if you can sort out the issues I've raised, and maybe find a few more refs, it should sail through. So, I've put the article on hold, and I'll come back and look in 2 weeks, which I hope will give you enough time to make some changes. If you've got any questions or need some more clarification on what I've said feel free to contact me. Best of luck,

Hi, thank you for the review! :) Will start fixing the issues you pointed out soon. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lemme know if I can do anything else Ranger Steve (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you already know my opinion on your layout from my talk (it's excellent!), and I have included it, so I think many or all of your concerns above have been addressed. Is there anything else you feel the article is lacking? —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I think that might be it. I'll give it a final read through tonight just to be sure. I would still ref that line though. I don't think Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Internal_links:_overlinking_and_underlinking is relevant here because that primarily deals with internal links, not references. As I said, the line is about a different subject to the reference at the end of the paragraph so it would, in my opinion, warrant a fact tag. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Have added the ref :) —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, all looks good and is nearly ready to pass, except......

• The ref you've added wasn't the sentence I was worried about. Its the first sentence of the Background section I think needs referencing.
• I notice that the ref for the quote "aircraft carriers, cruisers, and smaller ships" is now missing. As its a direct quote it needs its own ref too.

That should be the last thing, as everything else looks cool! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Have done, thanks for the good catch re #2 above and for the review. Cheers! —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 07:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sugoi! I declare this a Good Article! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Construction section, last sentence

Sentence reads: However, the war's turn against the Japanese after the Battle of Midway meant that the need for ships other than battleships never abated.

Suggest that the author intended this: However, the war's turn against the Japanese after the Battle of Midway meant that the need for ships other than carriers never abated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.227.99 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A-150 not to be armed with 8 x 20" main battery

The article is incorrect in stating that these ships were to be armed with 8 20" guns. As Garzke & Dulin and other sources note, it was just 6 20" in three turrets. The article correctly notes that 8-9 main guns were rejected because the ships would have been too big. Each twin 20" turret weighed about the same as the Yamatos' triple 18.1", so the super Yamatos of the same displacement could not carry more than three turrets either. (It is probable that all the Yamatos would have been regunned with 6 20" in the mid 1940s.) I have never seen it explained how the A-150s would have been more heavily armored than the Yamatos despite being the same displacement.

G Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.177 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, finally. Sacxpert (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh good lord, that was in the article for an entire year. Thank you, 128.220 and @Sacxpert:. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Woulda Shoulda Coulda

The lede says this "would have been the 'most powerful battleships in history'", a statement that is really unworthy of an encyclopedia. Who knows whether the German H-44 would have been more powerful? What if the British would have thought of something even bigger? Sensationalist and ultimately fictional, it should be removed from the article, and certainly the lede. ---- 91.10.33.81 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll notice that statement is cited; that is the assessment of neutral third-party sources. Saying "well what if X" is WP:CRYSTAL. The sources say they would have been 'the most powerful battleships in history', so we say the same, as is written in the sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

We pick the sources. This source is pulling things out of its ass. There is no basis for the speculation that this fictitious ship would be more or less powerful than other fictitious ships, and it does not belong into the article. ---- 91.10.33.81 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"The source is pulling things out of its ass." Also this is not a "ficticious ship"; H-45 was a ficticious ship. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I need a source to show that a source is bonkers? Yeah right, that's how it works.

Neither ship was build, nor was a dozen or so of potential other ships. It's not even speculation which would have been the "most powerful" in the end, it's random guesswork. It cannot possibly of encyclopedic value, it's pure fanservice.

It's also so vague that it's useless in the best of cases. Would it have been the most powerful if Japan had won the war? If Japan had lost the war? If Germany would have finished Plan Z after invading the UK? After aliens landed on Heligoland? The only reasonable guess is that it would have been more powerful than older ships, which is only true for every single battleship ever build.

What's the argument anyway, can any statement from any source be added to the lede? If not, what makes this special? ---- 91.10.33.81 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that a work printed by the United States Naval Institute is unreliable, then yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As for the rest: if these ships had been built, without regard to any of the others, they would have been the most powerful. The article does not regard WP:CRYSTAL-ish WP:OTHERSTUFF possibilities, as considering "well, what about this other unbuilt class, it might not have been the most powerful then" is WP:SYNTH. A significant, reliable source makes this statement. Therefore, the statement is cited. We don't perform synth/WP:OR in an attempt to disprove it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you win. I won't try to improve your article any more. ---- 91.10.1.112 (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lots of claims by the US Naval Institute are unreliable rubbish. Like, for example, the picture of the vessel they promote as being the 1857 sailing ship "Wanderer", Lathamibird (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

"Following the IJN's long-time tradition of qualitative superiority rather than quantitative superiority, they were intended to be armed with the biggest guns afloat. "

This is a ridiculous and illogical statement.

If "biggest guns afloat" is not quantitative superiority, then what is ? Lathamibird (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)