Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

Was the Hosho commisioned in 1921 or 1922?

According to this, Hosho was commisiones in 1921 but according to Weapons Races the Hosho was commisiones in '22, which is correct? m w (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor

Getting close

I need to rewrite the intro, and I have a couple more images to upload which might be used in the article, but other than that I think the article is close to completion. It probably needs a thorough copyedit, which an A-class review would hopefully provide if an experienced copy-editor (as opposed to my amateurish attempts to copyedit articles) isn't available to do one. Anyone have any other inputs to the article? Cla68 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Howarth and Jentschura were partially right as Hosho was ordered as one of 6 "Special Service" ships in the 8-6 program. The other five became tankers, but Hosho was not renamed from Hiryu, nor was it laid down as a tanker and converted on the stocks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you put that in the footnote with the citation if the text doesn't already say that somewhere that I missed? Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll let you decide when you're ready to nominate it for ACR, but I think that it's pretty much ready.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick note

• I'm doing some copyediting; feel free to revert as always, especially if the assumptions I'm mentioning in the edit summaries are wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The forward part of the flight deck was made horizontal": it wasn't horizontal before? Or it wasn't part of the flight deck? - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No, see the beginning of the flight deck arrangements section.
    • Okay, now I see. - Dank (push to talk)
• There's a lot of work to do here; I'll give you guys the bits that may wind up in our A-class checklist (under development). "The ship was used for testing aircraft and equipment planned for use on carriers under development. Two systems in particular tested on the ship were arresting gear and optical landing aids." You can easily get rid of a whole sentence here without any loss of information; give it a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This one too: "On 15 January 1943, the 50th Air Flotilla was created for carrier aircrew training. Carriers Hōshō and Ryūhō were both assigned to the new unit." - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • See how they read now.
• I don't know the answer to this one ... you write "1st Fleet" but "First Carrier Division". Should "1st" be consistent? - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You know what Emerson about consistency...
• Break this sentence up please: "While Hōshō was being evaluated she participated in the Combined Fleet Maneuvers of 1935 where she was attached to the IJN 4th Fleet and was damaged by a typhoon on 23 September, along with many other Japanese ships, in what was termed the "Fourth Fleet Incident". - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This one too: "On that day Hōshō contributed six fighters to escort bombers attacking airfields at Tienho and Paiyun; they claimed six enemy aircraft shot down, but the range proved to be too long and five of her fighters ran out of fuel and had to ditch in the sea, but the aircrews were rescued." - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Done, see how they read.
• We were going to start formatting page titles with italics ... is that still on? - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no idea.
• "she could not operate the latest aircraft types ... operationally.": the repetition sounds wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Last word changed to "in combat".
• "aircraft commander/observer": don't use slashes per WP:MOS ... and what's an aircraft commander/observer? - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In some airforces the pilot is almost always in command of the aircraft, but that wasn't necessarily true for both the Germans and Japanese. Deleted aircraft commander as it's not really pertinent.
• "among the most dramatic of the war in the Pacific.": some at FAC don't like periods inside quotes for any non-sentence, although I can't find support for their position at MOS if the period appeared there in the original. Just be aware you may need to move it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a Brit vs. American English thing?
    • Yes, Chicago differs from most British style guides, which differ from WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk)
• Check with the wikiproject; people occasionally have a problem with "(see photo at right)" per WP:SELFREF. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks good. If I can get to the end of A-class review, I'll swing back around and check on the FACs. Unwatching for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

Resolved comments

"Commissioned in 1922, the ship was used for testing carrier aircraft operations equipment, techniques, such as take-offs and landings, and carrier aircraft operational methods and tactics." The phrasing here is a bit redundant as it includes "carrier aircraft operation[s/al]" twice. How about this: "Commissioned in 1922, the ship was used for testing carrier aircraft equipment, tactics, and techniques, such as take-offs and landings." I think that this has already been fixed. Footnote: "Howarth (p. 148) and Jentschura (p. 41) state that the ship was initially laid down as a tanker named Hiryu." It's not clear if "the ship" here refers to Hosho or Shokaku. Clarified. "Hōshō's designed speed was reduced to 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph), based on British experiences during the war." Which war? Good catch. "The installation initially proved unreliable as the Japanese technicians were badly trained by Sperry, but eventually the system proved its worth." Awkward foreshadowing. This leaves the reader wondering "how exactly did the system prove its worth?" How does it read now? "Hōshō's keel was laid down by the Asano Shipbuilding Company, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama," Perhaps I'm missing something here, but shouldn't there be an "in" between "Asano Shipbuilding Company" and "Tsurumi-ku"? I had the same initial reaction (I hadn't seen this note), but then I figured, if that's what the company was called, then that's what it was called. Was it? - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC) "Hōshō was delayed by repeated changes and late deliveries of equipment" Changes to what? Presumably the design, but possibly the deliveries. Agreed. "changes" -> design changes. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "Hōshō was fitted with a net crash barrier" A what? I don't have any idea what this is, and I suspect I'm not alone. "net crash barrier" -> net used as a crash barrier. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "Hōshō was planned as a seaplane tender like the British HMS Campania with a flying-off deck forward ... The ship was to be capable of 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph) and fitted with a forward flight deck" There is an inconsistency between "flying-off deck forward" and "forward flight deck". The latter option seems to be the more intuitive word order, though perhaps I'm just not familiar enough with the relevant jargon. Flying-off deck is the contemporary phrase, and I didn't want to use either phase too often. Ah, I wasn't entirely clear in my phrasing. My concern is not the difference between "flight deck" and "flying-off deck", but in the word order between "forward ... deck" and "... deck forward". It seems odd to me that the adjective would come after the noun. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) It's an adverb in the second sentence; it's a well-known use by ship aficionados, and it's in the dictionaries, but I'm not averse to rewording if it seems obscure. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I'd prefer to stay away from the "deck forward" construction to avoid confusion and maintain consistency. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC) "Hōshō was relatively unusual in that she had two hangars." Awkward and unclear phrasing. I suggest "Hōshō was one of very few ships which had two hangars." or something similar. I don't see this. Your phrasing implies that this feature was more uncommon than it actually was. My problem is that I really don't know how rare "relatively unusual" is, so I'm really just taking wild guesses here. I suspect this will be the case for other readers as well. How about "Unlike most ships at the time, Hōshō had two hangars rather than one." ? This phrasing also reduces the ambiguity in case readers assume that most ships had three or more hangars instead of two. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed with both of you ... I didn't like Cryptic's rephrasing either, but I have no idea how unusual "relatively unusual" is. Words like "most", "many" and "few" are more likely to be understood. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) How about "Unique among Japanese aircraft carriers, she had ..."? Perfect if sourceable (even a general source such as Conway's would do; doesn't seem like OR to me). - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Already sourced to Milanovich.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC) "Her large vulnerable flight deck and other features made her more of a target in surface actions." More of a target than what? What other features? Rephrased. Appreciate the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Happy to help! The problem now (or maybe I just didn't notice it before) is that there is a very very long sentence: "A heavy gun armament was provided for Hōshō in case she was forced to give battle, but as carrier doctrine was just evolving at this time, the impracticability of carriers engaging in gun duels had not yet been realized as her large vulnerable flight deck and lack of armor made her more of a target in surface actions than a combatant." Here's one way to split it and rephrase it: "A heavy gun armament was provided for Hōshō in case she was forced to give battle, but as carrier doctrine was just evolving at this time, the impracticability of carriers engaging in gun duels had not yet been realized. In addition, her large flight deck and lack of armor made her a vulnerable target in surface actions." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed, the sentence is too long. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I made a few changes to Cryptic's formulation, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC) I'm happy if Cryptic is happy. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Definitely better, but now "In addition, her large flight deck and lack of armor made her a vulnerable target in a surface battle." begs the question: Which surface battle? Perhaps "a surface battle" should be replaced by "surface battles". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC) The Sino-Japanese War section contains a two-sentence paragraph, and they're skimpy sentences too. Can this/those be merged into the other paragraphs? Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC) "Hōshō was the second warship after the British Hermes to be designed from the beginning as an aircraft carrier, but was completed and launched earlier than Hermes." I'm not entirely clear on what "designed from the beginning" means. My guesses: some ships were originally designed for another purpose, but then repurposed during the design or construction process; some ships were originally designed and built for another purpose, but then modified later on to become aircraft carriers. Most of the early carriers were conversions from existing ships, or from ships under construction. Hōshō was designed from the keel up as a carrier. Does this require further explication in the text? You used the phrase "from the keel up" rather than "from the beginning". I think this phrase is definitely clearer, though I wouldn't know whether it's encyclopedic or not. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) "One lesson learned was that larger carriers were needed, influencing the subsequent conversions of Akagi and Kaga into aircraft carriers, and the design and construction of Ryūjō." Larger than what? Does this mean "carriers that were larger than Hosho" or "carriers that were large like Hosho"? Also, needed for what? Changed to "carriers larger than Hōshō". On the second point, when Brody said "You're gonna need a bigger boat", it didn't need more explanation, and I'm not sure that this does either. But if the sources say something snappy about what went wrong due to Hōshō's size, it might work here, Sturm. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I think that's something that Cla68 added. Dank, you might check Peattie as I don't have it to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Up to you which part of this to use, it's all page 54: "During its first decade, the ... small size posed no limit to her usefulness, given the slow speeds and light naval aircraft of the day. But by the late 1930s ... [she] could accommodate only half her original complement. ... small size ... prevented her from being a significant element in the navy's strategic planning in the 1920s". - Dank (push to talk) 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC) I've deleted all mention of her size here as the limitations of her size only became apparent with the later growth of naval aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC) "At full load, her metacentric height after these changes was 1.11 meters (3 ft 8 in)." Not particularly helpful without a comparison to either a) the ship's previous metacentric height or b) modern metacentric heights. Agreed, but I don't have a figure for her initial metacentric height.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC) "On 12 August 1939 Hōshō was evaluated as "suitable for use as a training carrier in peacetime. As long as A4N1 (Type 95) fighters and B4Y1 (Type 96) torpedo bombers continue to be used after the outbreak of a war, Hōshō has to escort the main fleet. However, this task shall be executed only during the decisive battle; otherwise she shall be used as a training carrier for landings"" Why is such a lengthy excerpt quoted verbatim? In my opinion, direct quotations should be used only when the quote has particular historic value or cannot be adequately rephrased without losing meaning. Neither are true here. Rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Footnote 11: "In order to recover the aircraft, however, the carrier and three accompanying destroyers had to steam east and therefore lost sight of the Main Body in the darkness (Tully)" All of the other inline refs give specific page numbers, why doesn't this one? Look at the refs, Tully is a webpage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC) "They fired .25-kilogram (0.55 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s); at 50°, this provided a maximum range of 7,500 meters (8,202 yd), and an effective ceiling of 5,500 meters (18,000 ft). The 15-round magazines needed to be changed frequently, and the maximum effective rate of fire was only between 110 and 120 rounds per minute" I don't see how this information is relevant to this article. We can link to other articles that talk about naval artillery if that helps, or if you can suggest something we could say in-text that makes it more relevant, please tell me. This information is standard in articles about battleships and carriers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC) I always provide detailed weaponry data for my ship articles so people can compare weapons without having to go to (sometimes nonexistent, or merely stub) weapon articles. A ship is, essentially, merely a platform for its weapons--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That concludes this prose review. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw that timestamp is wanky; that comment was actually today at 17:57. I hope we've addressed everything to your satisfaction. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, that was from when I started the review. I just forgot to update the timestamp. Fixed! And yes, I'm a happy clam. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Post-promotion notes

I'm answering Sandy's questions here since the article has already been promoted to FA (thanks). - Dank (push to talk)

• ... was the first ship ever commissioned that was designed and built as an aircraft carrier,

but in looking for supporting text in the article, I find:

• Shortly thereafter, however, based on observations of landing trials on Furious and HMS Argus, the world's first flush-decked aircraft carrier,

What is the difference between the two, and was the Hosho the first in Japan or the first in the world? I'm not getting the distinction with the Argus. Can the lead be clarified to first in Japan or first in the world? Or if it was the first in the world, can the distinction with other aircraft carriers be made more clear for a boat dummy?

I added "world's" and a note. - Dank (push to talk)

I had to click out to another article to discover what "Jill" and "Judy" were.

Would a footnote work for you? I've got a couple of arguments for keeping the text the way it is. First, the wording was the outcome of a kerfuffle between Sturm and Cla68 at an A-class review many moons ago (for another article) over whether to use the nicknames for the airplanes typically used by American military at the time, or to use more "official" names. Second, although some will have to click the footnote to figure out what's going on, I think the majority who are really interested in the subject will interpret the quote marks as "this is the nickname" ... if I'm right (and maybe I'm not), then I don't want to stick extra words in the text. - Dank (push to talk)

If the Sino-Japanese war was between China and Japan, why isn't it an endash instead of a hyphen? Or is it exclusively used as a hyphenated prefix? Unclear on this.

Chicago 6.78 and 6.80, and I don't recall ever seeing an exception: since "Sino" isn't a word, it must be a prefix, so it requires a hyphen. "Sino-" is an example in WP:MOS IIRC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me on Sino, and clarifying the lead. On the nicknames, you all know better than I, which is why I promoted anyway, but it is strange to have to look that up, and it would be helpful to non-MilHist readers if we had some kind of clue what those words are. Anyway, I'm not worried about these-- thanks for getting back to me, and I trust you all to work it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A seaplane carrier and an aircraft carrier are two different beasts - a seaplane carrier (or tender) lacks the ability for aircraft to be recovered on board directly (they must be hoisted aboard). Seaplane carriers usually hoisted seaplanes over the side to launch and recover them and were really nothing more than a specialized type of freighter or fleet support vessel, and indeed many early examples fulfilled those other roles at various times. The claim that it was the first designed as an aircraft carrier is patently false - it was, as the article also says, designed as a seaplane tender.NiD.29 (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the seaplane tender version of her design was abandoned and she was redesigned as a aircraft carrier before any construction began.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

When the claim is made for the first purpose built aircraft carrier, or ship laid down as a carrier, it is about being the first vessel built without compromises to other purposes - the Langley suffered in many respects from being based on a collier, as did the Argus for being based on a liner, and the claim for being laid as an aircraft carrier is about moving past those compromises toward a more ideal aviation vessel. The Hosho was not. Sure the actual design may have been amended before the first keel plate was laid (or not), but it is not relevant as it was still a modification of a vessel not intended for aviation use, and thus any claim is pointless and it cannot be compared in this manner against those vessels that were designed as aircraft carriers.NiD.29 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The article's statement is sourced, your opinion is not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On the early name "Hiryu"

According to jawp article (which has good citation), the ship's first planned name was Tappi竜飛, which is name of a cape in Aomori Prefecture. I strongly suspect some Western researcher had misread it as Hiryu飛竜.--116.80.239.114 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050407203557/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-h/hosho2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-h/hosho2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yasuho is the author's personal name

I corrected inversed order of author names in a reference; Izawa[family name], Yasuho[personal name] is correct. This seems to be one of often quoted books. It should be referenced as "Hata and Izawa". Please correct if you find the book in other articles.220.209.5.189 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Units per MOS:UNIT

Hello [Parsecboy While we are having a discussion, not yet resolved on the French battleship Bouvet you revert this edit as well for the same reason, I'd rather reach a consensus before reverting everything you or I don't agree with. If you read MOS:UNIT Units of measure: Unit choice and order: you will see that with the exception of the USA and the UK: "Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI." This article on a Japanese battleship did not have SI units primary and it included a preference for US spelling. I don't think either one of these articles follows the intent of the Manual of Style, concerning ships from Japan and France. Many of these edits I made changed the primary unit to SI. The initial editor neglected to follow the MOS. As I said,the MOS is there for a worldwide audience, the unit of measure used round the world is the SI, I've been around the world a few times so I should know. The language option is in this article and it has no connection to the USA. It should default to no country by the removal of sp=us. Avi8tor (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to achieve. If you want to disregard MOS:RETAIN, you need to change the MOS. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I will continue to revert your edits as they are patently disruptive. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

MM vs cm and metric vs imperial measurements in military articles

While many nations use millimeters in their designations, others use centimeters. Articles generally use whichever measurement was used in the designation, but there is no consistency in this across Wikipedia so respect MOS:RETAIN.

You may not be aware that some nations did not adopt the metric system until the 1920s, including Russia and Japan, so be advised that military articles covering equipment from those countries before that time usually use imperial measurements. Do not reflexively change any conversion templates to move metric measurements into the first position. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Sturmvogel, It's mm for millimetres, M is Mega which is a prefix for any unit, watt, litres or metres, etc. Check out the International System of Units and the paragraph on Units and Prefixes.

Japan actually switched to metric on 1 July 1924, see Japanese units of measurement but of course there was opposition. Just because a country was not metric does not mean they used feet and inches, every country had their own system, just like US customary has different units to those previously used in Britain with the same name, even the inch was different in the the US and Britain, see inch. It's more likely the article was written by a US based author who was clueless and converted to what he/she thought they should be in their book/article.

When this ship was designed, Japan used metric units. If the information is incorrect it is always a good reason to correct the misinformation. This is why Wikipedia is a good source of knowledge, as long as editors are smart enough to acknowledge they can always learn something new. If you look at some of the articles you quote you'll see some are centimetres and some millimetres, but just as a pistol has a bore of 9 mm does not make it correct to call it a 0.9 cm pistol. This discussion should actually be on the talk page of the article in question. Maybe you could also look at Caliber which states: It is measured in inches or in millimeters. Avi8tor (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you on about? You seem to have missed the distinction in Caliber between firearms and artillery. I'm talking about the latter. Hōshō was completed well before Japan went metric. And the IJN didn't use traditional Japanese units before 1924 because it had imported its steam warships from various Western countries, primarily Britain. The Brits also trained most of its shipbuilders which continued to use imperial units once they started to build their own ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sturmvogel I've moved this discussion to the talk page for the article concerned. I could say you have missed the point of this conversation as well, but was more diplomatic. Caliber applies to all munitions launched from a barrel, including cannon and firearms, in history the dimension was in local units depending on country and now is in millimetres. I pointed out that Wikipedia has an article on Caliber and what it states, dimensions should be in millimetres, which was where we started, It is an error that needs to be corrected which is what I tried to do initially. Also the Manual of Style states that outside the USA and Britain the primary unit should be metric which you appear to disagree with. Avi8tor (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

To quote the article on caliber:

In guns, particularly firearms, but not artillery, where a different definition may apply, caliber (or calibre; sometimes abbreviated as "cal") is the specified nominal internal diameter of the gun barrel bore – regardless of how or where the bore is measured and whether the finished bore matches that specification. It is measured in inches or in millimeters

Nothing in the MOS says anything about preferring mm to cm; that's just something you've invented off an erroneous reading in the caliber article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi all! In fact the Imperial Japanese Navy used designation of caliber of the artillery in centimeters (in this, the article about caliber is wrong). For example the 140mm guns (I've use mm here by intention as Europe and some other countries usually use mm) were called 5.5 inch gun (五十口径三年式五吋五砲) before 1917 and since 1917 they were redesigned to 14 cm (五十口径三年式十四糎砲). The same can be said about other Japanese naval guns, they were usually rounded up or down to nearest centimeters (hence 8 cm gun and not 7.62 cm or 76.2 mm). MHO: Use official designation in cm or true caliber value in mm. Ozzy (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with the comments by Ozzy. The way the metric system works is to have whole numbers, example 7.6 cm would normally be displayed as 76 mm, this is not the case in the USA where inches are converted to cm with an undue level of precision. Nowadays all (military) munitions have a real caliber in millimetres. Avi8tor (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop trying to universalize the use of millimeters, that's mostly an artifact of NATO standardization. The Germans, Japanese and Swedes used both mm and cm (such as the 10.5 cm leFH 18 and the 10 cm schwere Kanone 18 despite both being 105 mm weapons) in their artillery designations in WW2 and the latter continued to do so through out the entirety of the Cold War. Undue precision in conversions?! It is to laugh.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I second the use of cm and other customary metric units where appropriate. One of the easiest ways to check is to open the native language article, ja:鳳翔 (空母) in this case, and it is easy to see that centimeter and horsepower are the correct units for describing this and other Japanese ships of the era. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)