Talk:Japanese battleship Haruna

Commanding officers

It might be good to put this into bulletpoints or a numbered list. It'd look more organized, and probably take up less space. LordAmeth 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox picture

After experimenting, I think this picture actually looks better in the infobox, because it's a more close up shot. The problem is, however, that it shows the ship as a battlecruiser, not in its battleship configuration in which it spent most of its career. Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Slightly annoying dilemma here... FWIW, I'd stay with the current one, because she is only known for her role in WWII as a BB, and she was laid up for most of her time as a BC; also, the 1934 photo is a good representative shot of the ship. Having said that, I do think that the 1915 photo needs to be added somewhere... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I replaced the 1915 trials picture with the close-up picture at Kobe on the opposite side of the page. I think it gives a little better variety in picture styles. If you or anyone else disagrees, no big deal. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit notes

• For an article of this length, the lead is a bit skimpy. The current second paragraph does a good job of summarizing the wartime career, but there's almost no coverage of the ship's construction (when and where was it built?) Also, except when discussing the lead ship of a class (where avoiding the duplication of names is best), I personally dislike having the ship's class "hidden" behind a piped link, as Haruna's is in the lead.

expanded the lead. Cam ^(Chat) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I know the naval gunnery tradition has been to list target ranges in yards, so I understand the 38,770-yard range listed in the "Armament" section, but the conversion—going from yards to km—strikes me as a little odd. Technically or mathematically, of course, there's nothing wrong with it, but I would almost expect to see the range listed in meters. Or, sticking with a conversion to km, I almost expect to see a conversion in miles, too, like: 38,770 yards (19.14 nmi; 35.45 km)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the same sentence as the conversion above the structure is two [type of shells] per minute, but with the range thrown in there it took me a couple of times to parse it to understand it was not two [type of shell] yards per minute. I'd suggest recasting the sentence to separate the rate of fire from the range of the shells to help avoid confusion.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the "1926…" section: I replaced heightened with lengthened in regard the funnel (to heighten means to make more intense)

Alright, I can see why, looks much better. Cam ^(Chat) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd consider adding another section for discursive notes, like the note about the "special ship" status; if you use the "group=" function of <ref> tags, it gives the note a different appearance at the end of the sentence, as in this example.
• In the "1927…" section: I'm not exactly sure what's going on chronologically with the phrase Haruna's reconstruction was declared complete. I think it needs to read more like Haruna's reconstruction begun in [year] was declared complete (if that's what is meant) to help clarify.

Alright. Clarified. Cam ^(Chat) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• The section break between the "1926…" and "1927…" sections seems a bit artificial, considering the same reconstruction is discussed in both. (If you stick with it, shouldn't the second one be "1928…" anyway?) I'd suggest combining two short sections into a single one titled something like "1926–1933: Reconstruction into battleship".

Alrighty. Done. Cam ^(Chat) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the "1933…" section: in the armor discussion, the article discusses significant improvement. but then tells only of what the armor was after the reconstruction. In the first place, I think a citation for the sentence Haruna's armour was significantly improved during her second reconstruction. is in order since it's giving an opinion ("significantly").
• I would say the same goes for the phrase Despite the significant increase in hull displacement and armour,: the article hasn't even mentioned an increase in displacement at this point.
• Also, in the armor discussion, are the armor figures before the conversion available to provide some context. For example: did the belt armor get increased from 4 inches to 8 inches, or from 7½ inches to 8 inches?
• In "1934…": the ship went into reserve in December 1937, but the article never explicitly states when it was ever reactivated. In 1940?
• I'd suggest realigning the sections to "1934–1941: Pre-war service" and "1941–1942: Early war service", and make the paragraph beginning Haruna departed Japanese waters… into the second section, since it is very clearly about the early part of the war.
• Given that Force Z is a dab page and there's no specific article about the one referred to here, I'd add some context about what it was (list the two major ships, for example).
• In section 1942: What aircraft carriers arrived with Haruna? What kind of ship is Maya? Where is Henderson Field? (We know all of these, but an average reader might not.)
• There are some links that need to be disambiguated.
• Most of the works in the Bibliography need a place of publication. Also, with the mix of manual format and {{cite book}} usage, there are some variations in the formatting style. For ease, I'd recommend using the template for all.
• Consider adding wikilinks for:
  • Yamashiro-class battleship
  • Type 90 Model 0 (or a superset, like Type 90)
  • Any actions Haruna supported in the Dutch East Indies campaign
  • Maya
  • Hiryu
  • Soryu
  • Kongō
  • PBY Catalina Flying Boat

Hope this helps. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• A few comments:

• The battleship's exact role in the IJN's "Decisive battle" doctrine isn't clearly explained. I know that this is probably expanded on more in the Kongo-class article, but a brief mention of it should be made here. For example, what was Haruna's role in WWII supposed to be? Simply to escort the carriers, or to close with the American battle line when the opportunity presented itself? If the latter, did the ship ever have the opportunity to try and do this? I think the answer to this is "yes" at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands.

None of the sources I have on Santa Cruz mention an attempt to close the battle line, but I'll do some more digging. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a discussion of the "decisive battle" doctrine doesn't necessarily apply to Haruna as much as for later Japanese capital ships. The main reason for this is that the Kongo class wasn't simply held in reserve; they were actually used. They were running up and down The Slot and fighting American ships and aircraft on a regular basis (partially because of their speed and fuel efficiency). While Nagato and Yamato lurked in their bases, Haruna was out participating in the action. I'll make mention of it, but I don't think it's a discussion that is needed on this particular class as much as for others. When I rewrite Fuso and Nagato, it'll definitely figure quite prominently in my writing. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• The bombardment of Henderson Field in October 1942 probably needs to be expanded to its own paragraph. This was a significant action which almost swung the tide of that campaign to Japan's favor. Also, there was a specific reason that Haruna was chosen for that mission, because it was fast enough to get in and out of there without being subjected to aerial attack.

I've expanded the bombardment into a full paragraph. A book I picked up by Alan Schom was particularly helpful. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• How did the ship perform at Leyte Gulf? How many shells did it fire and how many hits did it score?

None of my sources give a number for the shells fired. It didn't score any hits but straddled two carriers. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is Haruna's legacy? Did it succeed in its assigned mission, or was it a boondoggle, or both? Did it help the IJN accomplish its strategic goals? If so, how? If not, why not? Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That depends, because the exact role of Haruna and her sisters isn't particularly well-defined. Most of my sources tend to suggest that the Japanese battleships all failed in their task simply because of the advent of the Aircraft Carrier, but that Haruna and her sister-ships failed the least because of their comparative versatility. Either way, its place is in the class article, not this one. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some sources which may help answer some of these questions so I'll try to do my part to resolve them. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

More copyediting

• There's a role I think for American copyeditors with articles written in British English ... we have lots of American readers, not to mention American FAC reviewers :) Nevertheless, I'm not at all confident copyediting a British English article for FAC, and I think we've got 2 other Americans and one Canadian looking at the article currently? Then there's the fact that the War in the Pacific in general and this ship in particular have a stronger connection to the U.S. than to Britain. I'd feel more comfortable working in American English but it's up to you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. American english away. I've just always written Canadian English (more for things like armour, colour, favourite, etc) out of habit. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a stupid assumption. I'm comfortable with Canadian English (Chicago has been influential in Canada for a hundred years), but I agree, let's go American on this one. Huah! - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• If we're going to say "the most powerful" (class), we should probably say when ... not when they were battlecruisers, right? - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And when if not then?  Dr. Loosmark  17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was definitely when they were battlecruisers. With 8x14 main armament, they outgunned every other ship afloat, to the point where the British actually wanted to borrow Kongo from the Japanese for use in their Mediterranean Fleet at one point. They also used an all forward/aft configuration, which gave them much better firing arcs. By the time the interwar years came around, the Nagato, Ise and Fuso classes in the IJN were stronger (though not as fast, it must be noted). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Btw, based on recent comments at FAC, I'm going to have to be a little more aggressive in my copyediting. I'm not a bastard in RL, honest ... - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Be aggressive. It saves me cost on medication once the FAC starts... Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• The First Sino-Japanese War is also referred to as the "Sino-Japanese War" in that article. I'm not really comfortable calling two different wars only 40 years apart by the same name; OTOH, I don't think sources at that time called it the "Second Sino-Japanese War". Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the mindset that referring to it as the Second SJ War is the best way forward, given that that's the technical term for it. We called it the Great Patriotic War at the time, but now it's just the Eastern Front (World War II). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hm, some of my edits are being reverted, and I've got a long list of articles to work on. If it's helpful, please see the current A-class review for Japanese battleship Kirishima, a sister ship, and the edit summaries, for some ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• If Kure Naval Base and Sasebo Naval Base are the same as Kure Naval Arsenal and Sasebo Naval Arsenal, then those are the pages they should link to. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • They are not precisely the same thing. Kure Naval Arsenal and Sasebo Naval Arsenal were shipbuilding and repair facilities loated within Kure Naval District and Sasebo Naval District respectively. The "Naval District" term corresponds more closely to a base facility as it contained the ship mooring facilities, medical and supply facilities, barracks and training facilities and administrative organs (accounting, legal, etc) that the Arsenal did not have. --MChew (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

turret explosion

May I ask what's the source for the 1920 turret explosion?  Dr. Loosmark  22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

combinedfleet. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dye

The article states, "In 1941, separate dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships, with Haruna's armor-piercing shells using black dye." What was it that would be dyed, the shell casings? The explosion plumes? Why? This needs some explanation, or at least a link. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The fourth or the third ship of Kongou-class?

According to this: http://www.combinedfleet.com/haruna.htm, Haruna is the 3rd battleship of Kongou-class, not the 4th.

Please consider this information. Also, if Haruna is the 3rd, then Kirishima would be the 4th battleship of Kongou-class.

My2ndAngelic (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Two different Haruna?

SEems there is a confusion or conflict of information. Newspaper article dated 15 September 1942, The Evansville Press (Indiana), describing the sinking of Haruna in December 1941 off the Philippines. I saved the clipping in case it is needed for review of this article. Samuelsenwd (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Floatplanes

Section '1926–1933: Reconstruction into battleship' contains this sentence: "She was refitted to accommodate three Type 90 Model 0 floatplanes.[1]" I cannot find any reference to such an aircraft. Another page from combinedfleet.com lists Reconnaissance Seaplanes as the Aichi E3A Navy Type 90-1; Nakajima E4N1/E4N3 Navy Type 90-2; E4N2-C Nakajima Navy Type 90-2-3; and the Kawanishi E5K1 Navy Type 90-3. The cited source actually says: 1 March 1924-31 July 1928: First Reconstruction: "A derrick boom is rigged to the superstructure starboard aft for one Yokosho E1Y3 Type 14 and one Nakajima E2N1 Type 15 floatplane."

Section '1933–1941: Fast battleship' The same source as above says 1 August 1933: the official start of the Second Reconstruction: "Two Nakajima E4N2 Type 90 No. 2 Model 2 and one Kawanishi E7K Type 94 ("Alf") floatplanes are embarked." But the cited source, (Stille 2008) says there were three of either type. Thoughts, anyone? MinorProphet (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)