The Nagato-class ships were the first battleships to be armed with guns greater than 15 inches (380 mm) and followed the Japanese policy about having individual ships more powerful than those of their potential enemies. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) knew that they could not out-build other powers and individual superiority was their only route for success. Reserved for the decisive battle that the IJN anticipated against the US Navy during the Pacific War, they did not see much action during the war. Mutsu was destroyed in an accidental magazine explosion in 1943 and her sister ship Nagato ineffectually participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. Lightly damaged during the battle she returned home for repairs that Japan could not afford to make. She was modified to serve as a floating anti-aircraft battery and survived the war. She was used by the Americans as a target ship during their post-war atomic bomb tests. She sank during the second one of these and is now a diveable wreck at Bikini Atoll.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Re-read it; now supporting on prose per standard disclaimer (though I'm not disagreeing with Wehwalt's comments). - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Nagatoarmor.svg: possible to provide a translation of the labels?
Not really, unless someone fluent in German who knows Inkscape volunteers to rework the labels.
File:Mutsu20.jpg is tagged as lacking source info, as is File:Nagato_1939.jpg
File:Nagato1944.png: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that the zealots over on Commons have deleted the latter two and I can only offer my explanation from Mutsu's FAC last year for Mutsu20: I'm not sure what to do here. Under Japanese law the image is copyright-free because of its age, regardless of its source. But I can't swear that it's PD in the US without a source. I can delete it although I strongly suspect that it's PD as well because of the URAA. I think that I'm going to need to upload some more photos of these ships to upgrade the graphic content of this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced the single questionable image and added a few new ones that should have good licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Armor cross-section could be larger
File:Nagato1944.png still needs sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not into warfare and naval vessels so will be able to give an outsider's perspective. A few points on the prose:
"Nagato did not fire her main armament against enemy vessels ..." - Do you mean her weapons in general or was there a single main armament, and if so, what was it?
"... resisted penetration by 200-kilogram (440 lb) torpedo warheads in full-sized trials." - What do you mean by "full-sized trials"?
"Although the United States Navy planned to arm its Colorado class with 16-inch (406 mm) guns before the Nagato class was designed, Nagato's 41-centimeter (16.1 in) guns made her the first dreadnought that was launched armed with guns larger than 15 inches (381 mm)." - Why mm in some measurements and cm in others?
"He estimated that his ship would displace as much as Nagato," - What does this mean?
Added a link.
"The ships had a stowage capacity of 1,600 long tons (1,600 t) of coal and 3,400 long tons (3,500 t) of fuel oil," - Why do the conversions for coal and fuel oil differ?
Umm, what do you mean? They're both given in long tons and converted into metric tons.
Yes, but the long tons equals the metric tons in one case but not in the other. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"The US Navy did not learn their actual speed until about 1937" - maybe you should include "capabilities" or somesuch.
" an armor thickness of 305 mm on the face, 230–190 mm (9.1–7.5 in)" - Having been so assiduous at giving conversions, did you miss this one and others later in the paragraph?
See my response to Wehwalt above; the some of these had been converted earlier.
"increased by 38 mm (1 in) on the upper deck and 25 mm on the upper armored deck" - And this one needs a further significant figure.
I always like it when non-Ships people review my articles as y'all are almost certain to catch any undefined jargon or unclear explanations. Look forward to the rest of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
"They now operated Nakajima E4N2 biplanes until they were replaced by Nakajima E8N2 biplanes in 1938." - I don't like the "now", and the two "they"s refers to different things.
In the short table in the ships section, I suggest you arrange for the English and Japanese names to be on different lines as on my screen, the Japanese is split awkwardly in two.
"Mutsu again served as the Emperor's flagship during the annual maneuvers and fleet review in 1933." - The wording in this sentence is almost identical to the previous one. Could it be expressed differently?
"The sisters were refitted in 1941 in preparation for war, which included the fitting of external degaussing coils and additional armor for their barbettes." - The use of "which" in this sentence is a bit awkward.
I'm not sure that I agree with you, but I'm open to suggestions if you have any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"They arrived at Truk on 17 August." - The previous sentence was talking about Mutsu, so the use of "they" is inappropriate here.
"A coal-burning donkey boiler was installed on the pier for heating and cooking purposes" - What does the "pier" mean here?
"The Times has named Nagato as one of the top ten wreck diving sites in the world." - Has the radioactivity dissipated to acceptable levels then?
That's all. The article is very well-written and laid out. Much of the technical information was beyond me, but for the general reader there is plenty of interesting non-technical stuff and for the specialist reader there appears to be all the detail he might require. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
None of my sources explicitly mention any diminution of the radioactivity, but I've added a source that states that she was opened to divers in 1996, presumably when the US Gov't deemed it safe. I think that I've addressed all of your other concerns; see if they are satisfactory. Thanks again for reviewing this.
Now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Note -- Think we just need a source review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN63: missing italics
FN62: link isn't working for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Works OK on my computer just now. Thanks for reviewing these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Support but with one question:
"15 of these were oil-fired while the remaining half-dozen consumed a mixture of coal and oil." Is there an article one could link to about the coal-and-oil engine? I think most readers won't have heard of it (I hadn't) and might like to know more.
Very nice article, good luck with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I rephrased to clarify that the ships had some boilers that used coal with oil sprayed on to increase the energy yield. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)