Talk:Japanese battleship Yamato

Wrong Translation

The literal translation of the name should be removed. "Great Harmony" is the individual meaning of the characters 大 and 和, but together they have nothing to do with harmony (and not that much with greatness) and and essentially always refer to places named Yamato like the historical Yamato province or Japan as whole. Translating 大和 as great harmony is like interpreting a hedgehog to refer to pigs living in hedges, or a riverbed as a sleeping place in a river. It's basically the same as translating 玉音放送 as "Jewel Voice Broadcast". - Ben Kerman (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done small jars tc 12:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

False Statement and False Footnote Reference [44]

"Because many of the ship's crew who did not go down with the vessel were killed by strafing aircraft as they swam in the oily water, the details are uncertain, but authors Garzke and Dulin record that little damage was caused." "Garzke and Dulin (1985), pp. 600-61. [44]"

As an honors history graduate, I immediately knew this sentence was inaccurate. I downloaded a copy of the book, and sure enough, Garzke and Dulin make no such statement anywhere about Americans strafing survivors in the water. The only reference to strafing men during the attack on Yamato occurs on page 61: "many of the men in these spaces were casualties from strafing attacks or were later trapped below deck when the ship capsized." Clearly this statement is talking about the strafing of fighting men ON THE SHIP during the battle before the ship capsized. Such strafing was in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and violated no rules of warfare.

Whoever posted this obvious falsehood should be ashamed. This intentionally false statement needs to be removed. Mandfunk (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023

Because many of the ship's crew who did not go down with the vessel were killed by strafing aircraft as they swam in the oily water, the details are uncertain, but authors Garzke and Dulin record that little damage was caused.

The correct statement should be: "Because many of the ship's crew did not survive the sinking, the details are uncertain, but authors Garzke and Dulin record that little damage was caused.

False Wikipedia statement: "Because many of the ship's crew who did not go down with the vessel were killed by strafing aircraft as they swam in the oily water, the details are uncertain, but authors Garzke and Dulin record that little damage was caused." "Garzke and Dulin (1985), pp. 600-61. [44]"

As an honors history graduate, I immediately knew this sentence was inaccurate. I downloaded a copy of the book, and sure enough, Garzke and Dulin make no such statement anywhere about Americans strafing survivors in the water. The only reference to strafing men during the attack on Yamato occurs on page 61: "many of the men in these spaces were casualties from strafing attacks or were later trapped below deck when the ship capsized." Clearly this statement is talking about the strafing of fighting men ON THE SHIP during the battle before the ship capsized. Such strafing was in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and violated no rules of warfare. There is absolutely NO statement about Americans strafing anyone in the water!

https://archive.org/details/battleshipsaxisn0000garz/page/60/mode/2up

}} Mandfunk (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mandfunk: Corrected. As you say, it looks like someone got confused when reading the bottom right of page 61, where it refers to casualties from strafing runs on the ship itself (i.e. people hit while on the deck, like AA gunners). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

suggested addition to the "References" or "Further reading" section

• Morris, Jan (2018). Battleship Yamato: Of War, Beauty and Irony. London: Antique Collectors' Club. ISBN 978-1-84368-147-2

2A00:23C8:1382:8101:8883:279D:D50:1C71 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle off Samar

Given the battle off Samar is easily Yamato's most impressive action, the article should go into more detail than simply "Yamato hit several American ships". This following rant is (probably) unsuitable for the essay and should not be directly copied.

At 34,500 yards, on her third salvo into the battle, Yamato scored a debated hit/near miss to the escort carrier USS White Plains. The damage knocked out a boiler and electrical power for 3 minutes. The 18.1-inch (46 cm) shell exploded underneath the keel, but the explosion hit the ship, and thus people debate on whether it's a hit or near miss. If it's indeed a hit, it would be the longest ranged naval hit in history, beating out HMS Warspite and KMS Scharnhorst's records by nearly 8,000 yards. I've also seen Robert Lundgren mention Yamato's shells may have scraped off White Plain's hull before exploding underneath, thus making direct contact, but I've had trouble finding where he mentioned it, thus it should be discredited for now.

Sources-Yamato and Musashi Internet Photo Archive

The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar: Lundgren, Robert: 9781608880461: Books - Amazon.ca-pages 29-36

Imperial Battleships (combinedfleet.com)

At 7:30 from 20,300 yards, she fired a single full broadside from both her main and secondary guns at what was perceived as a US "cruiser", but was actually the destroyer USS Johnston, hitting the ship with three 18.1-inch (46 cm) shells and three 6.1-inch (155 mm) shells. On Johnston's part, the damage was summed up as three 14-inch (356 mm) shells from the battleship Kongō at 14,250 yards, but Kongo was much farther and blinded by a rainsquall, unable to fire her guns, as where Yamato claimed to have sank a US "cruiser" right as Johnston was hit. The light cruiser Noshiro and the destroyer Kishinami also observed Yamato sinking a US "cruiser" matching Johnston's location. The damage from Yamato cut Johnston's speed to 17 knots and disabled three of her five 5-inch (127 mm) guns, and according to the state of her wreck later splitting her in two while under fire from a destroyer line around 10:11, thus counting as Yamato's first kill.

Sources-Yamato and Musashi Internet Photo Archive

The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar: Lundgren, Robert: 9781608880461: Books - Amazon.ca-page 78

Johnston I (DD-557) (navy.mil)

Imperial Battleships (combinedfleet.com)

An interview done with the crew which surveyed Johnston's wreck, but I could only find it on YouTube (which is blacklisted on my part), so feel free to disregard it.

As Yamato continued to fire on the escort carriers, the destroyers USS Hoel and USS Heerman engaged the fleet and attempted a torpedo run at 7:50. Yamato engaged Hoel with her 5-inch (127 mm) guns but was hit by a 5-inch (127 mm) destroyer shell in the process. Torpedoes from both ships forced Yamato out of the battle, but only temporarily, as she spent 10 minutes evading the torpedoes and another 10 minutes returning to the engagement, firing her main guns upon the escort carrier USS Gambier Bay.

Sources-The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar: Lundgren, Robert: 9781608880461: Books - Amazon.ca-page-110

Imperial Battleships (combinedfleet.com)

Yamato scored her first hit at 8:10 from 22,000 yards, probably on her first salvo, as an 18.1-inch (46 cm) shell smashed through her hanger bay. From a closer range, around 10,000 yards, the heavy cruiser Chikuma landed hits to the carrier's flight deck which started a large fire visible in numerous photos. At 8:20, what's attributed as the fatal hit occurred when a shell flooded Gambier Bay's engine room, immediately cutting her speed to 10 knots as she gradually slowed until dead in the water. The flat top recorded the hit as an 8-inch (203 mm) cruiser shell, likely from Chikuma, but Japanese sources disprove this and attribute the hit to Yamato's main battery from 20,000 yards. Yamato mistook Gambier Bay for a full sized fleet carrier, and fired AP shells which over penetrated her hull without exploding, which probably explains the discrepancy. Yamato and Kongо̄ claimed the same hit at 8:23 (Yamato was awarded the hit as she scored the shorter range and the correct firing angle). Meanwhile, Chikuma closed the range so close she could be spotted in US photographs.

Sources-Clash in the Sibuyan Sea: Gambier Bay - Warfare History Network

The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar: Lundgren, Robert: 9781608880461: Books - Amazon.ca-page 131

Yamato and Musashi Internet Photo Archive

Documentary series "Drain the Ocean", episode "Mystery of the China Sea", timestamp 5:50.

By 8:30, the crippled Johnston, followed closely by Hoel, Heerman, and the destroyer escort USS Samuel R Roberts attempted to cover Gambier Bay, and did achieve partial success at least. Yamato turned her 6.1-inch (155 mm) secondary guns to Hoel, landing a few hits that contributed to her sinking. Meanwhile, Chikuma turned to engage Heerman at point blank range. However, Yamato continued to fire on the carrier with her main guns, and observed her capsizing by 9:07. This was about the end of Yamato's significant participation of the battle.

Sources-Yamato and Musashi Internet Photo Archive

The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar: Lundgren, Robert: 9781608880461: Books - Amazon.ca-page 153

I hope this helps with something, have a nice day. Micheal Harrens (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Issue with sourcing

With my recent edit on Yamato, Wikipedia warned me that I used another Wikipedia article as a source. I do no recall doing this and have not found such a source in the paragraphs I wrote or the list of citations. Is this an error, and has this happened before? Micheal Harrens (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a link to the page on the cruiser Suzuya.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to link her Imperial fleet site. Micheal Harrens (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Armament

The article states that the Yamato had "4 × triple 15.5 cm (6.1 in) guns". On all drawings I see only 2 of those, located behind the B and the C main gun turret. I cannot see where 2 additional triple turrets could be placed? 2003:C6:3F10:5A00:5A68:D2F8:5663:3C62 (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It was built with two additional turrets on the sides, but these were later replaced with additional AA mounts--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)