Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano/Archive 1

Archive 1

Editing

If I may be frank, there is a blatant error in this article. The Shinano was, in actuality, sunk by four torpedoes, not six. I have read the book Sea Assault by Captain Joseph Enright himself, and indeed, six torpedoes were launched. The spread was planned that the first would pass by the stern, four would impact, and the last would pass by the bow, to ensure maximum number of hits in the event that the firing solution was not perfect. I have tried multiple times to rectify this error, and each time my work is erased, reverted back to the origional false information. A second, less well-known error refers to the format of the American submarine's name. Again revealed in the book Sea Assault, the name is actually spelled as Archer-Fish, not Archerfish, although that is what many military documents refer to her as. This, in fact, was a minor point of frustration among the crew, that all mail relayed to them while in port had their beloved sub's name spelled incorrectly. I hope this helps to clarify the current editing situation, and that when I work to correct these errors, you will read this before erasing my work; surprisingly, sometimes a 14-year-old boy does know what he's talking about!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WWII freak (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 August 2006.

The sub's name is Archerfish regardless of what her crew or captain called her. See comments on Archer-Fish (it just looks stupid, too) talk page regarding same.--172.190.176.3 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

About the sinking

Please notice that Shinano was not sunk because hull compartimentation was not completed. It was. Else it wouldn't have been launched. Usually a Yamato-class hull could have handled much more than 4 submarine torpedoes, and this damage would under normal conditions have been quite minor. The problem was that the conditions were not normal. The carrier was not commissioned, but just moved from one dock to another, with a skeleton crew and a lot of workers still working on her. As a result of the ongoing work, hull compartments were not sealed to let the workers move around. And skeleton crew meant no damage control. Add the skipepr inexperience and you understand why a minor hull damage worsened up to the sinking of a carrier.

I would suggest to change the paragraph on the reasons of the sinking.

Kontorotsui 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please back up your statements. The Shinano sank because of the failure of the anti-torpedo blisters, not because of the lack of damage control. If the anti-torpedo blisters worked properly, the explosions from the torpedoes would have been deflected or absorbed with minimal damage. They failed, though, which resulted in large holes just below the waterline. This led to water entering high on the hull, which resulted in the Shinano capsizing. I also doubt that any crew could have saved the Shinano for several reasons. Firstly, one of the damage control centers was flooded within moments of one of the torpedo hits. This led to a lack of coordination since the only othe damage control center was located on the bridge. Secondly, one torpedo hit a gasoline storage tank. This increased its destructive power and caused even more devastation. Third, the engines were flooded. This led to a loss of power. Lastly, the location of the hits on the hull led to a severe list, which greatly hampered damage control efforts. Your claim that the skipper was inexperienced is only partially true. While he had no experience commanding a capital ship, he had plenty of experience as a destroyer captain. If everything worked as planned, then the Shinano might have survived, and if she didn't survive, you would be right. If you are curious as to my source, it's the same as WWII freak.Prehistoricman5 01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor changes

nmi --> nm

145 x 25mm ---> 145 - 25mm

spelling errors corrected

ongoing construction/outfitting info added in relevant areas

life as a Yamato class battleship edited for emphasis on conversion

Jcforge 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shinano had 50 Oka kamikazes on board when sunk

Shinano was carrying a cargo of 50 Oka (Cherry Blossom) Model 11 glide bombs when sunk.

Zero! by Masatake Okumiya, Jiro Horikoshi, Martin Caidin p. 252

Is there any way to confirm this? Elwin Blaine Coldiron 02:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A small discrepancy

There seems to be a discrepancy about what carrier followed the Shinano as the largest ever aircraft carrier. The USS Forrestal is stated to be the largest since Shinano on its page, while the USS Enterprise is mentioned as the next "largest ever built" here. The Forrestal had a higher full load displacement than the Shinano and was commissioned before the Enterprise so I'm changing the Shinano page to point at Forrestal instead of Enterprise. 85.83.127.1 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

SHINANO SHOULD BE CLASSES AS A ww2 ERA SUPER CARRIER. THIS IS BECAUSE IT HAD A HUGE TONNAGE FOR ITS AGE AND WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE NIMITZ BACK THEN LOZL HAHTROUIAEHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.135 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Abe's promotion

The article mentions that Abe was due to be promoted to rear admiral once Shinano completed her fitting-out and take command of a fleet of attack carriers being built up in the east. Does this refer to the Unryu-class carriers that were under construction at that time? If so, this article ought to link to that page. Jgoulden (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in "Commissioning and Sinking"

The second paragraph of the section states "four of the carrier's 12 boilers were not in service due to lack of parts." The next paragraph after that, however, says "Shinano was also slowed by having only four out of 12 boilers running, as the rest were still nonoperational.", meaning only four boilers were in service. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.170.249 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Snippet

Back in the early 1950s there were some newspaper results that the wreck of the "Shinano" had been located and surveyed. At the same time there was also some discussion that the wreck could be raised. One such source was "The Navy" magazine (1952)?

If these details could be located it may well be possible to settle the various arguments about the number of torpedoes and the ensuing damage.AT Kunene (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Has the wreck been found yet? I would be surprised if no-one has looked for it. PhilUK (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

correction

For above pleae read newspaper articles and not results.AT Kunene (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Notes

I guessed that "1 November" was in 1944, but that guess means the narrative isn't in chronological order, so I don't know if that's right. - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• You're correct.
• "decided to" shows up a lot in Construction and conversion. I can't fix it because I don't know if there were specific things that happened that would indicate that decisions were made, or when they were made.
• I changed one of them, but some of the decision making is undated in my sources.
• "Battles of the Coral Sea": Some readers will take from this that there was more than one battle in the Coral Sea.
• Since I'm referring to both Coral Sea and Midway, how else should I phrase it? Spell out battle for each? That seems awkward.
• When one battle has a "the" and the other doesn't, it's okay to repeat "Battle". This is also fine: "the battles [lowercase] of Midway and the Coral Sea". - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "720,000 liters; 190,000 US gallons (158,000 imp gal)": punctuation problems
  • Good catch. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I made it down to Armor. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Radar - clarification/checking needed

The references to Type 13 and Type 22 radar both take the reader to List of Japanese World War II radars, which has no mention of any such types of radar. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bulkhead

There is a sentence "Large external anti-torpedo bulges below the waterline provided the main defense against torpedoes, backed up by an armored bulkhead extending down from the belt armor; the bulkhead was intended to prevent splinters from piercing the main hull and, though not watertight, was backed by a second one which was." I do not understand the end of it: which was what? (I am not a native speaker, perhaps it gives sense to you, but formulate it clearer, if you can, please.)--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

equivalently: 'which, unlike the first bulkhead, was watertight'. I don't think it's unclear as it is though. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Colonies Chris, now it is understandable to me. Nevertheless the sentence looks a bit too complicated. :-) --Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

When was this ship known to the US?

In the last paragraph in "Design and Description", it says: "The Americans only learned about the existence of Shinano after the war;" I have a source here that says otherwise: In NavWeaps.com, article "What did the USN know about Yamato and when?" y Joseph Czarnecki (http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-084.php), it says: <<Captain Rogers' successor, Captain Harold M. Bemis, reported in January 1938 that "Japan has under construction two 16-inch battleships of considerably greater tonnage than 35,000 tons and is planning to lay down a third and possibly a fourth.>> and <<In July 1943, interrogation of a captured Japanese aviator betrayed the conversion of the third ship in this class, Shinano, to a carrier and that her intended size was 50,000 tons.>> I added a note to this in the article but wasn't sure how to phrase this better. Sansmalrst (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Units

It was not a US ship, and "metric ton" is wrong. I removed it and was reverted. Why? Grassynoel (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Because British English is not the default. When there is not a strong national connection respect the preexisting format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Deck covering

This is an FA-class article, see WP:FAOWN. You don't have as much freedom to edit or add material as you do on other articles. You've added material that doesn't match the citation format for the other sources used. Furthermore, it's from an article that predates the time when accurate information became available on IJN warships in English, so I'd consider it unreliable. Why do you think it's important? To my mind, it falls in the realm of trivia. Other nation's carriers may have covered their flight decks in teak or some other type of wood, but so what?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

wreckage

Has the wreckage of Shinano ever been found? If not, have there been any expeditions to try and locate her? Elsquared (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, no to both questions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)