Talk:Japanese battleship Fusō

Untitled

It might be worth clarifying if she was the largest vessel to be sunk with all hands during WW2. Or was it the Japanese aircraft carrier Chiyoda? PatGallacher (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Far Less Dramatic?

This article states: "In his 2009 book "Battle of Surigao Strait", Anthony Tully argues Fuso's sinking was far less dramatic than commonly believed: rather than breaking in half, she merely rolled over and sank." Whether rolling over or breaking in half, a 40,000 ton battleship sinking with more or less all hands after a magazine explosion at night is pretty dramatic either way... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.168.113 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He's welcome to his viewpoint, however, many Japanese eye-witnesses state otherwise. As do most historical sources.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fuso survivor?

The Battle of Surigayo Strait article now references a Fuso survivor, Hideo Ogawa. If this is verifiably true the speculations that Fuso was the largest ship sunk with all hands need to be removed. 68.12.162.118 (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't realize I wasn't logged in - John D. Goulden (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

bad template

The template used on this page breaks the standard reference tools. I leave it to others to fix this - but it should be addressed. Inline citations cause system cite errors. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes

• Just adding some things here so I don't edit-conflict. Inserted: also, sources conflict, particularly in the later battles, so I want to get the whole picture here, and then we can make some judgment calls on what to keep for the article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we'll need to cover both theories about her loss, for one thing, although that's really the only controversial thing about her that I can remember off-hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• According to Rohwer, Jurgen (2005). Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland: US Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-119-2.:
  • pp. 168 and 169: On 28 May 1942, Fusō and the rest of the 2nd Battleship Squadron set sail with the Aleutian Support Group, commanded by Vice-Admiral Takasu, and for that matter with most of the Imperial Fleet. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • p. 325: On 12 May 1944, Fusō and the rest of the 3rd Battle Squadron left Japan as part of Operation "A-Go", intended to defend along the Marianas. They joined up with elements of the 1st Mobile Fleet on 16 May.
  • p. 328: A "covering force" of Fusō, two cruisers and five destroyers left from Tawi-Tawi on 31 May (during the same operation) for Davao.
  • pp. 366 and 367 cover the Battle of Leyte Gulf. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Organizing some notes here before I start editing. From Parshall, Jonathan; Tully, Anthony (2007). Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway. Washington: Potomac Books Inc. ISBN 1-57488-924-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link):
  • p. 46: In 1942, Vice-Admiral Takashu Shirō commanded the Aleutians Screening Force, composed of Japan's four oldest battleships, including Fusō, accompanied by 2 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, and 2 oilers. But they were "not officially part of Operation AL and were only mentioned tangentially in the original Japanese planning documents." They were to accompany the fleet under Yamamoto, but were only to provide support to the Aleutian task force if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • p. 454: She was captained at that time by Obata Chozaemon.
• From Garzke, William H.; Dulin, Robert O. (1985). Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-101-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link):
  • p. 57: G & D describe the Battle of Surigao Strait as a "trap" prepared by Rear Admiral J.B. Oldendorf that took out all of Force C except one destroyer. - Dank (push to talk)
• Here's some earlier work done by Cam:
• Fuso TROM, Skulski, P. 12
• 11 March 1912 - Keel laid in dry dock at the Kure Kaigun Kosho (naval yard)
• 28 March 1914 - Launched
• 8 November 1915 - Commissioned and registered at Kure Naval District
• 13 December 1915 - Attached to 1st Squadron of 1st Fleet
• 9 April 1917 - Departs from Sasebo Naval Base for operations off the coast of China
• 29 April 1917 - returns to Kure Naval Base
• 27 February 1918 - Departs from Makou and cruises in Chinese waters
• 3 March 1918 - returns to Kure Naval Base
• 1 December 1918 - goes into reserve
• 1 August 1919 - Attached to 1st Squadron of 1st Fleet
• 29 August 1920 - Departs from Tateyama for guard duty off coast of USSR
• 7 September 1920 - returns to Otaru
• 1 December 1921 - goes into reserve
• 9-22 September 1923 - Assists in rescue operation following Great Kanto Earthquake
• 30 March 1925 - Departs Sasebo and operations around Qinhuangdao off China
• 30 March 1926 - Departs from Nakajou Bay and operates around Amoy off China
• 5 April 1926 - Returns to Makou
• 20 April 1926 - Departs from Jilong and cruises around Quindao off China
• 26 April 1926 - returns to Terashima Channel
• 1 December 1926 - goes into First Reserve
• 1 December 1927 - Attached to 1st Squadron of 1st Fleet
• 29 March 1928 - Departs from Ariake-Bay and operates around Zhoushan Quindao off China
• 2 April 1928 - Returns to Jilong
• 12 April 1930 - Main modernization starts at Yokosuka Naval Yard; bulges are fitted to the hull and the machinery is replaced
• 26 December 1932 - Arrives at Kure Naval Base for second phase of modernization: twin 12.7cm HA guns, 13.2mm machine guns, shell-room equipment
• 12 May 1933 - Completion, leaves Kure Naval Base for sea trials
• 15 November 1933 - Attached to 1st Squadron of First Fleet
• 16 September 1934 - Enters dry dock at Kure Naval Base for second phase of main modernization; enlargement of stern starts
• March 1935 - Second phase completed
• Skulski, p. 13:
• Lots of operating off the Chinese coast
• 26 February 1937 - Start of second modernization at Kure Naval Base: twin 25mm mounts, stern reinforced, 10m rangefinder fitted on top of tower bridge
• 31 March 1938 - Second modernization complete, departs Kure Naval Base
• 22 March 1939 - Departs Kagoshima and operatesin northern Chinese waters
• 15 December 1939 - second phase of second modernization starts: replacement of aircraft equipment to sttern deck, AA defence platform on top of tower bridge
• 10 April 1941 - attached to 2nd Squadron of 1st Fleet
• 8 December 1941 - war starts, departs Hashirajima as part of support TF
• 13 December 1941 - returns to Hashirajima
• 21 February 1942 - Arrives at Kure for exchange of gun barrels, departs 25 February
• 18 April 1942 - Sails from Hashirajima to counterattack Doolittle Raid
• 29 May 1942 - sails as part of distant cover force during battle of midway
• 16 June 1942 - returns to Yokosuka
• 15 November 1942 - transferred to Military Academy for use as Training Ship
• 18 July 1943 - enters drydock at Kure; Type 21 Radar, twin and single 25mm machine gun mountings fitted
• 18 August 1943 - sails from Inland Sea for Truk Naval Base
• 23 August 1943 - arrives at Truk for training
• 17 October 1943 - Departs from Truk and prepares toa ttack US task force in Battle of Marshall Islands
• 19 October 1943 - Arrives in Borneo
• 23 October 1943 - Departs Borneo and sails to Truk Naval Base
• Skulski, p. 14:
• 26 October 1943 - Arrives at Truk
• 1 February 1944 - Departs from Truk with other capital ships to avoid US air raid
• 4 February 1944 - Arrives at Palau
• 16 February 1944 - Departs from Palau with other capital ships to avoid US air raid
• 21 February 1944 - Arrives at Lingga Harbour for training
• From Anthony Tully (2009). Battle of Surigao Strait. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-35242-8.:
  • p. 66: At 09:08 on 24 October 1944, Fusō, Yamashiro and Mogami spotted a group of 27 planes, including TBFs, F6Fs, and SB2Cs, that had been launched from the carrier USS Enterprise.
  • p. 68 This would be the first time Fusō would fire its guns in actual combat. A bomb hit near Turret No. 2, penetrating the decks, killing everyone in No.1 secondary battery, and causing a 2-degree list to starboard. Another bomb destroyed the catapult and both floatplanes. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • p. 120: Early the next morning, Fusō opened fire around 01:05 after a shape was spotted off the port bow. Unfortunately, the shape turned out to be Mogami, and Fusō's fire killed three sailors in that ship's sick bay.
  • p. 134: The first ordnance to hit Fusō were two bombs from an air attack.
  • p. 152: One or two torpedoes hit Fusō amidships on the starboard side at 03:09. The ship listed to starboard, slowed down, and fell out of formation.
  • p. 178, 179: Fusō sank at some point between 03:38 and 03:50; only a few dozen men survived its rapid descent and massive oil fire, and only 10 of these survived after a few hours in the water. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • p. 179:

    ... both Kato/Ogawa’s precious account and the USS Hutchins report are describing a sinking and event at odds with the conventional record—one that seems far removed from the spectacle of the invariably alleged huge magazine explosion and blossom of light at 0338 that supposedly blew the battleship in half! ... the entire assertion that battleship Fuso exploded at all, let alone broke into two parts that remained afloat, was built on the shakiest of foundations. ... Fuso was torpedoed, and as a result of progressive flooding, upended and capsized within forty minutes.

    — Tully

  • - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • p. 275–277: Some reports claimed that Fusō broke in half, and that both halves remained afloat and burning for an hour, but the "identification was not based on the observation of obvious details like gun mounts and battleship superstructures, but simply the width and scale of the fire sighted." - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• From Mark Stille (2008). Imperial Japanese Navy Battleships 1941-45 (New Vanguard). Reading: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84603-280-6.:
  • p. 4: Battleships of the Imperial Navy did little until the late stages of the war, when they engaged and attempted to halt the US forces. Only one would survive the war.
  • p. 23: Fusō and her sister ship Yamashiro spent most of the war around Japan, mostly at the anchorage at Hashirajima in Hiroshima Bay. The two ships left Hashirajima on May 29, 1942, to assist the invasion of Midway if needed, but they played no part in that disastrous battle, and returned to Japan. Fusō stayed in home waters until August 1943, when she ferried troops and supplies to Truk. She took part in the failed attempt to defend Biak Island and its airfield in May 1944.
  • p. 23, 24: In October 1944, after a refit, both ships sailed to Lingga Anchorage as part of Operation Sho-go (Victory), the defense of the Phillipines. The two ships, slower than the other battleships, were assigned to Force C, and headed north into Leyte Gulf. With the other ships, they left for Leyte on October 20. The fleet departed Lingga on October 20 and headed to Leyte. On October 24, Fusō lost her catapult to a bomb dropped by carrier aircraft in the Sulu Sea. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

More notes

• Toland's book is hard to find information on; this page gives the OCLC as 944111. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, that will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• It's going to be difficult to interleave my stuff, which has references, with the stuff in the article, most of which doesn't. I'll create a separate section under WWII and work on that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about preserving the existing text too much. You can either add cites to it and rewrite it as necessary, or you can ignore it entirely. The latter is far easier to do although I tend to grab bits and pieces from the existing text if it suits what I'm trying to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Just a note that User:Climie.ca and Sturm have the Skulski text; I don't, so I'm going by some notes that Climie.ca left at User_talk:Climie.ca/Sandbox/Fuso-class. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• The overview section is almost entirely uncited and there's a high amount of redundancy between the overview and the service section. I think that they should be amalgamated, but what do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Feel free to lose anything from the Overview section; I agree, the lack of cites is a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you want to do that yourself to avoid edit conflicts? If not, then let me know when you're not working on the article and I'll take care of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese battleship Fusō/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 12:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I will use the template below to assess the article against the criteria. Please mark your edits on the review page as  Done when they are addressed. If there are any issues please let me know here or at my talk page. Thanks!

Initial points:

• There are no citations in the infobox, would it be possible to add some in or is it all referenced elsewhere in the article?
  • Going to defer to my co-nom Sturmvogel on that, he knows almost everything about ship infoboxes. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Everything in the infobox is cited in the main body unless I missed something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Done
• "at a rate between four and six shots per minute." Technically, couldn't they have fired at a rate of one, two or three shots a minute aswell? Could we change it to, "at a rate of up to six shots a minute." Let me know how you think about this one ★★RetroLord★★ 12:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)  Done

• (25 ft 0 in) Could we change to just (25ft)?
  •  Done. I had been getting rid of "0 in" in the text, and missed this one, it's done now. There are some instances of "0 in" in the infobox; I'll defer to Sturm on that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I fixed the infobox measurements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• " 9.69 metres (31 ft 9 in). Her displacement increased nearly 4,000 long tons (4,100 t)" How have the measurements been formatted in this article?
  • British English uses metres for length and long tons for ship displacement, and we've used the same conversions as are used in other ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll do a full review tonight. ★★RetroLord★★ 20:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I believe we've covered everything below. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we have now addressed everything I listed below, i'll now take another look to make sure I havent missed anything. ★★RetroLord★★ 02:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Aircraft section.

• Fusō was briefly fitted with an aircraft flying-off platform on Turret No. 2 in 1924. When was it removed?
  • The same year. - Dank (push to talk)
• During the first phase of her first modernization. Does the article explain when this was?
  • See the paragraph that begins "The ship began the first phase of her first modernisation on 12 April 1930". Although the sentence you're pointing to comes before that paragraph, we did say that her modernization began in 1930, so the reader would know when we're talking about. - Dank (push to talk)
• although no hangar was provided. Could the planes operate despite this?
  • Sure. They were launched with the help of catapults, and they landed in water and were hoisted out of the water by cranes. - Dank (push to talk)
• Does the ref at the end apply to the whole paragraph?
  • Yes.
• Thanks - ★★RetroLord★★ 02:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a few more things, I think we're nearly done. Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 12:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Final issue I can see, the first two pictures are identical? Perhaps remove the second one? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 05:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oops, removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Pending
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"She was fitted with five 40" and "The ship was also fitted with six" Is there any reasoning behind the use of She/her and the ship? I just think it should be more consistant.  Done Yes, the article will fail FAC if our sentence structure is "she did this, she did that, she did the other" for not varying the prose. (I've copyedited many FACs.) "dodging an attack by the submarine Pomfret." Is dodging an appropriately objective word to use here? could we please change it? "escaping" - Dank (push to talk)  Done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	"This was the standard Japanese light-antiaircraft gun during World War II, but suffered from severe design shortcomings that rendered it a largely ineffective weapon" Could you reference this? The next sentence is cited to Stille, and explains in detail why the weapon was ineffective. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	" It is also possible that some survivors made it ashore only to be killed by Filipinos, as is known to have happened to survivors from other Japanese warships sunk in the Battle of Surigao Strait." Whose theory is this? Could you provide a reference for this bit? This is Sturm's, I'll ask. Cite added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"Fusō was the only Japanese battleship to mount a radar on her funnel." The only one ever or the only one at the time? Ever. I'm with you, I think it would help readability to insert "ever", but it generally draws an objection at FAC as redundant. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"(This would be the first time Fusō would fire its guns in combat.)" I don't think this is neccessary, there has been no mention throughout the article of any combat likely to involve firing the guns so far, can we remove this bit? Removed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)  Done "Pulitzer Prize-winner" Perhaps change to just "Historian"? Done. - Dank (push to talk)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pending
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Typing error?

Is this correct? "The barbettes of the turrets were protected by armor 305 mm thick, while the casemates of the 152 mm guns were protected by 152 mm armor plates." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JK FIN vehicles (talk • contribs) 10:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would you think that it was a mistake? The armor thickness of the casemates was the same as the size of the secondary guns. Seems pretty simple to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

I suggest to add a phrase like "the inversion of turret 3 is evident in the comparison of the 1928 and 1933 photos"

There is an inconsistence with the Fuso-class article: here the turret 3 in simply re-oriented, there is moved.

pietro2001:760:2C00:8001:4D58:E6CB:A820:334C (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)