Talk:Design A-150 battleship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Related to H class?

Nazi Germany, ally of Imperial Japan, also planned a giant battleship with 20" guns. Perhaps these two parallel projects from two allied nations were somehow linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they were definitely not linked. The German battleship you are talking about was the 1944 design of the H Class Battleship, which itself was just an enlarged version of the 1939 H Class design. Two ships of the latter had been laid down early in 1939, but construction was cancelled shortly after the war had broken out. Ulsterman 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On top of this the H-44 design (the one with the 20inch) was never taken seriously the only H Class that did get planned and possibly partly constructed was the H-39 design H-44 was mierely a proposal not thought out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal Error 401 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Rephrased comparison of shell weight

The comparison section is very well done, except for a minor bit of phrasing which I corrected. In reality the Iowa class wasn't only the most "powerful" American battleship behind the Yamatos, it was the most "powerful". (I put powerful in quotes because targeting, speed, and armor determine a good battleship too.) Anynobody 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

dude the yamato out guns the iowa 10x —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs)

One thing I'll point out while I'm here is the weight of broadside/rate of fire issue. From List of broadsides of major World War II ships, we can take the Yamato's weight of fire at 28,971 tons, at 1.5 per minute. So, in 2 minutes, Yamato would fire 3 salvoes, totalling 86,373 tons. Iowa has a weight of fire of 24,300 tons, at 2 salvoes per minute. So, in 2 minutes, Iowa would fire 4 salvoes at 97,200 tons, over 10,000 tons greater than Yamato's. Add onto that superior American gunnery control, radar, etc.. Who outguns who now? Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed true, except that I think you mean pounds rather than tons? Benea (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, funny how you can get mixed up sometimes :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

yo i said out guns like as in nuber of guns including ainti-aircraft,etc the yamato wins in sheer firepower plus 1.5 salvos per minute .. is that possible? can you fire half a salvo or would you quickly load the rest of the guns. but still the japanese were like atoumated machiens arboard their battle ships so it think the yamato could avarege the 2 salvos per minute set by the iwoa plus like howmany years were in between the iwo and yamato i mean the yamto was a god in its time the amiracans feard it and thats why the built the um..iwoa class but the yamato was sunk before the were completed by a massive air attack by three carriers and i think it took like 13 (i am problay wrong about the number) derect hits before it was sunk. could the iwoa take the same amount of punishment and live?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ha the the yamato took direct hits form more then 10,000 pounds of bombs and keep goin like it was nothin the oly thing that can and did sink the ship is the amircan forsight to use the airplane at see not the battleship not to mention the other two ships in the yamato class although one was scrpped to make an aircrft carrier because the japs finnaly relised that planes not battleships would win the war. --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

what about range does the yamato fire father then the iwoa plus the yamato has a bigger beam and more antiaircraft guns and i think the iwo couldn't hold it's own against three aircraft carriers for as long as the yamato did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that the purposes of talkpages are to discuss improvements to the article, and not the place for a general discussion of battleship capabilities. Benea (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"As it was, the United States built ten battleships (the North Carolina-, South Dakota-, and Iowa-class battleships), while the Japanese completed just two." This is not true, japanese had two Yamato class battleships, but many more other classes of battleships. If you compare, Yamato is not comperable with Iowa or King george V. Both these ships are around 50k tons, yamato is 72k tons. If Montana battleships were built, they would be compatitors to Yamato. It is like comparing todays Kirov cruiser with Ticonderoga cruiser. For the arguement above, I dont think it is irrelevant to the article as it contains a section called "competition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.242.29 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Construction section, last sentence

Sentence reads:

However, the war's turn against the Japanese after the Battle of Midway meant that the need for ships other than battleships never abated.

Suggest that the author intended this:

However, the war's turn against the Japanese after the Battle of Midway meant that the need for ships other than carriers never abated.  

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.227.99 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A-150 not to be armed with 8 x 20" main battery

The article is incorrect in stating that these ships were to be armed with 8 20" guns. As Garzke & Dulin and other sources note, it was just 6 20" in three turrets. The article correctly notes that 8-9 main guns were rejected because the ships would have been too big. Each twin 20" turret weighed about the same as the Yamatos' triple 18.1", so the super Yamatos of the same displacement could not carry more than three turrets either. (It is probable that all the Yamatos would have been regunned with 6 20" in the mid 1940s.) I have never seen it explained how the A-150s would have been more heavily armored than the Yamatos despite being the same displacement.

G Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.177 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, finally. Sacxpert (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh good lord, that was in the article for an entire year. Thank you, 128.220 and @Sacxpert:. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Woulda Shoulda Coulda

The lede says this "would have been the 'most powerful battleships in history'", a statement that is really unworthy of an encyclopedia. Who knows whether the German H-44 would have been more powerful? What if the British would have thought of something even bigger? Sensationalist and ultimately fictional, it should be removed from the article, and certainly the lede. ---- 91.10.33.81 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll notice that statement is cited; that is the assessment of neutral third-party sources. Saying "well what if X" is WP:CRYSTAL. The sources say they would have been 'the most powerful battleships in history', so we say the same, as is written in the sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

We pick the sources. This source is pulling things out of its ass. There is no basis for the speculation that this fictitious ship would be more or less powerful than other fictitious ships, and it does not belong into the article. ---- 91.10.33.81 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"The source is pulling things out of its ass." Also this is not a "ficticious ship"; H-45 was a ficticious ship. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I need a source to show that a source is bonkers? Yeah right, that's how it works.

Neither ship was build, nor was a dozen or so of potential other ships. It's not even speculation which would have been the "most powerful" in the end, it's random guesswork. It cannot possibly of encyclopedic value, it's pure fanservice.

It's also so vague that it's useless in the best of cases. Would it have been the most powerful if Japan had won the war? If Japan had lost the war? If Germany would have finished Plan Z after invading the UK? After aliens landed on Heligoland? The only reasonable guess is that it would have been more powerful than older ships, which is only true for every single battleship ever build.

What's the argument anyway, can any statement from any source be added to the lede? If not, what makes this special? ---- 91.10.33.81 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that a work printed by the United States Naval Institute is unreliable, then yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As for the rest: if these ships had been built, without regard to any of the others, they would have been the most powerful. The article does not regard WP:CRYSTAL-ish WP:OTHERSTUFF possibilities, as considering "well, what about this other unbuilt class, it might not have been the most powerful then" is WP:SYNTH. A significant, reliable source makes this statement. Therefore, the statement is cited. We don't perform synth/WP:OR in an attempt to disprove it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you win. I won't try to improve your article any more. ---- 91.10.1.112 (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lots of claims by the US Naval Institute are unreliable rubbish. Like, for example, the picture of the vessel they promote as being the 1857 sailing ship "Wanderer", Lathamibird (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Blame the author, not the press.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

"Following the IJN's long-time tradition of qualitative superiority rather than quantitative superiority, they were intended to be armed with the biggest guns afloat. "

This is a ridiculous and illogical statement.

If "biggest guns afloat" is not quantitative superiority, then what is ? Lathamibird (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Quantitative superiority refers to more ships, not better ships which is what qualitative superiority means.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The examples provided are also pure POV and not backed up by reality. Neither Kongo nor Nagato were substantially superior to their contemporaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.17.61 (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Both classes had the biggest guns afloat for their type when built. The Kongo's guns were surpassed when the Brits built Renown and Repulse a few years later, but the Nagato's held their claim until the Yamatos were built 20 years later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kongo's 14" guns were not significantly more powerful than the 13.5s on the Lions, QM and Tiger, while her armour belt was slightly thinner (as built). Nagato was equal in combat capability to both the Colorado-Class (which preceded it) and Nelson-class (which superseded it), being faster than both, but significantly less well protected (and less well-armed than the Nelsons) 80.189.17.61 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but the navies and the public generally made their judgements solely on gun caliber as that was widely known, unlike armor thicknesses and arrangements which were secret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sec Construction: War with US became likely by the mid-1940's?

From Section "Construction": "As war with the United States became increasingly likely over the Second Sino-Japanese War, and particularly after the Japanese seizure of French Indochina in mid-1940,..."

I think by mid-1940 war with the US was already evident, underway, and almost over. --2001:16B8:6473:B200:F1CD:C016:CEF0:AB7 (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Really? Pearl Harbor wasn't until December 1941.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible Hull built

I remember there was a large roomer going on about the first A-150 suggest hull construction was started but they scrapped or even scuttledoff the west of Japan, the hull mostly known as '111' but here i guess you called it 798. Anyways thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal Error 401 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No, 111 was the fourth Yamato-class ship that was started and then scrapped during the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)