Talk:I-400-class submarine

Moved info here
Moved the info from submarine aircraft carrier to here. I am not sure about the info about the scuttling of the subs. It seems different than the info that was here. say1988 00:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Aicha m6a Stats
There's no way that the aicha could match the performance stats quoted in this article. It was not capable of reaching 360mph in level flight, let alone maintaining it for 650 miles whilst carrying a bombload. The quoted performance figures in the Aicha M6A page are much more realistic. --Corinthian 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What happened to Aicha M6A? I tried to check those numbers, and it wasn't there.--131.207.236.198 13:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Corinthian misspelled the name. It's Aichi M6A. TomTheHand 13:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Department of Corrections
I changed Long Lance to Type 95, the Japanese designation; Long Lance was the name given by Morison postwar. Also, "four 3,000 horsepower (2.2 MW) engines"? I doubt it, & the spec box sez 7000hp (a far more reasonable figure). User:trekphiler 10:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This website - http://www.combinedfleet.com/sen_toku.htm - reports the lower total figure of 7,700hp, though it's impossible to say where it got the figure from as it does not cite any sources. Adrian M. H. 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but what is the purpose behind both figures being shown? Which one is correct? If it's impossible to find a reliable source, I believe a more honest way to describe it is ????HP/KW --RRMola 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain of the submarine committing suicide
"The commander of the submarine fleet, Captain Ariizumi, had been responsible for an atrocity earlier in the war and therefore apparently decided on suicide rather than surrender to the Americans."

I removed the part explaining the suicide. Revert if any source is available on the atrocities AND the connection with the decision. If any atrocities are documented a page could be created about the man himself. 82.66.206.198 21:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, and I’ve removed the details of his “heroic�? death.


 * Also, The atrocities are well documented, (here, and here) and the account of his suicide, and the reason, is given in Tony Bridgland's book "Waves of Hate". Xyl 54 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment:missiles
Durring the Cold War the US Navy had at least two early cruise missiles: the 'Loon' which was a V-1 with US markings and the 'Regulas'. Both were launched from submarines equipt with pressure chambers very much like those on the I-400 class of IJN subs.Wohl1917 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Links for those intrigued by this tidbit of navy history: Republic-Ford JB-2 "Loon" and SSM-N-8 Regulus "Regulus" Naaman Brown (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed uncited claim
I've removed this para from the introduction as none of the references provided appears to support it, and it may not even be relevant to the topic of this article. 'Although the U.S. Navy remained discreet about it, the Japanese were ahead of the Allies in many aspects of submarine development and underwater weapons. During the Second World War, the Japanese had 30 different classes of submarines — from the one-man suicide torpedoes to the giant I-400 class of aircraft carriers, and used the world's most effective torpedoes, the Type 95.' --Nick Dowling 11:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment:aircraft
M6A1 performance: Warplanes of the Second World War.FLOATPLANES VOL 6William Green. gives an economical crusing sped of 184 mph and a range of 739 miles. Docent75 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I-14
This NY Times article suggests that there was another class capable of holding 2 Aichi M6As&mdash;the I-14. There's no article on this. Any experts? Bongo  matic  01:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be the Type AM submarine. There were two built. I-13 was sunk toward the end of the war, I-14 is the one they just found. Rees11 (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Might be nice to update the Aichi M6A article to reflect this. Bongo  matic  03:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Unique
As a member of a class of two, it cannot be in the Unique category! Hugo999 (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sept 9, 1945
While not familiar with all aspects of the I-400 subs, I do have a Japanese nautical chart of Tokyo Bay taken from the I-400 by my father after his LSM was tied to the I-400 along with the sub tender. My father was an radio operator on LSM-284. His boat entered Tokyo Bay on August 27th, 1945. On the back of the chart he wrote to his younger brother on September 9th, 1945 about their boarding the "largest sub in the world" and how the conscript Chinese and few remaining Japanese left on Board to maintain the craft were all in rags and smelled of rice wine, seemingly having used the watered down wine instead of water to bath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPrb (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Degaussing cables
Quote: Strung along the submarine's gunwales were two parallel sets of demagnetization cables, running from the stern to the bow planes. These were intended to dissipate the static charge that normally builds up when a boat's hull slices through the water, causing the steel in the hull to deteriorate over time. (Sakaida,p.73)

Me:This cannot be true. Vessels don't build up a static charge running through nice conductive water, and degaussing cables wouldn't change anything if they did. Mistranslation from Sakaida? If there were degaussing cables presumably they were to reduce the magnetic signature of the vessel so it would be less prone to setting off magnetic influence mines? Dbeierl (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Surviving Aichi M6A
The last section of this article titled "Artifacts" states that the only surviving aircraft was found at the Aichi Aircraft Factory in August 1945 and does cite a ref. for this information however, a related Wiki Article titled Aichi M6A states, under the section titled "Survivors", that this same aircraft was surrendered by a Japanese Navy Lt. to U.S. forces after he flew it from Fukuyama to Yokosuka. The source cited in the Aichi article is the Smithsonian's own website. Which is correct?

A small point for this article since it's really on the sub and not the plane but the source should be double checked and the section corrected or deleted if it is in fact incorrect. Most of the refs. cited in this sub article appear to have come from one source. --BLACKMONGOOSE13 (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible merger of individual submarine articles with this
The question has been raised at Talk:Japanese submarine I-401 of whether that article (and by implication also Japanese submarine I-402), both of which are meagre offerings with little or no material that is not already here, should be merged with I-400-class submarine. The 401/402 articles are likely never be developed into articles with distinct material, beyond the detail that is or can be included here. A single good article would be of benefit to readers (unless one day it became too large and had to be divided). Note no mention of merging Japanese submarine I-400. Strangely, that one doesn't exist - the link in the table is just a circular redirect back to here. It's "pre-merged". Perhaps at least that wikilink ought to be deleted. Davidships (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reconciliation between articles on Ulithi Atoll and I-400-class submarine
The article on the Ulithi Atoll indicates that by mid-1945 the Ulithi Atoll naval base had been largely abandoned. The article on the I-400 class submarines suggests that in mid-1945 the Ulithi Atoll was being used as a staging area for the American invasion fleet against the Japanese home islands. One of the two statements appears to be incorrect. Wsjacobs (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)wsjacobs

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on I-400-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050401072108/http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/I-401.html to http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/I-401.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050401072108/http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/I-401.html to http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/I-401.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027100212/http://pacerfarm.org/i-400/ to http://www.pacerfarm.org/i-400/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618063103/http://gallery.depili.fi/v/pienoismallit/model_expo_08/IMG_6684.JPG.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1 to http://gallery.depili.fi/v/pienoismallit/model_expo_08/IMG_6684.JPG.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverse engineering additions extremely dubious and should be removed
Whoever added that information provided no sources, and quite frankly is a bunch of nonsense. No source on submarines ever made these kinds of claims. 2600:1700:6000:9CA0:34B7:C4D1:7E2E:617D (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This article says too much about the submarine. Especially the part I-400-class submarine. But there is no reliable reference or no reference at all. We need to find some valid reference. And change the article accordingly. This will save a lot of effort and time and will be hassle-free.
 * The reverse engineering changes were added a few days ago without any reference whatsoever. So what is the problem with removing additions that had no references to begin with? Is it Wikipedia policy now to prove a negative? 2600:1700:6000:9CA0:34B7:C4D1:7E2E:617D (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The text about "reverse engineering" the "superior" Japanese submarines was originally added by an IP without a source. While the submarines were inspected (as were surface ships and German submarines) to see what could be learned, currently the article goes completely over the top about this. We would need very high quality sources to warrant keeping this kind of thing.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have already said, to do a hassle free constructive edit, we need valid individual reliable sources. If you manage to find some, then you're welcome to change accordingly. Until then, move your goal towards finding the source rather than adding anything that too is not reliable. How does that even help the article, replacing a non reliable content with another? AbhiMukh97 (Speak) (Contribs) 10:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no source that can back up these statements. It's not in any of the submarine books I own, and searching online resulted in nothing. This "reverse engineering" statement was literally made up by an IP a few days ago. This is just about removing unsourced additions, and now your justification for keeping it is that we have to prove a negative. That's not how burden of proof works. Even the language itself is questionable and seems to come from a Japanese nationalist. 2600:1700:6000:9CA0:34B7:C4D1:7E2E:617D (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)