Talk:Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II

Shokaku class NOT on trials
I'm removing the comment "still on trials and workup" regarding the "Shokaku"-class carriers, as it does not belong. This article is specified as "IJN at time of Pearl Harbor Attack in December 1941", but Shokaku commissioned on August 8 and Zuikaku on September 25. Not only that, but both ships participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and no navy would send ships on a mission while they were "still on trial". Elsquared (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Units of the Imperial Japanese Navy
Can someone please look at linking to or redirecting this orphaned page? Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I will remove Bias / Opinion
The article as it stands contains too many statements that are designed to give a positive impression of the Imperial Japanese Navy's strength and quality. Some of them are deceptive, some are simply wrong, and some are irrelevant. I will remove them unless someone objects. Specifically, I refer to the following:  The table showing the number of IJN warships is misleading. IJN did not have 15 fleet carriers and 5 light carriers at any one point in history; even if none of their carriers were sunk, they wouldn't add up to 15. They began the war with Akagi, Kaga, Zuikaku, Shokaku, Soryu, Hiryu as fleet carriers, and Zuiho, Shoho, and Ryujo as light carriers. They lost Shoho at Coral Sea, then lost Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu at Midway. They added Taiho, Shinano, Unryu, Amagi, and Katsuragi in 44. There are also Akitsu Maru, Kaiyo, Taiyo, Unyo, Chuyo, Hiyo, Chitose, Chiyoda, Shimane Maru, Yamashio Maru, Kumano Maru, and Junyo, but these, having top speed of 20 - 25 knots, were escort carriers. I count 11 fleet carriers between 1941 and 1945, and 3 light carriers. This information is available on wikipedia itself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Navy#Aircraft_carriers. The chart needs to be correct, and also modified to reflect the fact that it does not indicate IJN's total strength at any one point in time. "During the first years of the war the Imperial Japanese Navy dominated the Western Pacific." This sentence is unsourced and moreover factually wrong. I don't think anyone can look at IJN's performance and say that they "dominated" the "first years" of the War in Pacific with a straight face. The sentence implies that the IJN dominated the Western Pacific at least in year 1942. They lost all their major engagements beginning in May 1942 with Coral Sea. "Japan continued to attribute considerable prestige to battleships (戦艦　Senkan) and endeavoured to build the largest and most powerful ships of the period." I don't see any support for the claim that Japan continued to attribute considerable prestige to battleships, nor do I see any point in including the Japanese translation of battleship. I will remove these claims. "Yamato and Musashi were sunk by air attacks long before coming in gun range of the American fleet.[5]" This sentence implies that the American fleet intended to engage either of those ships with their guns. That is false. There were no gunships involved in the American operations to sink the Yamato and the Musashi. They were not in gun range of the American fleet, but American fleet did not send any guns to oppose them. I don't see why this misleading sentence has to stay, and I will remove it. "Japan put particular emphasis on aircraft carriers." This is unsourced and also counterfactual. See below: "The Imperial Japanese Navy started the Pacific War with 10 aircraft carriers,[7] the largest and most modern carrier fleet in the world at that time" They had 6 fleet carriers, 3 light carriers, and 1 training carrier, along with some escort carriers. The US navy and the Royal navy had fewer carriers, but their carriers could carry more aircraft. There is also no support for the idea that the Japanese carriers were the most modern. In fact, they were some of the least modern. They did not enjoy new technologies like radar or catapult. As there is no support for these claims (largest and most modern), I will remove it and indicate that the Japanese emphasized aircraft carriers as did other navies. "There were seven American aircraft carriers at the beginning of hostilities, only three operating in the Pacific; and eight British aircraft carriers, of which a single one operated in the Indian Ocean." I will add that the seven American carriers could carry over 100 more aircraft than the ten Japanese carriers could. I will add also that the British carriers had armored decks, unlike the American or Japanese carriers. "The IJN's two Shōkaku-class carriers were superior to any carrier in the world, until the wartime appearance of the American Essex class.[8]" This claim (again attributed to the same book that seems to be the source of these biased statements, the Kaigun by Evans and Peattie) is unverifiable. A statement like this should not be thrown about on the strength of one very inferior source material. "A large number of these Japanese carriers were of small size, however, in accordance with the limitations placed upon the Navy by the London and Washington Naval Conferences." This sentence is needlessly indeterminate. What does the author mean by "a large number" and "small size"? Akagi, Kaga, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiryu, Soryu all displaced about much as, or more than the Yorktown class. They had 3 light carriers but that hardly seems like a large number. I will delete this sentence as it does not provide any information.  "Japanese World War II destroyers (駆逐艦 Kuchikukan) included some of the most formidable destroyers of their day." Again unsourced and frankly pointless. "This came as a nasty surprise to the Allies, who had generally underestimated Japanese technical capabilities." Ditto. "Naval treaties were later abrogated in 1937 and so destroyer development continued without regard to limits." This sentence is vague and does not explain fully what the "treaties" were and were about. I will modify it so the reader has some idea of why a treaty (and which treaty, i.e. London Naval Treaty of 1930) that did not set size limits for destroyers would impose size restrictions on them. "Generally speaking, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) requirements gave rise to warships that were substantially larger than their European or American equivalents." Unsourced, and also it is unclear what is meant by "IJN requirements" or "substantially larger." I will remove this sentence. "Despite this, Japan's destroyer force was halved by the end of the war." This is unsourced and moreover incorrect. Japan lost well more than half of its destroyers in WW2. I will correct this error and provide a source. "he A6M Zero was considered the best carrier aircraft of the beginning of the war" Another baseless speculation from Kaigun. This needs to be removed. <li>"the Mitsubishi G3M bomber was remarkable for its range and speed, and" Again a Kaigun claim that is objectively wrong. The G3M's top speed was 375 km/h and cruising speed 280 km/h. The B-25H Mitchell, a comparable American WW2 bomber, had top speed of 438 km/h and cruising speed of 370 km/h. G3M's range was indeed superior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_G3M#Specifications_.28Mitsubishi_G3M2_Model_21.29 <li>"The Japanese pilot corps at the beginning of the war were of high caliber as compared to their contemporaries around the world due to intense training and frontline experience in the Sino-Japanese War.[10]" This is simply an unverifiable claim. No one could know this then, no one can know this now. How can anyone state with any certainty that Japanese pilots in late 1941 were better than, say, German pilots, who had been fighting an intense air war for 2 years? Little surprise that this ridiculous claim comes from Evans & Peattie's Kaigun. I will delete this claim. <li>"As a result, the more numerous, heavily armed and armored American aircraft were able to develop techniques that nullified the advantages of the Japanese aircraft" I don't see any support for the idea that American aircraft were more numerous; I'm unsure what the author could even have meant. Were they more numerous in specific battles? They were not in some of the major ones, like Coral Sea or Midway. Were they more numerous in terms of total inventory? I don't know how that would be relevant. I will remove the "more numerous." </ol> I will make the suggested changes. I also recommend that Evans & Peattie be purged from this and other articles relating to the Imperial Japanese navy. Pensiveneko (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hold on your Horses! You simply can not purge reliable sources (e.g Evans & Peattie) which is double backed with Jentschura, just because you have seen an incomplete list of its fleet strength on another wiki webpage WP:CIRC. On top of that, the numbers are correct, considering recent publications:

a) New Vangard: Imperial Japanese Navy Aircraft Carriers 1921-45, 2005 b) New Vangard: Imperial Japanese Navy Submarines 1941-45, 2012 c) New Vangard: Imperial Japanese Navy Destroyers 1919-45, 2013

2) Based on your opinions? It can be sourced among the other: #3,#5 and #6 of your rants.

3) "I will add that the seven American carriers could carry over 100 more aircraft than the ten Japanese carriers could. I will add also that the British carriers had armored decks, unlike the American or Japanese carriers." - Redundant and unnecessary. There's no urgent need for any dick measuring contest. The sentence is well in its nature of WP:NPV and would otherwise only create WP:DUE.

4)"This claim (again attributed to the same book that seems to be the source of these biased statements, the Kaigun by Evans and Peattie) is unverifiable. A statement like this should not be thrown about on the strength of one very inferior source material." - Right, a highly renowned and eminent scholar with doctorate degrees and within more than 50 years of research, have nothing else to say. How dare you to damage their reputation! Get the damn book before spouting such rants.

5) "Another baseless speculation from Kaigun. This needs to be removed." - You clearly seem to have an agenda, as the A6M talks and those citation challenges reveals. The appearance and substantial performance of the Zero came as a distinct shock for the allied forces, that's a fact. It was superior to any fighter at the beginning of the Pacific war, such as: Curtiss P-40s, Hawk 75s, Brewster Buffaloes, Wildcats and Hawker Hurricanes. This held up until more ingenious tactics (e.g. Thach weave) and better equipment were introduced

6) "Again a Kaigun claim that is objectively wrong. The G3M's top speed was 375 km/h and cruising speed 280 km/h. The B-25H Mitchell, a comparable American WW2 bomber, had top speed of 438 km/h and cruising speed of 370 km/h. G3M's range was indeed superior." - Right, it makes absolute sense to compare the B-25H Mitchell which was not introduced before 1943 to the G3M. The full sentence clearly states at the beginning of the war, which is truly legitimate, since nothing at that practicular time could match its range and performance. In early December 1941 however, the IJN has already introduced the G4M to supersede the obsolete G3M from 1935 for their campaign.

7) "How can anyone state with any certainty that Japanese pilots in late 1941 were better than, say, German pilots, who had been fighting an intense air war for 2 years? Little surprise that this ridiculous claim comes from Evans & Peattie's Kaigun. I will delete this claim." - Another failing and moot point, it should be clear that the experiences made in the second Sino-Japanese War from 1937 onwards was meant. Pointing to the Germans is simply ridiculous, as it doesn't state that what you're trying to imply.

If you want to improve the article, I urgently recommend you, to reviewing the cited sources, before making any hasty conclusions. A such tremendous intrusion to the article requires a wide consens. Using other wiki pages to source your opinion, doesn't make them right. Damaging the reputation of renowned scholars and their serious publication could yield you to serious troubles. LikePancakes (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP editor. Many of the statements Pensiveneko is objecting to are accurate and entirely uncontroversial, and removing material referenced to Evans & Peattie is ridiculous given that Kaigun is the standard history of the IJN and clearly a reliable source. This seems to be an attempt to push a WP:FRINGE point of view. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠I was going to refute these deletions point by point, but I don't think it's necessary. Clearly, there's an agenda, here. (That, or outright ignorance.) I've read Kaigun (among others), & there's no doubt IJN was BB-centric, nor the A6M was a genuine shock (tho I'd question its innate superiority, given how lightly-built it was). Japan's DDs were about as good as it got, & had technical features no DD (then or now) had. IJN's aircrew quality was top-notch, & their crew training systems limited the ability to replace losses. (Comparing to Germany is nonsensical.) And it is perfectly possible to know, then as now: professionals know how to assess quality (even if you don't).
 * ♠As for including the Japanese terms for ships, on a page dedicated to IJN: how, exactly, is that "pointless" or "nonsensical"?
 * ♠I am dubious about "substantially larger", since IJN expected & planned for a fight close to home; the emphasis on gunnery did drive BB size up, but that needs clarifying, at least.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me first mention that I stated that I "will" delete certain items after a period of non-response because I wasn't sure that this article was being observed or being taken care of. Now that I know that it is, I will not take any unilateral actions. I will get to the other points later, but I will address a couple right now. First, from Pancakes. He stated, in his response to my objections about Japan's particular emphasis on carriers, that it is a redundant and unnecessary dick-measuring contest to show that the US navy's carrier fleet, while nominally fewer in number, were in fact stronger as a whole than the IJN's carrier fleet. I agree that an encyclopedia article should not engage in a 'dick-measuring contest.' However the article as it stands is already full of instances of that. It states that the Shokaku-class was the finest carriers in the world, that Japanese pilots were the best, that the Zero was the best naval fighter, and G3M was the best bomber. There is absolutely no need for these claims to be made. They do not inform, as these claims are not only unverifiable but counterfactual to the history in which Japanese carriers, pilots, fighters, and bombers collectively suffered repeated and often humiliating defeats.

Two, the only "proof" offered to support the notion that Japan put a particular emphasis on aircraft carriers is the number of 'carriers'. Historical fact does not appear to bear this out, or, at the very least, it is not the most obvious conclusion you can draw from the fact that, post-Washington Naval Treaty and pre-Pearl, RN had 5 carriers being built and the USN had 3 building and 12 more ordered. These programs dwarf the Japanese emphasis on carriers, especially when you consider that the British and American carriers were simply more capable. Unless there is a more definite proof, or rather, unless there is in fact any proof that Japan put more emphasis on aircraft carriers than the USN and RN did, the sentence should be deleted.

As to: "And it is perfectly possible to know, then as now: professionals know how to assess quality (even if you don't)." This is frankly such a stupid idea that I am hesitant to accord it the dignity of a response. I will merely say that "professionals just know" is not enough, and that any section in the article supported by "professionals know" should be deleted.

68.111.101.125 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)