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)

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)

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)