Talk:Kaiten

Plural....
What's the plural of Kaiten?--Lakkasuo (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no specific plural form in Japanese, so it's still kaiten, whether one or more. However, according to the rules of English grammar, I believe it is considered acceptable (though not really encouraged) to add an "s" to newly introduced loan-words, as in kaitens. The same holds true for other Japanese words, such as kimono or ninja. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Meaning
Kai 回 only means return when teamed up with ki　（回帰） which does mean return. As far as I know it only means turn, and not return, on its own. So Kaiten means turn the heavens, shake up the world, reverse the course of the war not return to heaven as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.251.216.21 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Kitakami, the only surface ship to launch Kaiten
How about Matsu/Tachibana class destroyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.234.176 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The body of the article includes some of the destroyers so equipped and I find this in the literature I have, I'm not sure why the "only" phrase has been retained thus far for the cruiser.  I will edit to correct it.  Red Harvest (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Bespoke" What does this mean in naval/military context?
Looks like this link is some sort of Brit slang for custom made clothing. Never seen this word used this way before. I'm removing it and editing to reflect what I think was meant. Red Harvest (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Air tanks
One thing I found confusing is the use of "air tank", "air vessel" and "air bottle." Some of these apparently do hold air, for pneumatic steering, but some apparently hold oxygen for the engine, so calling it an "air" anything would be incorrect. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

English translation
The book "Kaiten: Japan's Secret Manned Suicide Submarine And the First American Ship It Sank in WWII" translates "kaiten" as "heaven shaker." Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kaiten. 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/20090505052709/https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers/precisionweaponspower.htm to https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers/precisionweaponspower.htm

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) 05:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kaiten. 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/20100822061527/http://usslci.com/html/memorialnames.html to http://www.usslci.com/html/memorialnames.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611201719/http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/subs/I-47.html to http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/subs/I-47.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014043626/http://hnsa.org/ships/kaitennj.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/ships/kaitennj.htm

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) 15:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Schematic of a Kaiten type 1, dimension error
The "Schematic of a Kaiten type 1" is very good and interesting. But there is a very obvious error in the measurement "0,172 m" which is located below and to the right of the pilot. It looks like the measurement should more likely be "1,72 m", but I have no way of knowing the correct measurement. How do we get this corrected? Gjensen (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)