Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Haruna


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Japanese battleship Haruna

 * Promoted -MBK004 07:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)

The fourth (and last) of the Kongo class battleships. Passed its GA last month, was featured as a DYK on the Main Page on 22 February. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, and is likely the single most difficult article I have ever written, simply due to the lack of sources with specific information. As another thought, I wish to personally thank the creaters of combinedfleet.com, without whom the creation of this article would not have been possible with the resources I have. Cam (Chat) 05:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support now Comments - (this version)
 * I've been planning to add a little meat on the history of the Kongo-class for this article using Conway's, but never got around to it before I left college for break (and guess where Ed left that book?). If I haven't written something by, say, Wednesday, please poke me; I may use Google Books though. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be able to use this page in beefing up the armament. It's reliable; I think a copy of the WP:RS/N discussion can be found somewhere in Tom's massive sandbox.
 * Ah, I'm actually in the process of writing a specific gun page for that piece of naval armament (similar to what you did for 14"/45 caliber gun). I'll link it once the article is written. Cam (Chat) 04:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh :) Well, feel free to use that site with that article then instead :P — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  08:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "In keeping with Japanese doctrine". What doctrine? (I know that it had something to do with having the most heavily armed BB's, but do other people? :) )
 * I added in a bit on that. Cam (Chat) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know when Haruna came out of reserve after 1917 and 1920? And do we know just why she went into reserve those two times? (no, I don't expect you to know this last. Food for thought...)
 * "Although she had been equipped to carry floatplanes as early as 1927, Haruna's aircraft complement was upgraded, with the catapults and rails necessary to support three Nakajima E8N or Kawanishi E7K reconnaissance and spotter seaplanes."
 * Why "as early as"?
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * [ Citation needed ]"On 18 September 1943, Haruna left Truk as part of a counterattack force in response to American raids on the Brown Islands, yet returned to the Japanese naval base when no contact was made."
 * The previous sentence's cite cover both of them, so I've switched its positioning. Cam (Chat) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cam (Chat) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unharmed, Haruna arrived at Sasebo the following day. At the closing of 1944, Haruna was in Kure for repairs, having survived a year in which four other Japanese battleships had been lost."
 * "Unharmed" and "repairs" in consecutive sentences. Why was she damaged enough for repairs?
 * She wasn't damaged during the sub attack, but had run aground several days earlier. I've already clarified it in the section. Cam (Chat) 04:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Would it be possible to add something about how she ran aground too? :/ — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  08:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There was something in there already. Cam (Chat) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not totally satisfied. Were the repairs in Sasebo just temporary repairs to keep her sailing and escorting, and the later repairs at Kure the real deal? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Better! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  06:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a good article, but I think that it needs more work to reach A-class:
 * A clearer photo of the ship would be a better choice for the infobox photo
 * Alright. I've done some switching around to fix it. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement that " Haruna fought in every major combat action of the Pacific Theatre of World War II, covering landings in Singapore and the Dutch East Indies in 1942, before fighting American forces at the Battle of Midway and during the Guadalcanal Campaign" is flawed: The battleship obviously only could have seen action in the major naval actions in the theatre yet didn't take part on the Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of the Eastern Solomons, most of the other fighting in the Solomon Islands, etc. The Japanese also didn't land at Singapore until February 1942 by which time she was out of the area.
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement that "Throughout 1943, Haruna continuously transferred between Truk Lagoon, Kure Naval Base, Sasebo Naval Base, and Lingga in response to American airstrikes on Japanese island bases" seems unjustified as the relevant para states that she only responded to two American air strikes, and the first was in September, and implies that she spent most of her time in port
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Was the ship really "permanently transferred to Kure Naval Base" in early 1945? The relevant section of the article doesn't state this assignment was to be 'permanent' (which implies that the Japanese never intended to send her sea again)
 * My mistake, Kure was permanently designated as her home-port. I'll reword that. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Should all the captains be red-linked?
 * Oddly enough, very few of Japan's naval captains have any articles about them at all, other than those who rose to prominent command positions afterwards (Jisaburo Ozawa)


 * There are a few single paragraph sections which could be combined with neighboring sections
 * I've fixed a few. Cam (Chat) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What did it mean for the ship to be the "Emperor's special ship"?
 * Added in bit in refs. She served as his transport throughout the Japanese Empire


 * Which modifications were "declared complete" on 1 October 1931?
 * First Reconstruction. Clarified. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Carrier based aircraft played no role in the destruction of Force Z, and it doesn't seem correct to state that Haruna "withdrew from Southeast Asia" after this given that the source states that she sailed back to Indochina (which is part of Southeast Asia) and sortied to cover the invasion of Luzon in late December before leaving the area
 * I've changed it to "withdrew from Malaya". Is that better? Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Britain had an "Indian Ocean Fleet"; this naval force was the Eastern Fleet
 * Ah. Changed to correct term (my bad, my knowledge of British fleets is sub-par). Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems an overstatement to say that the Japanese bombardment nearly destroyed Henderson Field given that, despite extensive damage and loss of aircraft and supplies, it was back in operation within a few hours
 * In this regard, my sources disagree. Some sources (particularly those pertaining to the Guadalcanal Campaign as a whole) maintain that the damage to the field was quite severe. Other sources state the damage was minimal. My guess is that the damage was severe, yet the skillful damage control capabilities of American engineers enabled it to be up and running shortly after. I'm going to reconsult some other sources and leave it as-is for the moment. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence which begins "On 18 September 1943" needs a source Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed that as well, the previous sentence's citation covers both of them. Cam (Chat) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I've made some minor stylistic and copy-editing style changes, feel free to revert me if you wish, I just think they read better. Otherwise it looks excellent. Good luck at FAC! – Joe N  utter  23:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Concerns now addressed, though I think that 'inflicting heavy damage on' would be better than 'nearly destroying' during the coverage of the discussion of the attack on Henderson Field. Cla68 might have a better set of words again though. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comment - the infobox gives one number for everything...but what about before the major reconstruction? What were her stats prior to that? (I can help cite this with Conway's 1906–1921 if needed.— Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The tonnage and length displacements I only possess for the fast battleship era of the vessel. The armament - other than the AA guns - remained virtually the same throughout her career. I can tweak the speed section and a few others, but I have relatively little information on her pre-fast battleship era outside of the work done by Combined Fleet. Cam (Chat) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * File:Haruna at sea.jpg and File:Haruna on trials.jpg state that the images are from the "Japanese archives". Which Japanese archives?  Where did the photo actually come from?  My apologies for not having done this sooner, but I have a picture book with large, clear, glossy pictures of most, if not all of the IJN's battleships and I'll try to upload a better picture(s) within the next couple of days, family demands permitting.
 * Since the dates are given in the text, it's not necessary to put the dates in the section headings. For example, "1915–1926: Battlecruiser" would simply be "Battlecruiser."  If you don't agree, however, that's ok.
 * You have an external links section, but no external links are listed. Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.