Talk:Operation Ten-Go

Lack of air cover

The suicidal nature of the mission might be better understood by uninformed readers if two pieces of information were added. First, I would mention briefly at the beginning Japan's position in the war at this point, as well as the losses it had taken relative to the number of ships being launched by American shipyards in late '44 - '45. Second, the significance of sailing the Yamato into battle without air cover should be explained. I don't think most people appreciate that, despite their awsome firepower, the Yamato, Musashi, etc. -- and U.S. BBs as well -- were sitting ducks without fighter protection. This was especially true for the Japanese due to the number of carrier-borne aircraft in the U.S. task force.

The entry discusses the makeup of the U.S. taskforce, but mentions the number of battleships rather than aircraft. This is important because the very next sentence says Yamato took "up to twenty bomb and torpedo hits" before her magazine blew. Seems like it might be a good idea to explain where those bombs/torpedos came from.

Question.

"However, the crews at the fuel depot at Tokuyama defied orders and courageously supplied the task force with much more."

'Courageously'? I don't understand military tactics and the such; but how can fuel crews be 'courageous'?

Because disobedience was punishable by death? Just a hypothesis. :oS

MWAK--84.27.81.59 15:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

0_o Baloogan 03:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Correct, the fuel depot workers would have been in serious trouble for sending off as much fuel as they did, possibly being executed. This was some of the last (dead last) fuel oil in Japan. Gulfstorm75

Another question: "Yamato's damage control team counter-flooded both starboard engine and boiler rooms. This mitigated the danger but also drowned the several hundred crewmen manning those stations, who were given no notice that their compartments were about to fill with water." I'm surprised this was even possible. I don't think US Navy engine rooms and boiler rooms generally have a way to flood them from the outside. I guess you could run a few firehoses down the hatches, but that would be slow as all get-out. Were Japanese ships intentionally built with a way to flood compartments from the outside, as a way of preventing listing? Mcswell (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'll see if I can find a definitive answer. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusing seasonal references

One paragraph begins: By spring 1945 ... World War II ended well before Spring 1945? Oh! someone means the northern hemisphere spring.

Seasonal references should not be used in this way, because they are likely to cause confusion. People do live south of the equator, and the seasons there are not the same as they are north of the equator. This should be reworded using hemisphere-neutral language so people everywhere who understands when 1945 was can also understand when the war reached this particular point without having to translate unnecessary seasonal references. (Imagine if it said autumn instead of spring here.) --B.d.mills 00:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it was spring for the two combatants involved in this battle. I won't, however, object if you want to remove the seasonal reference. Cla68 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In this battle? Perhaps. However the British Pacific Fleet and Solomon Islands campaign (which proceeds the spring 1945 bit) articles, amongst others, suggest there was New Zealand and Australian involvement in other battles even if it was primarily US... In any case, this is kind of irrelevant. Instrinsicly, this is discussing the issue in general terms. There is no reason why it should be from the POV of the combatants. It should be appropriate for the reader. I should add that even in northern hemisphere tropical countries such as Malaysia and Singapore for example, seasonal references such as spring have limited meaning for them (even if they technically have the same seasons). Indeed an inexperienced reader may not even be sure when the seasons are. I really see little reason for seasonal references in an article which isn't either related to the season or a quote (e.g. if a release date target is spring 2007 althought we should make it clear who's spring in this case). It is arguably acceptable when it only concerns a specific country or region even if it isn't connected to the season but when it concerns a world wide thing such as World War II, there is no justification for seasonal reference IMHO. Nil Einne 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If articles should be seasonal-neutral from the point of the reader, then your point is valid. If it's okay for an article to represent the seasonal POV from the participants in the event, then it's not as important. I don't think any of the Solomon Island battle articles mention the season, which is appropriate since, as you point out, seasons don't really happen in the same way in the south Pacific and for the participating combatants. However, spring is a culturally significant event in both Japan and the U.S., the participants in this battle. The battle also took place in an area where spring is a noticeable season (I know this is arguable). However, I can understand your point of view and won't get worked up if someone removes (if they haven't already) the seasonal references from the article. Cla68 07:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The general guidelines I use to determine the validity of seasonal references are:

• If it is a name of a battle, etc "spring campaign" it is acceptable provided it is clarified within the article (northern spring/southern spring).
• If it is used as a time reference it should be removed if possible ("the autumn of 1943" shold be substituted). Month names or other time periods taken from the Gregorian calendar should be used if possible. Rewording as "the northern autumn of 1943" should not be used, unless it is in connection with a battle name or other similar event that bears a seasonal name. In this case, dates should also be provided so that users need not consult other articles or primary references.

I have created a new {{when}} tag for these ambiguous seasonal references. A quick search using Google suggests that there are more than ten thousand of these using the phrasing "the <season> of <year>". And there are doubtless countless more using different phrasing. --B.d.mills 10:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki title

This article currently links to the Japanese article called Bou-no misaki oki kaisen. There's also a Japanese article for "Operation Ten-Go" located here, but it is a shorter article. If this is appropriate, should there be an elaboration of the Japanese title being linked to? Shawnc 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some idiot wrote that a B-22 hit the Japanese navy with nuclear warheads, and spelt nuclear wrong. Corrected it as best as I could. If someone knows what it originally said, please replace what I wrote. JodoYodo 04:23, Thursday September 14, 2006 (UTC)

Just revert it to the earlier version, which I'll do now if it hasn't been done already. This type of thing always happens when an article is featured on Wikipedia's front page. Cla68 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it with these sub-morons? Do they really have nothing better to do that this? If they want to screw around, why not start their own web page and leave those of us with triple digit IQs alone.

B-22? I make no claim to be an expert on WWII aircraft, but anyone with more than cursory knowledge of the war knows there was no such thing as a production model "B-22." There was an experimental plane (Douglas_XB-22) with that designation but it was never produced. See US WWII Bombers

PainMan 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In Harm's Way?

Under Audio-Visual it is stated:

"In Harm's Way is a 1965 film which includes a dramatization of the battle from the perspective of American servicemen."

In Harm's Way is thinly veiled, highly fictionalized representation of the later parts of the Solomons Campaign that took place nearly three years before the Ten-Go operation.

I feel that this reference should be removed.

214.3.11.2 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Jeff Rogers 14 Sep 2006

Questionable assertion

[S]ome of the Japanese survivors reported that U.S. fighter aircraft machine-gunned Japanese survivors floating in the water.[39] This may have been a war crime or it may have been a legitimate attempt to protect downed U.S. aircrew who were floating in the water nearby awaiting rescue.[40]

To apply the phrase "war crime" with 21st century connotations to actions during WWII is anachronistic and highly inappropriate. I have no problem with the documentation of facts (my grandfather who served in the Pacific theater has confirmed to me that Japanese POWs were, in fact, shot after surrender). My problem is using this statement without putting it in context.

(The systematic execution by Canadian forces, in Europe, of captured members of the SS Hitlerjugend division is probably closer to the modern definition of a "war crime" since not every member of this elite unit was invovled in the massacre of captured Canadians in Normandy. See Keegan, The Second World War. But how much sympathy can one have for SS men? Perhaps we should ask Gunter Grass?)

Although there are numerous recorded incidents of captured Japanese soldiers being shot immediately after capture or shortly thereafter. However, it MUST be noted that many Japanese POWs, even when gravely wounded, attempted to kill or killed and wounded doctors and nurses attending to them, indeed, trying to save their lives.

The race war nature of the Pacific conflict is something that has been very rarely explored, either officially, or by private scholars of either of the two former enemies, now such close Allies. Such a study would be fascinating since there can be little question that the Pacific War was, in fact, a classic "race war" where quarter was rarely asked and ever more rarely given. Contrast this with the European theatre where, with some exceptions, the Nazis and the Allies obeyed Geneva Convention restrictions during the conflict (tho' the Germans did not do so on the Eastern Front under the flimsy pretext that the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention).

Thus, the killing of Japanese POWs was essentially a self-defense measure--especially given that defeat was considered so shameful by Japanese custom that death, if necessary by suicide, was considered by nearly all officers and men to be preferable to surrender. This attitude, in part, explains, but cannot excuse, the terrible crimes committed against Allied POWs and civilians under Japanese occupation.

Anyone seeking further information on Japanese atrocities should definitely get a copy of

Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II by Yuki Tanaka, a Japanese historian, resident in Australia (not surprisingly since it is not unknown for Japan's tiny, extreme nationalist groups to intimidate, to the point of firing shots at the houses of, Japanese scholars who publish the truth of the military clique's almost unbelievable crimes against humanity.

The author does make a limp attempt to link Japanese crimes to the use of atomic bombs by the United States to end the war. But this is typical of Japanese WWII scholars. The Japanese establishment has successfully inculcated the idea that Imperial Japan was a victim and not a purpetrator of horrors beyond imagination.

--->Be warned this book is NOT for those with a weak stomach or for kids. Tanaka documents the Japanese military's pre-planned use of cannabalism to feed troops that could not otherwise be supplied with food. And not just of enemy POWs but even low-ranking Japanese enlisted men.

Bottom line: discussion of atrocities, whether Axis or Allied really do not have a place in article concerned strictly with a battle.

PainMan 19:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Though, Tanaka-sensei's way is then absolutely similar to that of pretty much every American WW2 historian, who outright denies the fact that thousands of Japanese women have been raped by Allied soldiers during the occupation (despite massive evidence). People today still get taught that the Japanease fought so fiercely because they feared the Americans WOULD rape their women. Winners write history, right? Saying that "the Japanese establishment has successfully inculcated the idea that Imperial Japan was a victim and not a purpetrator of horrors beyond imagination." is, pure and simple, wrong. There are plenty of historians in Japan who don't follow the "establishment's" idea. Plus, Japanese war crimes do appear in Japanese media these days and have for a while. Oh, and before I forget it. Tanaka-sensei spent some time in Australia, yes, but he is, as a matter of fact, a research professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute (which, last time I checked, is in Japan) and a coordinator of Japan Focus (www.japanfocus.org)

What can be said, however, is that warcrimes happened. The Japanese, the Germans, the Soviets, the Americans, they all committed warcrimes. The British firebombed Dresden and, ever since the end of the war, conveniently whitewashed this event by decreasing the number of victims. When I was in school (more than 10 years ago), the official number was ~64,000. Now it's not even 30,000 (the number given by the Nazi government was somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000, which actually makes sense, given the fact that the city was crowded with refugees from the east). But if the Germans would attempt anything like that, everyone would scream murder. Same applies for the Japanese.

However, I agree with the bottomline. Takekaze 08:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of nukes

"The apparent willingness of Japan to sacrifice so many of its people using suicidal tactics such as Operation Ten-Go and in the Battle of Okinawa reportedly was a factor in the Allied decision to employ nuclear weapons against Japan.[45]"

That's the dumbest excuse to use nukes I've ever heard of. 3k lives vs 200k lives? lol, maybe someone more knowledgeable can tell us the real reason why nukes were used or remove this part altogether. Thanks.

The source of that assertion is listed as a reference. I would suggest checking that book out from the library or purchasing it and then reading the author's rationale for making that assertion. According to that author, the decision was based on the entire Battle of Okinawa, no just the Ten-Go engagement. Cla68 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is a good reason that the Allies decided to drop the Atomic Bombs.

In 1945, the Allies began planning for the Invasion of Japan. There are a varity estimates as to how many lives it would cost the Allies to take Japan. Do not forget that the Allies, especially the Americans and Australians, had been invading Japanese-held Islands for two years. The Japanese fought nearly to the last man in each engagement. The close the Allies got to the Japan the harder that Japanese soldier fought and the higher the casaulty rate got for the Allies.

On April 12, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt died and Harry S. Truman became President. Truman had been an officer in the United States Marine in World War I. The first due of every officer in any branch of the service to the soldiers in his or her command. When goes into battle it is the goal of every officer to return with same men they left with. No matter what it takes to protect their men, the officer is will to do so. If killing a million people would save a single of the Officer's men then the officer would kill a million people.

Now left bring this back to the atomic bombs. When Truman became President of the United States he became Commander-in-Chief of all American Armed Forces. When Truman was told about the estimate casaulties for invading Japan and was than that there was a device that could save lives, he did not hesitate. As a formoer officer and now the commander of a troops,how many Amnerican lives would dropping the bomb have to save fro Truman to say "Yes." Answer: One. If the bomb saved the life of one American soldier then it was worth a try. This is the main reason Turman agreed to drop the bomb. As a officer, Truman was protecting his men. (Steve 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

• Just to clear up one point, Truman was an officer in the United States Army during the First World War. He actually had a huge bone to pick with the Marines because he fely they had garnered most of the positive press during the war even though the Army had the preponderance of troops in theater. After WWII he even tried to have the Marine Corps dissolved and made part of the Army but met against some stiff resistance prompting this memorable memo and this famous Marine Corps speech.--203.10.224.59 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hitler, too, was into offing an ungodly amount of civilians for the good of the German people. At least we don't praise him for said philanthropic behaviours. Aadieu (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest debating this issue on the talk page of the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki page instead of here. The reference cited for the statement at the beginning of this section is a credible source for that opinion. Although there is some evidence that some Japanese leaders were considering surrender, there is also compelling evidence that that scenario really wasn't very likely. But, like I said, this has been debated at length on the talk page of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. Cla68 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually fairly questionable why nukes were used. MacArthur was against it, Truman was for it. Show of force at the end of the day and Truman was President. The assertion that we needed to drop both is fairly narrow minded and partially backed by a need for the justification. The Supreme War Conference (the people actually in charge) didn't really care, half were willing to surrender but only if it meant they disarmed themselves, did their own war crimes trials and didn't get occupied, a pretty favourable surrender. The Firebombing of Tokyo did more damage and killed more than either individually, more casualties were inflicted by the Soviets (around 700K between killed, captured and wounded, combined the firebombing and the nukes hit around 300k, although the millions of homeless from the firebombing probably brings that up to beating everything else) and the Kwantung army's destruction was a horrific loss to the average Japanese person, on a scale comparable to Ten-Go or Midway where a branch of the military (and actually the government, the Supreme War Conference was made up of the minister of war and the chief of the army, as well as the PM, minister of the navy and chief of the navy and minister of foreign affairs) lost key elements allowing it to function properly. Either nuke individually, or the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, or the increasingly bad situation in general. Clausewitz wrote about the fog of war, we can judge all of this stuff with clearer vision from now (and even then there tends to be a lot of debate), but then, no one really knows, they just have pieces they can see and guess at the rest. Would the Japanese surrender with no nukes dropped? One nuke? Did you need the second to bluff that you had a bunch? Does dropping a second mean that the Emperor decides to break the deadlock earlier and it ends the war a week earlier? Would the assholes from the Imperial Guards who wanted to get a coup get more support if we didn't drop a second nuke or the Soviets didn't do their end? Hard to say from here, harder to say from then and there, they made their plan and guessed. Better than landing troops and invading, both both sides, casualty projections for that go into the millions as I recall, worse when you consider that many of the Japanese islands are dependant on each other for food, leading to mass starvation on Kyushu, Shikoku and parts of Honshu. Operation Downfall would have resulted in a loss of life comparable to the Eastern front by itself, keep in mind, most of the casualties they are speaking of in that article are for Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, only one island, and they massively underestimated the number of defenders (300K to 900K). In preparation they made 500K Purple Hearts, the US still has 120K 75 years later. We also didn't know so much about radioactivity and contamination, we still didn't during Operation Able and Baker after the war, the average lifespan of people that set foot on those ships decreased. Marching through areas we hit with tactical nuclear weapons probably not the best plan, but would have seemed pretty good from there. 142.117.73.161 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:FORUM re-read the purpose of Talk Pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.107 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Just about everybody is practicing the "ignoratio elenchi" (Latin for "missing the point") logical fallacy with respect to why the Japanese kept fighting even though the war was hopelessly lost. What you're forgetting was the decision in the 1930's by the Japanese military to corrupt the "Bushido Code", which had been written centuries earlier as a guide for Samurai warriors, to mean, "fight to the death; never surrender". Even after the atom bombs were dropped, they STILL didn't surrender and, a group of Japanese military men I call the "Bushidos" "overthrew" the Emperor and told the military to keep fighting. The Emperor, however, knew it was time to surrender and recorded a surrender speech on two records. The plan was to smuggle at least one of the records to Japan's most powerful radio station in Tokyo and broadcast it continuously for hours. Loyalists of the Emperor managed to get one to that radio station, despite the Bushidos tearing Tokyo apart looking for them. Many of the Bushidos, upon hearing the speech, committed ritual suicide, "Hara Kiri" (not "Hari Kari", as some dumb people think it's called), to "save face".

If The Bushido Code hadn't been corrupted a decade earlier, the Pacific Theater of the war probably would have ended after the Battle of Leyte Gulf in the fall (US time) of 1944. 2601:1C0:5201:BEA0:ED3E:B150:1ED4:AEFC (talk) 2601:1C0:5201:BEA0:ED3E:B150:1ED4:AEFC (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW, and I have found scant evidence of this, there was a plan for what to do if the atom bombs failed to bring about surrender by the Japanese. The plan was to build and drop two more bombs, twice the size of Fat Man, per month until the Japanese surrender until the month of December; that meant two more bombs per month in September, October and November, on progressively more-populated targets. Then, according to the plan, if the Japanese hadn't surrendered by the first of December, an even-bigger bomb was set to be built and dropped in the center of downtown Tokyo on Christmas Day in the US. If this plan were to have been set in motion and carried out through its end on Christmas Day, at least 90% of Japan's remaining population would have been vaporized almost immediately when the bombs were dropped and the fallout would have wiped out all of the rest of the Japanese population.

In Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech, he mentions that the US had developed a "cruel bomb" and that it was a major reason that Japan should surrender. The Emperor realized that the US could carry out such a plan as the one just above and Hirohito's decision to finally surrender saved millions of Japanese lives. 2601:1C0:5201:BEA0:ED3E:B150:1ED4:AEFC (talk) 2601:1C0:5201:BEA0:ED3E:B150:1ED4:AEFC (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Question on squadrons involved

Was wondering if you could answer a quick question for me. Were any of the units involved US Marine Corps VMSB or VMTB squadrons? I know some of them were operating from escort carriers and were land based on Oki at the time. Did not know if any went north to participate in this. Thanks.--203.10.224.59 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not trying to answer this sooner. Spurr's book (listed in the references) contains information on which U.S. squadrons were involved and I don't currently have that book in front of me. If I get a chance to look at it I'll post what I find here. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When

By spring 1945...

This ambiguous poetic wording has no place in an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience. The word "spring" can be interpreted differently depending on the hemisphere of the reader. This should be reworded using unambiguous wording, like "April 1945". Someone with good knowledge in this area should make the amendment from information contained in primary references just in case "April" is not the correct month. --B.d.mills 09:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed to "...early 1945..." CLA 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

While your edit was fine, it was unnecessary as B.d.mills objection is absolute rubbish - this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, and everyone knows what the four seasons are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.107 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Mitchner's Orders?

I read in an old text by E. B. Potter that Admiral Spruance had ordered Admiral Deyo's force of old battleships to deal with Yamato, but Mitchner launched strikes anyways without Spruance's consent. Can anyone confirm this? If so it should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallan007 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Potter's book on Arleigh Burke goes into this, because it was actually Burke (Mitscher's subordinate) who ordered and coordinated the U.S. carrier air attacks in Mitscher's name as Mitscher was ill. As soon as I have a chance I'll look it up and see what actually happened. This article currently doesn't represent the U.S. side of the battle very well which I hope to eventually rectify. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This section should be corrected - Mitchner asked Spruance "should you take them, or should I?" Spruance replied back, "You take them." Mitchner wanted to prove once and for all that air power alone could destroy a surface flotilla. Reference "THE RISING SUN: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945", Volume II, ç1970, by the noted historian on the Pacific War, John Toland, in the chapter 'the last sortie.' Mitchner did not, therefore, act contrary to orders. HammerFilms1 (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)HammerFilms1

The exchange with Spruance took place after the strikes were already in the air, and well after RS' orders to Deyo's TF 54. Solicitr (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As regards Toland, he has an infamous reputation as a revisionist, claiming most recently that Washington DC knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.

He didn't lure the Japanese into attack, the author said. He just knew they were coming and allowed it for the national good.

That would make FDR a bigger mass-murderer of Americans than anyone except Osama bin Laden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.201.108 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Style continuity

I noticed in the info window at the top right of the page that the Japanese commanders are listed family name last as in western texts however the Japanese names in the paragraphs are sometimes family first and sometimes family name last. Being that they are Japanese names would it not be right for all to have family name first or since it is an English article have family name last? I feel it should be one or the other but not both. Ltsgosrfn (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Decisive" victory

I notice that many editors place the phrase "Decisive so-and-so victory" in the infobox for articles such as this one in which one side won a lopsided victory. From what I understand, though, this is an incorrect use of the word "decisive" in this context. "Decisive" is supposed to be used to describe a battle that directly and significantly decided the overall outcome of a war or campaign. I don't think this battle was the deciding event in the Battle of Okinawa, the Ryukyu campaign, or the Pacific War in general. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that is an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the phrase "decisive victory". A battle can be tactically decisive but strategically unimportant (the Battle of New Orleans springs to mind, Americans trounced the Brits, after the War of 1812 was over, didn't matter. Being decisive is when one side so is clearly and unquestionably the winner, sometimes it is quite questionable who won, such as the Battle of Jutland, or a battle is so damaging to win that it is questionable that the winner won, those are Pyrrhic Victories named after the "victories" that Pyrrhus won at Heraclea and Asculum that so devastated his own army that it couldn't function properly anymore, letting the Romans go unchallenged in the future and take the Greek states in Italy he had been defending. Iwo Jima is another decent example, the Americans suffered more casualties taking that stupid rock than they were up against, 26000 casualties against 21060 or fewer Japanese troops. That one served no strategic goals, cratering the runways would have done the same thing, not that they had much in the way of airplanes anyways. Most battles are less pronounced, there's some fighting, some casualties and one side withdraws before it loses too much, the battle is not inconclusive because one side won, but the other side is still in good shape to keep fighting, preferably from a better location. The traditional greatest example of a decisive battle is the Battle of Cannae, in which Hannibal Barca led 50K against 80K and lost 5K while killing or capturing 80K, less than 2000 Romans were able to withdraw from that battle. Somewhat interestingly success forced him to split up his army to defend multiple states that switched from supporting the Romans to Carthage, a somewhat Pyrrhic like effect (and actually the some of the same cities he had been defending), leading to his eventual loss of the war. Ten-Go was decisive because there is no question that the Imperial Japanese Navy lost it, no goals were accomplished and everything significant was lost. 142.117.73.161 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Kikusui

Aren't the 10 kikusui of the battle of Okinawa part of Ten-gō sakusen ? This article latest version do not mention them but the sources are contradictory on this. Some consider kikusui as the main part of operation Heaven One, which sounds logical considering the name and the fact that the suicide mission of the Yamato was improvised following emperor Shōwa's late order. --Flying tiger (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Battleship confusion ???

"Upon receiving contact reports early on April 7, U.S. Fifth Fleet commander Admiral Raymond Spruance ordered the gunfire support force under Admiral Morton Deyo, composed of old battleships mostly salvaged from Pearl Harbor, to intercept and destroy the Japanese task force."

In the next paragraph the battleships are listed....

"A force of six battleships (Massachusetts, Indiana, New Jersey, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Missouri), supported by cruisers (including Alaska and Guam) and destroyers, was also assembled to intercept the Japanese fleet if the airstrikes did not succeed."

None of these battleships were Pearl Harbor survivors. Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Missouri are Iowa Class completed around 1943. Massachusetts, Indiana, and South Dakota are also new American battleships of the South Dakota Class, completed around 1942.

This was probably the most powerful force of 6 battleships ever to sail together, and the cruisers listed ain't so shabby, either.

Alaska and Guam, were battlecruisers. They could go 32 knots, were armored against 10 inch gun fire with limted protection against 12 inch fire, and equipted with 9 advanced 12 inch naval rifles, with ranges similar to the 16 guns on the South Dakota, but fired 50% faster! (The Iowa and South Dakota class were escorting the carriers, and were not intended to take part in any surface combat with the Yamato)

The six Pearl Harbor survivors are the Nevada, Pennslyvania, Tennessee, California, Maryland, and West Virginia. There is a later reference to the Maryland, in the paragraph before Aftermath.... (These six battleships were part of TF 54, the Fire Support Group, and they were ordered to move north to intercept the Yamato)

"Kamikaze aircraft hit Hancock, battleship Maryland, and destroyer Bennett, causing moderate damage to Hancock and Maryland and heavy damage to Bennett."

This leads me to believe that there were possibly 2 seperate US Battleship Groups involved in the battle. Six fast new battleships (26 knots for the S. Dakotas and 33 knots for the Iowas), accompaning the carriers, and some of the "Standards", (20-21 knots) probably involved in shore bombardment, or escort duty, to which the Maryland was attached.

I'm just a stickler for details, but at least 7 USN battleships were involved, and named, and possibly around a dozen. I figure, if you take a hit from a Kamikaze during a battle, then you were involved. The Kamikaze airplanes were listed, and included, so why not all the USN battleships?

68.12.2.164 (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that this article could use additional detail, especially on the American side. If you have the sources to adequately cite the additional material, please feel free to add it. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not so easy. Some publications claims Ten-gó as part of Kikusui no.1, and some claims Kikusui to be part of Ten-gó. --Sceadugenga (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were two battleship forces. The "battle line" (TG 54.5) of Deyo's Bombardment Force (TF 54) comprised the WWI-era Idaho, New Mexico, Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado (of which only WeeVee had been sunk at Pearl; Maryland and Tennessee were lightly damaged and the others weren't there). Subsequent to Mitscher (really Burke) launching the air strikes, Spruance ordered Deyo to take over a force of heavy surface units detached from TF 58, the fast carrier force; this was the group of fast BBs plus the Alaskas listed in the article. Not sure why command wasn't given to Willis Lee. Solicitr (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Largest suicide mission in history"?

Is that true? 94.174.113.31 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Japanese destroyer names

This article has a star and is already fairly long. Is there any objection to adding the names of the eight Japanese destroyers? For example, in section "Prelude" At 16:00 on 6 April, Yamato, with Admiral Itō on board, the light cruiser Yahagi and eight destroyers (Fuyutsuki, Suzutsuki, Isokaze, Hamazake, Yukikaze, Asashimo, Kasumi, and Hatsushimo) departed Tokuyama to begin the mission. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Operation Ten-Go vs Bonomisaki (coordination with Japanese wiki)

This article is titled "Operation Ten-Go" and links to the Japanese article of the same name, which (accessed 2021.01.30) is entirely different: does not mention "Yamato" (大和) even once. Possibly a separate article has been split off from the original "Ten-Go" article, namely 「坊ノ岬沖海戦」(Boh no Misaki Kaisen "Battle of Cape Boh"). I don't know how to change links. Maybe something should be said in the first paragraph about the name that Japanese actually use for this battle. The Japanese article for "Operation Ten-Go" is poorly written (the one-sentence lead just says "an operation plan of the Japanese military during the last phase of the Pacific War"), and is more about operational planning than the actual battles (separate articles); it does not even have a link to the "Boh no Misaki Kaisen". I am not suggesting that this article needs to be renamed or rewritten, but the link to the Japanese wiki should be changed. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I am unsure that some of the sources used here are sufficiently reliable.

• battleshipyamato.info
• warfarehistorynetwork.com
• navweapons.com
• There is certainly a better source for The story of Operation Ten-Go is revered to some degree in modern Japan as evidenced by appearances of the story in popular Japanese culture which usually portray the event as a brave, selfless, but futile, symbolic effort by the participating Japanese sailors to defend their homeland than the user-generated IMDB

@Nick-D: - Any thoughts/familiarity with these sources? Hog Farm _Talk 20:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think that any of those sources would be reliable (navweapons.com is a 'maybe but probably not' as it gets only a small number of Google Books hits). There are lots of reliable sources on this battle, so no need to go beyond them. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Navweaps.com has been discussed at WP:RS/Noticeboard a couple times in the past:

• June 2008 — given a "Neutral" opinion
• May–June 2010 — extensive discussion, no resolution.

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 25#Stub class articles that aren't in 2011, Parsecboy indicated that NavWeaps.com used to be accepted, but as of (then) late, articles citing it wouldn't pass FA.

Also from the WP:RS discussions, apparently NavWeaps.com has been cited in ~23 books (at the time, probably has increased since).  — sbb (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 and Nick-D: - Anyway that either of y'all could do the (should be not huge) cleanup needed to get this one over the hump? As the 2004-2006 part of the URFA/2020A list is getting decreased, some of the less-bad ones are getting FAR'd, and it would be best for this one to not go there. (I admittedly only have two WWII books, and one's specifically about Market-Garden and the other one doesn't mention Ten-Go). Hog Farm _Talk 22:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've started on this, and will plink away over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I've now replaced those sources with reliable ones. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Hog Farm _Talk 13:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Some notes on reviewing the article:

• There's a number of unattributed quotes that, at the least, need to be attributed, but probably should be checked to see if they are actually needed versus summary style, e.g. As a senior naval aviation officer, "Mitscher had spent a career... The American F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair fighters "were supposed to go first, strafing, rocketing, dropping light ordnance...
• Maryland was kept out of the war following the kamikaze attacks.—this doesn't connect to anything else in the paragraph, which is otherwise about the situation on Okinawa and the end of the war.
• The aftermath section seems a bit scant? The direct impact of the battle (why it's important that it's got an article as justification) feels pretty minor besides mentions of damage to the fleet.
• What makes CombinedFleet.com a reliable source? It's being used as an authoritative source in the refs.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

CombinedFleet.com is a RS as it's widely cited by historians, and some of its contributors/editors are published historians themselves. A google books search of the URL returns lots of examples of it being referenced, including in some top-tier works [1] Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

forgot to write an edit summary

Oops I forgot to write an edit summary in this edit, so I will write it here now: "Added flagicons and fixed a few things in the infobox" Poopykibble (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)