Talk:46 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun

Move name

Wouldn't "Japanese 40 cm/45 Type 94 gun" have been a better name, putting the article name into better context. Real name is a bit of a misomer since we are translating anyhow. GraemeLeggett 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, that's a better name and I should have done that in the first place. Shall we move it again? I'll fix all the double redirects. I wasn't a fan of the original name, since I felt the use of Imperial units to describe a metric weapon was inappropriate. I'll move it tomorrow if nobody else has name suggestions, but I'll hold for now so that we don't wind up moving it a third time.

That makes me think, though, that articles like 16"/50 Mark 7 should be renamed to US 16"/50 Mark 7. I'm not opposed to such a move, just a little intimidated. Hopefully there aren't too many articles; I know of 5-54 Mark 45 for sure (which needs a rename anyway to fix the 5-54 thing). TomTheHand 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Range

I was pretty sure the range was around 45,500-46,000 yards; sources confirm that. It could be a yard/meter conversion mistake (and then it's 45,600), but I'm uncertain, as there can be some inofficial sources or review of figures (past mistakes). I've changed the range figure, but reply if that's wrong. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fired in anger

Were these guns ever figured in anger? Raul654 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they were. See the articles for Japanese battleship Yamato and Japanese battleship Musashi for details. TomTheHand 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"That battle was the only time that the Musashi had fired her guns in anger, using the "San Shiki" (the Beehive) Model 13 anti-aircraft shell" - Japanese battleship Musashi; "In October, she participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, during which she first fired her main guns at enemy aircraft and surface ships." So never for the Musachi, and only once for Yamato -- almost never. Raul654 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the San Shiki anti-aircraft shell was fired from the main guns, so both fired their guns in anger... Musashi just never fired them at enemy ships. TomTheHand 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Armor / Matched by US guns.

I have removed both of these unreferenced comments, pending sources.

If anyone can provide a link or accurate reference to a source that indicates Japanese 46cm shells were of inferior quality, I'd like to see it.

The "matched only by the us 16 inch 50 caliber" reference is nonsense. The 40 cm/45 is 519 lbs heavier per shell... again, find me a credible source of documentation that states that the penetration of the World War II era US 16 inch heavy was superior or on par, and we'll include it.

Thanks.

CanadianPhaedrus (talk)CanadianPhaedrus

40 cm or 41 cm?

I find a reference in one of the US SBS interrogations of Japanese naval officials after WW II, where the officer states that the main guns were commonly referred to as "type 41 special", even though most everyone knew they were larger. I haven't found any references other than this article that indicates that 40cm was used as a 'cover' size. What is the source of the 40cm size?

Also, many of the US SBS articles indicate that the actual size was 45cm, and this article shows 46cm. Since there seems to be at least one shell left in existance I assume this size came from actual measurement. Is there some reason to explain why the few officers that seemingly knew the size thought it was 45cm instead of 46cm? Loren.wilton (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an old comment, but to answer the question of how we know the size of the guns... We measured them. The Japanese produced 27 of these guns and 18 were lost with the Yamato and Musashi. The US Army got the rest. None are still in existence AFAIK. The last was torn up for scrap in the 1950s. The 9 extra guns were meant for the third Yamato Class battleship. This battleship was never finished and instead became the Aircraft Carrier Shinano. 65.27.81.92 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Secrecy

All of the US SBS articles that mention these guns include comments about the great secrecy about the actual size. Even officers in charge of the guns didn't 'officially' know the size of the piece. Doesn't this rather unusual fact deserve some explicit mention?

Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, this is my first post here so if it's in the wrong place, appologies.

These guns were designated 40.6cm Type-X or Type Special. The translation from Japanese of the suffix is not exact but the calibre is. The 40.6cm designation was chosen as it's 16", the standard calibre for primary armament on battleships of the day. This was a deliberate ruse to hide their true size of 46cm (18.1") which didn't become known to the Allies (like much about Yamato & Musashi) until they entered the shipyards where the ships had been built. The calibre 15.7" is clearly an conversion error from 40cm which is, simply, not correct. They were intended to be thought of as 16" not some strange new calibre that would have drawn unwanted attention.

Regards all

109.205.116.162 (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Big Nev

Largest caliber?

Can we consider editing the opening sentence to read: "The Japanese 40 cm/45 Type 94 naval guns were, with the possible exception of Mons Meg, the largest calibre guns ever mounted on any warship."? Both the Mons Meg and Michael (ship) pages read to the effect that this old beast of a gun was possibly, though not certainly, mounted on Great Michael at some point. Neither article contains a citation for these statements, but I have found one at the Scottish Education site, [1]. At 520mm it was a much larger caliber than these more modern weapons. Thanks.--Raynscloud (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

After awaiting a reply for two weeks, I am making the changes I suggested above. I am also adding the reference I sited. Raynscloud (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Move, again

The title here ("40 cm/45 Type 94") was obscure, so I've moved it to "40 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun", to say what it is. Also, it's in keeeping with the other entries in the categories. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

PS I notice there was a discussion about this a while ago, but the page was still there, so I've done it anyway. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is quite strange to use such a remote name for this article. The name was only used as a disguise, and did not reflect the actual calibre. Wouldn't it be better to use a more common name? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You could be right; I was just trying to clarify the article title. The problem I can see is that if this is the official name for them, even if it's incorrect, we might be stuck with it. The sources I've seen just call them "18 inch", or "Japanese 18 inch" guns. What did you have in mind? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Article name

I acknowledge the various discussions above, but there are no longer any mention of misnaming as deception in the article, so should this article's name be changed to 46 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Mirror or did we rip and not attibute?

Is this a mirror of Wikipedia or was this taken from the Gutenberg project? Take a look at this http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/40_cm/45_type_94_naval_gun . Tirronan (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

World Heritage Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia aggregator, and uses Wikipedia content, among other sources. It looks like they copied WP on that one. - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)