# Talk:Kii-class battleship

Do we know how much ammo they were to carry? #torpedoes?  Trekphiler 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Not in either of the two reference books, on japan and battleships, I have. The Land (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kii-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 11:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"By 1918, the Navy had gained approval for an "eight-six" fleet, all ships under eight years old." -- You should explain what "eight-six" means in this sentence.
Done.
"However, having four large battleships and four battlecruisers on order put an enormous financial strain on Japan, which was spending about a third of its national budget on the Navy." -- You should note which ships (class or name) were on order or under construction at this time.
Done.
Is there a policy about using the "degrees" symbol as opposed to the word?
Not that I'm aware of. Just have to be consistent.
"The ships' keel laying was stopped on 5 February because the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty that forbade their construction." -- Maybe add this was because of their weight, right? It sounds like the treaty was crafted specifically to stop these ships.
Everybody was getting into a new round of exceedingly expensive ship building after the war. The Treaty stopped that in its tracks. I've rephrased this, hopefully it's a bit clearer
Also, was there any effort to reduce their weight or anything?
No, battleships have significant economies of scale that mean that the larger ship is better than a smaller one, all other things being equal. More expensive, but more combat worthy.
One duplicate link (main belt) and no dab links. External links look good.
No photos of the ships I understand, but maybe an image or Hiraga would be good, or something like that?
Done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see no problems with article stability.
Placing the article on hold. —Ed!(talk) 11:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Great work! Passing the GA now. —Ed!(talk) 02:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How does this work, the article lists the ship as having 
eight 45-caliber 41-centimeter guns in five twin-gun turrets, two fore and three aft of the superstructure 
and the text box lists the ship as having ten guns, as do the external links. This arrangement seems impossible and a recent edit to change it to ten guns by an anon was reverted back to eight. I lack access to any of the physical sources and don't feel like getting into an edit war with a respected admin but this does seem inconsistent Design A-125 (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's 10 guns, I've fixed it, so let's see if somebody decides to revert it or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, thought so but since it was a solid looking admin with a history of naval article, I wasn't sure if one of those books said otherwise and he was coming back to change the rest later. Design A-125 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Still the concept drawing appears to be wrong -- I count only four turrets, rather than five. The drawing seems to depict the related, but different "Type 13" class ships. (See the article there.) But I'm not knowledgable enough to say something definite about this. Any experts here who could clear up the confusion? --Syzygy (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You're correct the drawing was for the Type 13 class, the follow on design to the Kii and never implemented. WCMemail 09:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

A credible article published in the annual Warship reports that the two supposedly-unnamed ships of this class, Number 11 and Number 12, were to be named Suruga and Omi. I plan to add this information as soon as I can dig my copy out of storage and forumlate the citation.
--2600:1700:B450:7500:ACBF:1D5C:C373:8EBD (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)