Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku

message: Towards the end of this article appears this statement:
: Zuikaku rolled over and sank at 14:14, taking Captain Kaizuka Takeo and 842 men with her. 862 men were rescued by Wakatsuki and Kuwa.
At first glance, I thought someone had editted this to mean that the carrier, her captain & 842 men went into the water, but 862 came out! Unless this ship was very undermanned, should one assume what is meant was that of the compliment of 1,660 (per the infobox near the top), 842 drowned & 862 were rescued? -- llywrch 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When a ship is said to "take [men] with her," that's an idiom that means the men were lost in the ship's sinking. --Tkynerd 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A confusing passage 

message: Looking at the picture showing the ship listing, I noticed the description says she lists to port (left), when she is clearly listing the starboard (right).  I would change this, but can't at the moment since it is a featured article.  Rifleman000 00:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the picture is taken facing aft. PvtDeth 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be towards the stern;  reference the antenna-like stuff visibe in it to the image at the top of the article.  mdf 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The referenced picture definitely faces aft.  Zuikaku had a starboard-side island and the picture is taken from a raised position, above the heads of the sailors on the flight deck.  JB (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: :With Zuikaku listing heavily to port, Ozawa shifted his flag to the light cruiser Ōyodo. The order to abandon ship was issued at 1358 and the naval ensign was lowered. Zuikaku rolled over and sank stern-first at 1414, taking Rear Admiral (promoted from captain ten days earlier) Kaizuka Takeo and 842 of her crew with her. 862 officers and men were rescued by the destroyers Wakatsuki and Kuwa.
Forgive me if this sounds dumb, but this seems to imply that 843 people went down, and 862 people were rescued. So something probably isn't right here. ~  PHDrillSergeant...§ 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I also missed the post up above where the someone else made this same mistake. While I understand "taking men with her" is an idiom, unfortunately I think this lends to an unclear passage, and I am going to attempt a slight rewrite of the passage so no one else makes a similar mistake. ~  PHDrillSergeant...§ 17:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What you say?

message: Sorry, I don't understand, the infobox show: «struck in 26 August 1945» but it was «Sunk by air attack» «on 25 October 1944».--Kette~cawiki (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Stricken from the navy list or naval register is what it means.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Struck 

message: "In the first wave, 25 dive bombers attacked Wheeler Army Airfield and five fighters attacked the airbase at Kaneohe. In the second wave, 27 torpedo bombers, armed with bombs, attacked the airbase at Hickam Field and 17 dive bombers targeted the battleships USS California and Maryland on Battleship Row at Pearl Harbor."
Zuikaku's contribution to the second wave was the 27 torpedo bombers only, as all her dive bombers were in the first wave already. The dive bombers in the second wave came from the 1st and 2nd Carrier Divisions.Mark Stille, Tora Tora Tora - Pearl Harbor 1941,  p. 25
"and sinking the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Hermes and the heavy cruisers HMS Cornwall and Dorsetshire, also with the help of Shōkaku."
While those two ships were sunk, neither Zuikaku nor Shōkaku had anything to do with it. They were supposed to launch torpedo bombers, but ultimately didn't.Osamu Tagaya, Jim Laurier, Aichi 99 Kanbaku 'Val' Units 1937-42
"In return, torpedo and dive bombers from both ships hit Lexington"
All hits on Lexington came from planes launched from Shōkaku. Out of Zuikaku's planes, only 4 torpedo bombers attacked Lexington, of which one was shot downMark Stille, The Coral Sea 1942 - The First Carrier BattleMark Chambers, Tony Holmes, Nakajima B5N 'Kate' and B6N 'Jill' Units, p. 36 and the other three missed. The other 4 torpedo bombers and all of the 14 dive bombers from Zuikaku attacked Yorktown instead, scoring one bomb hit. As a side note, Zuikaku did however contribute one day earlier to the crippling and eventual sinking of the oiler Neosho.
"On 24 August 1942, in the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, her aircraft severely damaged the carrier USS Enterprise."
Zuikaku sent 9 dive bombers and 6 fighters in the first wave, initially supposed to attack Saratoga, but instead attacked South Dakota and Enterprise, with no hits. All bomb hits on Enterprise came from Shōkaku, and a second wave of planes that included 18 dive bombers from Zuikaku had to be called off after failing to find the ship.Jeffrey Cox, Morning Star, Midnight Sun: The Early Guadalcanal-Solomons Campaign of World War II - August-October 1942, p. 171-179
"On 26 October 1942, in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, her aircraft again damaged the repaired Enterprise"
Zuikaku's first wave of planes was sent after Hornet. Her next wave (4 fighters and 17 torpedo bombers)Mark Stille, Santa Cruz 1942 - Carrier duel in the South Pacific went on to attack Enterprise, but none hit the carrier. One did however crash into USS Smith, damaging it. Zuikaku's third wave also went after Hornet. It was Shōkaku who scored two hits and a near miss on Enterprise, and Jun'yō had a near miss as well.
"However, some of her aircraft made kamikaze attacks and helped sink the light carrier USS Princeton"
I don't know whether planes launched from Zuikaku were involved in kamikaze attacks or not, but as far as Princeton is concerned, the bomb that hit the ship was released at 9:38 on 24 October 1944http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/23l.htm, while Zuikaku launched her planes later that day.Tabular Record of Movement
Please remove the wrong information from the article. OTWAIN (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't ask others to fix a problem that you have identified; do it yourself, you have some of the necessary sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factually wrong information in the article