Talk:46 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun

message: 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)
thread_title: Range

message: Were these guns ever figured in anger? Raul654 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were.  See the articles for Japanese battleship Yamato and Japanese battleship Musashi for details. TomTheHand 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fired in anger

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  40 cm or 41 cm? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Secrecy

message: 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, . At 520mm it was a much larger caliber than these more modern weapons. Thanks.--Raynscloud (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Largest caliber? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 MythSearchertalk  16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Move, again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mirror or did we rip and not attibute?