Talk:Ōsumi-class tank landing ship

(Redirected from Talk:Ōsumi class LST)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ōsumi-class tank landing ship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Asian / Japanese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Asian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force

Japan Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 05:10, January 2, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Politics

Strange that a "defensive and mine countermeasures" ship should be deemed politically unacceptable, while an amphibious assault ship for carrying helicopters or landing tanks is alright. Am I missing something? LordAmeth 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okinawa, Hokkaidō, heck even Kyūshū... To defend them you might have to reinforce by sea with the ports already held/destroyed/disabled by hostile forces. Megapixie (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese post-war constitution forbids Japan from possessing aircraft carriers. There is no such provision on amphibious assault ships. It's not a question of semantics or agressive-sounding language, but rather a constitutional issue. Thus the ship can't be officially named as an aircraft carrier, even if "small mine warefare and amphibious assault carrier" is a more accurate description of the ships role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.174.12 (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Along with other things I've updated the article with a bit of info on the Maritime Operational Transport, which was supposed to alleviate the need for a amphibious doctrine and associated ships/equipment. 83.70.250.174 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Original research

The whole section about tank landing ships and landing ship docks reeks of original research. I propose removing those sentences and everything quoted to globalsecurity.org (a wholly unreliable source) if no one can find a source that backs up those assertions. Llammakey (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Categories: