Talk:Battle of Milne Bay

Untitled

battle of milne bay Well done Gdr for finding the pic.Grant65 (Talk) 16:37, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Re-stating the Significance of Milne Bay

I have removed the claim that the "Battle of the Tenaru" (usually known as the Battle of Alligator Creek) on Guadalcanal a few days before the Battle of Milne Bay was the first land defeat of the Japanese. There is no comparison between the two events. If the Japanese Army had re-boarded their ships and abandoned Guadalcanal in August 1942 as a result of the battle, THAT would have been comparable. As it happened, the Japanese reaction was to reinforce Guadalcanal and vigorously renew the attack on Henderson Field, so the fighting went on for another six months. However, I have not dismissed the Tenaru; I have retained in the article a respectful mention of that action and its significance in the context of Milne Bay.

Alligator Creek was a setback and a surprise for the Japanese, but did not end the campaign. The Japanese had exerienced local setbacks before: in their first attempt to take Wake Island they were resoundingly defeated, and they were successfully checked on several occasions during the British retreat down the Malay peninsula, and in the American retreat to Bataan. But the outcome in every case was that the Japanese eventually took their objectives.

Milne Bay was not a local setback; it was an unqualified defeat for the Japanese, and completely ended their campaign. The result of the battle was that, thirteen days after landing, the Japanese withdrew their entire invasion force and never returned. That had never happened before in the Pacific War. It did not happen after the Battle of Alligator Creek. Peter Bell (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New location map

I wrote the Cyril Clowes article, and I have just created a map for it showing the location of Milne Bay in relation to the rest of New Guinea and Cape York, Queensland. I would like to add it here too. Any thoughts?

Also I am about to create a more zoomed-in map showing the places around Milne Bay mentioned in the Clowes and Milne Bay articles - Gili Gili, Ahioma, Rabi etc etc. I don't want to use the Japanese map that's here as it is just not clear enough for my liking. When I have created the 2nd map for Clowes I'd be happy to see it here for Milne Bay too. cheers SpoolWhippets (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the one you have made for Cyril Clowes is a much better and easier to read map and I would support it being added to this article instead of the one that is currently there. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. OK I'll be bold and just do it, I guess. cheersSpoolWhippets (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Support I also think its a better image!...Moxy (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep looks good. Well done again. ChoraPete (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A book for the cause

I have a copy of Milne Bay 1942: The Story of Milne-Force: Japan's first military defeat on land ISBN 0-646-05405-8 that I will donate to an editor who will complete the citations to this article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, George, if this offer is still good, I would like to get access to the source as I am in the process of working with a few others to try to improve this article. I've put a note on your talk page. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately, the above volume is a casualty of my recent move of residences. I must cancel the offer.

Apologies, all.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

---

"They died slowly" account

I have read in several different books a story, possibly apocryphal, that in one instance after a Japanese retreat Australian troops discovered the remains of a number of their comrades who had been tied to poles and tortured to death. According to the story, the Japanese had left behind a taunting sign which said, in English, "They died slowly." I don't remember where I read it, but one of the accounts stated that this happened at Milne Bay. Any truth to this story? Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day Cla68, one of my sources (Brune 2004, p. 357) has a recount by a 61st Bn officer of finding Papuans and some 61st Bn men who had had their arms tied behind their backs and had been bayonetted, although it doesn't mention the story about the sign, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

McCarthy 1959, p. 178 mentions "two...A.M.F. men, one bayoneted with his hands tied with sig wire. The other was tied to a tree....he had bayonet thrusts in his arms and a bayonet sticking in his stomach." AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation error

McNichol 1982, pp. 150–151. Harv error: link to #CITEREFMcNichol1982 doesn't point to any citation. Graham Colm (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

 fixed.  Br'erRabbit  17:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Campaignbox

The campaignbox does not appear on the screen, yet it is still there in the edit window. Does anybody know why? Srnec (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 fixed. mis-pasted }} Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the campaign box, shouldn't the allied troop number be broken down to more adequately reflect the number of troops engaged? All the Japanese were combat troops but the allies only had around 4,500 infantry. The rest of the allied numbers were made up of 644 RAAF, 1,365 engineers (U.S. 43rd) and 2,949 in other support roles. Wayne (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Wayne. This is a good suggestion. I've added 4,500 infantry to the infobox and I'd be happy to break it down as you suggest, but I don't have a ref that covers your exact figures. What is the source that you are using for those figures? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The numbers came from this site. It says total troops were 9,458 compared to this article which says 8,824 so I checked to see why there would be a discrepancy. From other sites it seems that the AIF conscripted over 600 local Papuans to help build the airfields who are sometimes included in the total as they remained for the fighting. The image on that page is pretty good as well, someone should see how it's copyrighted. Wayne (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It probably surprises no one that I do not agree. First of all, I prepared a pretty good OrBat for the article. If you check it, you will see that the assertion about the Japanese is not quite true. Secondly, I do not like quoting "bayonet strength". This is not an 18th century battle. It misunderstands the nature of 20th century warfare. The RAAF in particular do not like being described as not been "combat troops". And units like the engineers could, would, and did participate in the ground fighting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It certainly wasn't my intention to promote a "bayonet strength" mentality by breaking down the figures and adding some of the main units to the infobox. To clarify, though, I don't think that Wayne's proposal was to classify any units specifically as "combat" and "non combat" (which I would certainly be opposed to, knowing how unjust that concept is particularly in relation to engineers who are sometimes in front of the infantry, but also to the artillery that frequently get called upon to carry a pack and a rifle, the truckies and reccie mechs that risk IEDs on the road, the ordnance, catering, signals Diggers, etc. that stand guard and mount patrols, and the others that I've missed who take their chances on deployment with IDF like everyone else). I actually think the propsal was just to break down the figures to provide the reader with a little more context using categories like RAAF, engineers, infantry, in the knowledge the readers wil interpret this simply as it is presented. That being said, if you think it promotes such a mentality, I'm fine with leaving it out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really see the problem Hawkeye. Whilst I agree that using the number of infantrymen only is an imprecise way of measuring combat power, the infantry companies and battalions were the primary manoeuvre elements at Milne Bay. That is not to say that the other arms (such as engineers and artillery) were not involved in combat, but that by their very nature their primary role was as enablers to those manoeuvre elements. What we currently have are figures in the infobox that give the impression that the Allies outnumbered the Japanese by nearly 5 to 1. This is equally inexact to me. A breakdown of troop numbers along the lines suggested above would seem a logical way to get around this. IRT units in the infobox it was my suggestion to AR on his talkpage that resulted in this being implemented. The way I saw it whilst there is indeed a detailed ORBAT article it is separate from this article so a short summary of the key units in the infobox didn't really seem all that controversial to me, and would be similar to many other MILHIST articles. Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying. We are deailing with perceptions here. The reader has to ask: what does it mean if the Allies outnumbered the Japanese? Can such ratios tell us something about 20th century warfare? The reader should also consider that the base units were not there to support the infantry; the infantry were there to support the base, which was actually the important thing. I was afraid that this would mislead the reader. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I cant see a problem with a breakdown in the infobox. We are not talking about a general term such as "combat troops" but infantry, RAAF, engineers and support which is what they were. The article can mention their roles. For example, the contribution by the RAAF is obvious and the engineers helped man the anti-aircraft guns and also helped defend the No 3 airfield. With just a combined troop number we will have readers asking why beating the Japanese was so hard if we outnumbered them five to one when in fact the odds were closer to three to one. Wayne (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes! General MacArthur had done what generals are supposed to do: concentrated a superior force at the point of decision; but no quick decision was forthcoming. This was very frustratying back at GHQ. The reasons are explained in the article: the terrain, and the unwillingness of the Japanese to surrender just because they had been beaten. This was known, but the doctrinal implications had not yet been digested. The Australian Army had explicitly rejected the doctrine of "bayonet strength" advocated by British General Ivor Maxse back in 1918; Generals Monash and Blamey showed him the door. Instead, they followed their own doctrine, which involved comparing firepower, based on factoring all the arms and weapons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Malaria stats

How can more than 1,000 people per 1,000 people develop an illness? Either the stats are wrong, or they need explanation. --194.176.105.135 (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a per-annum figure: it means that, on average, each person at Milne bay had four and a bit attacks of malaria each year. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Facebook links to reputable organization reverts

Whether Wikipedia "approves" of Facebook or not (and many disapprove of Wikipedia, our schools reject any reference to it and we have a Senator at the moment under fire for plagiarizing from articles here with news people rolling their eyes at "Wikipedia of all things . . ."), museums, military organizations and an increasing number of more reputable organizations than Wikipedia now have Facebook pages containing valuable information on exhibits, notification of new finds and such. Since the pages change frequently I can see not using them as any sort of reference. Content is content and should be judged on content. If someone demonstrates the Milne Bay Memorial Library and Research Centre is not a reputable organization then I'd support a ban of its public Facebook page even as an external link. Otherwise, making it easy for readers to follow up with an outside source of information specializing on a subject is a reader aid. Banning that particular sort of link reeks of silly games and not any serious effort to guide content toward respectability. Palmeira (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, thank you for sharing your opinion. To clarify, I'm not questioning the reliability of the Milne Bay Memorial Library and Research Centre, but Wikipedia policy (WP:ELNO) does seem to preclude the inclusion of a link to its Facebook page. My understanding of the reasons behind the policy outlined at WP:ELNO is that the concern is that such sites have "user generated content". Interestingly, Wikipedia also falls into this category, which is the reason policy doesn't allow us to cite Wikipedia as a reference even on Wikipedia, so at least we are consistent in that regard ;-) Of course, as I said, this is my own interpretation and I could be wrong. It would be good to hear what others think, so I've posted a question here: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and invited others to comment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Japanese name

The Japanese article says in its first line "ラビの戦い", making it Operation Rabi. Is there a source for RE? That said, Japanese Wikipedia is not a valid source either. 122.59.249.222 (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I believe the source for "Operation RE" is Chant, The Encyclopedia of Codenames of World War II, p. 210. [1] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

User:Dannemel/IP editor (most recently User:101.169.255.239), please stop edit warring. If you think that your proposed change has merit, please discuss it here. It is being reverted as it gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to one of the many units involved in this battle. Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AN3 Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Various questions on article lede and infobox wordage

• On the sentence in the lede: "The battle is considered to be the first major battle in which Allied troops decisively defeated Japanese land forces." Either the word "Allied" or "decisive" must be delimited/defined or this is patently incorrect--see e.g., Battle of Changsha (1942) (and even perhaps (though arguable) the allied invasion of Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo). I suggest a dodge e.g., "..an early..." or better yet just ditching arguable statement entirely.
• Somehow the NPOV use of "allied" in the lede is lost in the infobox which notes: "Australian Victory". Note for example the deviation from the usage "Allied Victory" in Omaha Beach and Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo.

Juan Riley (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Juan. I agree with changing the infobox to "Allied victory", although, I think we should get a few opinions first to establish a consensus. However, I think the issue with the lead statement about the "first major battle in which Allied troops decisively defeated Japanese land forces" will be harder to solve. It is a key part of the Milne Bay narrative, IMO, including for instance Harries & Harries' seminal work on the Imperial Japanese Army where it says "...at Milne Bay in August 1942 the Australians were ready for the Japanese, and inflicted on them their first full-scale defeat on land." (p. 404). The limitations of the statement are explained in the lead and elsewhere. Potentially that could be tweaked: either to mention Changsha as another example, or to clarify that Milne Bay was to the first time the Anglo-American allies had done so...I'm not sure. Anyway, I will wait to see if others comment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, User:AustralianRupert. To test the waters I will change the infobox and see what happens. I do believe though that the "first" stuff must be qualified in some way. Perhaps as you suggested or "Australian-American allies".Juan Riley (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've no issue with the infobox change to "Allied victory" but its not an issue to me either way. Re the "first major battle in which Allied troops decisively defeated Japanese land forces" I agree with AR that this is a key point in much of the literature on Milne Bay so the article should (and currently does) reflect that. The point re "the first time the Anglo-American allies had done so" was probably the actual significance of the battle even if most people in Australia/UK/US etc probably wouldn't have noticed the events at Changsa at the time or even since. For that reason I suggest noting the apparent contradiction in a footnote only and retaining the current wording (anymore than that would probably be undue weight). Of course this is on the proviso that a reliable source can be provided supporting the fact that Changsa was a decisive Chinese victory is considered in the same terms as Milne Bay. Anotherclown (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I slightly amended my cmt above after more thought about the matter. Anotherclown (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is overly clever, but ... what if we describe it as the first decisive Japanese defeat on land of the Pacific War? Changsha preceded the Pacific War, so it cleverly dodges the issue. --Yaush (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yaush's suggestion, possibly coupled with a footnote or maybe just a short sentence in the Results subsection, mentioning Changsha would probably work, IMO, so long as there is a reliable source. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with most if not all of the above suggestions. The main point being that the article should not say something patently incorrect in the lede--where stylistically one wishes to avoid confusing caveats. In the body of the article it is, as pointed out by folk above, an important and notable myth/meme of the battle in Australia and the body is the place to consider the nuances/caveats (e.g., by footnotes or whatever). If left in the lede it has to have some (perhaps tricky) qualification, e.g., invoking the Pacific theater as Yaush suggested. Juan Riley (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up some Japanese Factual Errors

I cleaned up some erroneous translation errors in the text:

1) It is cited as the battle of "RE" in the original text... not sure who got this or where it comes from ...the Battle of Milne Bay is known as the "Battle of Rabi" in Japanese. The Japanese took a geographical point, in this case the point of their initial landing, called it "Rabi" in the phonetic Japanese alphabet and that is what they call this battle. This has been cleaned up.

2) There were only two Japanese type 95 tanks landed. After an initial attack the Japanese cite them as being "abandonded to the mud" after being unmovable. There were no more tanks than these two.

3) The Japanese Special Landing Forces name was "Kaigun Tokubetsu Rikusentai" - or Tokusen for short. This has been ammended.

4) I added the 1971 paper from the Japanese Defence Ministry (Boeisho) describing these events to the source materials. Brune, although a good writer and story teller relates a one-sided version of events from the narratives of the field soldiers and there is sometimes no cross-referencing of facts, this is an attempt to balance the facts as we know then from both sides.

Canadaman1 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Canadaman1Canadaman1 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Canadaman1: - Could the full bibliographic details of 1971 paper you mention pls be added to the "References" section of the article? At the moment we only have a short citation. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Google translate gives me "1971 Defense Defense Training Center military history room ( ed.), " Senshi Sōsho 49 southeast Naval Operations ( 1 ) moth island recapture strategy start to 1971" - is that right? Does it correspond to this entry in Worldcat.org [2]? Anotherclown (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I've added the citation that I think it comes from, having found something similar here: [3]. I have also restored Operation RE to the lead as that is cited in the body of the article to Chant 1986, although I have also kept "Battle of Rabi" as it seems a fair addition. Beyond that, I have also moved the ref out of the lead as we don't tend to add them in Featured Articles, hence the need to add the information to the body. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I agree the information should be in the body of the article where you have added it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Map of action for possible inclusion / discussion

Battle of Milne Bay 25 August – 7 September 1942

Hello all. I recently drafted a map (see right) of the action at Milne Bay. My skills are fairly limited with these things though so I am posting it here for discussion IRT any amendments that might be necessary and possible inclusion if it is considered helpful. I accept it is a little cluttered and there other draw backs IRT both format and space limitations. Thanks in advance for any comments. Anotherclown (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, AC, that looks pretty good to me. Thanks for this. I propose to put it in the Prelude section and move the location map up and to the left. Seems to fit when I play around with it at 300 px. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe in the "Initial landing" section, replacing the Japanese language map? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think it would work in the "Initial landing" section. Anotherclown (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI I made a few changes to the map today - the main one was to reduce the size of the unit graphics as they were taking up too much room. Are there any other opinions about it? @Hawkeye7: - given your efforts in particular on this article to date if you have some time to take a look over the map and let me know if you think its up to snuff I'd be grateful. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Are there any objections to adding this map in? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see this has been added - it's a great map Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

On "The battle is considered to be the first major battle in which Allied troops decisively defeated Japanese land forces.

My "by whom" comment on this line in the lead has been deleted "Per MOS:LEAD". Presumably, the editor @Hawkeye7: is implying that citations are not needed in the lead. Well I can't find anywhere else in the article a citation to support this statement. This may perhaps be my oversight tho. 'Twould have been helpful if said editor pointed to where this was supported. Or is this just Australian lore? Which by itself is notable if correctly phrased and so cited. I don't see it so I am restoring my "by whom". I will paraphrase an earlier comment on this issue: either the words "Allied" or "major" or "Japanese land forces" must be delimited/defined or this is patently incorrect--see e.g., Battle of Changsha (1942) (and even perhaps (though arguable) the allied invasion during the Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo). Juan Riley (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see this is covered in the article and is referenced there (which often is considered to be sufficient to not require referencing in the lead per WP:LEAD, which I'm assuming was the reason this was mentioned). Specifically in the "Results" section the article currently states: "The Allied victory at Milne Bay therefore represented the first "full-scale defeat [of the Japanese] on land"." This seems to be quote from Harries & Harries 1991, p. 404. (citation #161). Prior to this it briefly discusses a number of previous "minor local defeats" at Wake Island and Tenaru. There is also the quote from Field Marshal Sir William Slim which includes "Australian troops had, at Milne Bay in New Guinea, inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land..." (citation #156 and #162) Taken together to me these seem to support the information presented in the lead sufficiently but that is just my opinion. That said if there are WP:RS sources which discuss Changsha and / or Tulagi (or others) in relation to these assessments of Milne Bay then I'd have no issue with that being added to the article (with the appropriate weight etc) if there was consensus for this. Is this being proposed? Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, yes it relates to the part highlighted by AC. Anyway, I've tweaked the article a little to try to clarify this a little more. Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW those changes / additions look good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Should it be "moral aspect" or "morale aspect" in the changed lead? Finktron (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, interesting question. Yes, it relates to morale. Per the Macquarie Dictionary, morale as in the "moral or mental condition of the troops". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the new version. Thanks AustralianRupert. Juan Riley (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I altered "moral" to "morale", which was reverted by AustralianRupert on the grounds that it was not grammatically correct. I am not sure that this is a grammar issue. To me it seems simply an issue of word definition. "Moral" is generally related to issues of right and wrong. "Morale" is derived from that but has a distinct meaning. "Emotional or mental condition with respect to cheerfulness, confidence, zeal, etc., especially in the face of opposition, hardship, etc." (from dictionary.com). In the article's sentence "Nor did they have such a profound impact upon the moral aspect of the war" it seems to me that the latter word is intended. I would be interested to hear why it is not grammatically correct to use "morale" in this sentence.--Josephus37 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day, in this case it is being used as an adjective, such as "relating to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character", per [4]. Morale wouldn't work as an adjective in this context as it is a noun. If there is another way of succinctly phrasing I am happy to consider changing it, but not to "morale aspect" as that does not ring true to my ear. Happy to consider other suggestions, though. @Dank: Dan, as one of our resident grammarians, have you an opinion on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, AR; "morale" appears in the lead section only in "Allied morale was boosted", and I don't think anyone would use "moral" there. Two sentences before, I see "Nor did they have such a profound impact upon the moral aspect of the war." If "upon morale." is meant, then my understanding is that most Milhist writers avoid characterizing morale twice within three sentences. If I were writing this, I'd go with one sentence (using "upon morale.") or the other, not both. - Dank (push to talk) 11:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dank: G'day, Dan, thanks for your time. In this case, I perceive that "moral" in the earlier sentence is trying to refer to more than just morale. It also refers to how the war was perceived, not only in terms of prospects for victory, but also in terms of how the Allied soldiers came to see the Japanese as enemies and as people. What about changing the sentence to "Nor did they have such a profound impact upon the thoughts and perceptions of the Allies towards the Japanese, and their prospects for victory." Thoughts? 08:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that works. - Dank (push to talk) 10:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense to me too. Josephus37 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I've made this change, too, and added "earlier" as per below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Josephus37 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something but the more I look at it the more it seems confusing to me. Most people will read "moral" as being an issue of right or wrong, which I think in the context of an article about a battle would make most think of war crimes, etc. The sentence says that the battle didn't have a profound impact on the "moral aspect of the war". I'm not really sure what that means, whether it is referring to the Japanese or allied forces or both, and it being followed by a sentence about allied morale being boosted is also a little confusing.--Josephus37 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is trying to say the opposite. It is saying it (being this battle) did, but that the earlier battles that did not - unlike at Milne Bay, these actions...Nor did they... Perhaps "these actions" should be "these earlier actions"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

My attempted aviation-related inclusion (esp. re: weather and terrain insights into the important air battles and air movements) inclusion under the Aftermath heading; and even attempted inclusion under Weather & Terrain on the (other) 'Milne Bay' wikipedia page, torn down by good old RupertAustralian and reduced to being barely a 'stub' once more

Okay, so those who are being so precious about this, obviously with an abiding interest in land battles to the exclusion of air and sea actions no doubt, will be the ones responsible for the knowledge contained therein being lost. If RupertAustralian and RandomCanadian have nothing better to do than take delight in such petty and tedious things as tearing down the efforts of someone like me who's just trying to honour the memory of the father of an acquaintance of mine, then (alas) I can't do anything more about it.

Where the 'Pacific Wrecks' site (amongst other media) were only too happy to detail the experiences of 75 Squadron's Alan Whetters, they have incongruously resisted (or have also been too self-absorbed) where the telling of the very similar story of 75 Squadron's Norman Houghton is concerned. With the overarching negativity I've struck, both here with you non-aviation-aware mere editors (in terms of posterity) and elsewhere with other self-absorbed types as with 'Pacific Wrecks', it makes me feel glad that the person to whom I myself am actually related (Alan Whetters) has already had his story told rather thoroughly. I may just quietly work on trying to get Norman's name mentioned incidentally to Alan's, given that their experiences having been just so "parallel" in one or other form of media.

I mean, to be constructive, one of you two - or yet others reading this - could always read about Alan on the Pacific Wrecks page devoted to him and rework that for Wikipedia to include elements of my repeatedly torn-down (now destined to be lost) historic information & insights I have tried to offer up for posterity, revolving around Norman Houghton. What RupertAustralian (what a trooper he is, I must say!) also removed from the (other) 'Milne Bay' Wikipedia page did wind up having much better citations, as it happens. I fear (by now) that I could never come up to a standard that non-aviation-interested contributors would approve of readily.

In short, I give up... Wikipedia has turned me off, TOTALLY. WHoo HOoo WHooo: "RedWarn rev12", what a disruptive bastard I am, to dare to have these views & values". Thanks a lot to you, Palmeira, as well! I won't be reading your answers, so don't bother answering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.6.144 (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The material you are seeking to add clearly goes into excessive detail and is mainly referenced to unreliable sources (please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes). Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would have removed it too for the same reasons as Nick-D gives Lyndaship (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, there's no need to be rude. If you wish to find a way to include this information, calmly take on board the feedback and provide a counter proposal here on the talk page. Abusing people in this manner is not acceptable, however. The key points of concern I have are length, quality of references and the addition of what appears to be unreferenced information. Regarding the first point, the addition is too detailed and unbalances this article. I would suggest that more detail might be added to the Operation I-Go article, though, which already specifically mentions the April 1943 attack, albeit without references or much detail. The addition, also appears to introduce a number of largely uncited paragraphs (a good rule of thumb is to place the citation at the end of the paragraph if it references everything in the paragraph -- if it doesn't then you will need to add a citation to each place in the paragraph where the source changes). Finally, some of the sources used would not be acceptable at FAC (for example Pacific Wrecks, https://www./gallery.php?gpID=4&galID=8 (which doesn't seem to load), while historyofwar while potentially ok for some things, is also often is questioned at FAC and therefore best not used in an FA). The National Archive source is fine, if it used appropriately per WP:PRIMARY. If you want people to listen to you and provide help, please do not abuse them. I would suggest a short paragraph, if well cited, would be a fair addition to the article. If you wish to try to summarise your work in a few concise sentences, then please do so here on the talk page. That way others can comment and you can establish consensus as to whether or not there is broad support to add the information to the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Righto then - so sorry to yourself and the others, and thank you very much (-: Do feel free to do any executive-decision type radical bit of editing if need be(?) and/or if you prefer it: to be further trimmed! Anyway, how's this:

The 'ditching' experience of one RAAF 75 Squadron pilot Norman Houghton in mid-April, occurred on the day of a very notable big raid by dozens of aircraft (featuring a wide range of types) during Japan's Operation I-Go. By briefly boosting the Japanese air force at Rabaul with naval carrier aircraft, Yamamoto gathered hundreds of planes together to achieve formidable striking power. He thus intended to be able to counter Allied air power and defences over a number of days at various critical locations. Overall, it was to become their most substantial aerial assault undertaken in the area.[150] This Japanese offensive was approaching its culmination by the day that RAAF Kittyhawk pilot Houghton, who'd scrambled from Milne Bay, resorted to what has been said to be typical of many such ditchings around the mouth of the bay - the low cloud base and the proximity of the mountains often made flying a difficult matter[151] - which was evoked by the official report he made to the squadron, upon his return[152]: At about 1250 hours on 14 April 1943 a flight of 5 aircraft in which his position was no.3, was flying EAST at about 25,000 feet towards Samarai. He observed a close formation of enemy bombers (approximately 30) at one o'clock on the same level and at a fair distance. Its escort consisted of two elements, one of seven fighters above and behind bombers, the other seven [or] eight fighters: about two miles NORTH of the bombers, and 2000 feet above them....... Norman attempted to turn to the attack but made the turn too tight at 150 miles per hour. The aircraft flicked and spun inadvertently and recovery was made by cutting the throttle; the aircraft then spun normally and he recovered in a dive at over 400 miles per hour. As the motor was throwing oil and flame and would not run properly, he force-landed on a reef on the S.E. point of Sideia Island near the village of Gotai.[153] It was allied naval personnel and merchant marine personnel who suffered the worst of the losses there at Milne Bay on that occasion, with 68 seamen killed, and during the course of losing one destroyer, one corvette, one oiler, and two merchant ships.[154] ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... [150] ^ (Print) Operation I-Go - Yamamoto’s Last Offensive ̶ New Guinea and the Solomons April 1943, by Michael Claringbould, 2020, Avonmore Books [151] ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_Bay [NOT MY OWN INCLUSION ON THAT WIKIPEDIA STUB] [152] ^ (ultimately:Print) "Confirmatory Memorandum, No.000010" (an official document based on his pilot's report)- available through The National Archives of Australia. [153] ^ (ultimately: Print) The Rag Tag Fleet: The unknown story of the Australian men and boats that helped win the War in the Pacific, by Ian W. Shaw, 2017, Hachette Australia Books; [154] ^ "Milne Bay Air Strikes April 1943 and Liberty Ships", Harry Prosser. Retrieved 2 May 2019, link: http://harryprosser.customer.netspace.net.au/PS01/PS01_009.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.147.96 (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I have added all that I am comfortable with to this article, with this edit: [5] and I used Morison instead as a source. Further, please remember that this article isn't about the April 1943 air battle. Operation I-Go is the more appropriate place for this information. Equally, Norman Houghton was one participant out of hundreds if not more, so we need to be careful to maintain a broad view of the topic. I understand you are trying to help his son and that is a noble endeavour, but this isn't the place for personal memorials. Many of us here have some connection to a veteran, are currently serving or have served ourselves and know those that could be mentioned in articles here on Wikipedia. However, our job here isn't to commemorate our relatives or fallen friends (if it was I would have written thousands of words about Uruzgan). It is to report what reliable sources report. Regardless, I have tried to add some of your suggestions to the Operation I-Go article as best I could per [6]. Regarding the above references, for Claringbould's work, please add the relevant page number to the Operation I-Go article where I have marked "page needed". For the National Archives document -- is there a web site/url link available for this? If so, please add that to the Operation I-Go article. I couldn't find the relevant page in Shaw's book with the link you provided-- can you link to it more directly or provide a direct quote? If so, please add it to the talk page of the Operation I-Go article. Anyway it is late here and I have duty at stupid o'clock so doubt I will get to come back to this until at least late tomorrow (if I get to come home), or later on Friday. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

THANKS A MILLION & I'M ALSO ADDING THIS TO THE OPERATION I-GO TALK PAGE - MY BEST COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST (I'll be ordering the Claringbould book and will be able to supply the page number for that within the next couple of weeks, or whatever it stretches out to, under coronavirus restrictions etc) As it happens I derived the inclusion to which it applies from the publishers synopsis, electronically, in case you felt you'd like to just put that, until I provide an actual page number. I'll also be asking the aforementioned veteran's son about the electronic availability of the National Archives document. For the basic confirmation of the weather conditions which affected flying at Milne Bay, where I'd previously accessed an online sample of Shaw's book (with omissions and without page numbers other than that it was in the middle of Chapter 1: Mission X / "The area had a low cloud base for most of the year and the nearby mountains could make flying a dangerous proposition") i.e. in Rag Tag Fleet (etc)... - I've also found an interview with one of the many pilots I knew, whom my own late father flew with, in 75 Squadron throughout 1942: Arthur 'Nat' Gould to be found at the (UNSW/ Canberra) Australians at War Film Archive http://australiansatwarfilmarchive.unsw.edu.au/archive/1431-arthur-gould - available there in various forms of media, but the non-PDF transcript there has him saying on tape5/part8 at the 7.00 min. mark: "The problem with that was you were doing a couple of hundred miles and hour round and round in low cloud, dodging the cloud and watching the mountain on that side and so on." This same quote appears in the Arthur Nat Gould chapter of a book called Voices of War (I'm having the same trouble with both omissions and 'no page numbers' shown, electronically). Again, I know from the tape position (given the book itself was a transcript) that it's exactly (this time) 'smack bang' in the middle of the chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.244.158 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

ULTRA v. MAGIC

The recent editing changes drew my attention to the use of ULTRA here. Use of ULTRA is counter indicated by ULTRA, MAGIC Wikilinks and certainly many references. I noted that the reference in the article seems to rely on Drea (1992) MacArthur's ULTRA: Codebreaking and the War Against Japan, 1942–1945. I do not have immediate access to that reference but note the title itself indicates something other than ULTRA, a similar thing aiding MacArthur. The most awareness of MAGIC in the popular culture is perhaps breaking the Japanese Fleet Code JN-25 and use to determine the attack target in the Battle of Midway as it got attention in movies and books. Memory does not serve to pin down whether the compartment ULTRA was used to cover both the U.K. Bletchley Park effort and the U.S. Japanese code breaking effort but considering how compartmentalized intelligence works it is doubtful there was sharing of knowledge below very high levels. In any case, the use of "ULTRA" for this article needs a through scrub as it is unlikely. Palmeira (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: I found a Google Books extract that perhaps explains the Drea reference. It appears to be using "ULTRA" as a generic name for signals intelligence:

• "Throughout the war, naval ULTRA reached MacArthur via several channels. In 1942 Fabian reported daily to MacArthur's office and briefed the general and his chief of staff on "all information obtained or received" from Japanese diplomatic and naval communications. Fabian also carried the MAGIC Diplomatic Summary, a synopsis of decrypted Japanese diplomatic message traffic . . ."

A search finds mention of JN-25. Pacific "naval" with regard to signals intelligence would be the JN vairiants. Drea explains the ULTRA use and that it is based on "popular" conceptions and is not precise in this context. Ultra and the American war against Japan: A note on sources:

• "For better or worse, these signals intelligence documents have become popularly identified as the ULTRA documents, possibly because that word appears in the title of so many recent books and articles about signals intelligence in the Second World War. The word 'Ultra', however, has no intrinsic meaning when applied to intelligence affairs, being a codeword affixet to the security classification of a document to alert the reader that the source of the information was a particular type of decrypted enemy signal. 'Ultra' applied origanally to only seven ciphers including Enigma, Purple, and JN-25. Other codewords, such as 'Thumb', 'Rabid', and 'Pearl' were applied to lower level decrypts and intelligence gleaned from analysis of enemy signals traffic.

The entire explanation is worth reading and refreshes my memory. Based on that I can see removal of the tag, but if nothing else I will add explanation. I think it might be better to look for the specific source (I'd expect JN) of the intelligence with regard to Milne Bay and use it in the article. Anyone up to helping in that search? Palmeira (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You have to remember that American decryption efforts before the war were limited to the codes of Mexico and Japan. The British codebreaking effort was far more extensive, and the British gave the Americans the Enigma machine in return for a Purple machine that could read Magic (the Japanese diplomatic codes). The British codename for signals intelligence of "Ultra" was adopted in June 1941, and this was this was adopted by the Americans too. (During the war the US effort became very extensive, and US codebreaking activity extended to, well, everyone, friend and foe alike.) MacArthur was fortunate in that he inherited not just the US Navy unit (Cast) formerly based in the Philippines but also an Australian organization that was part of the British network, so unlike other theatre commanders he had access to his own source of Ultra. Hence the title of Drea's book.

Drea (p. 44) says that the decryption of a fragment of a 21 July radio message gave the Allies at tip off. The Japanese code name for Samarai/Milne Bay was already known from captured documents. This was then correlated with other information to build a larger picture. See Drea, pp. 44-45 and Pfennigwerth, p. 217. You will note that Drea uses the term Ultra for cryptographic intelligence, as do the primary documents, which you will find in RG 457 at NARA in College Park in Maryland. There is no confusion here. The code of the message in question was JN-25. Unfortunately, the sources don't say that, so I can't in the article. But you can get to College Park, you want document SRH012. Before tagging or editing, you need to read Drea and Pfennigwerth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Drea's note quoted above is to the point. To repeat with my emphasis, "For better or worse, these signals intelligence documents have become popularly identified as the ULTRA documents, possibly because that word appears in the title of so many recent books and articles about signals intelligence in the Second World War." "Ultra" was simply a codeword attached to classification representing the source, signals intelligence. In that respect its use in the Milne Bay context may (or may not) be absolutely correct. The codeword attached to the specific SI presented to make the correlation was likely ULTRA as JN-25 is one of the covered code sources. I will at the least add a footnote if a solid source for JN-25 cannot be found. There is too much confusion on these matters as is and the average reader might associate the Milne Bay decrypt with Bletchley's work — due to that "better or worse" situation. The same applies to MAGIC which I've seen applying to every code breaking effort done on the western side of the pond. One of these days I hope to spend more time in NARA College Park (beautiful place — and helpful staff once rolled out a cart full of unindexed stuff they thought might fit my description of something I wanted to find that was a perfect fit — with a pretty good cafeteria) but that may be a while with the damned virus. Palmeira (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've inserted a phrase using the 1988 article noted above as the citation that explains the nature of the ULTRA codeword as being "signals intelligence" rather than a code. It was also the opportunity to bring in the JN-25 without stating that it was the one involved since there is no explicit cite. That I think is enough to alert naive readers that this was not Enigma at the least and that SI markings covered multiple codes. And, yes, this caused me to check. NARA College Park is still closed. Palmeira (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Except that the cafeteria wasn't open on weekends, . It is quite true that signals intelligence was also coming from the Central Bureau using traffic analysis, which continued unabated after the JN-25 codebooks were changed in June. I didn't have Drea's article that you referred to but I have downloaded it now. I trust that the matter has been resolved to your satisfaction. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That phrase I added makes it clear the ULTRA markings/compartment did not mean German Enigma sources. Due to that "for better or worse" Drea mentions I have run into some insisting that was the case. There is a lot of misinformation and misconception regarding classification, particularly formal compartments with codewords, as it evolved into what is in the U.S., SCI. A lot of that misconception got into popular "print" and perpetuates some nonsense. There are at least two other pieces that might need "harmonization" with regard to this article: Eric Nave and Operation Mo.

As for NARA, for a time I went over regularly, still have money on my reproduction card, but traffic and other obligations began making trips over a real chore about a decade ago. I was looking forward to resuming when the virus came to change life. Palmeira (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)