This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Milne Bay article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of Milne Bay is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
battle of milne bay Well done Gdr for finding the pic. Grant65 (Talk) 16:37, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Juan Riley ( talk) 18:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
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)Canadaman1 Canadaman1 ( talk) 07:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 '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] ^ /info/en/?search=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)
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:
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:
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Milne Bay article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of Milne Bay is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
battle of milne bay Well done Gdr for finding the pic. Grant65 (Talk) 16:37, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Juan Riley ( talk) 18:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
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)Canadaman1 Canadaman1 ( talk) 07:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 '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] ^ /info/en/?search=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)
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:
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:
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)
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)