This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bombing of Darwin 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show |
The columns in the battlebox are off-centre; this doesn't seem to be happening with other pages. Can anyone fix it? Thanks. Grant65 (Talk) 10:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Since when was a air raid killing less then 250 a Decisive battle in WW2.
I agree. This should be changed to "Japanese victory." Ultimately, the raid had almost no effect on the war. Jrt989 ( talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I added small flags to the infobox which was reverted, I thought they were common to use in infoboxes such as in
Vietnam War or
Korean War ---
Astrokey44 13:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
To me there doesn't appear to be anything at Darwin 1942 which is not in this article, except for the figure of "40 ships", which I haven't checked. What do others think? 12:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The article states that the attack was less that significant, yet over 250 people still lost their lives in this attack, and any loss of life can be deemed significant. Talk User:Fissionfox 11:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The various figures for deaths being argued about here and in the article; do not, generally make any distinction between civilian and military/Merchant marine deaths and between Australian and non-Australian deaths
This, in my mind, leads to a lot of the arguments about whether the focus on Darwin in Aus (especially in popular media/books/discussions) smacks of a beat up It seems that, at least 7 civilians were killed; probably 14 in the town and another 24 at the wharf(ves) although the official history and the Lowe report indicate that some of the people on the wharves were not civilians and many were not Australian.
A similar sort of analysis is warranted on the number of "raids" on Northern Aus. Apart from the big one on Broome which killed the Dutch refugees, how many other raids were there whcih actually involved more than single aircraft or a flight of aircraft and how many actually resulted in bomb damage?
Yet, another worry I have about the claims in this article and in popular Aus accounts of the Darwin raid is the claims about the number of aircraft; number/weight of bombs etc. Given that the carrier attack was mainly 81 Kate torpedo bombers, it cd only be the 71 Vals which dropped bombs; that wd be 71x 250kg= 18000kg= 400000 lbs: about the load of 4 Lancasters; 8 Wellingtons The 27 each of Nells and Betties seem to have only attacked the RAAF base; any evidence that they bombed any other part of the area? I note that the Lowe commission reported that only 3 civilian houses which even if it was wrong by a factor of 10 wd still indicate that civilian areas were not targeted
Final points: Nells and Betties are not by any measure "heavy bombers"; 2000lb max BL: wd be a medium bomber at best in 1942 and a light bomber compared to later Mosquitos and Beaufighters And, do we really want to cite the film "Australia"; its history was so false that it does not add credibility to this article; maybe we shd say the history in the film is nonsense. Merlin1323 ( talk) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Merlin1323
Change title from Bombing of Darwin (February 1942) to Bombing of Darwin. Later redirects to former. No reason for two articles, one about all bombings of Darwin (which this should be) and one specific bombing. 199.125.109.107 ( talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Moved from RM:
Thanks to User:Cenarium for moving this article in line with the above consensus. However, this means that a fair bit of work is now required. If the article is to cover all the raids on Darwin then something more than two sentences need to be included on the raids after the first one, the introduction needs to be re-written to reflect the changed topic and content and the infobox needs to be overhauled as the dates and casualties are now totally wrong (while there were relatively few casualties from the subsequent Japanese bombing, the Allies and Japanese both lost large numbers of aircraft during 1942 and 1943). Useful references for this work would be volumes I and II of the official history of Australia in World War II (full text available online) and The shadow's edge : Australia's northern war by Alan Powell. Nick-D ( talk) 07:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There has still been no activity at all to change the content of this article following the above decision to rename it, and the article is still entirely focused on the 19 February 1942 raid. As a result, I'd like to propose that the article be split so that there's a new Bombing of Darwin article which covers all the 64 raids between February 1942 and November 1943 and the current article is moved back to Bombing of Darwin (19 February 1942). Thoughts? Nick-D ( talk) 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
———————————————————————————————————————
Due to real world commitments, I cleared out out my watchlist about 18 months ago and was therefore unaware of the move until now. Had I been aware of the proposed change of title I would have opposed it strongly. My reasons:
Thanks.
Grant | Talk 11:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We don't want to be just be duplicating Air raids on Australia, 1942–43 or gutting it. I think the information about all the raids should be in there and this changes to only about the most commonly known event by that title which it pretty much already is. No need to change the title but a link to the air raids article and an explanation at the top would be appropriate. RutgerH ( talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Added an "In Popular Culture" section to refer as to why Australia (2008 film) was in the "See also" section in the first place... people who don't know are left to guess. - Aprogressivist ( talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time we added a new section for this report or at least mention it. http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs195.aspx has a links to the actual report. Appointment of Justice Charles J. Lowe was on the 3rd March, 1942 and the inquiry was conducted in Darwin from the 5th to the 10th of March then in Melbourne from 19th to the 25th and presented on the 27th of March. In total approximately 100 witnesses presented evidence.
Purpose being
"To inquire into and report on all the circumstances connected with the attacks made on enemy aircraft on Darwin on 19th February 1942, including the preparedness of the Naval, Military, Air and Civil authorities; the damage and casualties sustained; the degree of co-operation existing between the various Services; the steps taken to meet the attack or to minimize it's effects; whether the Commanders or other officers of the Naval, Military and Air Force or any civil authority failed to discharge the responsibilities entrusted to them; and to recommend what changes may be considered necessary in the Naval, Military, Air and Civil defence measures to meet a recurrence of an attack of this nature."
That could be too much information for this article so I'll stop there for the moment. If someone else wants to comment or start adding as they see fit that would be appreciated. RutgerH ( talk) 12:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
In their reversals of my edits to the infobox “Bidgee” and “ClueBot;” wrote
“infobox info as confirmed not estimated. Again still discuss as it is a major change to the article which has been on the article for some time”
AND
"(Reverted to revision 325200136 by ClueBot; Keep as is. Discuss on talk page.)"
I think my changes to the fatalities in the info box were justified. The latest official count (by the Northern Territories administration) was 292 but they under counted the toll on the USS William B. Preston by 5 so it should be listed as 292 or 297 at the least. However the researchers who’ve studied this most closely author Peter Grose and historian Peter Forrest concluded the total was over 300. Even Lowe believed some of the dead would have been uncounted. According to Forrest most witnassess he spoke think the total was well over the 250 estimated by Lowe,some say as high as 1500. Several Wikipedia article infoboxes indicate that death tollsarein dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll#Top_Ten_Deadliest_Earthquakes
The only source I found that gave the total as 251 was an Australian senator but that number was already in the infobox so he probably got it from here. Anyone reverting to that number should find a source. Another compromise would be listing it as 250 - 1500
Also I saw no justification for not including the number of injured. Such totals are given for most other attacks. As for my changes to the totals for the Japanese they better reflect the cited source.
Lenbrazil ( talk) 13:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Barring a reasonable reply to the above I'll change the # of killed to "292 (disputed)" or "+292" in a day or so. 292 is AFAIK the most recent "official" number. That was calculated by the NTA in 2001, AFAIK Lowe's March 1942 estimate of "approximately 250" was the last official number from the federal government. I have no idea where 251, the currently listed number, came from it doesn't come from any source I could find on the Net, including online books.
I added the number of injured.
Lenbrazil ( talk) 13:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you are the person who first posted the 251 figure for the death toll from the Darwin raids. In an earlier version of the page you cited: “Tom Lewis (2003). A War at Home. A Comprehensive guide to the first Japanese attacks on Darwin. Tall Stories, Darwin. Pages 63-71”.
- I took that to mean he didn’t give a single total but rather how many died in various locations and you added them up, is that correct? - If so how do his numbers compare to those give by Lowe and the 2001 plaque? (see below) - What sources, if any, did he cite for those numbers
In most cases Lowe and the plaque gave the same totals, the numbers in brackets are from the later if different from the former
Neptuna 45 Zealandia 3 British Motorist 2 Manunda 12 Swan 4 [3] Karakara 5 [2] Gunbower 1 Peary 80 [91] Meigs 2 – [1] Port Mar 1 Maunaloa 5 The Army 2 [3] The Air Force 6 [7] United States of America Army and Air Force 7 Civilians in the town. 14 [17] Civilians on the wharf 39 – [22]
the Don Isidro, the Florence Dee, and the Catalina flying boat destroyed between Bathurst Island 15 [18]*
Lenbrazil ( talk) 12:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Lenbrazil ( talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lenbrazil ( talk) 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"'About 300' appears to be Peter Grose's upper limit"
No, he wrote, “…a figure of 297 known dead is the best count anyone is likely to achieve…the full death toll is likely to be a little over 300, perhaps as many as 310 or 320.”(2009)
Peter Forrest wrote, “the death toll was certainly greater than the 243 figure. We now know for sure that it was at least about 300. It could have been more and probably was, but just how many more is unclear… we simply don’t have the evidence we need to come to a firm view. Any estimate is a pure guess. I would say about 400, but that is a just an informed guess.” (2009)
The NTA government erected a plaque in 2001 totaling 292 but they undercounted the Preston’s fatalities by 3-5, which gives us 295-7
"you provide no source for the figure of 500"
I did,see above; I cited Forrest who said,"I'm completely satisfied, from talking to people who survived, that the death toll could have been anything up to double that 243." double 243 is 486 which rounds to 500
"figures in the vicinity of 1000 are nonsense based only on rumor-mongering and are fringe views"
I agree they are almost certainly false but they are based on the declarations of several people who were there.
Lenbrazil ( talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Nick - I wrote the following "Stanley, Grose, Rosenzweig [24] and Tom Hall [25] rejected such numbers. The former said "it was certainly not the 1,024 claimed recently in unsubstantiated reports" [26] and the Grose wrote "numbers such as 1,100 are fancifully high".[27]"
Could you add brief quotes from the latter two? Lenbrazil ( talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The article says "there were about 15,000 Allied soldiers in the area." that is probably about right perhaps a little low according to the page linked below, "the Australian Army had 13,114 soldiers in defensive positions in and around Darwin...These army numbers were increased by 1,691 when the convoy carrying the 'Sparrow Force' to the islands to the north was attacked in the Timor Sea and returned to Darwin on 18 February, making a total strength of 14,805." 200 is pretty low ball for American and British military and Australian Navy and Air Force.[If anyone has accurate info please post it here or in the article].The infobox however says there was only "500 infantry". This obviously needs to be changed http://www.schools.nt.edu.au/ths-wwII/index2.html
Lenbrazil ( talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lenbrazil ( talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I changed the number in the infobox to 15,000. The high school site is far from a perfect reference but the article needs to be consistent and there was no reference for 500 which was obviously wrong. If anyone can find a more reliable source giving a different number they should change it. Lenbrazil ( talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I was too quick to condemn the HS site. This site confirms that a convoy carrying 1660 men to reinforce the Sparrow force was attacked at sea and returned to Darwin the day before the town was bombed.
http://www.merchant-navy-ships.com/index.php?id=30,0,0,1,0,0
Though it didn't give number this Australian government site says:
"Japanese air raids on the airfield on 26 and 30 January 1942 encouraged the Australian government to make preparations for reinforcements to be sent to Timor. Their arrival was delayed when the convoy, which included the destroyers HMA Ships Swan and Warrego, was intercepted by Japanese bombers and forced to return to Darwin."
http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/japadvance/timor.html
In any case if the 15,000 is wrong it should be corrected or removed.
Lenbrazil ( talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, other than the 18 P-40 airplanes, there is no specific mention of American troops in the area. The Pensacola Convoy had left Pearl Harbor on November 30, 1941, one week before the Japanese attack, headed for the Philippines with a brigade of field artillery, including 1 battalion from Texas, 2 battalions from South Dakota, and one battalion from Idaho. After the attack, they were diverted to Suva, then to Brisbane, Australia, where they arrived December 22, 1941. About 3 weeks later, according to my father Edward Bulian, who was there, 3 battalions were moved up to Darwin and were present for the attack on February 19. The Texas battalion was sent to Java where they were subsequently captured and held as POWs. This would seem to indicate there were at least 1,500 American servicemen in the area, plus the aircraft pilots and crews. 166.20.224.12 ( talk) 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)M. Bulian
This article has been tagged for splitting into multiple articles but how would this be done and what would these articles be? Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Editors of this article may be interested in this photo album from the American NH&HC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
As the 70th anniversary of this raid will soon take place, I'm attempting to upgrade this article to B class. Contributions from other editors would be fantastic. Nick-D ( talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
In an unsourced statement in the lead, not reflecting anything else in the article, we are told "The raids on Darwin represented a psychological blow to the Australian population..."
That may seem intuitively and logically correct, but I doubt if it's true. Military security and censorship was tight, and the story of the Darwin bombings was not reported in the mainstream media at the time. The Australian public could not suffer a psychological blow, because they didn't know it had happened.
Even when information did come out slowly later, what got reported was much more trivial than the truth, which took decades to be fully disclosed to the public.
I recall my ex-WWII Army dad telling me around 1960 that the Japanese bombed Darwin once, but didn't do much damage. Yes, I know that's OR and not admissible, but it's no worse than the total absence of a source for what's there now. I suspect that, knowing that some information was bound to leak out, the military circulated a story far from the truth in the hope that it would kill the rumours.
I heard a Darwin veteran on radio yesterday commenting that the frustration to those who had been there was that no-one else knew what they had gone through.
I plan to delete that unsourced claim. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
'This event is, on occasion, referred to as the "Pearl Harbor of Australia".' I agree with Andrei.smolnikov that the event is 'is only occasionally called this, and certainly not often.'
Harbor OR Harbour ... which is correct? Will it depend on cultural location and context? In Australia, the latter?
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 00:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The issue under dispute in the article concerns the use of 'This event is, on occasion [let us say, occasionally], referred to as the PHoA' ' vs. 'This event is often called the PHoA' (emphasis added); i.e. the term that best describes the degree of frequency of the use of the saying is disputed.
Resource per Australian War Memorial, http://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2012/02/17/filming-the-bombing-of-darwin/
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The article seems to be fairly one-sided in telling the story of the bombing, there is virtually nothing about the Japanese side. How was the attack planned? What was the name of the operation? It talks about "Consequences" and "Casualties and damage" but doesn't mention anything about the Japanese side. How was the attack analysed? Was it considered successful? 119.12.139.72 ( talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears some of the other side of the story about Japanese components exists already in North Australia Air War and its links and references. Looks as if some coordination harmonizing all these would be useful and the current authors, seemingly at least partly in Australia, of each might be the best to do that. Palmeira ( talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The info box states:
It has been stated that the number of bombs dropped on Darwin exceeded those dropped on Pearl Harbor.[5][6] Robert Rayner[7], Steven Bullard[8], and Tom Lewis[9] have demonstrated the speciousness of this argument. At Pearl Harbor, 273 bombers dropped 457 bombs (including 40 torpedoes) weighing 133,560 Kgs., killing more than 2,400 people. At Darwin 205 bombers dropped 681 bombs weighing 114,100 Kgs., killing 235 people.
The stats given (681 bombs v 457 bombs) directly contradict the earlier sentence. This para needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.216.103 ( talk) 09:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't contradict anything, more bombs were clearly dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbour.-- Empire of War ( talk) 01:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The lede is only a few paragraphs long, but devotes an entire paragraph to comparisons of the attack with Pearl Harbor. While it's appropriate information for the article, and in interesting comparison, I'm not sure the amount of detail here belongs in the lede. Perhaps just leave the sentence about it being compared to Pearl, and move the rest to the body if it's not already duplicated there? The lede in this case should be a summary of the event and major issues relating to it. This comparison is certainly apt, but I don't think it's crucial enough to the event to be such a large part of the general summary. Since it was the lede, I thought I'd bring it here first before boldly changing where no man has changed before. 204.65.34.237 ( talk) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This is also the day that Japanese American Internment began. that day is also remembered, in the US, as a Day of Remembrance (Japanese Americans). Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bombing of Darwin. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the 33rd Pursuit Squadron (Provisional) USAAF has been virtually written out of the article. Not that we ever said much about its pilots, including the fact that one of them, Bob Oestreicher, was the only pilot who claimed to have engaged Japanese aircraft on the day.
We also do not address the issue of the total number of damaged Japanese aircraft.
Five of the American P-40s had been on patrol over Darwin at the time the Japanese aircraft arrived over the town, while the other five had landed to refuel.<ref name="Gill_591">Gill (1957), p. 591</ref> Four of the patrolling aircraft were rapidly downed by Japanese fighters and all five P-40s on the ground were destroyed as they attempted to take off.<ref name=Coulthard-Clark_205 /> The remaining P-40 shot down two D3A dive bombers. Australian Army anti-aircraft gunners also shot down two Zero fighters and a D3A.<ref>Grose (2009), pp. 115–116</ref> Another Zero was shot down after being struck by a single .303 bullet; it crashed on Melville Island and its pilot was taken prisoner. While another Japanese naval aircraft failed to return to the carriers, the reason for its loss is not known.<ref>Grose (2009), pp. 135–136</ref>
(Which was inaccurate – Oestreicher claimed one Val shot down and one damaged/probable.)
That has been replaced by the much vaguer:
The Allied air defences at Darwin shot down one Japanese dive bomber. Another Japanese fighter plane was damaged and crashed at Melville island and the pilot was captured, and two other Japanese planes, a fighter and dive bomber, both damaged by anti-aircraft fire, ditched on the return to the carriers, resulting in the rescue of the aircrews.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Citation | author1=Lewis, Tom | author2=Ingman, Peter | title=Carrier attack Darwin 1942 : the complete guide to Australia's own Pearl Harbor | publication-date=2013 | publisher=Kent Town, South Australia Avonmore Books | isbn=978-0-9871519-3-3 }}</ref><ref name="ReferenceB">Takezo Uchikado and Katsuyoshi Tsuru were killed when their Val dive bomber crashed near Darwin. Hajime Toyoshima was taken prisoner when his Zero crashed on Bathurst Island. The Zero of Yoshio Egawa and the Val dive bomber of Takeshi Yamada and Kinji Funazaki, ditched upon returning to the carriers.</ref>
My impression has been that it's unclear whether the Japanese aircraft lost (whatever the number may have been) were brought down by AA guns, Oestreicher or spontaneous light weapons fire from infantry etc. The latter isn't as unlikely as it may sound, because e.g. Japanese aircraft lacked self-sealing fuel tanks at the time. (And there is the example during the attack on Broome of the Dutch airman, Gus van Winckel, who used a Browning .30 calibre, detached from a Lockheed Lodestar, to put down a Zero.) Do Lewis & Ingman actually say that AA gunners were responsible for the Japanese losses, and if so, is there any reason why we should take their word for it?
Bartsch (2010) attributes the downing of Tsuru's Val to AA fire and, citing Japanese records,attributes Yamada's ditching to Oestreicher. Apparently the records of the carrier air group on Soryu mentioned an attack on Yamada's section of three Vals by a lone P-40, which scored hits on two of them. (William H. Bartsch,Every Day a Nightmare: American Pursuit Pilots in the Defense of Java, 1941– 1942, College Station, TX; Texas A&M Press, p. 412
Tom Womack (2015, The Allied Defense of the Malay Barrier, 1941-1942), who cites Bartsch, among other sources, mentions that in addition to the Zero, two Vals and a Kate shot down/ditched, a total of 34 Japanese aircraft were damaged "although the number written off is unknown" (p. 162).
Grant | Talk 08:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Would Lee Kernaghan's song "When The First Bombs Fell" (featured in " Spirit of the Anzac's" album) be an appropriate addition to the popular culture section? The lyrics provide an account of the event.
- 115.70.125.97 ( talk) 03:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bombing of Darwin 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show |
The columns in the battlebox are off-centre; this doesn't seem to be happening with other pages. Can anyone fix it? Thanks. Grant65 (Talk) 10:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Since when was a air raid killing less then 250 a Decisive battle in WW2.
I agree. This should be changed to "Japanese victory." Ultimately, the raid had almost no effect on the war. Jrt989 ( talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I added small flags to the infobox which was reverted, I thought they were common to use in infoboxes such as in
Vietnam War or
Korean War ---
Astrokey44 13:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
To me there doesn't appear to be anything at Darwin 1942 which is not in this article, except for the figure of "40 ships", which I haven't checked. What do others think? 12:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The article states that the attack was less that significant, yet over 250 people still lost their lives in this attack, and any loss of life can be deemed significant. Talk User:Fissionfox 11:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The various figures for deaths being argued about here and in the article; do not, generally make any distinction between civilian and military/Merchant marine deaths and between Australian and non-Australian deaths
This, in my mind, leads to a lot of the arguments about whether the focus on Darwin in Aus (especially in popular media/books/discussions) smacks of a beat up It seems that, at least 7 civilians were killed; probably 14 in the town and another 24 at the wharf(ves) although the official history and the Lowe report indicate that some of the people on the wharves were not civilians and many were not Australian.
A similar sort of analysis is warranted on the number of "raids" on Northern Aus. Apart from the big one on Broome which killed the Dutch refugees, how many other raids were there whcih actually involved more than single aircraft or a flight of aircraft and how many actually resulted in bomb damage?
Yet, another worry I have about the claims in this article and in popular Aus accounts of the Darwin raid is the claims about the number of aircraft; number/weight of bombs etc. Given that the carrier attack was mainly 81 Kate torpedo bombers, it cd only be the 71 Vals which dropped bombs; that wd be 71x 250kg= 18000kg= 400000 lbs: about the load of 4 Lancasters; 8 Wellingtons The 27 each of Nells and Betties seem to have only attacked the RAAF base; any evidence that they bombed any other part of the area? I note that the Lowe commission reported that only 3 civilian houses which even if it was wrong by a factor of 10 wd still indicate that civilian areas were not targeted
Final points: Nells and Betties are not by any measure "heavy bombers"; 2000lb max BL: wd be a medium bomber at best in 1942 and a light bomber compared to later Mosquitos and Beaufighters And, do we really want to cite the film "Australia"; its history was so false that it does not add credibility to this article; maybe we shd say the history in the film is nonsense. Merlin1323 ( talk) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Merlin1323
Change title from Bombing of Darwin (February 1942) to Bombing of Darwin. Later redirects to former. No reason for two articles, one about all bombings of Darwin (which this should be) and one specific bombing. 199.125.109.107 ( talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Moved from RM:
Thanks to User:Cenarium for moving this article in line with the above consensus. However, this means that a fair bit of work is now required. If the article is to cover all the raids on Darwin then something more than two sentences need to be included on the raids after the first one, the introduction needs to be re-written to reflect the changed topic and content and the infobox needs to be overhauled as the dates and casualties are now totally wrong (while there were relatively few casualties from the subsequent Japanese bombing, the Allies and Japanese both lost large numbers of aircraft during 1942 and 1943). Useful references for this work would be volumes I and II of the official history of Australia in World War II (full text available online) and The shadow's edge : Australia's northern war by Alan Powell. Nick-D ( talk) 07:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There has still been no activity at all to change the content of this article following the above decision to rename it, and the article is still entirely focused on the 19 February 1942 raid. As a result, I'd like to propose that the article be split so that there's a new Bombing of Darwin article which covers all the 64 raids between February 1942 and November 1943 and the current article is moved back to Bombing of Darwin (19 February 1942). Thoughts? Nick-D ( talk) 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
———————————————————————————————————————
Due to real world commitments, I cleared out out my watchlist about 18 months ago and was therefore unaware of the move until now. Had I been aware of the proposed change of title I would have opposed it strongly. My reasons:
Thanks.
Grant | Talk 11:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We don't want to be just be duplicating Air raids on Australia, 1942–43 or gutting it. I think the information about all the raids should be in there and this changes to only about the most commonly known event by that title which it pretty much already is. No need to change the title but a link to the air raids article and an explanation at the top would be appropriate. RutgerH ( talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Added an "In Popular Culture" section to refer as to why Australia (2008 film) was in the "See also" section in the first place... people who don't know are left to guess. - Aprogressivist ( talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time we added a new section for this report or at least mention it. http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs195.aspx has a links to the actual report. Appointment of Justice Charles J. Lowe was on the 3rd March, 1942 and the inquiry was conducted in Darwin from the 5th to the 10th of March then in Melbourne from 19th to the 25th and presented on the 27th of March. In total approximately 100 witnesses presented evidence.
Purpose being
"To inquire into and report on all the circumstances connected with the attacks made on enemy aircraft on Darwin on 19th February 1942, including the preparedness of the Naval, Military, Air and Civil authorities; the damage and casualties sustained; the degree of co-operation existing between the various Services; the steps taken to meet the attack or to minimize it's effects; whether the Commanders or other officers of the Naval, Military and Air Force or any civil authority failed to discharge the responsibilities entrusted to them; and to recommend what changes may be considered necessary in the Naval, Military, Air and Civil defence measures to meet a recurrence of an attack of this nature."
That could be too much information for this article so I'll stop there for the moment. If someone else wants to comment or start adding as they see fit that would be appreciated. RutgerH ( talk) 12:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
In their reversals of my edits to the infobox “Bidgee” and “ClueBot;” wrote
“infobox info as confirmed not estimated. Again still discuss as it is a major change to the article which has been on the article for some time”
AND
"(Reverted to revision 325200136 by ClueBot; Keep as is. Discuss on talk page.)"
I think my changes to the fatalities in the info box were justified. The latest official count (by the Northern Territories administration) was 292 but they under counted the toll on the USS William B. Preston by 5 so it should be listed as 292 or 297 at the least. However the researchers who’ve studied this most closely author Peter Grose and historian Peter Forrest concluded the total was over 300. Even Lowe believed some of the dead would have been uncounted. According to Forrest most witnassess he spoke think the total was well over the 250 estimated by Lowe,some say as high as 1500. Several Wikipedia article infoboxes indicate that death tollsarein dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll#Top_Ten_Deadliest_Earthquakes
The only source I found that gave the total as 251 was an Australian senator but that number was already in the infobox so he probably got it from here. Anyone reverting to that number should find a source. Another compromise would be listing it as 250 - 1500
Also I saw no justification for not including the number of injured. Such totals are given for most other attacks. As for my changes to the totals for the Japanese they better reflect the cited source.
Lenbrazil ( talk) 13:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Barring a reasonable reply to the above I'll change the # of killed to "292 (disputed)" or "+292" in a day or so. 292 is AFAIK the most recent "official" number. That was calculated by the NTA in 2001, AFAIK Lowe's March 1942 estimate of "approximately 250" was the last official number from the federal government. I have no idea where 251, the currently listed number, came from it doesn't come from any source I could find on the Net, including online books.
I added the number of injured.
Lenbrazil ( talk) 13:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you are the person who first posted the 251 figure for the death toll from the Darwin raids. In an earlier version of the page you cited: “Tom Lewis (2003). A War at Home. A Comprehensive guide to the first Japanese attacks on Darwin. Tall Stories, Darwin. Pages 63-71”.
- I took that to mean he didn’t give a single total but rather how many died in various locations and you added them up, is that correct? - If so how do his numbers compare to those give by Lowe and the 2001 plaque? (see below) - What sources, if any, did he cite for those numbers
In most cases Lowe and the plaque gave the same totals, the numbers in brackets are from the later if different from the former
Neptuna 45 Zealandia 3 British Motorist 2 Manunda 12 Swan 4 [3] Karakara 5 [2] Gunbower 1 Peary 80 [91] Meigs 2 – [1] Port Mar 1 Maunaloa 5 The Army 2 [3] The Air Force 6 [7] United States of America Army and Air Force 7 Civilians in the town. 14 [17] Civilians on the wharf 39 – [22]
the Don Isidro, the Florence Dee, and the Catalina flying boat destroyed between Bathurst Island 15 [18]*
Lenbrazil ( talk) 12:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Lenbrazil ( talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lenbrazil ( talk) 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"'About 300' appears to be Peter Grose's upper limit"
No, he wrote, “…a figure of 297 known dead is the best count anyone is likely to achieve…the full death toll is likely to be a little over 300, perhaps as many as 310 or 320.”(2009)
Peter Forrest wrote, “the death toll was certainly greater than the 243 figure. We now know for sure that it was at least about 300. It could have been more and probably was, but just how many more is unclear… we simply don’t have the evidence we need to come to a firm view. Any estimate is a pure guess. I would say about 400, but that is a just an informed guess.” (2009)
The NTA government erected a plaque in 2001 totaling 292 but they undercounted the Preston’s fatalities by 3-5, which gives us 295-7
"you provide no source for the figure of 500"
I did,see above; I cited Forrest who said,"I'm completely satisfied, from talking to people who survived, that the death toll could have been anything up to double that 243." double 243 is 486 which rounds to 500
"figures in the vicinity of 1000 are nonsense based only on rumor-mongering and are fringe views"
I agree they are almost certainly false but they are based on the declarations of several people who were there.
Lenbrazil ( talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Nick - I wrote the following "Stanley, Grose, Rosenzweig [24] and Tom Hall [25] rejected such numbers. The former said "it was certainly not the 1,024 claimed recently in unsubstantiated reports" [26] and the Grose wrote "numbers such as 1,100 are fancifully high".[27]"
Could you add brief quotes from the latter two? Lenbrazil ( talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The article says "there were about 15,000 Allied soldiers in the area." that is probably about right perhaps a little low according to the page linked below, "the Australian Army had 13,114 soldiers in defensive positions in and around Darwin...These army numbers were increased by 1,691 when the convoy carrying the 'Sparrow Force' to the islands to the north was attacked in the Timor Sea and returned to Darwin on 18 February, making a total strength of 14,805." 200 is pretty low ball for American and British military and Australian Navy and Air Force.[If anyone has accurate info please post it here or in the article].The infobox however says there was only "500 infantry". This obviously needs to be changed http://www.schools.nt.edu.au/ths-wwII/index2.html
Lenbrazil ( talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lenbrazil ( talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I changed the number in the infobox to 15,000. The high school site is far from a perfect reference but the article needs to be consistent and there was no reference for 500 which was obviously wrong. If anyone can find a more reliable source giving a different number they should change it. Lenbrazil ( talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I was too quick to condemn the HS site. This site confirms that a convoy carrying 1660 men to reinforce the Sparrow force was attacked at sea and returned to Darwin the day before the town was bombed.
http://www.merchant-navy-ships.com/index.php?id=30,0,0,1,0,0
Though it didn't give number this Australian government site says:
"Japanese air raids on the airfield on 26 and 30 January 1942 encouraged the Australian government to make preparations for reinforcements to be sent to Timor. Their arrival was delayed when the convoy, which included the destroyers HMA Ships Swan and Warrego, was intercepted by Japanese bombers and forced to return to Darwin."
http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/japadvance/timor.html
In any case if the 15,000 is wrong it should be corrected or removed.
Lenbrazil ( talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, other than the 18 P-40 airplanes, there is no specific mention of American troops in the area. The Pensacola Convoy had left Pearl Harbor on November 30, 1941, one week before the Japanese attack, headed for the Philippines with a brigade of field artillery, including 1 battalion from Texas, 2 battalions from South Dakota, and one battalion from Idaho. After the attack, they were diverted to Suva, then to Brisbane, Australia, where they arrived December 22, 1941. About 3 weeks later, according to my father Edward Bulian, who was there, 3 battalions were moved up to Darwin and were present for the attack on February 19. The Texas battalion was sent to Java where they were subsequently captured and held as POWs. This would seem to indicate there were at least 1,500 American servicemen in the area, plus the aircraft pilots and crews. 166.20.224.12 ( talk) 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)M. Bulian
This article has been tagged for splitting into multiple articles but how would this be done and what would these articles be? Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Editors of this article may be interested in this photo album from the American NH&HC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
As the 70th anniversary of this raid will soon take place, I'm attempting to upgrade this article to B class. Contributions from other editors would be fantastic. Nick-D ( talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
In an unsourced statement in the lead, not reflecting anything else in the article, we are told "The raids on Darwin represented a psychological blow to the Australian population..."
That may seem intuitively and logically correct, but I doubt if it's true. Military security and censorship was tight, and the story of the Darwin bombings was not reported in the mainstream media at the time. The Australian public could not suffer a psychological blow, because they didn't know it had happened.
Even when information did come out slowly later, what got reported was much more trivial than the truth, which took decades to be fully disclosed to the public.
I recall my ex-WWII Army dad telling me around 1960 that the Japanese bombed Darwin once, but didn't do much damage. Yes, I know that's OR and not admissible, but it's no worse than the total absence of a source for what's there now. I suspect that, knowing that some information was bound to leak out, the military circulated a story far from the truth in the hope that it would kill the rumours.
I heard a Darwin veteran on radio yesterday commenting that the frustration to those who had been there was that no-one else knew what they had gone through.
I plan to delete that unsourced claim. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
'This event is, on occasion, referred to as the "Pearl Harbor of Australia".' I agree with Andrei.smolnikov that the event is 'is only occasionally called this, and certainly not often.'
Harbor OR Harbour ... which is correct? Will it depend on cultural location and context? In Australia, the latter?
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 00:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The issue under dispute in the article concerns the use of 'This event is, on occasion [let us say, occasionally], referred to as the PHoA' ' vs. 'This event is often called the PHoA' (emphasis added); i.e. the term that best describes the degree of frequency of the use of the saying is disputed.
Resource per Australian War Memorial, http://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2012/02/17/filming-the-bombing-of-darwin/
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The article seems to be fairly one-sided in telling the story of the bombing, there is virtually nothing about the Japanese side. How was the attack planned? What was the name of the operation? It talks about "Consequences" and "Casualties and damage" but doesn't mention anything about the Japanese side. How was the attack analysed? Was it considered successful? 119.12.139.72 ( talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears some of the other side of the story about Japanese components exists already in North Australia Air War and its links and references. Looks as if some coordination harmonizing all these would be useful and the current authors, seemingly at least partly in Australia, of each might be the best to do that. Palmeira ( talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The info box states:
It has been stated that the number of bombs dropped on Darwin exceeded those dropped on Pearl Harbor.[5][6] Robert Rayner[7], Steven Bullard[8], and Tom Lewis[9] have demonstrated the speciousness of this argument. At Pearl Harbor, 273 bombers dropped 457 bombs (including 40 torpedoes) weighing 133,560 Kgs., killing more than 2,400 people. At Darwin 205 bombers dropped 681 bombs weighing 114,100 Kgs., killing 235 people.
The stats given (681 bombs v 457 bombs) directly contradict the earlier sentence. This para needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.216.103 ( talk) 09:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't contradict anything, more bombs were clearly dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbour.-- Empire of War ( talk) 01:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The lede is only a few paragraphs long, but devotes an entire paragraph to comparisons of the attack with Pearl Harbor. While it's appropriate information for the article, and in interesting comparison, I'm not sure the amount of detail here belongs in the lede. Perhaps just leave the sentence about it being compared to Pearl, and move the rest to the body if it's not already duplicated there? The lede in this case should be a summary of the event and major issues relating to it. This comparison is certainly apt, but I don't think it's crucial enough to the event to be such a large part of the general summary. Since it was the lede, I thought I'd bring it here first before boldly changing where no man has changed before. 204.65.34.237 ( talk) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This is also the day that Japanese American Internment began. that day is also remembered, in the US, as a Day of Remembrance (Japanese Americans). Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bombing of Darwin. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the 33rd Pursuit Squadron (Provisional) USAAF has been virtually written out of the article. Not that we ever said much about its pilots, including the fact that one of them, Bob Oestreicher, was the only pilot who claimed to have engaged Japanese aircraft on the day.
We also do not address the issue of the total number of damaged Japanese aircraft.
Five of the American P-40s had been on patrol over Darwin at the time the Japanese aircraft arrived over the town, while the other five had landed to refuel.<ref name="Gill_591">Gill (1957), p. 591</ref> Four of the patrolling aircraft were rapidly downed by Japanese fighters and all five P-40s on the ground were destroyed as they attempted to take off.<ref name=Coulthard-Clark_205 /> The remaining P-40 shot down two D3A dive bombers. Australian Army anti-aircraft gunners also shot down two Zero fighters and a D3A.<ref>Grose (2009), pp. 115–116</ref> Another Zero was shot down after being struck by a single .303 bullet; it crashed on Melville Island and its pilot was taken prisoner. While another Japanese naval aircraft failed to return to the carriers, the reason for its loss is not known.<ref>Grose (2009), pp. 135–136</ref>
(Which was inaccurate – Oestreicher claimed one Val shot down and one damaged/probable.)
That has been replaced by the much vaguer:
The Allied air defences at Darwin shot down one Japanese dive bomber. Another Japanese fighter plane was damaged and crashed at Melville island and the pilot was captured, and two other Japanese planes, a fighter and dive bomber, both damaged by anti-aircraft fire, ditched on the return to the carriers, resulting in the rescue of the aircrews.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Citation | author1=Lewis, Tom | author2=Ingman, Peter | title=Carrier attack Darwin 1942 : the complete guide to Australia's own Pearl Harbor | publication-date=2013 | publisher=Kent Town, South Australia Avonmore Books | isbn=978-0-9871519-3-3 }}</ref><ref name="ReferenceB">Takezo Uchikado and Katsuyoshi Tsuru were killed when their Val dive bomber crashed near Darwin. Hajime Toyoshima was taken prisoner when his Zero crashed on Bathurst Island. The Zero of Yoshio Egawa and the Val dive bomber of Takeshi Yamada and Kinji Funazaki, ditched upon returning to the carriers.</ref>
My impression has been that it's unclear whether the Japanese aircraft lost (whatever the number may have been) were brought down by AA guns, Oestreicher or spontaneous light weapons fire from infantry etc. The latter isn't as unlikely as it may sound, because e.g. Japanese aircraft lacked self-sealing fuel tanks at the time. (And there is the example during the attack on Broome of the Dutch airman, Gus van Winckel, who used a Browning .30 calibre, detached from a Lockheed Lodestar, to put down a Zero.) Do Lewis & Ingman actually say that AA gunners were responsible for the Japanese losses, and if so, is there any reason why we should take their word for it?
Bartsch (2010) attributes the downing of Tsuru's Val to AA fire and, citing Japanese records,attributes Yamada's ditching to Oestreicher. Apparently the records of the carrier air group on Soryu mentioned an attack on Yamada's section of three Vals by a lone P-40, which scored hits on two of them. (William H. Bartsch,Every Day a Nightmare: American Pursuit Pilots in the Defense of Java, 1941– 1942, College Station, TX; Texas A&M Press, p. 412
Tom Womack (2015, The Allied Defense of the Malay Barrier, 1941-1942), who cites Bartsch, among other sources, mentions that in addition to the Zero, two Vals and a Kate shot down/ditched, a total of 34 Japanese aircraft were damaged "although the number written off is unknown" (p. 162).
Grant | Talk 08:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Would Lee Kernaghan's song "When The First Bombs Fell" (featured in " Spirit of the Anzac's" album) be an appropriate addition to the popular culture section? The lyrics provide an account of the event.
- 115.70.125.97 ( talk) 03:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)