Take Ichi convoy 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 May 6, 2024. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How did interception of (German) Ultra communications assist in the detection of Japanese convoys? Would these not have been Magic or one of the Japanese naval codes? Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Was the single plane which sighted USS Jack part of a systematic air coverage for the convoi or only one random reconnaisance mission? -- Bomzibar ( talk) 17:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The deaths in one ship sinking was given as the suspiciously exact "3,000" soldiers. (Really? How many real wartime units are an exact multiple of a thousand? No crew deaths?) The Japanese source in the article on the ship says it was "2,586 soldiers, 81 ship's crew, and 2 armed guards". As this acknowledges the crew deaths and is a more likely size for a unit, I suggest it is more likely to be accurate.
This means the total in the main box is unreliable - it was 4,290, clearly arrived at by adding the 1,290 deaths from another attack to the 3,000 attributed to the first one.
I have changed it to "c4,000". 2,586+81+2 + 1,290 = 3,959, a tiny fraction less than 99% of four thousand. It would also be surprising if no-one else died on the voyage, given the Japanese army's problems with keeping its men healthy. Lovingboth ( talk) 18:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
" Yoshida Maru No.1 (第一吉田丸) - 2649 dead (2586 soldiers of 32D, 2 army ship guards, 61 seamen)
Aden Maru (亜丁丸) - 523 dead (507 soldiers of 35D, 4 guards and 12 seamen) Taijima Maru (但馬丸) - 70 dead (58 soldiers of 35D, 9 guards and 3 seamen) Amatsusan Maru (天津山丸, Tenshinzan Maru is miss pronunciation) - 95 dead (all 32D soldiers).
Sources of the Report are Senshi Sōsho and The List of Lost Ships in military transport missions (部隊輸送間における遭難船舶一覧, This is the report by IJA Shipping Division just after the end of WW2)."
Willoughby (1966) looks like a primary source and doesn't seem like an RS. The reports of Gen MacArthur? Surely a history book would be better? Consequently, some details in the background seem to be missing or incorrect. The "defensive line" was a euphemism for a change of strategy from aggressive imperial expansion to "holding the line" on recent imperial gains. It wasn't really defending the "homeland," that's just what the Japanese army called it. And I think this change was brought about by the defeat at Midway, which isn't mentioned. I think these discrepancies are a consequence of relying on Willoughby (1966) for the history and not on modern history books? Levivich ( talk) 15:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The article states that the convoy was carrying two divisions and that 4,290 soldiers were killed: I think it would be helpful to also state how many personnel were in the convoy overall. Alexysun ( talk) 18:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Take Ichi convoy 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 May 6, 2024. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How did interception of (German) Ultra communications assist in the detection of Japanese convoys? Would these not have been Magic or one of the Japanese naval codes? Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Was the single plane which sighted USS Jack part of a systematic air coverage for the convoi or only one random reconnaisance mission? -- Bomzibar ( talk) 17:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The deaths in one ship sinking was given as the suspiciously exact "3,000" soldiers. (Really? How many real wartime units are an exact multiple of a thousand? No crew deaths?) The Japanese source in the article on the ship says it was "2,586 soldiers, 81 ship's crew, and 2 armed guards". As this acknowledges the crew deaths and is a more likely size for a unit, I suggest it is more likely to be accurate.
This means the total in the main box is unreliable - it was 4,290, clearly arrived at by adding the 1,290 deaths from another attack to the 3,000 attributed to the first one.
I have changed it to "c4,000". 2,586+81+2 + 1,290 = 3,959, a tiny fraction less than 99% of four thousand. It would also be surprising if no-one else died on the voyage, given the Japanese army's problems with keeping its men healthy. Lovingboth ( talk) 18:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
" Yoshida Maru No.1 (第一吉田丸) - 2649 dead (2586 soldiers of 32D, 2 army ship guards, 61 seamen)
Aden Maru (亜丁丸) - 523 dead (507 soldiers of 35D, 4 guards and 12 seamen) Taijima Maru (但馬丸) - 70 dead (58 soldiers of 35D, 9 guards and 3 seamen) Amatsusan Maru (天津山丸, Tenshinzan Maru is miss pronunciation) - 95 dead (all 32D soldiers).
Sources of the Report are Senshi Sōsho and The List of Lost Ships in military transport missions (部隊輸送間における遭難船舶一覧, This is the report by IJA Shipping Division just after the end of WW2)."
Willoughby (1966) looks like a primary source and doesn't seem like an RS. The reports of Gen MacArthur? Surely a history book would be better? Consequently, some details in the background seem to be missing or incorrect. The "defensive line" was a euphemism for a change of strategy from aggressive imperial expansion to "holding the line" on recent imperial gains. It wasn't really defending the "homeland," that's just what the Japanese army called it. And I think this change was brought about by the defeat at Midway, which isn't mentioned. I think these discrepancies are a consequence of relying on Willoughby (1966) for the history and not on modern history books? Levivich ( talk) 15:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The article states that the convoy was carrying two divisions and that 4,290 soldiers were killed: I think it would be helpful to also state how many personnel were in the convoy overall. Alexysun ( talk) 18:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)