Talk:Admiralty Islands campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Admiralty Islands campaign 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 26, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Admiralty Islands campaign is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 19:18, December 19, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States / Military history (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
 

References[edit]

Which sources document this campaign? Cla68 08:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the two books I've read which cover the campaign. --Nick Dowling 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added another dozen. These books have good chapters on the Admiralty Islands; but there is only one book entirely about the campaign. Fairly typical of the overall lack of interest in the Second World War. Hawkeye7 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
One reason that it's not better documented is because the U.S. Marines weren't involved and the other is that it didn't happen in Europe. Many of the Pacific War operations and battles are under-documented by historians, IMO. Cla68 11:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles on Los Negros and Manus[edit]

Great work Hawkeye. I'm thinking we could forget about these and re-direct the pages here. Likewise the Admiralty Islands campaignbox, which is only ever going to have two articles in it. What do others think? Grant | Talk 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the two battles are creations of the Wikipedia. I'm not sure what they should cover. The US Army recognises a campaign called "Bismarck Archipelago" which covers New Britain, the Admiralty Islands, and Emirau. The article has a way to go yet. I'm not sure how large it is going (or is allowed) to be. Hawkeye7 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The article can be as big as you want, see WP:NOTPAPER. From my recollection Los Negros and Manus were distinct operations. If this is going to be a big article then maybe we do need two subsidiary articles.
I think the idea of a "Bismarck Archipelago campaign" is more about superficial geography and the convenience of military historians, than closely connected operations. New Britain is quite a distance from the Admiralties and the fighting there was long and complex. The Emirau landing was unopposed, and the Marines were met by "Seventh Day Adventist missionaries"! Grant | Talk 02:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Historians normally take a geographical approach to the war in the Pacific, making it a series of overlapping campaigns. From a military point of view, the Admiralty Islands were part of CARTWHEEL, along with the Markham and Ramu Valleys, Finschhafen, Saidor, Cape Gloucester etc.
The division between Los Negros and Manus is a geographical one too. Fighting went on on both islands simultaneously, fought by troops of the same division. There were also the subsidiary operations on Seeadler Harbour. Hawkeye7 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a general problem we have at Wikipedia is different and overlapping definitions/concepts from country to another. I looked into these issues a lot when I set up the various campaignboxes and linking articles for the New Guinea campaign. Part of the problem is differences between the US and Australian involvements/experiences and the different geographical concepts from one country to another. For instance, American historians talk about the "Battle of Buna" and not Buna-Gona; they also tend to consider Rabaul/New Britain to be part of the Solomons campaign, rather than New Guinea, even though it was part of the Territory of New Guinea (later Papua-New Guinea), and came under the South West Pacific Area in the latter stages of the war. We must not forget Japanese definitions and concepts either. To compound this, there is often a lack of awareness among military history buffs in one country about the parallel histories of other countries. Cartwheel obviously existed, but I question the extent to which there was a "Bismarck Archipelago campaign" in reality.

So to cut a long story short, my solution was based largely on a series of Australian War Memorial articles, which carve the broader New Guinea campaign up into clear and unambiguous geographical areas, in distinct time periods. In this I followed the way that articles on famous battles of the Central Pacific are grouped in a similar way, under less famous geographical names (e.g. Battle of Iwo Jima is part of Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign.) From that point of view we can probably live without separate articles on Los Negros and Manus. Grant | Talk 06:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that only one article is needed - this campaign basically consisted of a fierce, but brief, battle on Los Negros followed by some mopping up. This is looking like being a great article BTW. --Nick Dowling 11:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that is all for me for now. I think that a single article works okay. Would someone be so kind as to remove the Admiralty Islands Campaign Box? Hawkeye7 09:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I see you've already done it. I have now nominated the template for deletion and created redirects from "Battle of Manus" and "Battle of Los Negros" to this article. Grant | Talk 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Los Negros[edit]

Content moved from Talk:Battle of Los Negros.
This should really be its own article. This was a really important battle, as it was the campaign spearhead.... aliasd·U·T 11:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but the problem is that that the Los Negros battle is the main part of the campaign, and it is now covered in detail in the Admiralty Islands campaign article. Grant | Talk 13:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me know if there is some part of the article that you feel still needs expansion. Hawkeye7 22:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some thought[edit]

Moved to A-Class review comments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the Admiralty Islands?[edit]

Even though I am fairly well read on the history of WWII in the Pacific, I must confess that I had little idea where the Admiralty Islands are located. I followed the link, and saw:

The Admiralty Islands are a group of 18 islands in the Bismarck Archipelago. These are also sometimes called the Manus Islands, named after the largest island. The islands form part of Manus Province of Papua New Guinea.

Without the map in that article, I still would be unsure where these islands are located. I suggest that the location be described in the present article as north of New Guinea and northwest of Truk, or perhaps include the map from the Admiralty Islands article, or both. Otherwise, a very good article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are south west of Truk. I have added a map, and a new "Geography" section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Review points[edit]

  • Some clarification is need on who exactly is in charge afloat. The page currently credits Captain Emile Dechaineux, while placing him under orders of R/A Daniel Barbey, Com VII 'phib. It appears Dechaineux was on scene CO for the mission. Correct?
    Barbey was in charge of VII Amphibious Force. He was back in Milne Bay. Rear Admiral William Fechteler of Amphibious Group 8 was in charge, despite the presence of Macarthur and Kinkaid. His Task Force 76 was covered by Crutchley's Task Force 74. Dechaineux commanded its destroyer screen. After the initial landing, Dechaineux and his destroyers remained behind to support the troops ashore, at which point he was indeed the senior officer afloat.
  • Also, given this is a U.S. op, should Brit English really be used? (I know, don't change the Engvar...)
    We went over this last time. To sum up the arguments:
    1. The operation was fought in Australian territory.
    2. The operation was a joint Australian-American one. Although the American presence was larger, the Australian was prominent.
    3. Australian editors have homesteaded the whole South West Pacific theatre of WWII. (Note spelling!) The American presence is relatively weak.
    4. It therefore seemed likely that the majority of readers would also be Australian.
    5. Historically, the battle was fought in a mixture of American and Australian English and I was happy for the article to be like that but...
    6. Wiki-policy is for articles to be consistently in one form
    7. Therefore, Australian English was chosen.
  • Is TF74 correct? It strikes me a penny ante outfit to have a TF ID; TG74 seems more apt.
    Yes, that is correct. You have to remember that the Seventh Fleet had no battleships or aircraft carriers, so the cruisers of TF 74 and TF 75 were its capital ships. The USN has this thing about pointy ships.
  • Saying "one of the PTs" is a bit vague, especially since she seems to have taken significant action in saving lives (at least). Can she be identified?
    PT 329. I've changed the text.
  • Perhaps a minor point, but: is the senior air force 5h or 13h? (I presume 5h.)
    Kenney's Fifth Air Force was the one in SWPA. The much smaller 13th Air Force was based in the Solomon Islands. Neither is mentioned in the article though, as the air cover was provided by the RAAF.

To be very clear, I'm looking for correction in the article, not so much answers here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:30, 08:41, 08:51, & 08:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I've made some minor changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis[edit]

The article has an unsourced premise that "A well-known rule of thumb is that an attacking force needs a 3:1 superiority to ensure success." Many of us have heard that rule of thumb and accepted it without considering where it came from. It derived from a very different kind of warfare; it has questionable relevance for this campaign. It sets up a "straw man" without regard to the specific circumstances of naval and air dominance. Its irrelevance is immediately pointed out in the text, by a 1:4 ratio. The analysis needs to be reworked; analysis should not aim to glorify the campaign.Fconaway (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The premise is sourced. All Featured articles are fully sourced. There is a footnote. Did you look it up? What did it say? Did it specifically refer to the form of warfare in question? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)