Talk:Battle of Biak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated C-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: 18:16, May 20, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 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 United States  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Information needing verification:[edit]

  • Did Australian troops take part in Battle of Biak?


  • Was there Tank vs. Tank action on the island?


  • Was there an airfield on the island?


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryson109 (talkcontribs)

  • Did Australian troops take part in Battle of Biak?
Yes. A very small number of Army and RAAF troops were involved, including the RAAF's No. 1 Wireless Unit. The RAN ships Australia, Shropshire, Arunta, and Warramunga (as Task Force 74) provided part of the covering naval force.
  • Was there Tank vs. Tank action on the island?
Yes.
  • Was there an airfield on the island?
Yes. Mokmer Drome was the objective of the Task Force.

I'll be rewriting the Biak article in the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Tank Company[edit]

The Japanese entry is pretty precise about the number of tanks on the island. I have translated this and changed it in the main entry.

戦車中隊は九五式軽戦車9両を保有していた = 1 tank company consisting of Type 95 light tanks was maintained, consisting of 9 tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Rephrasing the Ice Skates Bit[edit]

In the main article there is the bit about the Ice Skates being referenced in Bleakley's account:

One oddity Bleakley recalls is of a bamboo shack of Japanese recreational equipment in a sort of PX containing "dozens of pairs of ice skates" – "on a Godforsaken island on the equator!". He kept a pair as a souvenir for a while, and says the Japanese troops were told they were on an island off San Francisco and were soon to invade America. He was with No. 1 Wireless Unit RAAF, the only Australian forces on the island.[8]


While one does not doubt him actually finding these skates I have found no other reference to them in ANY Japanese source. While I suggest we allow Bleakley to refer to his understanding of why he believes the skates to be there, there is no source cited that verifies that the Japanese soldiers actually thought they were off the coast of San Francisco. Such an assertion is plainly implausible and smacks of a certain kind of implied inferior ability to fool the average Japanese soldier, or in this case, a whole garrison of 10,000.

I suggest that the entry be changed to state something to effect that "it was his (Bleakley's) understanding, unverified, that the Japanese troops were told they were on an island off San Francisco and were soon to invade America."

Can I have a ruling. Canadaman1 (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My biggest problem with this section is that it is giving an awful lot of weight to something fairly trivial. I'd as soon remove the entire paragraph. --Yaush (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Material is removed.Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)