Talk:Battle of Kota Bharu

Vietnam Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / British / European / Japanese / World War II

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	World War II task force

Malaysia High‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Japan: Military history Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of 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, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:46, November 11, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

British Empire

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

It was not Operation Matador (a pre-emptive strike into Siam) that Brooke-Popham had to set in motion (and dithered about) but Operation Krohcol and part of the delay was having to rearrange troops for Krohcol not Matador! Hugo999 10:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Not sure about that myself. As far as i new both Operations were dithered about. Matador was the main element. The only real chance they had of damaging the invasion. Attacking the major landing forces in Siam before they could cross into northern Malaya, Matador, if successful, made Krohcol unnecessary. Tristan benedict 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local time

I've added a bit about the dates being local time, as otherwise it makes the relationship between the attack at Pearl Harbor (usually given as early in the morning of the 7 December following Hawaiian/US local time) and the invasion seem very odd indeed. It gets confusing when the action/countries involved straddle the International Date Line. Jasper33 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that some of the time math in the section 'Landings at Kota Bharu' is incorrect.

[Para 3] '. . . The invasion began with a bombardment at around 12:30 a.m. local time on 8 December. (The Japanese carrier planes flying towards Pearl Harbor were about 20 minutes away; the attack there started at 02:48 a.m. local time, . . .)'

Times used in the article are presented as local to Malaya.

The attack at Pearl began at 7:48 am Hawaiian time. In 1941, Hawaiian Standard Time (HST) was UTC-10.5, and Malaya and Thailand were both UTC+7 which meant the attack on Pearl began at [07:48 - (-10:30) + (+7:00) = 25:18, or] 1:18 am, 08 Dec, Malay time.

Result: the '02:48 am local time' stated in the article should be changed to '01:18 am local time'.

Wikipedia text reads that the bombardment at Kota Bharu (KB) began about 12:30 am local time (Malay). So the bombardment at KB beginning at 12:30 am was almost 50 minutes before the attack on Pearl 1:18 am (Malay time).

Result: the '20 minutes away' is in error --- it should be corrected to 'about 50 minutes away'.

The time zone information comes from a National Geographic map titled 'Pacific Ocean', dated 1936, which was included with the December 1936 issue of the Society's magazine.

The time of the attack at Pearl is in Wikipedia, 'Pearl Harbor Attack', section 'First wave composition'.

Conversion between time zones (from 'Time Zone' article in Wikipedia) obeys the relationship:

"time in zone B" = "time in zone A" − "UTC offset for zone A" + "UTC offset for zone B" PhuDoi1 (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was NO "Battle of Kota Bahru", the British were left with their pants down. There was no fighting, maybe a few gun shots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.210.253.196 (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources

Wikipedia officially frowns on using primary sources, like Percival's Official Report, and prefers neutral analysis by secondary, tertiary etc. authors. Quotes are ok though. I don't mind, but take it into account. Graeme374 (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Invasion of Malaya (also called the Battle of Kota Bharu)

I think it should be made clear, that my family were located in the general area of Kota bahru, AND There was NO BATTLE IN KOTA BAHRU. A FEW GUN SHOTS DO NOT MAKE IT A BATTLE.

THE BRITISH WERE WEAK AND LEFT MALAYA FOR THE JAPANESE TAKING. THE COMMUNIST, AS IDEOLOGICALLY OFF-TANGENT AS THEY ARE THEN AND TODAY, WERE THE ONES FIGHTING THE JAPANESE EVENTUALLY. THE CHINESE WHO HAD RELATIVES IN CHINA WHEN JAPAN MASSACRED THE CHINESE, WERE THE ONES SHOWING SOME RESISTANCE.

SO, PLEASE LETS REPORT HISTORY ACCURATELY - THE BRITISH WERE TRAMPLED BY THE JAPANESE ARMY AND LEFT MALAYSIANS TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY RETREATED TO SINGAPORE AND SURRENDERED SHORTLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.210.253.196 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End time?

The article does not include a specific date for when the actual invasion 'ends', so to speak, although it does state it ended in a Japanese victory. According to the article here, resistance ended 30/01/42 and all Allied forces retreated from Malaya 1/2/42. I don't really have time nor the courage to in-cooperate such a major edit into this article. Thoughts from an experienced editor about including this in the article? Command Conquerer Logs 11:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese invasion of Malaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese invasion of Malaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon

Wich weapon’s do they use? 183.171.122.228 (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]