Talk:Asiatic-Pacific theater

Leyte Gulf

Note that the Battle of Letye Gulf is listed in both the Central Pacific Area (under Nimitz) and in the South West Pacific Area (under MacArthur). Leyte Gulf is where Nimitz's western thrust across the central Pacific Ocean intersected MacArthur's northern thrust across the western Pacific Ocean. While the Pacific Ocean command structure was convoluted, operations were "designed to sequence the SWPA's operations with POA's forces across the central Pacific....The main purpose of sequencing is to arrange objectives/tasks in such a progression that collectively they lead to the accomplishment of the assigned ultimate objective in the shortest time possible and with the least loss of personnel and materiel." Nimitz provided, but maintained control over, Admiral Halsey's Third Fleet to cover and support Admiral Kinkaid's Seventh Fleet operating under General MacArthur. The result of this imprecise arrangement was the crisis precipitating the Battle off Samar.

Leyte Gulf was in Macarthur's Southwest Pacific Area. The battle was not fought in POA. The point is that Nimitz wore two hats. He was Commander in Chief Pacific Ocean Areas (CINCPOA), but he was also Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC). Occasionally, the Pacific Fleet would conduct operations in the Southwest Pacific, as it did during the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942, and Rabaul and Hollandia in 1944. But at Leyte Gulf Halsey was answerable to Nimitz as CINCPAC, not CINCPOA. Third Fleet was part of the Pacific Fleet. Seventh Fleet was not; it was part of the United States Fleet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye - We seem to be in somewhat violent agreement. How do we give Nimitz credit for Palawan Passage, the Sibuyan Sea, Cape Engaño? MacArthur had zero pt zip aught naught squat to do with them. Halsey had a THIRD FLEET Area of Responsibility: PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Area exclusive of MINDANAO and SULU ARCHIPELAGO. and this task Leyte is where Nimitz's and MacArthur's efforts collided. It is the context behind the picture of FDR. Further, Halsey was operating under Nimitz’ CINCPOA Operations Plan No. 8-44 (See Appendix G) which clearly stated in paragraph 3.(x)(1): “In case opportunity for destruction of major portion of the enemy fleet offer or can be created, such destruction becomes the primary task.” And that, in turn, is background context for the Battle off Samar. My note seems correct. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 22:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody reads Milan Vego for fun, including me, but his discussion of OP PLAN 8-44 is here. Email me if you'd like, and I'll send you the college's Leyte case study. Morison's copyright fees got too high. ☺ user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 15:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye—Is there more to discuss? Would you object if I put the elided comments back? user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 17:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, that is the best description of the root of the problem I've seen yet. Put it back in. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree of course. None of this changes the fact that it was conducted in SWPA, as MacArthur's directive makes clear. The AOR was designated by SWPA. It wasn't unusual for forces from one theatre to cross into another. And I don't see why we need to give Nimitz credit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Article is impertinent?

All - this article was erased. I brought it back. It maybe be badly titled, but the scholarship is solid. As a small example, there is a WW2 medal for serving in the "Asiatic-Pacific theater", members who served in any of the 4 operating areas are eligible. Another example: The US Army history is of the Asiatic-Pacific theater. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't erased. But the title is incorrect. You may not have been aware I started a talkpage thread at WT:MILHIST after I redirected it. But if the title for the threater is 'Asiatic-Pacific theater' rather than 'Pacific Theater of Operations,' it should be at Asiatic-Pacific theater, which ties it to the list of U.S. Army theaters, with their associated histories, medals, etc, rather than a non-existent 'Pacific Theater of Operations'. Feel free to comment at Milhist should you wish. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested RM (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 01:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

---

• Asiatic-Pacific Theater → Asiatic-Pacific theater
• China Burma India Theater → China Burma India theater
• American Theater (World War II) → American theater (World War II)

– To be WP:CONSISTENT with Pacific Ocean theater of World War II, Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I, South West Pacific theatre of World War II, South-East Asian theatre of World War II, United States theaters of operations in World War II, Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II, European theatre of World War II, African theatre of World War I, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, List of commanders in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, European theatre of World War I, African theatre of World War I, Eastern theater of the American Civil War, Lower seaboard theater of the American Civil War, Pacific coast theater of the American Civil War, Trans-Mississippi theater of the American Civil War, Western theater of the American Civil War, Balkans theatre, etc. These phrases are not consistently capitalized in reliable sources, so should be lower-case per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. (If they were, then all the lower-case ones should move insetad; either way, we should not have half of them with "Theater/Theatre" and half with "theater/theater"._  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Other cleanup to consider, severably:

• It might also be desirable to move all these to use either "theater" or "theatre" instead of veering back and forth, but I would do that in a different RM if at all.
• Another issue is the conflict between "South-East" and "South West" with no hyphen.
• And the disambiguation conflict between "of World War II" and "(World War II)".
• Also, the content in the articles is veering back and forth between "theater", "Theater", "theatre", and "Theatre", often even within the same section.
• And there're similar inconsistencies in the relevant category names.
• Balkans theatre might actually be too ambiguous, at least conceptually, and might be better as Balkans theatre of World War I.

But one thing at a time, I guess.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support The term is sometimes but not consistently capped in sources. I don't see that this is necessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS for these particular cases. I can live with the mixed spelling per MOS:RETAIN (anyhow who says Americans can spell? :) ). Probably drop the hyphen as uncontroversial (famous last words I heard somebody say). Balkans theatre/campaign for WWI/WWII would need some investigation. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.