Talk:Battle of Okinawa

An iceberg known as "Steel Rain" hit Okinawa, causing various amphibious species, native to the UK and the US, to flock to the islands.

Why does "On This Day..." get this bizarre description of the event? Yes, I get the coy connections, but it makes it look like a misdirected link. 169.230.243.177 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The jokey reference is also in really bad taste: the Battle of Okinawa was a major human tragedy which resulted in around 200,000 deaths and many more thousands of people being wounded or losing their homes. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I have made a one-word edit to the lead, from was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War to included the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War as it more broadly represents the battle. Please let me know if this is requires further discussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Okinawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120324115031/http://www.nyc-shorinryu.com/okinawa.html to http://www.nyc-shorinryu.com/okinawa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

US casualties

The number of US wounded is 34116 (navy not included) not 55162. The detailed number of US army and marine personnel casualties can be found in Robert O Neil's 'road to victory' P 266. The 55162 figure, probably includes both psychiatric AND combat casualties so we should not list them separately. Also, I doubt the readability of the sources that indicate 20195 deaths figure. According to most sources, the figure of KIA is 12520 (7613 with no navy included). Perhaps the 20k number was the result of dying from wounds several months in the aftermath of battle. Can someone please correct that? Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex matador 666 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 October 2015‎

The cited sources (Keegan and the National Archives) are considered reliable and there is no reason why they should be challenged. The figure of 20,195 deaths is most likely all causes fatalities from the three services (Army, Navy, and Marines). This is different from KIAs, and that difference is acknowledged in the infobox. The figure of 55,162 probably includes wounded men who were eventually returned to duty. Giangreco and other historians note the War Department tendency to remove those less severely wounded as well as deaths from other causes from the official casualty toll, essentially as a means of propaganda. The same phenomenon is observable with the Battle of the Bulge: the US officially reported 8,607 KIA, though we know now that all-causes deaths were actually in excess of 19,000. The Pittsburgher (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)