Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Kita

Operation Kita

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers the voyage of two Japanese battleships and their escorts between Singapore and Japan in early 1945. The notable features of this operation were that a) the Japanese evaded no less than 26 submarines as well as dozens of aircraft b) all the warships, and especially the battleships, were heavily loaded with drums of oil and other supplies and c) the six warships were among the last Japanese warships to safely reach port from the South West Pacific.

The article was assessed as being a GA a few weeks ago and I've since improved it. As such, I think that it might meet the A class criteria and would appreciate other editors' comments on this. I'm considering taking this to FA standard, so any comments on how the article could be further improved would also be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Support a clearly written article, with some detailed suggestions below.

General points:

• If the sources have them, it would be good to have the Japanese commanders' names in the article. Only having the Allied names gives a sense in places that the article is focusing on the allied response to Operation Kita, rather than the Japanese operation itself.
  • I've looked for that, but haven't been able to find out who commanded the force.
    • Suspected that might be the case... Cheers!Hchc2009 (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's frustrating. The amazing thing is that no-one ever seems to have written a comprehensive English-language history of the IJN. The histories which do exist tend to cover the period after Leyte Gulf in a short chapter, and provide little detail about the structure of the navy and its leadership in this period. I'll keep searching as this will be something FA reviewers look for. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead:

• "to return both Ise-class hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers and their escorts from" - it's minor, but the "both" could mean either two carriers, or both the carriers and the escorts. If you said "two", the meaning would be precise.
  • Replaced with "the two" as suggested

Background:

• "the reserve of oil" - "reserves"?
  • Done

• "attempted to increase oil imports through loading drums of it on freighters" - what was the alternative to oil drums?
  • Dedicated tankers - I've clarified this

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article and your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support from baha with a couple of suggestions:
  • The infobox should probably have the number of aircraft. The body is pretty specific about the USAAF strike forces, so it shouldn't be a problem to come up with a good estimate (or range).
    • Done - the best I can do is 'more than 88' (the force employed on 13 February)
  • Send File:Operation Kita.jpg to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. It really ought to be a cleaner vector image, and use the standard map symbols.
    • Will do
      • I've opened a request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#Redraw_File:Operation_Kita.jpg. If you can give the graphists the exact locations of the various engagements, that would add considerable EV to the map. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do any of the sources mention why no surface ships were sent to engage the IJN convoy? I know that the Allies were focused on Iwo Jima and the Philippines at the time, but this doesn't really preclude a couple of ships being spared.
    • That's a really good question. Samuel E. Morison's official history of the USN says that there were four US battleships in Phillipino waters until 14 February, but these were used solely for defensive purposes. From some further digging through DANFS histories, it seems that these had all sailed from the Lingayen Gulf area by 10 February, bound for Hawaii and other locations (and so were well out of the area). I think I know where I can reference this from, though it will take until the weekend.
  • The miss rate on the torpedos seems high (100% of 17 fired) seems high, even for WWII standards. Is this expanded upon at all in the refs?
    • Not explicitly. The reason seems to be that none of the submarines got very close to the Japanese force, meaning that the torpedoes were fired from long range, and that the Japanese ships were sailing fast through bad weather, but none of the sources pulls these threads together unfortunately.
      • That's a shame, because we can't very well add SYNTH, but perhaps you could mention the distance when discussing the engagements, so the reader can draw his or her own conclusion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Aftermath" section only has one sentance about the impact to the Japanese war economy, and it's pretty general. I'd like to see something specific to this mission's success, i.e. it allowed some kind of other mission to happen or a new ship to be completed, if possible.
    • None of the sources say more than what's in the article (eg, that the supplies contributed to an improvement to Japan's stockpiles). There doesn't seem to have been any special purpose for the mission other than to return the battleships to Japan while taking advantage of their deck space to carry cargo.
      • Hm. I kind of got the impression that the mission was dreamed up as much to allow safe cargo transport as it was to recover the ships, with the mention on how transports were getting sunk/intercepted. Maybe tweaking that a tad to clarify would be in order, if my impression was wrong. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Aftermath" section suggests that there were other convoys of warships carrying supplies. Were any of them organized in an operation like Kita, and shouldn't there be mention of them (or at least redlinks) if there were?
    • I'll dig through CombinedFleet.com and see what I can find. English language information on Japanese convoys is extremely limited, which is a shame as lots of them were really interesting.
      • Hopefully you will. It is quite a shame that the IJN destroyed so many records before surrendering; so much valuable history was lost. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• All in all, a quality article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support on citations, bibliography, sourcing OCLC tested. Gill (1968) has a corporate author (Australian War Memorial) listed as a second author in the OCLC record. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • My hard copy lists him as being the only author. The AWM published the official history series, and had relatively little to do with writing it (as some trivia for you, they actually kicked the official history team out of the AWM's main building, forcing them to work out of a temporary building in what's now the grounds of the Australian National University). Thanks for your review and comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No worries, bloody amateur librarians at OCLC, hard copy always trumps adhocery. Oh for truly professional information professionals, there is nothing like a good librarian, archivist, curator or records manager. Poor Official Historians, what year did they get the boot to ANU? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I can't remember the year, but it wasn't very long after they started work (so probably the late 1940s/very early 1950s). At the time the ANU was a paddock with a creek running through it ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)