Talk:Battle of Biak

Information needing verification:

• 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 (talk • contribs)

• 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

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 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Rephrasing the Ice Skates Bit

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)