Talk:Battle of Luzon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"The Philippines were considered to be of great strategic importance because their capture by Japan would pose a significant threat to the United States"

This is pretty much bs, japan in 1945 has no offensive capability and the idea that the philippines can be used to stage a threat to the US homeland is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's in the background section and clearly refers to 1941. Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency between this page and the "Manilla Massacre" section referenced. This section states that General Yamashita ordered the defense of Manilla. The other page says Yamashita ordered a withdrawal and puts the blame for the Battle of Manilla squarely on the shoulders of Admiral Iwabuchi. Unless I missremember my history, I think that the Yamashita trial has more or less been acknowledged as a travesty of justice and that true responsibility for the Manilla Massacre resides with Admiral Iwabuchi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lingayen is a mistake[edit]

In some US military rewies there was a mistake. They mismatched Leyte and Lingayen. Leyte was the aim where McArthur invaded to attack main island Luzon. Lingayen was the place where the Japanese forces invade in 1942. This mistake is probably due to a picture showing McArthur stepping ashore (in Leyte) while a journalist - unaware of geography - wrote "McArthur sets foot on Luzon in Lingayen". It is true that McArthur wishes to make landfall more north as from Leyte to central Luzon and the strategic important places the way is either very far and much more easier to defend for the Japanese. Hence, he was afraid of big losses that did not appear, but not because of strategic aspects but because of Japanese weakness due to own logistic problems. Lingayen instead presents with its gulf and especially the mouth of a big river and the Sual bay a strategic natural safe harbour. Unfortunately it is in the NW of Luzon and therefore days of travel behind the US/Japanese frontier. This makes Lingayen completely unacceptable neither as primary landing place nor as primary target. Any attempt to ship to Lingayen would have had precise observation by the Japanese as a consequence. Therefore no surprise momentum would add any strngth to US attempts. Furthermore, a Japanese counterstrike could not be observed with an adequate time factor, the Japanese supply would just occur from the deep ocean while any shipment to Leyte, the Bicol coast or the south Tagalog region could be noticed by US air forces in time and a strategic answer could be prepared. If McArthur really had thought of Lingayen, it was only an idea for a larger scale involvement as an attack there would require (a) a stabile air base to supply (which could be found in Leyte), (b) a secured harbour as base of all ship movements close enough (which defenitively was not realized), and (c) a strategy how to handle Maynila as it is in betweeen Lingayen and Leyte. Maynila as a final defense base for Japanese retreat with all that population inside would have ended in a catastrophy. The US naval forces at that time (with war in Europe still going on) were surely not able to act at three different places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You have quite a bit of the geography mixed up, and do you have some citation for your theory? (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Airborne Operations[edit]

Airborne operations are inherently smaller, and the great majority are small parts of much larger forces. Moreover since an entire division of Airborne (US 11th Airborne) fought in this battle, even though only sections of some regiments were dropped, it still legitimately should be included in category airborne operations, many of which in the Wikipedia list are only small parts of mostly non AB operations73.212.229.38 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This article covers the entire campaign, of which the battles involving airborne operations were a fairly small component (these legitimately belong in the category). The vast majority of the US troops involved were landed by ship and moved around by foot or truck. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Nick, I am not going to change it back, but I strongly disagree. By that logic we would need to remove "Battles and operations of World War II involving Mexico" since the Mexican part of this battle was only a small factor.
I think you are conflating airborne assault, with actions by airborne troops, especially if those actions are specific to the training airborne receives. Airborne in not just about jumping and/or glider, but logistic automony and operations beyind the lines, which were part of various 11th operations on Luzon and are better enabled by airborne unit training and tactics. (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Luzon. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)