Talk:Philippines Campaign (1941–42)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I question there were 107 in the Philippines. There were also a number of obsolescent P-36s which seem to have been counted; Caidin's 'Ragged, Rugged Warriors' puts the number of '40s at 72 (54 Es, 18 Bs), the balance P-36s.

FEAF controversy[edit]

This is massively understated. MacArthur had 8.5 HOURS warning (hearing when the attack went into Hawaii), and express orders from DC to "Execute Rainbow Five"--attack, because the country was at war. He did nothing. It has been suggested (in "Ragged, Rugged Warriors" and "Pacific Sweep", I think) Sutherland intercepted Brereton's requests to MacArthur. Why Brereton did not disperse his aircraft on his own authority is not clear to beacuse macarther wanted him to tell him frist


(I also question the number of P-40s credited, mentioned elsewhere as 54/18:72). --K D Faber

Japanese caution[edit]

I would suggest Homma's caution was more due to the fact MacArthur actually outnumbered him. (Just don't ask me for my source.) --K D Faber

P-40s again[edit]

I would give credit to the fighter commander, a Col Harold "Fighter" George (so named to distinguish him from Harold "Bomber" George, who had a different middle initial...) --k d faber


I would like to rename this article to Battle of the Philippines (World War II). That would fall more in line with the current naming scheme for the war and be less ambigious (at first I thought there might be multiple battles at this place during the war).

There were, that's why the present name workes better. See Battle of Leyte. Grant65 (Talk) 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


I believe something about MacArthur's return to the Philippines (in which he retook it) after the attack on Pearl Harbor needs to be added. Please correct me if I am mistaken, or if this is already a page. RcSamuraihahaha

Good point, I will address this. Grant65 | Talk 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The battle of the Philippines have less casualtie numbers from both sides than the Battle of Battan and corregidor together. Can someone explain me this.

Another point, most of FEAF planes destroyed by the Japanesse raids were bombers not fighters.

Jesus Villamor and Cesar Basa[edit]

Do Jesus Villamor and Cesar Basa deserve a mention in this article? Jesus was a clearing house of information that helped liberate the Philippines and had a direct chain of communication with Gen. MacArthur at the time, and Cesar Basa was the first Filipino casualty of World War II, and both of them are Philippine Air Force heroes. (See the respective Wikipedia articles for more details.)

Eustachius 06:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording on some of the sentences to make them sound better. Feel free to change some of them back if they arent correct. Just trying to help this article. -WVU-DOHFAST 03:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article suggests that it was Japanese bombers that caused the bulk of the damage to the fortifications at Fort Mills in early 1942. In fact, the bombers caused little damage and what they did accomplish was soon repaired. It was the shore-based Japanese artillery - in particular their 9.4" (240mm) howitzers that did the most damage. The Japanese could rely on spotting planes and intact supply lines to continually pound all of the fortified American positions. The only American fort that successfully resisted this punishment was Fort Drum (the Concrete Battleship).

Killed and Wounded[edit]

This article lists only 2500 killed and 5000 wounded on the Allied side, and less than 2500 combined casualties on the Japanese side. However, Battle of Bataan which was one componet of the larger campaign, list casualties in the 10s of thousands on both side. A very large discrepency, does anyone have the correct figure? Homersmyid 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please try to solve this problem; someone with books related to this topic, is imposible to sustain 10,000 killed in one battle and less than 2,000 dead in the campaign including the battle. Best Wishes Miguel —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The start of the war[edit]

The article says that the first landings started on 12/8/1941 a day after the attack on pearl harbor. However, because the Philippines on on the other side of the international date line form Hawaii. The war did start on the 8th in the Philippines and Japan. The Philippines were under attack 7 hours after word of the attack reached the Philippines. Zginder 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —wwoods 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Needed: Japanese occupation of the Philippines (1941-1945)[edit]

Hi. The Military history of the Philippines during World War II article is very sketchy and on its page there is a red link for an article about the Japanese occupation of the Philippines (1941-1945) a very important subject that is still needed as there are already articles about: the Japanese occupation of Burma; Japanese occupation of Hong Kong; Japanese occupation of Indonesia; Japanese occupation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak and Japanese occupation of Singapore, so this gap is glaring. Anyone with and interest or expertise in this topic is welcome to start writing it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Filipino-American resistance against the Japanese in the prepared defensive positions of Bataan and Corregidor held out for almost 3 months after resistance had collapsed in the British colonies in Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore.

What does the fighting in these three places have to do with the Philippines? Is it fair to compare then all? Does it add anything to the article?

I have to say no the latter two and nothing at all to the first.-- (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Troop Strength[edit]

The Japanese Wikipedia entry for the "Battle of the Philippines" lists their troop strength at 43,110 but the English version (this page) lists the Japanese troop strength as 129,435. That's a very large discrepancy. Anyone have some reliable numbers with sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talkcontribs) 19:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The source of the figure is validly referenced, now if there is another reliable source that you can find to counter that, we can reach a consensus as to what figure to use. Remeber, wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Members of the Spanish Falange in the Philippines assisted the Japanese in the campaign, should Spain be included as a beligerant?[edit]

As per the question above, I found information from a work of scholar Stanley Payne which states that members of the Falange Exterior, the international department of the ruling Falange party of Spain, collaborated with the Japanese during the campaign. The source is this: Stanley G. Payne. Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Press, 1999. Pp. 538. It is available to view at Google books.--R-41 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The referenced material may need to be verified.
After reading the material, it does not appear that Spaniards were active combatants against the United States or the Commonwealth of the Philippines, but against Spanish Filipinos who resided within the Philippines. Therefore I would say they should not be listed as a combatant in the info box. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Collaborating is not the same as fighting as a belligerent. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Moro islamic resistance against Japan[edit]

Page 269

The Japanese invasion of the Philippines found Piang serving on Mindanao as a captain in the Philippine Constabulary. In 1942, Piang organized a Moro guerrilla force to fight the Japanese, choosing a unit insignia of a bolo and a kris, ...,3416994&hl=en,6304854&hl=en,5117092&hl=en,203358&hl=en,918195&hl=en,137011&hl=en,3521302&hl=en,4113694&hl=en,5570104&hl=en,4865271&hl=en,1332631&hl=en,2906337&hl=en,680664&hl=en,547688&hl=en,2914846&hl=en,3879403&hl=en,3733676&hl=en,567754&hl=en,86750&hl=en,1199328&hl=en,438255&hl=en,515356&hl=en,2963057&hl=en,3646589&hl=en,1706249&hl=en,4394025&hl=en,736181&hl=en,635472&hl=en,4301951&hl=en,2773458&hl=en,3186395&hl=en,1868795&hl=en,2930145&hl=en,4216891&hl=en,4161200&hl=en,4437963&hl=en,470360&hl=en,1332631&hl=en,2587117&hl=en,5123873&hl=en,6038955&hl=en,4055247&hl=en,2425479&hl=en,4816594&hl=en,7246655&hl=en,5384970&hl=en,2464690&hl=en,3502298&hl=en,2985415&hl=en,4749254&hl=en

Moro weapons:




Page 47

Fort, then senior American USAFFE officer in Mindanao, organized the Moro Bolo Battalion for the purpose of pitting the Maranao, armed only with kampilans, against the Japanese. lt should be noted that the Moro Bolo Battalion, unlike a ...

Title Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Local History Editors Luis Q. Lacar, Gabino T. Puno, Ricardo Jorge S. Caluen Publisher Coordination Center for Research and Development MSU-IIT, 1990 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jun 13, 2006 Length 126 pages

Page 269

The Japanese invasion of the Philippines found Piang serving on Mindanao as a captain in the Philippine Constabulary. In 1942, Piang organized a Moro guerrilla force to fight the Japanese, choosing a unit insignia of a bolo and a kris, ...


Rajmaan (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Moros during World War II

The Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army issue[edit]

(Copied from Talk:Philippine Commonwealth Army

First a qualification. The articles about the Commonwealth period Philippine forces are pretty obviously written by editors struggling with standard English grammar and much of the wording is contorted. A quick read of some articles in the category, during my checking before reverting deletion of the category, left me wondering what the author was trying to say while getting some idea of what it must have been about. The subject is important, interesting and should be more adequately covered.

On the topic, and I have some doubts myself on the nomenclature of the category here, a good starting place is on line: The Fall of the Philippines in CHAPTER II, U.S. Army Forces, Far East with concentration on pages 8—13, 17, 25—30 for origins. Note on page 10 the "The first legislative measure of the Philippine National Assembly was the passage, on 21 December 1935, of the National Defense Act" acting on Mac Arthur's call for such a force. For operations it is hop and jump. From the printed version index:

Philippine Army. See also Divisions; Infantry units; Philippine Constabulary; and appropriate amr service. 16, 17, 18, 19,23,32,34,35,36,47, 48,49,58,62, 63,64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 102, 109, 113,115,119,120,131,132,136,142,143,157, 162n, 163, 165, 166, 189,212,238,258,262,294, 298,351,354,366,372,373,381,383,385,405,408,430,441,445,451,454,461,478,481,499,529, 583 mobilization and training: 25-30 organization and development: 8-13 Philipp;ne Army Air Force: 13, 25, 26, 62, 502, 529.

An extract gives basis for the "Commonwealth Army" term:

The major task of the hurriedly assembled staff of Headquarters, USAFFE, was to work out a plan for the mobilization, training, and supply of the Philippine Army. Within a few days of his appointment, General MacArthur had selected 1 September as the day when mobilization of the Philippine Army would start. This left thirty days in which to select camp sites, enlarge and improve existing camps for the first reservists, and build new camps.

The integration of the armed forces of the Philippine Commonwealth into the service of the United States was to be gradual. Elements of the ten reserve divisions were to be called into service at regular intervals until 15 December 1941, when the mobilization would be complete. The Philippine Army Air Corps would be inducted separately. Reserve units engaged in their normal yearly training were not to be inducted unless war came. It was hoped in this way to continue the development of the Commonwealth's defense program and at the same time mobilize and train the Philippine Army. Commonwealth forces coming under United States control would retain their national integrity; they would have their own uniforms, rations, military law, scale of pay, and promotion list; would requisition through their own supply channel until 1 December; but would be paid by the U. S. Army. The Regular Army of the Philippine Commonwealth and the Constabulary were not to be inducted immediately.

A construction program was to be started immediately since there was only enough housing for about one third of the 75,000 men scheduled for induction. Camp sites would have to be selected and facilities for training built. The first units called would use existing or temporary quarters and, as camps were completed, additional units would be inducted. By 15 December, when the last units would be mobilized, the entire construction program would be completed.

So, there is ample evidence in official histories of that army, its overall organization and its role in the battles—except Corregidor. That is why I did not revert addition of that category on that article. I can find no mention of any significant involvement in that last U.S. forces bastion and do find indications elements formed a basis for resistance groups. Instead of being trapped on Corregidor they melted into the countryside if possible and not catapulted or killed. Finally, I am not sure and of the battles and campaigns should have categories for units involved. Where does it end? Every battle and particularly campaign could be clogged with such categories. But, if we have U.S. Marine or Army or Navy in these then the Philippine unit categories should not be excluded. The idea of a coastal force was pretty much killed by the Japanese hitting before one could be built, but there were Philippine "PT" boats. Last sign I found of them was in association with Tugboat Trabajador (1931) where one of the references described the Philippine boats near the remnants of the U.S. PTs using the old tug as quarters. Palmeira (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Recently there has been an effort to include this category in battles and campaigns which this organization was involved in. Generally, for other organizations, these fall within a subcategory like Organization X in Conflict Y. Perhaps a subcategory needs to be created for this category that allows for such categorization, without those articles being categorized here which should be primarily for articles about this organization. There is already a sub-category for personnel, why not a subcategory for conflicts/battles/campaigns--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently there has been an effort to include this category in battles and campaigns which this organization was involved in. Generally, for other organizations, these fall within a subcategory like Organization X in Conflict Y. Perhaps a subcategory needs to be created for this category that allows for such categorization, without those articles being categorized here which should be primarily for articles about this organization. There is already a sub-category for personnel, why not a subcategory for conflicts/battles/campaigns--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Nobody seems to question Category:United States Marine Corps in World War II and a very small part of the USMC was engaged in the Philippines. The entirety of what official sources tend to term "armed forces of the Philippine Commonwealth" and such was engaged—even the embryonic coastal defense force and air force that really had no effective planes. I'm certainly willing to help find a better way, but to be blunt, if I were a veteran or descendent of a veteran of that Philippine Commonwealth force I'd be trying to get a category any way possible. While it is not in my "ship" interest my general military history interest bothers me about how neglected the articles about those forces are. They try, have some basic facts, but the writing needs a good editor with solid English language skills—and whoever has been writing that is doing a hell of a lot better than I would in any language other than English! Palmeira (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
1, we need to centralize this discussion
2, the reason for the Category "United States Marines Corps in World War II" is that it is a subcategory for World War II battles and topics regarding that organization. As I stated before, having a section like Organization X in Conflict Y is something I would support, but directly in the category of the organization I think doesn't follow precedents set forth in usage of other organizations category usage. I maybe wrong.
I understand the want for usage of this category, but from what I am seeing it is being misapplied. For instance some articles are being tagged with it regarding guerrilla fighters and organizations, some whom have no direct connection to the organization. An appropriate category would be like Philippines during World War II or a subcategory specific about guerrillas in the Philippines during World War II.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Damn if we aren't approaching real time! Ok, where do we consolidate this because it does cover almost every "battle" in the Philippines during the period? On the "subcategory" thing there is one key difference. Whatever we call those forces, and they were real regardless of ambiguous nomenclature (partly because they got hit by a Japanese typhoon/tsunami/earthquake at birth—note the timeline!), they were totaly engaged because it was their ground, their home, they were not "escaping" to Australia or anywhere else as some U.S. personnel and their government did of necessity. Those that were not destroyed or captured did form the core of the organized resistance. They were the ones, some with fugitive U.S. personnel (remember that guy that promoted himself to "General"?) were what our subs were supplying. When ole "Dougout Doug" returned they often joined right back up. So, "a subcategory specific about guerrillas" would sort of be also about this bunch. As a temporary fix for the real neglect I propose we let the category stand where it applies—note I did not put it back in that first round of reverts to Corregidor because as far as I can determine no organized unit of that force went into that trap. Meanwhile let's look at those categories and subcategories and (sigh) I may start trying to edit and cite that main force article. By the way, for a pitiful bit, that little "Navy" was last seen in my reading alongside some of the "Expendibles" along with the poor little Tugboat Trabajador (1931). They had a couple of "lesser" PTs down there still going out fighting. Palmeira (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, articles within the category Philippines during World War II need serious expert work, given the richness of the period. There are surely reliable sources out there, but that is tangential to the primary discussion of this subject. I think if we can gain consensus as to how to organize categories about this period in Philippine military history, it'll help to reduce the edit, reversion, re-reversions that have occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Your "richness of the period" is an understatement. That collapse of the "Malay Barrier" and the Philippines is "storytime" plus—and rather forgotten today. Ever read the accounts, both historical and fictional, of those fleeing in small ships and boats only to find the "refuge" or the straits had already been captured or controlled? Sometimes like The Great Escape with SS at the tunnel exit! Guess I'm in. How do we do this? And, you will see, I've chimed in at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines with a request to also help with the histories of some pretty notable—and forgotten—ships' histories before their encounter with history. Palmeira (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Question and observation: Is this the right place to develop ideas on this issue? Should it move to military history or elsewhere?

I have checked similar categories and results are mixed. Category:United States Marine Corps in World War II is what the category at issue would look like if we agree to place it on Philippine "battle" pages. As I noted before, and this is I think a critical point, the Commonwealth forces were totally engaged on home territory—not just some of them as with USMC but all of them. Their position is really analogous to the U.S. ground forces in 1812. So, if the USMC gets to list its Philippine battles on its category page then certainly the "Philippine Commonwealth Army" should get equal billing. On the other hand the USMC seems unique in the U.S. force categories. A survey of "battle pages" with USA, USAAF, USN do not seem to behave in the same way with battles tending to fall in Category:Battles of World War II involving the United States which would be nonsense redundancy for essentially "Battles of the Philippines in World War II involving the Philippines"!

At the moment I am leaning toward Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army becoming a subcategory of something like Category:Armed forces of the Philippine Commonwealth (though articles here are sparse indeed on the other branches that essentially died at birth) and a subcategory of each of those along the lines of Battles (Engagements?) of xxxxx to put on pages such as this one. The USMC would still be then be an outlier—or a model for this category. Palmeira (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. Be WP:BOLD, also seek consensus, like what is being done above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)