Talk:Shelling of Port Gregory

Missing details

There are still have some gaps in the information, but it will take someone with access to Aussie war records to fill them in. There is something called the "Operations Record Book of No. 4 SFTS Geraldton" which is cited in the training school article that might give some clue as to flight movements when the submarine arrived. Also it would be useful to track down the names of two destroyers the Japanese mentioned and the coast watchers unit. NealeFamily (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In his article on this incident, David Stevens says only that the submarine skipper "sighted what he took to be an Allied destroyer". The coastwatchers were two individuals stationed separately near Port Gregory. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The tabular record of movement stated: 27 January 1943: After sundown, I-165 arrives at the area N of Geraldton, but then three aircraft and a destroyer are observed in that area and LtCdr Torisu decides to postpone the mission. While retiring on the surface, the submarine passes another destroyer in less than 2 miles without being noticed. The plane sighting is based on that reference. NealeFamily (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

OR?

"Geraldton was the base for the No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF and the planes the submarine spotted were most likely some of the aircraft." -- the second part of this sentence appears to be original research; the source (Gillison) indeed identifies Geraldton as home for 4SFTS but there's nothing in there about this attack, and therefore nothing about the submarine spotting aircraft that may have belonged to the school. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

4SFTS was the only significant unit based at Geraldton, although from time to time other aircraft passed through. I agree that the reference is weak and a better one is needed. See Missing Details above. Hopefully an investigation of those will clarify what was happening in the area at the time of the submarines arrival and provide better referencing. If you think it is to close to original research at this point in time I don't mind it being deleted until a better reference appears. NealeFamily (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tks, I think it's a reasonable inference that the aircraft were from 4SFTS but we would need to wait for more explicit referencing to keep that material. I thought I might just comment it out rather than remove entirely... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, that looks like a good solution. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)