Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/South China Sea raid

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

South China Sea raid

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

South China Sea raid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The South China Sea raid was among the most successful aircraft carrier operations of World War II. In mid January 1945 the US Navy's main strike force, the Third Fleet, ran riot in the sea. While its primary target was two Japanese battleships wrongly believed to be in the area, the Third Fleet's carriers conducted a series of devastating attacks on Japanese convoys, ports and airfields. The Americans didn't have it all their own way though, as a raid on Hong Kong ended in failure and the US Government had to pay reparations to Portugal for attacking Macau. The end result though was a significant American victory.

Despite the importance of this operation, we didn't have an article on it until I started it in December last year (soon after a trip to Hong Kong!). The article passed a GA review in February, and has now been further expanded and improved. I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met, but would appreciate any suggestions for improving the article, especially regarding a possible FA nomination. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not much to say I'm afraid. I made a minor change. I have some suggestions, mainly for FA nomination:

  • I would link Samuel Eliot Morison.
  • I would have been inclined to specify the names of the carriers involved.
    • The problem is that there were a lot of them, and only one or two played a stand-out role. This might best be handled through an order of battle article, which would be quite useful given that it took me a bit of digging to figure out the composition of the Third Fleet at this time. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      But you have a full OrBat in Morison, pp. 315-322. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's missing some components (eg, the hunter killer escort carrier group), and is for a broad period of time rather than this raid. From memory, the Royal Navy War with Japan book has a more specific order of battle. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to distinguish between the fleet and light carriers
    Note that you do distinguish them later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have mentioned Typhoon Cobra
  • Reynolds (p. 296) mentions that the large numbers of operational accidents made have been attributable to Marine Corps pilots inexperienced in carrier landings. But I have personal doubts here - there were only two USMC squadrons present, VMF-124 and VMF-213 on Essex.
    • I found that I needed to take Reynolds with a fair amount of salt: while he provides some useful details, he has a lot of axes to grind. Given how bad the weather was throughout this operation, it doesn't seem surprising so many aircraft crashed. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were doubts about the command ability of both Halsey and McCain
    • I have't seen any sources which criticise Halsey's leadership of this particular operation (though Nimitz knocking back his initial proposal to launch the raid is suggestive), and I've noted the only instance mentioned in the sources where McCain made a bad call. This seems to have been one of the pair's successes. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before reaching Cam Ranh Bay" sounds confusing. I would go with "returning to Cam Ranh Bay".
  • "Medium and heavy bombers also raided Japanese-held ports across the South China Sea area." Mention that this becomes possible when Zamboanga and Palawan are captured in February and March 1945.
    • Clarified a bit, but do you have a source which specifies these bases? Craven and Cate don't name them. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Mortensen just says: "Only in 1945, as Allied air units moved into Philippine bases, did the Far east Air Forces reach positions permitting a sustained attack on Japanese shipping in the South China Sea". (p. 489) I'd go with that. This is because some of the units mentioned operated from Luzon and Mindoro against the Hong Kong area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
Source review
  • Spot checks: 6, 8, 24, 29, 30, 31, 39, 42, 61, 66 - all okay
  • FN21: "and only conduct small-scale attacks elsewhere". In fact, a campaign of attrition is called for.
  • FN169: The figures in the article do not match Morison, who has 44 ships sunk, 15 warships and 29 merchant ships
Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice work, Nick. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • I don't think Northwestern Luzon is a proper noun, so drop the initial N
    • Done, and a hyphen added
  • later you use south-west and north-west a couple of times, suggest consistency of hyphenation (or not) in compass points
  • suggest "for several more months, I misread it the first time
  • what type of aircraft contributed most to the Japanese shipping losses on 12 January? Is that info available?
  • there is still a PM rather than pm
    • Fixed
  • consistency with times, there is an example of 10 pm but another hour time is given as 2:00 pm
  • suggest "In 1995 the historian"
  • there is an instance of New York City in the location fields of the Works consulted, the rest are just New York
    • Standardised on New York City (which I think is the norm here in regards to publishing details, especially as there are some significant publishers in other parts of the state) Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just add a bit to the lead on the results of the other attacks, as well as a summary of the losses on both sides
    • I've added a bit more - it's a bit tricky to add more to the lead given that the figures available include the causalities from the preliminary attacks on Formosa and the Philippines and subsequent attacks on Okinawa and surrounds, as well as the raid proper. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, tracking very well. Well done on an interesting read. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/South_China_Sea_raid&oldid=805650472"