Talk:Battle of the Bismarck Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force Japanese military history task force United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Contents 1 The disembarkation of survivors at Lae 2 Brutality 3 The picture 4 Infobox picture

[edit] The disembarkation of survivors at Lae

The article currently indicates that the destroyers Yukikaze and Asagumo picked up and delivered survivors from the first attacks on 1 March to Lae. But we are told that Lae was the destination of the convoy. Why didn't the entire convoy proceed there, and what was the remainder of the convoy doing while the two destroyers headed for Lae? 203.198.237.30 04:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the convoy speed is always of the slower ship.

Destroyers are faster and so those 2 destroyers picked up the survivers and moved at a greater speed to Lae since they were no longer bound by the convoy speed.

That is why they used 2 destroyers since they were faster and it was temporary lose 2 destroyers or loose 1500 men instead of 700.

The convoy likely maintained speed and course, the 2 destroyers were simply faster and so able to reach Lae and return before the convoy got there.

06:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drakron (talk • contribs).

• Right, that makes sense, thanks. But would they have been more than twice as fast (in getting to Lae and returning before the convoy was appreciably closer)? And even with the time spent sweeping for survivors and disembarking them? If the 2 destroyers could carry 700, I wonder if it occurred to them to use all of the destroyers to take as many as possible. 203.198.237.30 09:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The convoy speed was 7 knots, the Kagero and Asashio class destroyers were capable of reaching 35 knots and destroyers are not troop transporters or cargo ships, they have too much limited cargo capacity to serve in that role. Drakron 16:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I get that, I was wondering whether it occured to the Japanese that if they could put 400 troops on each of 2 destroyers (article says 800 were recovered), and have them seemingly return in no time at all, then they could save a large portion of their force by using all 8 destroyers for this purpose. By this point they had lost up to 3 transports, must have known that this fate could await the entire force, and could have been desperate enough to consider the unorthodox. 203.198.237.30 08:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

They would spend more fuel that way, later they started to use destroyers as transport and cargo ships but in this case the result would be the same, they could not possible outrun airplanes.

Also keep in mind as they might get away with on massive transport convoy even if a slow convoy many trips would tip off allied forces (that already broken the japanese code) and they would be caught, one trip -even if a slow one- reduced the chances of being spotted.

Drakron 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I too was confused at the original text so I decided to edit that paragraph

Original:

Out of 1,500 troops being transported by the Kyokusei Maru, 800 were rescued from the water by the destroyers Yukikaze and Asagumo. These two ships proceeded to Lae to disembark the survivors, then rejoined the convoy the next day. The convoy, without the troop transport and two destroyers, was attacked again that evening, with one transport sustaining minor damage.

New:

Out of 1,500 troops being transported by the Kyokusei Maru, 800 were rescued from the water by the destroyers Yukikaze and Asagumo. These two destroyers, being faster than the convoy since its speed was dictated by the slower transports, broke away from the group to disembark the survivors at Lae. The destroyers would resume its escort duties the next day. The convoy, without the troop transport and two destroyers, was attacked again on the evening of March 2, with one transport sustaining minor damage.

--BirdKr 11:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brutality

The speculation on the reasons for brutality, at the end, seems out of place. I haven't looked, but I bet we have a whole article on the subject, and should refer to that rather than duplicate unsourced guessing here. Stan 13:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a brief discussion of the possible reasons behind Japanese and Allied atrocities is completely out of place here since this is a good example of one. My statement about racial animosity playing a part in the brutatlity exhibited by the adversaries towards each other has been removed twice from the paragraph. The authors of the book, "A War to be Won" (Murray/Millett, Harvard, 2000) point out that racial animosity played a very large part in how the Allies (especially the US) and the Japanese conducted their operations against each other.

This article is pretty much "lifted" from the one in Anwers.com and I find it more unbiased that one australian news article that neglects to mention US participation. Drakron 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that answers.com mostly mirrors us, right? Generally its articles are old versions of WP articles. Stan 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does (just noticed) but you also have to realize since the allies won the war they downplay any atrocities they commited and empasize the ones commited by the Axis powers.

Look at the bombing of Darwin entry for that ...

Also you notice this article have no problem with saying a Zero fired on a bomber crew as they parachute down into the sea.

Drakron 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion about the reasons behind any of the possible war crimes in this battle is appropriate for this article. Other Wikipedia articles already exist that go into war crimes and atrocities and analysis on why they occurred. I believe the article should just state what happened, without any analysis. Cla68 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

The ship being attacked on the bottom picture is obviously a transport - NOT a destroyer (as previously described) which would have had slimmer hull and gun turrets.

[edit] Infobox picture

The picture in the infobox isn't actually from the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, but from an Allied air attack on Japanese shipping near Kavieng, New Ireland on a different date. I'll change it eventually if no one else does but just wanted to put it "on the record" for anyone using this article for serious research into the subject. Cla68 12:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Grant | Talk 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)