Talk:Battle of Leyte Gulf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Leyte Gulf article.
Article policies
Former featured article Battle of Leyte Gulf is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2004.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Image formatting

So, uh, let's discuss the image instead of instantly reverting? We really need the caption, otherwise the reader just sees a smoke cloud, not exactly informative in the encyclopedic way. The thumb is one way (and has the advantage that it also indicates that the picture can get larger), or we could have a line break and then the caption. But to omit captioning entirely is not the right way to go. Stan 04:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not ommitted -- it appears when you hoover the mouse over the picture. And the reason I changed it is because this (as the article stands now) is the standard battlebox format (you can find the whole writeup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles). →Raul654 04:06, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I see at least one other person who objected to the lack of captions in the template, but no response to that point. Hovering is going to look pretty funny for a multi-line caption! But I'll let the caption project folks fight that battle :-) Stan 04:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There was never any final agreement on rules for images in the battlebox. They obviously look better un-thumbnailed and captionless so probably only self-explanatory images should go in the battlebox. There's certainly no rule saying if an article only has one image, that has to go in the battlebox. Geoff/Gsl 05:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For the record, hover captions do not work in all browsers. Plain text captions do.--Carnildo 07:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried to introduce active full sentance captions throughout which would lead readers into the body text, in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_Captions; some of my efforts have been removed. They can be seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf&oldid=7562889 Perhaps they can be improved and reinstated? Richard Taylor 21:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I changed your captions. (1) A WikiProject doesn't represent policy. (2) Noun phrase captions are just as good, and are often shorter and snappier than full sentence captions. They are used widely in professional publishing. (3) You made the noun phrases into sentences by introducing obvious and redundant verbiage like "This chart shows..." or "...is shown here..." (4) You introduced a past tense into one caption. I did keep the one about Zuikaku no longer being the flagship of the Japanese fleet. Gdr 22:58, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] "Largest" battle

After the initial vandalism, I checked again and it seems there are battles with more ships and possibly more "men" in ancient history. However, there doesn't seem to be much doubt in terms of the area covered and the tonnage. Grant65 (Talk) 22:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Actium defintely had more ships, and I suspect Salamis did too. But number of men is a bit iffy. →Raul654 22:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I deemed that there would be a need for a page for this issue, so please see Largest Naval Battle in History. Rather than having an endles rambling about men, ships, aircraft, tonnage, time, and surface area in every article you can now refer directly to that page. At least when I created the page it made no comment asto what actually is the largest battle. My aim was to present facts and allow readers to form their own opinions. I don't think there is a definite answer for this question. Chino

Chino, is it you that us repeatedly removing the mention of tonnage and area in the opening sentence? I would like whoever it is to explain why they are doing that. I don't see how there can be any question about Leyte being the largest battle in terms of these.
Also, my last edit included the link to Largest naval battle in history. I think it's better style to work the link into the sentence rather than have it in brackets.Grant65 (Talk) 14:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the only text once, but I have followed "the battle" with amusement :-) I actually agree with the person who came up with the idea that Leyte is the second largest naval battle in history, altough his/her claims about the Battle of Aegates Islands are clearly wrong. But I also know that such a large portion of Wiki users are American that the truth would invariably disappear :-) My opinion is that both Leyte and Ecnomus pages should state that the battle _may_ be concidered the largest in history and then have a link to the Largest naval battle in history. That page should, in my opinion, provide the facts and let people themselves make up their minds. This is, as I think we all agree, a matter of opinion. To compromise my latest edit of Leyte (which might not survive the next ten minutes) mentions both the "tonnage" and "number of ships" issue. This makes the beginning of the page quite cumbersome... I still prefer "Often regarded as largest" and link to page with info for those who really like to know what "often" means in this context. Chino

I'm not happy about Ecnomus being mentioned in the Leyte article. I think the link to "largest naval battle" is enough. That way if people search for "largest naval battle" they will go straight to that page, and not to the Leyte or Ecnomus pages. I doubt that people interested in either Leyte or Ecnomus are very interested in the other battle. Grant65 (Talk) 16:05, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Since there do not seem to be any objections from registered users, can I ask that the direct reference to Ecnomus be removed from the page? (How strange would it look if Leyte was mentioned on Battle of Ecnomus?) Grant65 (Talk) 22:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

The current version is my attempt for a compromise. As I said, it is cumbersome. In my opinion it all boils down to "generally considered". Most people read it as "most probably is". The meaning we should convey is that Leyte is "one of the two candidates for the largest naval battle in history". Probably not in those words, tough. The whole discussion seems to be more about definitions and wording than facts. Chino

I don't think it is "one of two candidates" in terms of tonnage and area. And I don't think that is a "cumbersome" definition. I think you need to show why Ecnomus should be mentioned on the Leyte page.Grant65 (Talk) 11:40, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Conceptually, I don't think there is a problem with mentioning Ecnomus - it's very common for article to namedrop topics with some kind of connection, and indeed that is one of the "value-adds" of being hyperlinked. But first I would like to see some citations of professional historians stating anything about relative sizes, rather than random people making claims on their own - very slender - authority. I'm on the road, so my own library is not at hand, but will be home in a couple days and able to consult relevant works. Stan 16:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"At the most basic level, it is hardly possible to form a clear notion of how battles were fought. Professor Lazenby remarks that "we do not even know exactly what a quinquereme was". He is too optimistic. We do not even know approximately what a quinquereme was, except that it was the principal warship on both sides and had a name derived from five somethings having to do with oars."[1]"

If the prime source is official Roman budget records, then we are not talking about the records of a liberal democracy. There are good reasons for the size of both Roman and Carthaginian fleets to be exaggerated. For example, to hide corruption and incompetence. Whereas the accounts of Leyte Gulf have been arrived at by cross-referencing sources from several countries. Grant65 (Talk) 04:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I vote for this article having something like

probably/possibly/generally considered/etc the largest naval battle in history

and leaving the detailed arguments and other candidates to that article. Or even nothing at all. It would be better to put some work into expanding the account of the battle than warring over trivia like this! Gdr 21:59, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Why has protected status been removed? The people who wanted Ecnomus mentioned in the frst paragraph have not consented with the present version and they will no doubt do their stuff again.Grant65 (Talk) 10:13, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I asked for protection to be removed because I wanted to write something about the battle. It's only one sentence in the introduction, after all, and it's not wholly objectionable, so I think we can live with the Ecnomus enthusiasts. Eventually they will go away and the reference can be removed. Gdr 11:40, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

To make the discussion more concrete, I would like to give two wordings that I would be satisfied with. The other one is the current version, and the other would be simply "Often concidered to be the largest naval battle in history". Often is the key word. --Chino 05:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I understand Chino correctly, he is satisfied with the present wording of "generally considered", as long as Ecnomus is mentioned. No one else seems enthusiastic to mention Ecnomus --- or even to believe that the Roman sources are credible, but so be it. However, I do think the passage should be at the very top of the first paragraph since -- IMO --- the "epic" size of the battle is the most noteworthy fact about it.Grant65 (Talk) 09:54, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I support Gdr's suggestions. --Chino 10:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image shows burning ship, but it is not mentioned it the article

There is picture of burning USS Princeton, but no single loss is mentioned on US side. Could we make a bit better balanced article? saigon_from_europe

[edit] Miscellany

There should be a link in here about the [[USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55)]], and maybe other information on naval craft named after people in the battle. Mtnerd 03:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese characters

This article contained the following Japanese characters (in context):

I removed the characters because I think they don't add anything to the article. This is an English-language encyclopedia, so we can expect few people to read Japanese characters. It is better to provide transliteration instead because that will be accessible to all readers. Gdr 10:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

In general, they are useful because they provide a way for the English/Japanese-bilingual (and I hear there are millions of them in Japan :-) ) to check the accuracy of transliteration, but each only needs to appear once, in the article that introduces the transliterated term. So for instance I would expect to see the Japanese chars in each person's bio, but not elsewhere, while terms specific to this battle should be here. Stan 18:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's a good rationale. I'll restore 捷１号作戦 to the text. Gdr 19:07, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Thanks Stan and Gdr.Grant65 (Talk) 09:54, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article status?

I'd like to propose this page for featured article status, once the Ecnomus business is settled. There are a couple of things I would like to add but can't find.

  • Some criticism of Toyoda's strategy. With the benefit of hindsight it seems to me that his policy of throwing forces away in suicidal battles was stupid. I'd like to quote notable criticism of his plans. (I found his justification for the plan which I think is a better thing to include.)
  • Some quotes for the Task Force 34 controversy. Who criticized him and what did they say?

The article also needs a few quotes from eye-witnesses. Gdr 17:35, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

OK, I think it's ready, except for the edit war. Can we come to some agreement? I propose the plain and simple

The battle is often considered to be the largest naval battle in history.

as a paragraph in the lead section? Gdr 12:16, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

I'm happy with that form of words.Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I think this article is great would make a fine featured article. →Raul654 05:02, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Where was the landing?

This enormous battle was fought over the US landings on one of the Philippean islands. Why do none of the maps of the battle show where the landings were? --Carnildo 07:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Image:Battle of Leyte map 1.jpg. Gdr 11:15, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] What was the scale?

None of the maps shows a scale of miles. It's hard to see how close the Japanese fleet came to destroying the landing force without a sense of size.--Carnildo 07:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome to add a scale to the maps. Gdr 11:17, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] Defacement

It looks like there has been some defacing of the content. [Some vandalism] appears to have been added to the aftermath section.

That's what happens when an article is featured on the Main Page. Gdr 23:00, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Ormoc Bay

An anonymous editor added a fifth battle to the list of engagements:

5. Although these battles were fought to secure Allied control of Leyte Gulf, when they were over, the Japanese controlled only the eastern third of the island of Leyte and they continued to be resupplied through their port of Ormoc on the western end. Continuous disruptive U.S. destroyer action in Ormoc Bay from 2 December 1944 through 11 December (the Battle of Ormoc Bay) caused the Japanese to abandon their Leyte garrison and withdraw from the area. Some historians now regard the Battle as the "fifth battle of the Battle for Leyte Gulf".

"Some historians" appears to refer to Irwin J. Kappes, whose articles, (e.g. The Battle for Leyte Gulf Revisited and A New Look at the Battle for Leyte Gulf argue that historical accounts shouldn't stop on 26 October but should cover the later engagements. This is a fair enough point, and it's a good way for Kappes to advertise and dramatise his area of research. But I think we need to see quite a few more historians take up this usage before we reflect it here. Gdr 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Our Battle of Ormoc Bay article was rather tendentious: it concentrated on historiographical debate instead of explaining what happened. I've completely rewritten it so that now it at least has an account of the events. I've quoted some of Kappes in the last section so as not to leave out the historiographical debate. Gdr 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I added a few lines concerning Halsey's decision to pursue the carrier forces. When reading the article it sounded like this decision was downplayed in the body of the text, and I think the fact that Bogan and Lee (and Mitschner for that matter) all disagreed with it and saw through the ruse is worth mentioning. I hope this does not unbalance the article too much, but this decision of Halsey's definitely needs a bit more exploration.

[edit] Military organization

It seems to me that the glaring error was that 7th fleet was not informed of either 3rd fleets whereabouts or the observation that the center force had turned again toward Leyte Gulf. Halsey may have the greatest share of the responsibility for that, but not at the time of the battle. Someone, from the president down to the officer in charge of relaying intelligence should have noted that since there was no central command, information needed to be passed between the independent commands, not just upward in the chain of command. It looks as though Halsey assumed that someone on his staff was distributing the plans and intelligence. David R. Ingham 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "But it left the landings on Leyte covered only by a handful of escort carriers and destroyers."

The other six battle ships appear to have been in place to protect the landing, just not in place to protect the escort carriers. Or did I miss something? David R. Ingham 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The other six battleships, which were actually battleships raised out of Pearl Harbor, were left in Leyte Gulf to provide shore bombardment. By sure, dumb, idiot luck, these battleships wound up protecting Leyte Gulf from Southern Force, but they were still too far south to play a large role in the battle against Center Force. (Nick31091 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

They did start to head in the direction of the Center Force and might would have encountered them if the Center Force had attacked the invasion beaches instead of retreating when it did. Cla68 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The battleships which destroyed the Southern Force did so as a result of deliberate planning and a good battle plan. This planning built upon the years and months of effort which went into raising, modernising and supporting them, so there was no dumb luck involved. --Nick Dowling 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What I ment was that the battleships were in a position to get revenge that was luck. It was quite a coincidence that Pearl Harbor BB's would wind up in a position to destroy a major Japanese force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick31091 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Seventh Fleet

The battleships in question were covering Surigao Strait at the time of the Samar battle. They were there to provide fire support for the landing as a first priority and defend against a surface fleet attack as a secondary priority. Given the need to cover both Surigao and San Bernardino strait against converging forces, it would have been difficult for them to fend off Kurita, Nishimura, and Shima at the same time. These battleships were older, 21 knot battleships with 14 or 16 inch guns carryilng mostly with explosive rounds(all of the BB type shells fired during this battle were armor piercing) rather than armor piercing shells. They had enough firepower to stop the Southern Forces *or* Kurita's force but not both at once, and they were not fast enough to come to Sprague's aid.

It seems to me that the Yamato might have been worth two or three 16" gun battle ships in a shoot-out, and there very probably wasn't enough ammunition in the Seventh Fleet to sink it. They were low on armor piercing before the first battle. Two battleships gave up on sinking the Bismarck because they were nearly out of fuel(they still had about two thirds of their main battery ammo left), and its armor(Bismarcks' 'equivalent' protection was slightly thicker{a combination of belt 'plus' the turtle deck protected the 'vitals'} and British AP shells are 'known' to be inferior) was not so thick. David R. Ingham 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph

The second sentence of the document is complicated, and could be split into about three different sentences. What does everyone else think? --Will James 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I split it in two, separating the 'when', 'where', and 'who' from the 'why'. How does that look?
—wwoods 14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Halsey

"Halsey was criticized for his decision to take Task Force 34 with him in pursuit of Ozawa, ..."

I don't have a book handy, but if I recall correctly, Halsey's flagship was one of the battleships of TF 34, so his decision would effectively have been to dispatch TF 38 (and other components of 3rd Fleet?). Which would have meant Halsey taking himself out of the carrier fight, or shifting himself and his staff to another ship on the spur of the moment.
—wwoods 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the fact Halsey had in his hands a copy of the plan & therefore knew (or damn well should have known) Ozawa's force was bait. He threw away a chance at the greatest naval victory in history, destroying both forces, & instead damn near left Taffy 3 to their doom. (I'd add that, but it falls under "original research"...). Trekphiler 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagurism

I found this article on the net (http://experts.about.com/e/b/ba/battle_of_leyte_gulf.htm) which directly mirrors the information in this article, word for word, picture for picture. Either they copied wikipedia or a wikipedian copied them. Someone should have a look. --Will James 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Look more carefully at the bottom of that article - This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer. Raul654 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{inappropriate tone}}

Much of the recent changes in this article make it read more like a story than an an encyclopedic entry, particularly the Battle of Samar section. Anthony Rupert 05:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically it reads like a script narrative to a History Channel version????


Yeah... My bad. It was my first ever edit. I use the History channel alot but after that first one I've not, and will not, copy the History Channel word-for-word. (What can I say...? I was a Wikinoob.) (Nick31091 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Changing times

I added "in honor if the anniversary of Balaklava)"

I deleted these:

"Japanese airmen were not well trained due to Japan's loss of her expierienced pilots."
"which took away Japan's strategic force in the Pacific War"
"This gave the Allies freedom to choose where to strike next. "
"(now Taiwan). "
"which would then perish from lack of supplies. "
"and leaving the Japanese navy without air cover."
"and sever Japan's links to her garrisons"
"The days of such naval commanders as Nelson at Trafalger and Farragut at Mobile Bay were over. With the exception of smaller boats, such as submarines and PT's or others like them, and with the exception of the next day's battle off Samar, all naval warfare would be carried out by aircraft and more recently missiles."
"Cape Engano is perhaps a fitting name for this battle, for, in Spanish, the infinitive verb "enganar" means "to trick or deceive"; and Halsey took the bait of Ozawa's carriers and was tricked, hook, line, and sinker."

Trekphiler 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles for each sub-battle

Each of the sub-battles of the Battle of Leyte Gulf could easily be separate articles:

  • Battle of the Sibuyan Sea
  • Battle of Surigao Strait
  • Battle off Cape Engaño (ironic title, isn't it?)
  • Battle off Samar

Any takers for exapanding each battle as separate articles? Cla68 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Samar at least needs to be spun off, and condensed on this page.
—wwoods 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea Cla, an epic battle deserves it. I have done the reverse, condensing this whole article in Pacific War, but even that still needs work.Grant65 | Talk 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've copied the infobox, Samar, and References sections to Battle off Samar. It needs an introduction, etc.
—wwoods 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's nice that the Battle of Samar has a separate article, but the other three battles should have a separate article as well, sspecially the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, since teh flagship Musashi was sunk in it.Lucasliso | Talk 11:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Discussion

The mission of the Japanese forces is surprisingly vague for a "Featured Article"--I don't question the content (altho I agree the tone is a little informal), but it's a vital and rarely-perused aspect of this battle. "Destroy the landing forces" is highly vague--but if that's the actual wording of the orders, then quote and document. But does that mean destroy the troops on Leyte?--because that was an impossibility even if all the battleship forces converged, which half didn't. Not only were the Army troops already deployed inland but spotting for IJN naval gunfire was next to impossible. (Japanese attempts at Guadalcanal on a mission as app. simple as shelling an airfield out of operation had been failures) Does it mean destroy the amphibious landing force in Leyte Gulf? Because 95% of all Allied vessels, large and small, ocean-going and amphibious, had already unloaded and departed before the battle. Does it mean destroy the supplies on the beachhead? While the most viable mission, it would also be the least likely to accomplish anything significant. Much of the previous reporting on this battle--which this article mirrors--has been to criticize Halsey, at the expense of exploring the true ramifications. Much like the validity of capturing Iwo Jima, few seem willing to question the validity of the IJN's concept--basically the Japanese were on a suicide-mission. Japan was likely to accomplish nothing but either the total or as in what finally occurred a partially-complete destruction of its Navy. Even a public embarrassment of the Allies by sinking some shipping was not likely to occur--the Allies successfully censored the bombing of Bari Harbor by the Germans in Dec. 1943.--Buckboard 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well frankly, with the state of the IJN after the Turkey Shoot, even blasting a few empty cargo ships would have been a victory... (Nick31091 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Order of battle

Is there an order of battle page for this article? I remember seeing a half done one sometime ago, but I can't find it now--Jackyd101 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working back to FA

Unfortunately I see that the article was removed from FA status today. The main reason cited was, "Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c) and general clean-up (2). Marskell 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)". This is definitely fixable and I am sure we will rise to the challenge.

While we are at it, here are the suggestions from the semi-automated peer review script:

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 14 inch, use 14 inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 14 inch.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), armor (A) (British: armour), armour (B) (American: armor), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), counterattack (A) (British: counter-attack), any more (B) (American: anymore).
I would suggest that we use American spellings because the US Navy was a bigger participant than British/Commonwealth forces. Please object if you feel differently.
I have made a small start at the lead already, but it still needs expansion. Johntex\talk 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nimitz did not want to bypass the Philippines

It was Ernest King and most other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who wanted to bypass the Philippines and attack Formosa. But Nimitz agreed with MacArthur on an invasion of the southern Philippines. He believed it was neccessary to neutralize Japanese air power in the Phillippines. He initially differed with MacArthur as to whether to then invade Formosa or Luzon. The controversy wasn't just MacArthur against Nimitz, it was MacArthur and Nimitz against the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Nor was the Luzon-Formosa dispute settled by the meeting with FDR. MacArthur shifted the debate with the Joint Chiefs from whether or not to bypass the Phillipines to whether to invade Formosa or Luzon after an invasion of the Central or Southern Phillippines. Eventually, Nimitz changed his mind and backed MacArthur's plan. [2]Shield2 05:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the notion that FDR agreed upon an invasion of the Philippines for political reasons is biased speculation. In fact, the meeting did not even solve the question of whether or not the Philippines would be liberated according to MacArthur's plan. It simply comfirmed the Philippines as a target for an attack, as both MacArthur and Nimitz (but not King and other members of the Joint Chiefs) wanted. Nimitz later conceded that MacArthur's plan made strategic as well as political sense, and it went ahead as planned with some modifications. The link explains the actual story, free of speculation about the political motives of MacArthur and FDR. MacArthur didn't attempt to hide the fact that he had political as well as strategic motives for invading the Philippines, and eventually convinced his rivals in the Navy that it was vital for both reasons. I also deleted the claim that the Navy wanted to use Formasa as a base to invade Mainland Japan, when in fact the Navy wanted to invade Mainland China. Shield2 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, I enjoyed the article however my comment concerns the semantic correctness of the title. As the second line of the article says, the engagements were fought in waters around Leyte Gulf not in it. The most authoritative of experts including Samuel Elliot Morrison have used The Battle For Leyte Gulf. I think that Wikipedia, for the sake of credibility, should change the title accordingly. Brian K Cranford NJ

[edit] Nimitz's message to Halsey

I believe there should be a small correction to the message from Nimitz to Halsey written in this article:

"TURKEY TROTS TO WATER WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR REPEAT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS"

There should be a RR separator after TURKEY TROTS TO WATER.

Tod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.146.1.16 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the separator should be GG to set off the intro, RR separates a conclusion --Truthfulcynic (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proof or citation for Yamashiro being sunk by another BB

For this statement:

"The Battle of Surigao Strait was, to date, the final line battle in naval history. Yamashiro was the last battleship to engage another in combat and one of very few to have been sunk by another battleship during World War II."

If I am not mistaken DESRON 56 torpedoes were responsible for Yamashiro's demise.

Tod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.146.1.16 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been a combination of torpedoes and shells:
Japanese battleship Yamashiro says Yamashiro "receiv[ed] four hits from destroyer torpedoes and numerous 14" and 16" shells from U.S. battleships."
IJN YAMASHIRO: Tabular Record of Movement says,
"At 0321, a torpedo launched ten minutes earlier by DesRon 54's MONSSEN hits the YAMASHIRO in her port quarter and starts a fire. ...
At 0331, the YAMASHIRO is hit portside amidships by one of five Mark 15 torpedoes launched by the KILLEN. ...
Between 0353-0359, arrayed behind the flanking cruisers, Rear Admiral (later Admiral) Jesse B. Oldendorf's Battle Line, the old battleships USS CALIFORNIA (BB-33), PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38), MISSISSIPPI (BB-41), TENNESSEE (BB-43), MARYLAND (BB-46) and the WEST VIRGINIA (BB-48), also opens fire.** The YAMASHIRO, smashed by hundreds of shells, manages to return fire and maintain 12 knots. ...
At 0409, Admiral Oldendorf orders "Cease-Fire" because American shells are hitting his own destroyers. The YAMASHIRO takes advantage of the lull in fire, turns south and increases speed to 15 knots. At 0411, two torpedoes launched by the NEWCOMB catch the YAMASHIRO and explode in her starboard beam.
At 0419, the YAMASHIRO, a blazing wreck, capsizes and sinks by the stern in the Surigao Strait ..."
—wwoods 23:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better reflection of actual cause(s) of Yamashiro's demise

After doing some reading in various sites and looking at deck logs from various ships, this article needs to better reflect the activities surrounding Yamashiro's (and Fuso's) demise. The article makes little reference to destroyer torpedo attacks; letting the reader believe that it was only BB to BB activity that sunk the Yamashiro, which is not the case. Yamashiro was sunk by a combination of BB shells and torpedoes from various destroyers in DESRON 56. Please see http://www.destroyerhistory.org/desron56/index.html

The ships included in this attack were of course Oldendorf's BB's and DESRON 56:

Section 1 USS Newcomb, DD 586, Flagship USS Richard P. Leary, DD 664 USS Albert W. Grant, DD 649

Section 2 USS Robinson, DD 562 USS Halford, DD 480 USS Bryant, DD 665

Section 3 USS Heywood L. Edwards, DD 663 USS Bennion, DD 662 USS Leutze, DD 481

I have an interest in this battle because my grandfather was a Torpedomans Mate on the USS Leutze during this engagement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutant27 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of/off Cape Engano

There has been disagreement as to whether it's "of" or "off". This source from a .navy.mil website (that means it's an official USN document) clearly labels it "Battle off Cape Engano". Please do not revert it to "of" until you provide sources to the contrary. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Morison refers to the 'Battle of Cape Engano' and the 'Battle off Samar'. This has always seemed to me to be entirely appropriate. My main reason for substituting 'of' for 'off' was however not primarily that I thought 'off Cape Engano' was incorrect but that I thought Parsecboy's argument in favour of 'off' (that it has to be 'off' because Cape Engano is a land mass) could not be valid. If it were valid, then 'Battle of Salamis' should be 'Battle off Salamis', 'Battle of Trafalgar' should be 'Battle off Trafalgar', likewise with Jutland, Calabria, Cape Matapan and so on all the way up to 'The Battle off Midway Island', 'The Battle off Cape Esperance', 'The Battle off Guadalcanal' and 'The Battle off North Cape'. The rule invoked by Parsecboy could only be tenable if it were somehow to apply exclusively to the naming of the component battles of the Battle for Leyte Gulf, a view which does not seem tenable.

The reasoning behind such a rule would seem to be that since Cape Engano is a piece of land a naval action cannot be fought on it, and therefore the battle must be located 'off' it, whereas since Surigao Strait is a body of water the Battle of Surigao Strait can be (and was) fought in Surigao Strait. But by this reasoning the 'Battle of Sunda Strait' should be described as 'The Battle off Sunda Strait' - even though it was a naval action - because it was not fought in the Sunda Strait (and 'Battle of Sunda Strait' is misleading - whereas one is hardly likely to suppose that the Battle of/off Cape Engano was fought on Cape Engano one would quite naturally assume that the Battle of Sunda Strait was fought in the Sunda Strait).

The real puzzle is why Samar is known as 'The Battle off Samar. As I remarked, this use of 'off' seems appropriate, but I have always found it difficult to say why it seems appropriate. It may have something to do with the fact that whereas Cape Engano is, speaking loosely, a point of land rather than a land mass, and also with the fact that neither Cape Engano nor Samar were objectives of the naval operation. But by these criteria Jutland ought to be described as 'the Battle off Jutland' and so on. Midway would still be the Battle of Midway since the island was the objective of the Japanese operation. Likewise with the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal - since the island of Guadalcanal was the body of land being contested in that battle. But - to give another example - the Battle of North Cape ought by these criteria be named 'the Battle off North Cape'.

The irony may be that it is precisely in order to distinguish the relationship between the 'the Battle of Cape Engano' and the point of land it is named after from the relationship between Samar and the island it is named after that 'off' is used in 'the Battle off Samar'. 'Off' is used because the Battle off Samar is part of a compendium battle, one of the component or subsidiary battles of which is named after a point - Cape Engano - rather than a sizeable island, Samar. If the Battle off Samar were not one of several subsidiary battles of the same battle - Leyte Gulf - it would have itself been called 'the Battle of Samar' rather than the 'Battle off Samar'. However, I'm not at all convinced that this is the explanation of the 'off'. I would be grateful if anyone could suggest an alternative explanation.

There is the related question of whether the series of naval and naval/air actions around the Philippines during 23-26 October 1944 is best called 'The Battle of Leyte Gulf' or 'The Battle for Leyte Gulf'. I personally favor 'for' - the reasoning being that none, or almost none, of the combat took place in Leyte Gulf and most of it didn't even take place very close to Leyte Gulf. The name 'Battle for Leyte Gulf' because the Gulf was the objective of the Japanese operation which unifies all the component actions as parts of the same great battle - that is, destruction of the invasion shipping in Leyte Gulf was the objective of that operation. I actually think the best name for the series of events under discussion is one which has at times been used at times but which seems to have fallen into disuse - 'The Battles for Leyte Gulf'. This of course has a bearing on the question whether this series of events constitutes the largest naval battle in history. The Battle of Jutland for example (and in particular) - which is in my opinion the largest fleet action in history - has a spatial and temporal unity which the Sho-Go battles around Leyte Gulf in October '44 do not.

Wild Surmise (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about this "of/off" issue anymore; sources have been provided to support both versions, it's just a matter of taste at this point. As to your opinion on the "Battles for" Leyte Gulf, I must disagree. The four actions were a coordinated attack by the Japanese, regardless of the fact that it wasn't conducted properly. It's the same as how the Battle of Stalingrad is considered to be the bloodiest battle in human history, even though it wasn't one battle at one specific location; it spanned several months and was spread out over the entire city. One might view it as the American fleet, as one entity, was in the process of invading the Phillipines, and the Japanese fleet launched a counter-attack with four separate forces. It was more complex than Jutland, but it was still a single battle. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As regards the 'of/off' issue I, as explained earlier, don't feel strongly either, but I cannot agree that this is 'just a matter of taste'. What primarily concerned me was the argument you provided for saying that 'off' was correct - i.e. that Cape Engano is a 'land mass'. I argued that this could not be a valid consideration or 'Battle of Trafalgar' would be 'Battle off Trafalgar' and so on. You seem not to have addressed this at all in your reply.

As regards whether Leyte Gulf was a 'single' battle, I think your comparison with Stalingrad is counterproductive. There is a spatial unity to 'the Battle of Stalingrad' which doesn't exist with the component actions of the Battle for Leyte Gulf. You write of the Battle of Stalingrad's being 'spread out over the entire city' - an area only about 25 miles across (in fact the 'Battle of Stalingrad' was fought over a considerably wider area than the city itself) and within which there was a more or less continuous front - whereas the Battle For Leyte Gulf comprises actions separated by literally hundreds of miles of open sea.

But - and what is probably more important - there is the obvious question whether Stalingrad is a battle rather than a campaign, as with Verdun, Passchendale and the Somme. To some military historians it seems unsatisfactory - even absurd - that such events (if 'events' is an appropriate word) have come to be referred to as 'battles'. There are obvious considerations in favour of saying that these are campaigns rather than battles. It could also be contended that these are in fact siege operations rather than what is traditionally meant by 'battle'. And if one's criteria allow one to refer to Leyte Gulf and Stalingrad, Passchendale, Verdun and the Somme as battles, then this raises the question whether 'The Battle of the Atlantic' isn't also a battle. If so, then the Battle of the Atlantic is - by a very long way, and by any set of criteria - the largest naval battle in history.

Nonetheless, I wasn't at any point arguing that it is incorrect to describe Leyte Gulf as a battle. But the main fleet action at Jutland is a single battle in a sense in which the Battle for Leyte Gulf undoubtedly isn't.

Wild Surmise (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I've just removed about a half dozen photos of US ships and aircraft which which took part in the battle but where the photo doesn't show them during the battle. As the purpose of including these photos was presumably only to show what the ships and aircraft looked like they're best placed in the articles on the ships and aircraft rather than the article on this battle, which is already well illustrated with photos and maps. Similarly, I've removed a section on the Fletcher class DDs as this material simply described the ships, and hence really belongs in the article on the class. I have also removed the forced sizing of thumbnail photos in line with WP:MOS which states that "Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences". --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you! I stumbled across this article today and the first thing I noticed was the large images. I'm glad someone knows about the images in the MOS. I've never read up on those. And when i was resizing the pictures of the Fletcher's, I too wondered if the section was necessary. But thanks once again for your work. The page looks much better! Caster23 talk contribs 02:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bull Run Battle

Is it refering to the fist or second, or both? Please disambig. Randomblue (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it refers to one in particular, but I redirected it to the first battle for lack of a better option. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference style?

This article uses parenthetical referencing, instead of the usual footnotes. Is there a reason?
—WWoods (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New book on Surigao Strait

FYI, Anthony Tully, one of the coauthors of Shattered Sword about the Battle of Midway, states on his message board [3] that he has written a book on the Battle of Surigao Strait that should be out later this year. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)