Talk:1st Air Fleet

Peattie book
There are notes to some book by Peattie being used as a reference but I can't seem to find it ever listing which of his works this is actually talking about. Statalyzer (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor
why were the Japanese successful in attacking Pearl Harbor?
 * It was a surprise or pre-emptive attack and they just suddenly came out attacking early sunday morning. You were cooking breakfast, and then boom, bomb is dropping and machine gun firing near your house or area. That's how it happened 67.41.139.156


 * Because they accomplished their goal of knocking out the Pacific battle line of the and inflicting major damage on the US pacific fleet. It was one of the most successful naval actions in history.  The fact that they eventually lost the war doesn't change that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.6.25 (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well whether they were successful is up to one's point of view and is a subject of debate. With attack on Pearl Hrbor, IJN without doubt accomplished one of the most extraordinary feats in the naval history. But the impact was far less devastating than it seems and that is generally being presented. You must take into consideration that they only destroyed slow, old ww1 era battleships that were relatively unmodernized. Those battleships couldn't even be effectively used in escort role since they were too slow. The subsequent naval warfare proved that even new, modernized battleships were relatively of no use. The main goal of IJN was to disable USN aircraft carries that were not at the port at that the time. Whether that was a coincidence or not is a discussion for others. Path-x21 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.combinedfleet.com/cvlist.htm/
 * In 1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy) on 2011-05-25 06:50:43, 404 Not Found
 * In 1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy) on 2011-06-09 12:39:02, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue was the / at the end. http://www.combinedfleet.com/cvlist.htm works fine. Statalyzer (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Politically Correct or Technically Correct?
The last sentence of the first paragraph ends with "after Japan's entry to World War II". Although WWII started in Europe in 1939, Japan already was killing the masses in Manchuria back in 1935-38 if memory serves me right. The whole sentence is based upon the USA's involvement, and six months navel supremacy is correct in that light but Japan's "entry" to the war is technically incorrect, because 1938 was more than six months, and their attack on PH in Dec 1941, officially started WWII (from a US perspective), so the words "entry to World War II" should say instead, "since Japan's initiation of World War II". Of course, PC language may be a standard that the Wikipedia editors prefer. Comments? Bcwilmot (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070508230750/http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ijn-air.htm to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ijn-air.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630044158/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/nagumo.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/nagumo.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kojinsha.co.jp/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ships-net.co.jp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Revisions dated 19 April 2018
I have taken the liberty of editing the paragraph about the land-based air fleet and the table underneath it. One of my edits removes Dai 521 Kaigun Kōkūtai (NAG) from the units in the air fleet as of 1 July 1943. According to Japanese Wikipedia, Dai 521 Kaigun Kōkūtai was not formed until August 1943. I have also revised the date that the restructuring began per the Japanese Wikipedia article, changing it from June 1 to July 1. The Japanese article is well researched and has numerous footnotes to reliable Japanese references, such as Senshi Sōsho. Kabocha (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong focus on combat history post-June 1943.
It is fine that this article has sections about the Battle of the Philippine Sea and the Battle of Leyte Gulf, but it should not focus on the carrier-based Japanese forces in those battles, as it does now. First Air Fleet (second generation) was not composed of carrier-based aircraft. The article needs to briefly discuss the combat histories of the land-based kōkūtai that were part of First Air Fleet from 1 July 1943. Kabocha (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Today, a moderator/editor has posted a conspicuous statement in red to the effect that cites lack content. This is apparently a reference to my having linked or cited Japanese Wikipedia. It is understandable that citing to Wikipedia itself is a bad practice because it makes for circular references. I shall attempt to find the order issued by the Japanese Navy disbanding First Air Fleet on 14 July 1942, shortly after the loss of four aircraft carriers in the Battle of Midway. However, it may take me some time. It is time-consuming to wade through the online orders in Japanese. In the meantime, if one asserts that First Air Fleet was in existence during the period 15 July 1942 through 30 June 1943, I respectfully request proof.

Likewise, I respectfully request citation to top-flight references that use the word "kōkūtai" to describe the aviation units that each aircraft carrier had during the period 1941-1942. Professor Hata does not do so. He calls them "hikōtai", for example, "Hikotai [sic, the publisher didn't put a diacritical mark over the "o"] leaders" at page 146. ("Kōkūtai" is the right word to describe certain carried-based aircraft units of 1944, e.g., Dai 601 Kaigun Kōkūtai, but it's somewhat out of place for 1941-1942.)

I see that no similar conspicuous complaint about citations has been posted for several other statements in this article, including one about the most powerful air fleet of the day, the requested cite for which has not been provided in years, and one contending that First Air Fleet had 1,500 aircraft, which has no citation, is factually incorrect, and is implicitly contradicted by a reference to 474 aircraft in the article. (Six large aircraft carriers @ no more than approximately 80 aircraft each = approximately 480 aircraft + four light aircraft carriers @ approximately 32 aircraft each = approximately 128 aircraft. This does not get us anywhere near 1,500 aircraft.) Kabocha (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You have not required the writer(s) to list by name the "seven" aircraft carriers ostensibly included in First Air Fleet when it was constituted on 10 April 1941. Gordon Prange counted five. There is a possibility that the "seven" erroneously includes Zuihō and Hōshō, and if so, that would be in error. The evidence is that Third Kōkū Sentai (Zuihō and Hōshō) was never part of First Air Fleet. Incidentally, the two "missing carriers" in the "seven" figure cannot include Shōkaku or Zuikaku, which had not been completed by 10 April 1941.

Further, you take the reader into the topic of Kidō Butai, which is a different topic, albeit one closely related by the common theme of Japanese carrier air power in the Pacific War. This may confuse the reader. The article is titled "1st Air Fleet". If you are going to discuss Kidō Butai here, please be aware that it is not necessarily in the singular; "butai" could be plural, also. It is not necessarily of the same composition every time it is put together. Does this article make clear enough that a Kidō Butai is not the same as First Air Fleet? Don't you have a separate article about Kidō Butai? If not, a separate one should probably be written. Kabocha (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Today, 18 May 2018, I have added the citation to the Nairei (internal order) that did away with First Air Fleet on 14 July 1942. With your permission, I would like to move the bold-faced heading "As a Carrier Fleet" to a spot just below the heading "Organization". I also propose that the first sentence currently under "As a Carrier Fleet" be "scheduled for demolition", because the evidence is that when First Air Fleet was formed on 10 April 1941, it probably did not have seven aircraft carriers. As I have shown, and as Prange said, it had just the five carriers, which means around 335 planes, not 474. Kabocha (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography Problems
Considering the impatient and unnecessarily conspicuous demand placed in the article for maybe 48 hours, demanding that I cite a better source for the assertion that the first generation of First Air Fleet came to an end on 14 July 1942, which citation I have now improved, I am much amused by the vagueness of the last three items in the bibliography as of today. That vagueness reveals a double-standard at Wikipedia about the quality of citation. You can't point to an entire series of books or magazines and call that a proper bibliography, no matter how specific the date of "retrieval" is. Couldn't the Wikipedia writer/editor read the titles and dates of publication? Kabocha (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)