Talk:Admiralty Islands campaign

Separate articles on Los Negros and Manus
Great work Hawkeye. I'm thinking we could forget about these and re-direct the pages here. Likewise the Admiralty Islands campaignbox, which is only ever going to have two articles in it. What do others think? Grant |  Talk  11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the two battles are creations of the Wikipedia. I'm not sure what they should cover. The US Army recognises a campaign called "Bismarck Archipelago" which covers New Britain, the Admiralty Islands, and Emirau. The article has a way to go yet. I'm not sure how large it is going (or is allowed) to be. Hawkeye7 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article can be as big as you want, see WP:NOTPAPER. From my recollection Los Negros and Manus were distinct operations. If this is going to be a big article then maybe we do need two subsidiary articles.


 * I think the idea of a "Bismarck Archipelago campaign" is more about superficial geography and the convenience of military historians, than closely connected operations. New Britain is quite a distance from the Admiralties and the fighting there was long and complex. The Emirau landing was unopposed, and the Marines were met by "Seventh Day Adventist missionaries"! Grant  |  Talk  02:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Historians normally take a geographical approach to the war in the Pacific, making it a series of overlapping campaigns. From a military point of view, the Admiralty Islands were part of CARTWHEEL, along with the Markham and Ramu Valleys, Finschhafen, Saidor, Cape Gloucester etc.
 * The division between Los Negros and Manus is a geographical one too. Fighting went on on both islands simultaneously, fought by troops of the same division. There were also the subsidiary operations on Seeadler Harbour. Hawkeye7 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a general problem we have at Wikipedia is different and overlapping definitions/concepts from country to another. I looked into these issues a lot when I set up the various campaignboxes and linking articles for the New Guinea campaign. Part of the problem is differences between the US and Australian involvements/experiences and the different geographical concepts from one country to another. For instance, American historians talk about the "Battle of Buna" and not Buna-Gona; they also tend to consider Rabaul/New Britain to be part of the Solomons campaign, rather than New Guinea, even though it was part of the Territory of New Guinea (later Papua-New Guinea), and came under the South West Pacific Area in the latter stages of the war. We must not forget Japanese definitions and concepts either. To compound this, there is often a lack of awareness among military history buffs in one country about the parallel histories of other countries. Cartwheel obviously existed, but I question the extent to which there was a "Bismarck Archipelago campaign" in reality.

So to cut a long story short, my solution was based largely on a series of Australian War Memorial articles, which carve the broader New Guinea campaign up into clear and unambiguous geographical areas, in distinct time periods. In this I followed the way that articles on famous battles of the Central Pacific are grouped in a similar way, under less famous geographical names (e.g. Battle of Iwo Jima is part of Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign.) From that point of view we can probably live without separate articles on Los Negros and Manus. Grant |  Talk  06:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that only one article is needed - this campaign basically consisted of a fierce, but brief, battle on Los Negros followed by some mopping up. This is looking like being a great article BTW. --Nick Dowling 11:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is all for me for now. I think that a single article works okay. Would someone be so kind as to remove the Admiralty Islands Campaign Box? Hawkeye7 09:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've already done it. I have now nominated the template for deletion and created redirects from "Battle of Manus" and "Battle of Los Negros" to this article. Grant  |  Talk  13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Los Negros
Content moved from Talk:Battle of Los Negros. This should really be its own article. This was a really important battle, as it was the campaign spearhead.... aliasd·U·T 11:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you are saying, but the problem is that that the Los Negros battle is the main part of the campaign, and it is now covered in detail in the Admiralty Islands campaign article. Grant  |  Talk  13:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know if there is some part of the article that you feel still needs expansion. Hawkeye7 22:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some thought
Moved to A-Class review comments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the Admiralty Islands?
Even though I am fairly well read on the history of WWII in the Pacific, I must confess that I had little idea where the Admiralty Islands are located. I followed the link, and saw:


 * The Admiralty Islands are a group of 18 islands in the Bismarck Archipelago. These are also sometimes called the Manus Islands, named after the largest island. The islands form part of Manus Province of Papua New Guinea.

Without the map in that article, I still would be unsure where these islands are located. I suggest that the location be described in the present article as north of New Guinea and northwest of Truk, or perhaps include the map from the Admiralty Islands article, or both. Otherwise, a very good article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are south west of Truk. I have added a map, and a new "Geography" section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Review points

 * Some clarification is need on who exactly is in charge afloat. The page currently credits Captain Emile Dechaineux, while placing him under orders of R/A Daniel Barbey, Com VII 'phib. It appears Dechaineux was on scene CO for the mission. Correct?
 * Barbey was in charge of VII Amphibious Force. He was back in Milne Bay. Rear Admiral William Fechteler of Amphibious Group 8 was in charge, despite the presence of Macarthur and Kinkaid. His Task Force 76 was covered by Crutchley's Task Force 74. Dechaineux commanded its destroyer screen. After the initial landing, Dechaineux and his destroyers remained behind to support the troops ashore, at which point he was indeed the senior officer afloat.


 * Also, given this is a U.S. op, should Brit English really be used? (I know, don't change the Engvar...)
 * We went over this last time. To sum up the arguments:
 * The operation was fought in Australian territory.
 * The operation was a joint Australian-American one. Although the American presence was larger, the Australian was prominent.
 * Australian editors have homesteaded the whole South West Pacific theatre of WWII. (Note spelling!) The American presence is relatively weak.
 * It therefore seemed likely that the majority of readers would also be Australian.
 * Historically, the battle was fought in a mixture of American and Australian English and I was happy for the article to be like that but...
 * Wiki-policy is for articles to be consistently in one form
 * Therefore, Australian English was chosen.


 * Is TF74 correct? It strikes me a penny ante outfit to have a TF ID; TG74 seems more apt.
 * Yes, that is correct. You have to remember that the Seventh Fleet had no battleships or aircraft carriers, so the cruisers of TF 74 and TF 75 were its capital ships. The USN has this thing about pointy ships.


 * Saying "one of the PTs" is a bit vague, especially since she seems to have taken significant action in saving lives (at least). Can she be identified?
 * PT 329. I've changed the text.


 * Perhaps a minor point, but: is the senior air force 5h or 13h? (I presume 5h.)
 * Kenney's Fifth Air Force was the one in SWPA. The much smaller 13th Air Force was based in the Solomon Islands. Neither is mentioned in the article though, as the air cover was provided by the RAAF.

To be very clear, I'm looking for correction in the article, not so much answers here. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  08:30, 08:41, 08:51, & 08:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I've made some minor changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis
The article has an unsourced premise that "A well-known rule of thumb is that an attacking force needs a 3:1 superiority to ensure success." Many of us have heard that rule of thumb and accepted it without considering where it came from. It derived from a very different kind of warfare; it has questionable relevance for this campaign. It sets up a "straw man" without regard to the specific circumstances of naval and air dominance. Its irrelevance is immediately pointed out in the text, by a 1:4 ratio. The analysis needs to be reworked; analysis should not aim to glorify the campaign.Fconaway (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The premise is sourced. All Featured articles are fully sourced. There is a footnote. Did you look it up? What did it say? Did it specifically refer to the form of warfare in question? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Admiralty Islands campaign. 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/20110821061724/http://media.nara.gov/google/ARC_39001.mp4 to http://media.nara.gov/google/ARC_39001.mp4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Admiralty Islands campaign. 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/20090226030631/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/gen_kenney_reports.pdf to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/gen_kenney_reports.pdf

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) 02:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Admiralty Islands campaign. 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/20090226030730/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/aaf_wwii-v4.pdf to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/aaf_wwii-v4.pdf

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) 21:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Explosion of an American ammunition ship
Explosion of an American ammunition ship: Absolutely no mention was made of the detonation of a fully-loaded ammunition ship in Seedler Harbor, killing every sailor on board, and many others on adjacent ships and dockyards. Such "collateral damage" was an important part of the campaign. Furthermore, this was the worst disaster on board an ammunition ship since one detonated in Nova Scotia in 1917. Also, no mention was made of an American submarine base at Seedler Harbor. This enabled submarines to be brought forward from Brisbane and Perth in Australia, and saving a lot of time on the combat patrols. Later on, these boats were moved even farther forward, to Cavite Harbor in the Philippines, and also Guam.24.156.77.8 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)