Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands


 * 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.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers a little-known but significant air campaign of World War II. I've consulted a wide range of sources on the air campaign and I think that the article may now meet the A class criteria. I might take the article to FA class, so any comments how it could be further improved would be great. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Here are a few things i noticed after reading the article -
 * You cover the attacking forces quite well but go into little detail of the ground defenses on the American held islands, did they have heavy aa guns? What was the troop strength of the american garrisons on the island at the time? Ect.
 * I haven't been able to find anything out about what the AA defences around the airfields comprised (beyond this source, which doesn't seem to meet the RS criteria), though I'll keep looking (Shelby Stanton's US Army World War II Order of Battle should be useful, though this probably won't say exactly where the units were stationed on the island). The islands didn't really have a troop garrison (as it was impossible for the Japanese to mount a counter-invasion) and the ground units which passed through don't seem relevant to this air campaign.
 * I've added a generic mentions of fighters and AA guns to the infobox. I fear that it won't be possible to be more precise. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked Shelby Stanton's US Army World War II Order of Battle book yesterday, and it confirmed the units listed on that website, so I've added this to the article. There's no information on where on Saipan they were stationed, however. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you list the fighter and bomber units by name, might the names of the anti-aircraft units be listed in the background since they were engaged as well? Does Stanton give any numbers on the stregnth of these units on saipan?XavierGreen (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that I've got no details on which of the battalions were actually involved in the fighting (some would have been stationed around the airfields while others would have been assigned to port areas and other key facilities which weren't actually attacked), that seems unnecessary detail. Stanton doesn't provide any information about the strength of these units. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More detail should be put into the infobox if possible, for example if american troop strength, number of fighters based on the islands, ect.
 * As above, I can't find this kind of detail I'm afraid. I've identified the USAAF units which took part in this campaign in the text, but they don't specify how many aircraft were involved in air defence duties.
 * Did the Japanese damage any of the ships present in the area during the raids? If so details should be provided.XavierGreen (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All the sources say that the Japanese raids were focused on the aifields (as this is where the B-29s were coming from), so there were no naval losses. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing i just realized, there is no campaign box on the page. Perhaps adding the Mariana and Palau Islands campaignbox might be helpful to readers.XavierGreen (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, though these raids formed part of the air campaign against Japan, and not the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign - I've added the campaign box for the appropriate campaign. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments: I have the following comments and copy editing suggestions:
 * no dabs, ext links all work, images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only, not a requirement);
 * Done
 * in the lead, I think "mid 1945" should be "mid-1945";
 * Done
 * in the Background section, "...Yap to the south west" I think this should be "southwest";
 * Done
 * in the Japanese attacks section, "These raids typically comprised twelve Japanese Navy-operated Mitsubishi G4M bombers (labeled "Betty" bombers by the Allies), or Army operated Mitsubishi Ki-67 bombers, operating from bases on mainland Japan and staging through Iwo Jima" (should be Army-operated for consistency, also there is slight repitition here "operated" and "operating": perhaps reword slightly?;
 * Tweaked
 * in the Japanese attacks section, this sounds a little strange to me, "damaged its propeller on a wave" (on a wave, or in a wave?);
 * Good point - I've changed this to 'struck a wave' and left out the damage (as this is implicit)
 * in the Japanese attacks section (and also in the United States counter attacks section), I think the capitalisation might be wrong here: "The United States Military..." (The United States military, as it is not a proper noun?). You have displayed this as "United States military" in the Background section;
 * Good point, fixed.
 * in the Japanese attacks section, "that the MEW still wasn't in use" (contraction "wasn't" probably should just be "was not");
 * Fixed
 * in the Japanese attacks section, I think a paired comma is needed here: "Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, the commander of the Pacific Ocean Areas" (after Areas);
 * Well spotted! I meant to include that - fixed.
 * in the Japanese attacks section, "Despite this, it still wasn't" (contraction wasn't, as per above);
 * Fixed
 * not sure about this as it is US English, but should "air to air" be "air-to-air"? (per this US English dictionary);
 * As I struggle with Australian English, I'll take that dictionary's American English usage over mine! Fixed.
 * in the Japanese attacks section, "damaged three beyond repair and caused minor damage to a further eleven" (maybe "further 11");
 * As all the numbers in that sentence are written I think it would look odd to swap to numerals.
 * in the Japanese attacks section, "eleven B-29s", maybe this should be "11 B-29s";
 * Done (with 35 at the end of the sentence this works better)
 * there is some inconsistency in the presentation of times, e.g. "01:30 am" as opposed to " 9.45 am" and "11.00 am" (colon vs dot as seperator);
 * All changed to use a dot as a separator
 * in the United States counter attacks section, "B-29 bombers in conjunction with a bombardment by the heavy cruisers USS Chester". Perhaps "...naval bombardment by the heavy cruisers..." (this would just clarify aerial vs naval bombardment for those not paying attention);
 * Good point, done. I've added a link to the article on Naval gunfire support as well (this seems to be the closest thing we have to a generic article on naval bombardments).
 * in the United States counter attacks section, "Small scale night attacks" (I think this should be "Small-scale night attacks". Per this US English dictionary);
 * Done
 * in the Operation Tsurugi section, "before the G4Ms crash landed upon them" (I think this should be "crash-landed", per this dictionary entry: ;
 * Done
 * in the Operation Tsurugi section, there are some inconsistencies in capitalisation: "naval commandos" and "Naval commandos", "Army commandos";
 * As these aren't the names of anything I've removed the capitals from Naval and Army here (except for 'Army-Navy' as the commandos aren't mentioned here)
 * in the Aftermath, "US Military" or "US military" (as per previous comment)?
 * Fixed
 * in the Aftermath, "it was considered that it may be necessary". Perhaps this might sound better as: "it was considered that it might have been necessary";
 * I've tweaked this sentence so it's written in the active voice, which I think should fix this problem
 * in the Notes section, "Morison (1960)" - are you citing from the 1960 version, or the 2002 reprint? If the later, I think maybe it should be "Morison (2002)" in the short cites;
 * The 2002 reprint. I've made this change (I think that the page numbers are the same as the 1960 edition, but using 2002 as the short form is safer)
 * in the References, the two dates for the Morison work might be better displayed as "|origyear=1960 |year=2002", this will display the dates in separate brackets;
 * Done
 * in the References, the Advisor script is reporting a possible ISBN error for the Francillon work, could you please check this? (I think it is because of the spacing);
 * Fixed
 * in the References, you might consider adding OCLC numbers to the works that don't have ISBNs. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done
 * I've fixed most of those comments and will action the rest tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that I've now responded to all your comments - thanks a lot for the very detailed review. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work, all my concerns have been addressed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Couple of comments;
 * Descriptive titles should not be bolded in the lede per MOS:BOLDTITLE
 * Done
 * The article could use a location map for the islands. Many readers probably don't know they are in the Pacific, let alone where in the Pacific.
 * Great idea - done
 * It's a pity the source of the intelligence on Operation Tsurugi is not given (probably ULTRA?) but if there's not a source, it can't be said.
 * No, it's not specified unfortunately - the sources talk about generic 'intelligence' and 'reconnaissance'. By this stage of the war Allied aircraft were flying over Japan more or less at will, so the build up may have been spotted from the air (though I suspect you're right about ULTRA).
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  13:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your comments - I think that I've now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis that the article reads well. Iam not actually familiar with MilHist requirement.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  07:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I made the edits; feel free to revert.
 * "from 12 October": "starting on 12 October". Non-AmEng.  "From 12 October on" would also be fine for Americans, but maybe not for Brits and Australians. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All fixed now
 * "01.30 am": "1:30 am". See WP:MOSTIME and See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All fixed. I'm pretty sure that 01.30 am, etc, was acceptable in the MOS a few weeks ago during the FAC for Black Friday (1945) (or maybe no-one just noticed?). Thanks for your edits and comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems with taking this to FAC, and if it's going there, see WP:MOS and WP:MOSTIME. Also, over the last 10 months, people at SHIPS and MILHIST have either used the colon themselves or been happy when I inserted it.  It's not something I have any strong feelings about one way or the other, but it does seem to be the standard. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "(labeled "Betty" bombers by the Allies)": "labeled" isn't wrong, but I'm wondering if "nicknamed" would be easier for some readers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Betty' was the official Allied reporting name for the aircraft, so 'nicknamed' isn't accurate - this implies that it was an informal name.
 * There is an article on reporting names which could be wikilinked.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  07:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is the link which underlies 'labled'. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "attack by either five or ten G4Ms": Was it either five or ten, or was it from five to ten? - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources say different things here - I've added an endnote explaining this.
 * Were the Betty bombers also staging through Iwo Jima? If so, I need to remove a comma. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they had the range to operate from Japan
 * I don't know what "Attack Hikotai 703" means. - Dank (push to talk) 04:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A 'Hikotai' was an unit which comprised only aircraft and their crews and no groundcrew. Attack Hikotai 703 was formed by separating the flying element of the 752nd Kōkūtai (air group) from the non-flying personnel in April 1944. I've tweaked the wording so its clearer that this was a military unit. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency is needed on dates ... 24 June, November 7, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I missed quite a few! I think that they're all fixed now. Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What translation do you like for Sentai? Squadron?  Wing? - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wing-equivalent seems appropriate, though there's a dedicated article on the topic (Sentai) Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "December 8, 1944": "December 8, 1944,". See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Is "carried by" good enough for "landed on the bases by"? - Dank (push to talk)
 * That works for me, and looks better.
 * "Moreover, due to the high cost of the heavy bombers the": "Moreover, due to the high cost of the heavy bombers, the". See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your in-depth comments Dank - it's much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support with a few comments/suggestions:
 * From what I understand, all IJN bomber and fighter units were redesignated on 1 November 1942 with numerical designations. Each numeral was a discrete identifier of information related to the unit.  Therefore, the 252 Kokutai, for example, would be more correctly expressed in English as the "252 Air Group" or "Air Group 252" rather than the 252nd Air Group.  If I'm correct, then a hidden message should probably be inserted in the text explaining this or other editors who are unaware will be forever changing the text to "252nd Air Group," believing they are correcting a mistake.
 * That seems in line with my sources for the names of units and a good idea (the '252nd Air Group' redlink I included was only used to be in line with one of Wikipedia's few articles on Japanese WW2 air units)
 * You appear to have used all the mains sources which likely have important information for this topic. I'll check a few other books that I have, but I doubt they will provide any further information than you were able to find in English language sources.  If I find anything more, I'll add it.
 * Thanks for that - anything more would be great.
 * If the sources support it, you might try to explain in greater detail at the beginning of the article a little more of the "big picture" surrounding the article's topic, i.e. one reason the US high command took the Japanese raids so seriously was because the B-29 bombers were considered to be strategic, not just tactical, assets and the B-29 bombing campaign was one of the major initiatives by the Allies to attempt to directly bring about Japan's surrender. For Japan's part, it was a severe embarrassment for the top leaders of Japan that the homeland was being bombed, and therefore a high priority was placed on trying to disrupt the bombing.
 * I'd really like to include something on this, but unfortunately the sources don't really link the raids to the wider strategic scene like this. I've added a little bit on Arnold's concerns being partially driven by the high cost of each B-29, but I don't think that it's possible to go beyond this. I chose to develop an article on this topic as it's a good example of how the Japanese made serious efforts to stop the B-29s (something which also often isn't recognised) but ultimately fell far short due to the imbalance between their military power and that of the US by this time.
 * Excellent work! Cla68 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your changes to the article and comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are certainly no shortage of sources saying the Marianas bombers were a strategic force. Hard to find a source saying directly that the Japanese response was to the strategic threat, but that is almost self-evident.  The closest I found was "The Japanese were not taking the B-29 attacks against the Empire lightly".  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I've added a bit based on that source. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.