Jump to content

Talk:Attack on Sydney Harbour

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAttack on Sydney Harbour is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 2, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
August 14, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 1, 2011, June 1, 2012, June 1, 2015, June 1, 2017, June 1, 2019, and June 1, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Names of harbour defence vessels

[edit]

Well done with the re-vamping of the article, particularly to Saberwyn. But is there a reason why the auxiliary anti-submarine vessels, auxiliary minesweepers and channel patrol boats are no longer referred to as "HMAS" and no longer redlinked in the article? I have seen all of these vessels referred to as "HMAS _______" in various sources. And any commissioned ship of the RAN is worthy of its own article. Grant | Talk 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • During the rewrite, I saw both HMAS and no-HMAS attached to the vessels, although I will admit the former was more common. I de-linked them because although they were all commissioned vessels, they were all auxiliary ships, and their only "claim to fame" would be that they were in Sydney Harbour at the same time as the attack. I've re-added the prefix, but left them delinked as I personally doubt that any of these vessels will receive an article. If someone else wants to go through and redlink them again, there will be no complaints from me. -- saberwyn 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During my RAN time I served on vessels that will never merit an article (some of them in fact best forgotten by all concerned.) I agree, put in the honorific by all means, but the article isn't helped by splashes of red. Rumiton 09:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, a common convention is to list a warship as eg HMAS Warspite on first mention, then revert to Warspite (without a "the") if the name comes up again. Rumiton 10:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely that articles will ever be created about the RAN's harbour patrol boats, so I don't think that they need a red link. HMAS should be added where correct and appropriate. --Nick Dowling 10:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run for A-class?

[edit]

We've done a lot of good work on this article over the past few weeks, both in the realms of content and quality. Many of the concerns raised on this page and at the Peer Review have been taken into consideration and acted upon. Is there anything else this article needs before it makes a run at A-class review? -- saberwyn 10:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article would - and should - pass an A-class review. However, it might benefit from an additional section analysing the results of the attack - eg, the mixed performance of Sydney's defences and whether the results justified the Japanese efforts (Jenkins thinks that one ferry and several small merchant ships didn't justify the deployment of 5 subs, and I tend to agree). --Nick Dowling 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the books for a few more days, I'll see what I can dredge for an "Analysis" section. -- saberwyn 11:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jenkins and Gill both have good analysis of the battle - I can't get my hands on a copy of Jenkins, but I can help with Gill. By the way, this sentance: "Lt George Cantello of the 41st PS took off from Bankstown, but suffered mechanical failure soon afterwards, crashed and was killed" still has a citation needed tag. If it's from Peter Dunn's Australia @ War website I'd argue that it should be removed - that site is very unreliable. --Nick Dowling 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked it using the Pacific Wreck Database as a source [1], but will not shed any tears if it is stripped until such a time as a relaible source concerning the subject can be found. -- saberwyn 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I think that it should stay - it illustrates the contribution the US was making to Australia's defence at the time and 1st Lt Cantello was essentially a casualty of the battle. --Nick Dowling 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the question Was it worth it? I think you could argue either way. The toll in shipping was in favour of the allies, but in the perverted logic of wartime, it was worth it if it demoralised the enemy. I think it left many Australians feeling pretty vulnerable, but that may have just increased their fighting spirit. It's probably a subject better left for someone's PhD. Rumiton 12:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

[edit]

I've started a run-up of material for an Analysis section at User:Saberwyn/Attack on Sydney harbour, per the discussion above. Its in point form at the moment, and any additional material or help weaving this into a couple of coherent paragraphs would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 07:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis is now in the main article. Play with it there. -- saberwyn 05:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Now, do we need anything else before we run for A-class review? -- saberwyn 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midget attacks after Sydney

[edit]

Does Carruthers specify the US ships which were sunk by midget submarines in December 1942 and early 1945 or provide a source for his information on these sinkings? These sinkings are not mentioned in Samuel Eliot Morison's definitive History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, and I don't think that it's likely that he'd not mention the loss of so many ships to such an unusual weapon. The slaughter off Mindanao seems particularly questionable. --Nick Dowling 08:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carruthers does not specify the ships sunk, and does not specify the source(s) used to make this claim. Based on your lack of information, I'm removing the paragraph until it can be confirmed in a second text. -- saberwyn 10:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

[edit]

This article clearly satisfies all criteria easily, and in terms of comprehensiveness and style would have a very good chance at FAC as it stands. Well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Japan

[edit]

That's not the rising sun, is it? --Thus Spake Anittas 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

I tried to add the interesting link http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/sydharbour.html to the para on m-24's passage through the Man of War anchorage, but I have done something wrong. The first line of the para..."Midget submarine M-24 was the second to enter the harbour, crossing the indicator loop at 9:48 p.m. without being detected, and at approximately 10 p.m. it passed through the anti-submarine net by following a Manly ferry" has also gone into the ref section. Something is clearly amiss.Rumiton 10:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to close off the ref tags.
You had <ref yadda yadda yadda /ref>
You needed <ref> yadda yadda yadda </ref> -- saberwyn 10:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Mea culpa. I knew it must be something simple. Ta. Rumiton 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She or it

[edit]

Hi Saberwyn, I notice you reverted my mention of her torpedos to its torpedos and wondered why. Surely ships deserve honor as females. Then I thought you are right. These things were not ships, they were objects, devices, contraptions even. There was nothing of the homeliness and dignity of a vessel about them, and they must have been a hell to operate. Yep. Its. Rumiton 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one-use-only thing is interesting. What would have happened if they had made it back to the mother subs? Would they have been bolted back on and taken elsewhere, or just scuttled? Rumiton 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They would have recovered the crew and scuttled the sub. I'll try to find a specific cite if you're interested, but the books are all back at the various libraries and it will take some time. -- saberwyn 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't bother thanks, unless one comes to hand. They would have been quite expensive items to build, with all those batteries and huge electric motors. I wonder why they didn't arrange for reuse? Or maybe they never seriously anticipated that they would get back? Rumiton 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. -- saberwyn 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read somewhere that the Japanese didn't consider the midget submarines to be suicide weapons in 1942 - as was demonstrated by the mother subs hanging around off Sydney at great risk to themselves in an attempt to recover any surviving midgets. However, the use of such fragile craft in well defended waters was incredibly risky, and the similar British X Craft also suffered very high losses - though the British crews surrendered rather than committed suicide when their sub recieved sevre damage. --Nick Dowling 10:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney midgets were not suicide weapons, but it was accepted that the chances of the midgets returning was slim to none. -- saberwyn 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

[edit]

Alright, A-class has been awarded. The question is now do we run for Featured Article status? Or, if we are not ready for it, what needs to be done to push us to the mark? -- saberwyn 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following Nick's assertion that the article is FAC-ready, I am notifying the mob that the article will be listed as a Featured Article Candidate within the next 24 hours. -- saberwyn 11:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It starts... -- saberwyn 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops!

[edit]

I just added spaces between dots and refs as advised by an admin on another article. Saberwyn has taken them out again, and now I see the admin has realised he was wrong. Sorry! (At least it was a quick job reverting them. It took me about an hour to put them there, and I still think it looked better that way. Never mind.) Rumiton 16:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

I just have to ask - why the discrepancy between the name of the article and the section of text bolded in the first line? An "Attack on Sydney Harbour" and "attacks on the cities of Sydney and Newcastle" are different things. Why isn't Newcastle mentioned in the title whatsoever? Seegoon 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is appropriate, the Sydney attacks were the ones carried out by the midgets, and they were by far the more significant. Newcastle seemed to be an afterthought for the mother subs, and the damage done there was minimal. A lot more damage was done to lives and property in the Australian Merchant Navy when the BHP ships were sunk off the coast, which for some reason has not attracted much attention at all. The operation is generally known as the attack on Sydney Harbour. Rumiton 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole operation is commonly known as the attack on Sydney harbour, so this name best meets the criteria at WP:NAME. It's also easier to remember and search for than Japanese submarine offensive against Australia (May - June 1942), which would probably be the most accurate name. --Nick Dowling 23:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New text - heads up

[edit]

I've just acquired a new text on the subject. A Very Rude Awakening by Peter Grouse, published early-mid 2007 (so its all new and shiny). Over the next week or so I will be going though this and adding/editing any new material presented in this book. I'm just posting here as a heads up, and when I do the actual edits, warning tags will be palced on the article. -- saberwyn 10:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done all I can with the new text. -- saberwyn 03:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good stuff to work with there. A couple of questions. "On the day of the attack the six outer indicator loops were not functioning, as two were not functioning, and there were not enough trained personnel to man both the inner and outer loop monitoring stations." Does this mean that two were faulty and the rest unmanned? Also the description of the torpedo that missed Chicago "passing along the port side" seems strange. I thought the torpedo passed across the bow of Chicago from starboard to port. Perhaps there is confusion from the fact that the midget initially motored through the anchorage, passing along the port side of Chicago. Rumiton 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the indicator loop point, I've fiddled with it a little. The fact that one third of the loops didn't work plus the lack of trained operators meant the Powers That Be considered manning the outer station a waste of resources.
As for the torpedoes, and positions relative to Chicago, I'm going to try and check Battle Surface before I continue with that. Rude Awakening says the Chicago was bow to the west, sub passed on the starboard, torpedo 1 passed between Chicago and Perkins (Chicago starboard), and torpedo 2 passed to Chicago's port. I shall return on this one. -- saberwyn 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - Won;t be able to get my hands on Battle Surface until next weekend, as it is out of the local library. Sorry. -- saberwyn 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, it's just that "Rude Awakening"'s torpedo tracks don't make much sense to me. According to sketches I have seen, both torpedos were fired from a position nearly abeam of Chicago on her starboard side, and both passed ahead of her to hit Kuttabul. Though it did raise a flag for me when I read that the sub motored right through the Man-of-War Anchorage, passing along the port side of Chicago, as that would have meant passing dangerously and unnecessarily close to the cruiser and other moored warships. I also can't see how this could have been proven. Let's see what "Battle Surface" says. Rumiton 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no doubt seen this animation put together by the Australian War Museum. http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/sub18.html As I said, the only jangling note for me is the unnecessary closeness of Ban's craft to the moored Chicago and Dobbin. But he might well have been lost. Rumiton 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracks and passes

[edit]

After reviewing the abovementioned animation, Battle Surface by David Jenkins, A Very Rude Awakening by Peter Grose, and Japanese Submarine Raiders by Stever Carruthers, I've come to a few conclusions, and have included relevant page numbers so someone interested can check my methodology.

  • First off the rank, the animation, while serving as a useful guide, has several inconsistencies with the printed facts in all of these sources.
  • On the matter of M-24's interaction with Chicago on the first pass, the animation depicts the midget coming up to port. The various accounts in all three texts state that M-24 was spotted to starboard, approximately 500 metres out, and in the aft quarter. (Jenkins 210-212, Grose 123, Carruthers 133) Chicago's bow was facing west, towards the Harbour Bridge. This also accounts for the damage to Fort Denison, the shell fragments found in Mosman, all to starboard.
  • On the torpedoes, there is no consistent information on the positioning of the torpedoes.
    • Jenkins has M-24 "off Bradleys Head", approximately 800 m from and at right angles to Chicago (p 214). Grose claims that the midget was "south of Bradleys Head", 500m from Chicago (pp 138-139). Carruthers gives a generic "off Bradleys Head" with no other data. (p 136)
    • Torpedo 1 (Kuttabul-sinker) variously "passed well in front" of Chicago (Jenkins 214), "passed between Perkins and Chicago, about 25 m of Perkins' starboard bow" (Grose 139), or "passed narrowly ahead" of Chicago (Carruthers 136). Only Grose gives the direction of the torpedo's path in relation to Chicago. The Coffin Boats by Warner and Seno supports the also-near-miss of Perkins, p 130. -- saberwyn 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Torpedo 2 (the dud) variously "went wide" while also "missing by four metres" (Jenkins 215), "appeared on Chicago's starboard side... crossing Chicago's bow from starboard to port" (Grose 142), or "passed astern" (Carruthers 137). Again, only Grose gives a direction in relation to Chicago.
  • Because Grose gives the most information on the torpedoes, I've chosed to use him to source the information, but I would not disagree to the adding of something along the lines of "Sources disagree on the placement of the two torpedoes..."
  • As for the relative positions, I agree that the illustration in the official War History by George Gill shows a more-or-less right-angle position, the textual information tends to disagree, which makes it all the more confusing. I've done a little thought exercise based on the information and a street directory. All three books agree Chicago was at the No. 2 buoy, which was 400 metres east of the north-east corner of Gardn Island. M-24 was roughly south of Bradley's Head. M-24 was also between 500m and 1km from Chicago. No matter where I place the submarine, I can't get anything better than a deflection shot. Bo aware, this is guesswork based on educated guesswork, as only the two submariners themselves knew where they were that night.

Please review and comment. I have the assocated texts for a little less than a month. -- saberwyn 03:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence. A couple of points. I don't want to come the old sea-dog, but I have seen in many a classroom that this arcane seafaring business of port and starboard baffles many an otherwise learned historian. Court accounts of collision cases can become unintelligible, and the true situation becomes indecipherable. I would also contest with you that the submariners necessarily knew where they were at the time. From what I have seen of the fog of peace, it can be hard enough to penetrate, and I can only imagine that the fog of war would be 100 times as bad. It is quite possible that Lieutenant Ban was disoriented and unsure of his position in the harbour, and may, as has been suggested, have mistaken Chicago for a ship under way and heading west. The truth of the relative positions of the vessels and torpedo tracks may today be simply unknowable, and all the "information" we have may be based on wartime conjecture. The exact tracks must be so. Perhaps that is what the article should say. Cheers. Rumiton 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a stab at rewriting the torpedo paragraph. -- saberwyn 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muirhead-Gould character disposition

[edit]

He is starting to look that way. I feel the need to remind all that a Wikipedia article is not a historic novel, and such (albeit mild) sensationalism has no place here. If the confusion in the minds of commanders requires emphasis, perhaps we could explain the embryonic state of communications in the harbour (no VHF of course, apparently no morselight stations) and point out that M-G had received only fragmented and contradictory reports. Rumiton 12:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that he was drunk during the attack probably needs to be fleshed out more, as this is a serious allegation. Is this backed by other sources, and did it matter? (eg, given the state of Sydney's defences, could he have done much more if he'd rushed back to his command centre stone-cold sober?). More generally, I think that the article is fair to Muirhead-Gould - while it's clear that he had a bad night, the article also describes the problems with Sydney's defences which were beyond his control (eg, a shortage of materials to complete the boom), describes the defenders' success in sinking two of the three midget subs and descibes his courageous treatment of the remains of the Japanese submariners. I read the article to mean that M-G was a mediocre officer, and not really a turkey. --Nick Dowling 10:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point Nick, but still feel there is a bit of gloating when M-G's words (which can only have been reported from memory days later by a subordinate) are quoted in such detail, especially if they were spoken while under the influence. Rumiton 10:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they were spoken under the influence then...? It's a moderately well-known quotation, and that's why I included it.
I agree with Nick — the article is not suggesting that M-G's actions were totally inadequate, merely that that were adequate, rather than brilliant. Grant | Talk 12:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, or rather just one of emphasis. In the military culture of the day (and still today) there is no requirement for a Commanding Officer to remain sober at all times. He is entitled to his recreation, and also entitled to not be unsympatheticly quoted years later by people with hindsight. But I don't oppose the inclusion. Rumiton 12:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if Muirhead-Guild was a living person I would oppose these quotes strongly. Since he is long gone I am opposing them mildly and waveringly. Rumiton 12:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting interested in this M-G. If you Google Muirhead-Gould Lithuania you get an interesting article on his shore posting to Berlin in the 30's as a captain. A representative of the Lithuanian government approached him about British assistance for armaments, specifically a submarine, and he stated his low opinion of undersea warfare: "One submarine isn't much use, and two submarines aren't much better." Apart from being a highly quotable source his opinion of subs appears to have been set much earlier in life, perhaps even in the First War, and being an Englishman of a certain type he saw no need to change it. Funny how things work out. Rumiton 04:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably too late to add my two cents on the matter, but I don't feel that the material surrounding the quote really fits well where it is. In an already overly-long section detailing the basic actions of the night we pause the narrative to have the officer commanding blow up at a ship's crew. Perhaps it could be better incorporated into the paragraph on M-G's and Bode's sceptecism of the attack in "Failures of Allied defences" (para 2)? -- saberwyn 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of Gerard Muirhead-Gould's grandsons and have physical possession of many of his campaign stars, clasps and medals that were given to him in recognition of his service: his 1935-1945 Star, his Atlantic Star, his Air Crew Europe Star, his Africa Star, Pacific Star, Burma Star, Italy Star, France and Germany Star, Defence Medal, and 1939-1945 War Medal in addition to others that I have not been able to identify. While I don't have any specific recommended updates to the article, I would like to contribute some additional color around the situation. Not completely sure what the proper way is to add additional source materials, but I've recently come across an item that I believe may be useful to someone: It is at https://prezi.com/rvfr7ovhpdk_/rear-admiral-muirhead-gould/ . -- John.mg1 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@John.mg1: You might find Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia helpful. Please note that material added in Wikipedia articles should be referenced to a reliable source, which I don't think that website is. This is a featured article, so high quality references are particularly important. I think also that you'll find that the article has moved on in the decade since the conversation above - hopefully for the better! Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic showing positions of key ships and torpedo tracks

[edit]
File:Garden Island attack graphic attempt.JPG

I have created this image by editing a 1946 photo of Garden Island from the AWM database. It shows the positions of the key ships and torpedo tracks based on the map on page 69 of Royal Australian Navy, 1942–1945 by G. Herman Gill. I'm reluctant to include in the article, however, as a) I'm not 100% sure that I've interpreted the photo and map correctly and placed Chicago and the torpedo tracks in the right place and b) it's not very attractive - someone with a better images editor than MS Paint should create a clearer alternate from AWM image 304223. If you think that this kind of illustration is a good idea, the AWM has lots of photos of Sydney Harbour which would be edited for use as maps in this article. --Nick Dowling 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This photo by Saberwyn showing Garden Island in 2007 might be even better: --Nick Dowling 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is pretty nice work, Nick. I don't think there can be any serious doubt that the midget on firing was not far from Bradley's Head, that Chicago was the target, and that the torpedos passed narrowly ahead of her. Your illustration shows this quite well, it seems to me. It is the midget's movements prior to firing that are muddled. Looking at all the evidence, I would vote for the inclusion of your illustration with a statement to the effect that this seems to be the only sure information we have. Rumiton 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree on a few counts. First, the problem with using an image like this is that we have to insert ships that aren't there, and remove attention form ships that are there but shouldn't be. Would it be easier on the readers (although I will concede harder on the creators) to create a new image and place all the relevant ships from the scene in the image?
Second, although we are certain roughly where the submarine was, we are not sure of where the torpedoes travelled. I've got three differet books on the subject giving me three different sets of torpedo tracks, as detailed above. Which set of tracks do we use? Do we ignore the other claims, or detail them as well? This will probably require the rewriting of the related paragraph as well. -- saberwyn 12:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a stab at rewriting the torpedo paragraph. -- saberwyn 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As historians differ on M-24's movements and the torpedo tracks any maps would need to be clearly labeled as being based on a single source. That said, I think that this article would really benefit from some maps as the Harbour's geography was very important. That new wording is good, but I don't think that "although all agree both torpedoes missed their intended target, USS Chicago" is necessary as this seems to be implying that there's an unfounded conspiracy theory that Chicago was torpedoed, when, AFAIK, there is no such theory. --Nick Dowling 08:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More maps and illustrative images would be good. My worry is that adapting photographs would result in confusion between what is in the image and what information the image is trying to represent. As for the phrasing, I've had a bit of a fiddle with it, and I'm not sure if its any better now. What I'm trying to convey in that that part of the paragraph is the combination of three facts - (1) Chicago was the target. (2) Both torpedoes missed. (3) Beyond that, there is little consistency between historians on what happened until Kuttabul was blown up. Suggestions? -- saberwyn 11:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sums up the known facts rather well. We are not omniscient and our sources are imperfect. The mystery is in itself quite fascinating and should be mentioned. Rumiton 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Allied Combatants

[edit]

The list of allied combatants listed India but the flag that was provided alongside was the flag of Independent IndiaIndia ... India was a British colony during the second world war so I have replaced it with the flag of British India India
This is the image used in other WW2 articles (for eg. Battle of Singapore) that mention Indian forces fighting alongside the allies.
--Saggod 10:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

[edit]

A few days ago, I received an email via my user page from Peter Grose (author of A Very Rude Awakening). He congratulated me on the superior quality of this article, and after I pointed out that I was not the sole contributor responsible, asked that I pass these congratulations on to Nick, Rumiton, Grant, and everybody else who has contributed to this article over the past few months. -- saberwyn 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of him. I note that his book has been getting positive reviews and looks like a good read. --Nick Dowling 08:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice indeed, and it means a lot. Please thank him from me also. Rumiton 12:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deflection

[edit]

A 60 degree LEFT deflection? Surely, wherever the midget was, the deflection must have been to the right. And how could anyone estimate the amount so confidently when the position (and therefore range from Chicago) of the midget has never been accurately established? Rumiton 12:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Plus if you look at the map of Sydney Harbour, a 60 degree "lead" would have them aiming for North Sydney somewhere. I think we have a clear responsibilty to look intelligently at the statements of academics, however impressively qualified. Rumiton 13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstatement of deleted material

[edit]

Hello Grant, I won't strongly oppose and certainly won't revert these reinsertions (which I did not delete) but I still consider the sentences to be too close to tabloid style for an encyclopedia. (And I do take your point about colourful writing having its place in the history books.) M-G, being long dead, cannot defend himself, but if he could I am sure he would say something like: "Do you know how many false alarms were raised in the month prior to the attack, all caused by nervous and inexperienced lookouts and faulty instruments and indicator loops? And how much expense they caused our already underfunded operations?" When things go badly wrong it's tempting to criticise commanders, and it's one of our endearing national habits. I hope we might not. Rumiton 13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted them, and reworked and reinserted the material in the Analysis section based on the opinions expressed above in the 'total turkey?' section. It is too in-depth and specific for a section that is already struggling under its own weight. It is the only time in the article someone is quoted. And, its the only time a specific reactiona and counter-reaction is demonstrated in the article. Sure, history needs its crunchy bits, but I'm sure we could do better than to pick on a stressed (and possibly a little tipsy) officer for blowing up at an equally stressed patrol crew? -- saberwyn 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see any of the above as strong reasons for removing it. The fact that it "is the only time in the article someone is quoted" is a reason for retaining it to me!

As I said in my edit summary: (1) military history is not just a dry litany of events; (2) it is highly relevant that Muirhead-Gould was on the harbour during the attack and that (3) he didn't believe the reports. (4) The "beard" comment is moderately famous, e.g. it was quoted by Matt Price in an article in the Weekend Australian.[2] Grant | Talk 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the facts shouldn't be in the article, but I am just not comfortable with this level of detail on a relatively minor incident compared to the rest of the night being uncomfortably wedged in the middle of an already-large section trying to deal with the facts and chronology of the attack. As I tried to do when I removed it, I reworked the information and placed it in the Analysis section, along with a similar incident involving Chicago's senior officer.
In reply to your points... (1) there are several crunchy bits in the article - the Chicago sailor left on the mooring buoy, the Yellow Submarine prank on the composite. However, this bit of 'colourful history' doesn't sit right with me... it seems like taking a stab at someone who cannot defend himself and was possibly justified in his actions. (2) It is highly relevant that he was out on the harbour, I agree. But is it highly relevant that he flipped out at a ship's crew for whatever reason? Is it highly relevant that we quote him flipping out? (3) Don't blame him. A lot of people were, and even more people were clueless as to what was going on. (4) I don't have a response for this one. -- saberwyn 11:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above, and to (4) I would say: It may be exactly the sort of memorable and "moderately famous" quote that the Weekend Australian would snatch at, but that does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Rumiton 14:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekend Australian is not an encyclopedia, but WP is exactly the kind of place that people would go to verify something they read in a newspaper.

Removal of the incident/quote from the main section strips it of its context and a true refection of Muirhead-Gould's approach on the night.

I don't understand the squeamishness about MG's reputation. There are many Wikipedia articles featuring criticism of people who can't "defend themselves" and were "possibly justified". In any case, history shows that his attitude was not justified(!) Sensitivity about "officer bashing", "pommie bashing" or whatever is reasonable, but I think you are both going too far.

Last but not least, and in reference to the issue of detail, I need only refer you to WP:NOTPAPER. This sort of detail is extremely common is milhist articles, because it adds life, colour and fresh air to them. See, for example, the main section of Battle of Waterloo: "Napoleon breakfasted off silver at Le Caillou, the house where he had spent the night. When Soult suggested that Grouchy should be recalled to join the main force, Napoleon said, "Just because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you think he's a good general. I tell you Wellington is a bad general, the English are bad troops, and this affair is nothing more than eating breakfast." Some striking similarities there, non? I don't think Napoleon's reputation is any the worse for it.

Grant | Talk 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think people should go to Wikipedia not to "verify something they read in a newspaper" but to get a more full, more balanced and mature view of the subject, not more of the same. You say M-G's attitude was "not justified" but that is with our glorious 20-20 hindsight. At the time it probably was a very logical stance. Some inexperienced people thought they might have seen something that was statistically most unlikely. I think a simple statement that the initial reports were disbelieved does the job.
Your accusations of my reluctance to "officer bash" strikes a nerve, as I once was one, but I hope I am being neutral here. But as an Australian, any suggestion that I might not want to go in for "pommy bashing" offends me. Show me the Pommy and I will bash, joyfully and effectively. But I don't think that is the issue here. Rumiton 10:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Slight problem with the metaphor is that the Battle of Waterloo quote is taken from a screen-length section detailing what both commanders did on the morning of the battle, while the rest of the order and events of the battle is spread over nine following sections of a size roughly similar to this section. The MG incident and quote is sandwiched in to the middle of a 1 to 2 screenlength section detailing the entire order and events of the battle, meaning that this is a drastic over-representation of the particular incident in relation to the events of the night, highlighted and therefore empahsised (at least in my reading of the article) by the sole use of quotations throughout the entire article. I am not in disagreement that more detail is better, but I think that the level of detail required for this treatment of the incident should also require an equevilant level of detail (preferrably) throughtout the entire article, although in bits and pieces would better suit the likely development of the article. A simple solution until an equivelant level of detail is achieved througout the article (or at least in other sections) would be to tweak the paragraph so it could work without both of MG's quotes, or at the very least remove "what are you all playing at..." and leave the "black beard".
But we've all got better things to do than argue over whether to quote or paraphrase. I think I may be having some WP:OWN issues with this article, and I don't have the time to fight that and/or anyone else, so I am going to acknowledge that I have done the best I can for this article and step away. -- saberwyn 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've done a great job, including NOT owning the article. Grant, how about we go ahead with the above? Rumiton 12:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that the material in question be kept, even if it is not in that section.
If consensus is against its inclusion in the main section, so be it, but I woujld like to hear from people othre than the three of us before I am convinced. Grant | Talk 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's wait. Waiting...waiting... Rumiton 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grant. I have taken the liberty of inviting user:Vassyana in for his opinion. He is a very experienced admin, whom I have seen working effectively in other areas. Mil Hist isn't his area, but he might have something good to add. Rumiton 12:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

Can this article be categorized Military history of Sydney during World War II. I have just start a new category for Sydney suburban articles with military history of that period which is a sub category for military history of Australia. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 08:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote

[edit]

It seems both text footnotes, I and II, lead to the same footnote (I), and reverse searching from the notes to the text also leads both to number I. The notes appear to be properly formulated. Any ideas? Rumiton (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same name parameter ('name') is used in both templates. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref#Simple I'm not correcting it 'cause i'm only a reader usually... and given your question and the complicated structure of ref's here:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.110.155 (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. It might be better to change both footnotes to refs. I'll look at it later. Rumiton (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime metrics

[edit]

I am not sure nautical measurements should be metricated. Nautical miles are still used at sea, and are different from land miles, which I suspect this Bot uses. I will change back if no discussion. Rumiton (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Witness Account

[edit]

Hello, I'm new to this but found the cumulative Attack on Sydney Harbour entry to be greatly informative. I was browsing the entry because my father was on watch that night as a Marine Corps guard aboard the Chicago when one of the subs surfaced. He helped sound General Quarters and actually fired at the sub. His account of the episode is included in a 40,000 word memoir he wrote in the 1990s about his three-plus years in combat experience in the Pacific. I would be happy to share that part it with this site if it seems helpful or appropriate. I think his details pretty much mesh with the pertinent parts of the account here, although in one fairly major difference he described the sub as being so close to the Chicago that he could have beaned it with a baseball. Dad passed away in 2000 and I've been delving into his memoir as part of a long postponed project to edit it and publish it for my family. I was reading this entry as a way of cross-checking the basic facts and dates of his stories.Jaxnandy (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! As it is a self-published account, the article probably cannot use it, but we editors would sure like to see some of it. My father was on a train going to work over the bridge next morning and saw the salvage going on. Have a look at this [[3]]. I think it gets closest to accurately describing what happened, and does indeed show the sub getting very close to Chicago. Rumiton (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, the wreck is described as "showing bullet damage". The sub's presumed track after being forced to submerge shows (I think) that the commander was at least disoriented by the attack. Your father's actions may well have helped prevent a lot more damage. On behalf of Australia, thank you! Rumiton (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording missing from article

[edit]

Some wording is missing. At ref 47 and 49.

It passed within 500 metres (1640 ft) to the starboard of USS Chicago's moored position off Garden Island, and was heading on a course roughly parallel to the ship when a Chicago searchlight operator spotted it at 10:52 pm by .[47][49]

Boylo (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that. I think that the problem was that the word 'by' isn't needed, so I've removed it. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ko-hyoteki_Sydney.jpg

[edit]

The commons version of the lead image has had it's watermarks edited out out. Admins may wish to replace version on en.Geni 11:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding

[edit]

No bolding in the lead? Isn't that required per MoS? —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 19:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's clumsy to include the article's title in the introduction. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Raid as a Diversion to the Battle of Midway

[edit]

While the Japanese planners undoubtedly intended this raid as a genuine attack in its own right, the timing of it was closely related to the Midway battle.

The Japanese planners believed (incorrectly) that their plans to attack Midway so as to draw the American carriers into battle against overwhelming forces were a secret. To increase the element of surprise, two significant raids, on Sydney and to occupy some of the Aleutian islands, were timed to draw attention away from Midway shortly before the attack on Midway, in the hope of increasing the surprise of the Midway invasion. The primary aim of the whole complex operation was destruction of the US carrier force.

See Walter Lord's book Incredible Victory, Pocket Books 1967. (the story of Midway)

The Sydney raid should be seen in the context of the overall issue of control of the Pacific Ocean. Yamamoto knew that America would bounce back strongly, and it was vital to Japan's war plans that as much of the Pacific as possible be under Japanese control before that bounce back could gain ground.

Pcbavo (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Aleutian islands campaign was planned as a diversion, yes. I have never seen it stated - anywhere (and I have read quite a lot on the war in the pacific) - that the raids on Australia were intended as a diversion to Midway. Raul654 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks

[edit]

According to this counter [[4]], this article got looked at about 94,000 times last month alone. Take bows, guys. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Wartime

[edit]

There is an article on the aftermath of the attack in the current (on shelves now) edition of Wartime, the magazine published by the Australian War Memorial, that may be of use. I didn't pick up a copy (kinda broke at the moment), but based on my brief glance at the newsagents, the article focuses on the aftermath of the attack, particularly the Japanese perspective. There looks like there would be some useful information to expand the "Aftermath" section of the article. -- saberwyn 07:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As some probably much-needed contect... Issue 45 -- saberwyn 08:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Victory...

[edit]

Was it really a Japanese Victory when a) 2 submarines were scuttled and basically failed in their mission b) the one that did have any success missed its target and basically hit a glorified dormroom (no disrespect intended to the people killed) I'd personally call it a tie as neither side emerged victorious. Indeed it barely rates as a battle, more a raid IMHO 123.243.242.57 (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources I've seen regard the whole operation (the midget submarine attack, the raids on shipping, and the shore bombardments) as a victory for the Japanese, particulary when considering the psychological impact on the populations of Sydney and Newcastle. Specifically in regards to the midget submarine operation, many of the historians attribute the lack of success by the Japanese to poor luck... the damage done could have easily been a lot worse.
That said, if you have any sources that say otherwise, feel free to bring them up. -- saberwyn 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless proven otherwise, I can't see how this can be a clear victory for either side. Perhaps the infobox needs a more elaborate explanation in the result field. Where is the evidence that most sources consider this a Japanese victory? Spellcast (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This was a raid that failed to fulfill its primary objective, and both sides ended up taking damage. I would support considering it to be inconclusive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. I'm going to go ahead and suggest a change to Tactical Japanese Defeat, Strategic Japanese Victory. My rationale is as follows: The current infobox result of an unqualified "Japanese Victory" makes no sense when juxtaposed with the article itself in its current revision. Part of the function of the infobox is to give the reader an at-a-glance summary of the article contents. The article is very clear from the get-go that the immediate, tactical objectives of the midget submarine force were to enter the harbor and engage and destroy allied warships. The midget submarines completely failed to damage or destroy any of their intended targets, including but not limited to USS Chicago, and destroyed their only actual victim by mistake. The cost of destroying this unintended target was the complete loss of all men and material involved in the actual attack. (Also, perhaps a bit less persuasively, but nonetheless significant from the Japanese viewpoint, the behavior of the first two midget sub-commanders, destroying their craft and committing suicide following a failed attack, is completely consistent with the behavior of Japanese commanders after a major defeat). I don't think any military historian would consider an attack a "victory" which failed to destroy any of the primary targets, and which resulted in the loss of the entire attack force. Even under the most generous definition of the term "victory." However, if there are indeed sources which can point to a specific Japanese strategic objective to force convoying of or otherwise disrupt Allied shipping in the area, or to do psychological damage to the civilian population of Sydney, then it's fair to say that those strategic goals were achieved. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSwordandScales (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle or Attack

[edit]

This engagement is widely considered a battle in mainstream history. On wiki its called an attack but really, An attack is a tactic in a battle and should not be used to name an engagement. The Battle of Pearl Harbor is another engagement labeled as an attack instead of a battle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2009

  • I have to disagree... the majority of the published works on this event refer to it by this title. Do you have any sources demonstrating otherwise? -- saberwyn 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midget subs at Pearl Harbour

[edit]

I see herethat it now seems certain that one battleship that rolled over and sank during the Japanese attack on Pearl was torpedoed by a midget sub from I-16. I am excruciatingly busy at the moment, but perhaps this article should reflect that? And maybe the Attack on Pearl Harbor article amended? Rumiton (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the impact of midget subs at Peral Harbor has risen and fallen since the attack itself, when nine of the midget personnel were hailed as young war gods (minus the one that lived) while the role of the aviators was almost completely ignored. The success of that one midget has been proven, disproven, accepted, or rejected on several occasions (depending on who you ask). Discussing it would be relevant in the Pearl Harbor attack article would be appropriate, but I think the most that should be done here is no more that a couple of sentances and a link to the relevant section of the other article. -- saberwyn 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there's no need to cover the mini-subs actions at Pearl Harbor in any great detail in this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I wasn't thinking of detail, but it is an interesting sideline. Rumiton (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this article still states that the midgets at Pearl had "no effect." Sources say otherwise, but I don't want to make an undiscussed change. Comments? Rumiton (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entry states as a fact that the midget subs had "no effect" at Pearl Harbor. Since that is not an accepted fact, only the opinion of one group of researchers vs. the opinion of another group of researchers, I think that statement should be removed. However, to avoid triggering a troll attack, I'll leave it to some member of the inner circle to make the change. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Eastern Suburbs bombing

[edit]
A house in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs damaged by a Japanese shell.

There's an Australian government website which states that the only shell that exploded was in Bellevue Hill. Presumably this is the house shown in this photo? Does anyone know the address? Is there enough evidence that this is the case to change the caption to make the location a bit more precise? Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The caption to this photo on the AWM's website doesn't state that the shell exploded, and the amount of damage doesn't seem excessive from what might be expected if a 'dud' 140mm shell hit what appears to be a lightly built annex at the back of a house. That said, you could be right given the number of photos of this house on the AWM's website. It would be very interesting to know the street addresses of where the shells struck - Sydney's eastern suburbs would be a great place for some battlefield tourism! Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sydney Morning Herald [5], I advise the following that "Grantham Flats", Cnr of Manion Avenue and Iluka Street, Woollahra - dud shell tore through flat injuring one man.

Another source [6] indicates a shell landed in Bradley Avenue, Bellevue Hill[7] damaging the back rooms of a house and also damaging the house next door. It also identifies, 9 Bunyula Road, Bellevue Hill, 68 Streatfield Road, Bellevue Hill, 67 Balfour Road, Rose Bay, 1 Simpson Street, Bondi[8], Olola Avenue, Vaucluse, Yallambee Flats, 33 Plumer Road, Rose Bay. A wiki page [9] also claims On the night of June 7 1942 when Japanese submarines shelled Sydney, a contributor in Bellevue Hill was struck by a shell fragment and admitted to St Vincent’s Hospital. In due course a claim (No. H711683) was paid in respect to this injury. See damaged caused by shell that exploded here [10]. Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Victory.... again

[edit]

How in the world is it a "victory?" It was a failed raid. The rationale for calling it a victory is stretched beyond reason. It was a raid that failed in its objective. While it is neither a "victory" nor "defeat" for the Allies, it was in no way a "victory" for the Japanese. Political Correctness, bleeding heart sensibilities and revisionist history are alive and well here at the English language wiki... -someguynotsignedinbecauseheisnotathome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.90.102 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think PC, BHS or RH play any role, it is just how much weight we place on the psychological outcome. Personally, I think the effect on Sydney's population and Australia's defence force and maritime industry was quite large, but would stop short of declaring the raid a victory. Maybe that whole statement should be left out. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It all comes down to this: are there sources that call this a victory for either side? If not, I think a more elaborate explanation is needed in the results section. Not every military action is a black and white victory for either side and perhaps this is one of those cases. Spellcast (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just spent a couple of hours looking through sources. Unsurprisingly, it appears no author has come out either way. But the Japanese envoy to Australia in 1942, Tatsuo Kawai, wrote at the time:
Deep under the water they cannot come up; they die there regrettable – more good men
This clumsy surprise attack failed: they died fighting with the enemy; astonishing
Bullets and blades bloodshed and death:
now I know exactly how easy it is to die [11]
So he at least considered it a failure. Rumiton (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "Japanese victory" to "indecisive". That, at least, seemed warranted. Rumiton (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source: A Parting Shot

[edit]

There's a new book recently/about to be published that appears to focus on the aftermath of the attack, specificly the shellings. May be of use to update/expand the article, andor the child article Shelling of Newcastle. Links from publisher's website and the Sydney Morning Herald.

  • Jones, Terry; Carruthers, Steven (2013?). A Parting Shot: Shelling of Australia by Japanese Submarines. Narrabeen, NSW: Casper Publications. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

Just a heads up. -- saberwyn 08:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capt Bode

[edit]

I am in two minds about this, but I wonder if Capt Bode's suicide in April 1943, after some further combat misadventures, should be included in this article. In a way he was a delayed casualty of the attack on Sydney Harbour. [12] Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can explicitly link the suicide to his actions during the attack on Sydney Harbour, I'd say no. The impression I have is that it was a result of the disaster that was the Battle of Savo Island and its aftermath. -- saberwyn 19:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after sleeping on it, I agree. Rumiton (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack on Sydney Harbour. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

You say "the only occasion in history when either city has come under attack" without saying what the other city may be. I assume Newcastle, but you need to say what you were referring to.GeeDee (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack on Sydney Harbour. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack on Sydney Harbour. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"THE SHELLING OF NEWCASTLE" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect THE SHELLING OF NEWCASTLE and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 12#THE SHELLING OF NEWCASTLE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Sydney_Harbour&oldid=1213283657"