This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 19:31, April 23, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
Battle of Tassafaronga is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Does anyone know the ranges of the torpedo actions by the Japanese in this action. I remember reading that some of the actions were at long range possibly twenty miles could this be correct? what were they preferably in miles? Bullseye30 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
How is this a US defeat? The Americans stopped the Japanese from delivering the supplies and denied the ability of the Japanese to sustain their forces on Guadalcanal. While the US suffered greater casualties, it was surely an American victory. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it seems that it should be an IJN tactical victory, but a USN strategic victory. Marjaliisa (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Agree completely. Japan failed in their mission so that is a defeat? PLus both sides lost just one ship each, damaged ships that then get repaired does not mean a victory?2A00:23C4:215:C500:2D0F:606C:5CA2:72A7 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Marjaliisa: I've added citation with quotes from USN, but I'm still ambivalent about wording, since one source says: "the naval battles around Guadalcanal were bookended with two of the worst defeats in U.S. naval history (Savo Island and Tassafaronga), eclipsed only by Pearl Harbor. " The other says: "Thus ended one of the most ignominious defeats in U.S. Navy history, although technically Wright and TF-67 succeeded in their mission, since none of the supplies from Tanaka’s destroyers made it ashore to starving Japanese troops on Guadalcanal." And the wording doesn't quite convey the idea that the cost was too high for achieving the mission. The factors overwhelmingly favors USN (cruisers vs. destroyers, radar vs. no radar at night, the element of surprise) but USN still suffered more damage. If this occurred to IJN, the IJN commander would be relieved of command. --Happyseeu (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Certain editors are posting unfounded pov on the article. If you have sources that this was a massive defeat for the US please post them here, dont just add them because that is what you believe. An action where Japan failed to achieve their objective is not a victory, never mind a massive victory. One ship lost each also does not say victory. So please place your sources here and we can get a consensusGiant-DwarfsTalk 13:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Saying "one ship lost each" is remarkably disingenuous, a destroyer and heavy cruiser are NOT equivalent. Not to mention also taking out 3 more heavy cruisers for over a year is a pretty significant blow for the US. There is a fair argument to be made over whether it was a US strategic victory, but it's difficult to take you seriously when you portray the facts in such a biased light. 46.208.149.231 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
.svg){kind=logo}
