Talk:Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

Untitled

Unfortunately, much of this article appeared to originally be "lifted" from: http://www.answers.com/topic/naval-battle-of-guadalcanal. However, over the past several days I, and apparently a couple of others, have been engaged in extensive rewrites of the entry. By the time we're through, I anticipate that the article will be almost completely original without any potential copywrite issues. Fortunately, as with many topics involving US Navy involvement, there are numerous resources and photographs available on the web from US Government sources that are free from copywrite restrictions. Cla68 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Answers.com is copying from wikipedia, not the other way 'round: "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)".

—wwoods 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my mistake if that is true. I appreciate the help in improving on the original entry. Cla68 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if that's a first - a major rewrite based on a mistaken idea of originality. Just as a note for the future, you can usually detect actual copyvios by looking through the history and noticing a large addition done as a single edit. Sampling the history here shows that current state was reached very gradually, a sentence or a paragraph at a time. Stan 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

At first, I wasn't rewriting the entry because I thought it wasn't original. I was just trying to improve on someone else's good initial work. While I was searching around for information to assist my efforts, I found the Answer.com entry and apparently jumped to the wrong conclusion. It's enjoyable to work on an entry and then come back to see that others have corrected mistakes and improved on it in other ways that one didn't think of. It's refreshing after having been involved in attempting to add input to other, more contentious articles on Wikipedia. Cla68 19:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell it, brother! :-) —wwoods 08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Admiral Scott's death

From Richard B. Frank's Guadalcanal, pp. 443–4:

"Previous accounts of this action have attributed Scott's death to Japanese gunfire and therefore this matter bears elaboration. ... [Atlanta's action report] shows thirteen hits classed as "5.5-inch," ... but none in the immediate vicinity of Scott's station. Atlanta was also struck, however, by nineteen projectiles identified as 8-inch, undoubtedly from San Francisco ... Seven of these 8-inch hits ... smashed through flag plot, [etc.] ... The location of these hits would coincide with the location of Scott and his staff."

—wwoods 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hammel's book claims Admiral Scott was killed by Japanese fire before San Francisco hit Atlanta. However, I'm with you in placing greater confidence in Frank's information since he uses more original sources in his book than Hammel does. I'm using Hammel's book to put greater detail in the battle narrative but will then join you in crosschecking everything with Frank's account. Thanks for the help. Cla68 11:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Since you can modify images, how about putting a mark, and label, on Henderson Field on the map of Guadalcanal? —wwoods 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a novice at it, but I'll do my best. Cla68 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article (FA) Plans

I would like to nominate this article for FA. I think it's adequately and correctly referenced, avoids stilted and awkward prose, and the images are approved for use on Wikipedia. However, I think the article needs some battle maps to pass the strict FA review from Wikipedia community members, who are vigilant in this respect. I'm going to be purchasing "Campaign Cartographer 2" in the next couple of weeks to try to do maps for this article and others. However, if others who have experience in doing this want to jump in beforehand and get it done, it would be greatly appreciated. I think we need at least one map for the Battle of Friday the 13th and the second surface action (Nov 14th). I suggest using the Frank or Hara books as references. Otherwise, look for my attempts at good maps in a month or so. Cla68 00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Promotion

I have recently reviewed this article & found that it meets the criterion for being a good article. So I have promoted it to GA status. My congratulations to all the contributors for doing a fine job. Cheers. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check

As part of this project, I've performed a check on the accuracy of several citations in this article. Results were as follows:

1. Footnote 6. " 12 of the Japanese aircraft were shot down"
   • Checks out. From book: "In reality, 11 of 16 Bettys and one Zero fell..."
2. Footnote 36. "Laffey passed so close to Hiei that they missed colliding by only 20 feet."
   • Iffy. From book: "From Ensign Sterett's vantage point, Laffey seemed to clear Hiei 's bows by less than 20 feet."
     • The statement made in the article is stronger than the statement it's cited to; not so good.
3. Footnote 73. "Due to the confused nature of the battle, the U.S. believed that they had sunk as many as half-a-dozen Japanese ships"
   • Needs work. Presumably drawn from the timeline of the action at [1].
     • For a work of this size, the citation should indicate a specific page number to make it clear what the statement is based on. Factually accurate, but citation should be improved.
4. Footnote 84. "The 35-minute bombardment caused some damage to various aircraft and facilities at the airfield, but didn't put it out of operation"
   • Checks out. From book: "...Admiral Nishimura's thirty-seven minute bombardment", "The Fighter-1 runway was amply cratered", "two of their Wildcat fighters were destroyed and fifteen others were damaged", "In addition to seriously cratering the steel-matted runway, the Japanese...destroyed one Dauntless dive bomber and fifteen Wildcats and damaged seventeen Wildcats", "In that regard, in addition to gutting the fighter contingent, the bombardment had been a thoroughgoing success. But that was not nearly the degree of success Admiral Tanaka was hoping for."
5. Footnote 102. "Using radar targeting, the two U.S. battleships opened fire on the Sendai group at 23:17."
   • Checks out. From book: "...her SG radar picked up returns on on Hashimoto's trio at a range of about 9 miles", "At 2316, Lee granted permission for his captains to 'Open fire when you are ready'". One minute later...Washington discharged her first main battery salvo..."

No really serious problems, but a couple of minor issues need to be addressed. --Robth^Talk 04:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the two that didn't check out completely. Cla68 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

South Dakota and Washington

From my understanding of the Nov. 14-15 phase of the battle, the South Dakota did not exactly follow the Washington after the circuit failures. Instead she steered a course that placed her between the IJN ships and the burning USN destroyers. This had the effect of silhouetting the South Dakota and made her a nice target for the IJN. Hence she drew so much fire while the Washington continued on apparently undetected.

Also there was much confusion aboard Washington regarding initial targeting and worrying about friendly fire. Because of the placement of her radar, she had a blind spot in radar coverage to the rear and could not keep track of South Dakota following behind her. Because of this, the Washington held fire with her main battery until it was apparent where the South Dakota was located when she was being brought under fire by most of the IJN force.

One source for this information is Ivan Musicant, "Battleship at War".

Txflood 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The exact same thing is described in this Robert Ballard's "The Lost Ships of Guadalcanal". The blind spot was apparently caused by mounting the radar to the front of the mast, rather than the top. - Nakamura2828 20:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the two references that you two mention so if either one of you could correct the article and add the citation to back up the correction that would be very helpful. Cla68 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Whodunnit?

"Either Nagara,[45] or Teruzuki,[46] and Yukikaze[30] came upon the drifting Cushing ..."

There's one too many commas here, but I don't have a source handy, so I don't know which to remove. Is it
`(Nagara OR Teruzuki) AND Yukikaze´, or
`Nagara OR (Teruzuki AND Yukikaze)´ ?

Maybe rephrasing would be better?:
`Yukikaze, and either Teruzuki or the cruiser Nagara, came ...´ or
`Either Nagara, or the destroyers Teruzuki and Yukikaze, came ...´
—wwoods 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be "Either Nagara, or the destroyers Teruzuki and Yukikaze." I'll make the change. Cla68 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix

Fixed some minor vandalism: "U.S. reconnaissance aircraft spotted the approach of the Japanese ships and passed a warning to the Allied command.[18] HAHAHAHAHA Thus warned, Turner detached all usable combat ships...." Xfa 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor vandalism at the end of the "background" section. I can't see it in the 'edit this page' section, so I can't erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryantheis (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The curse of the main page featured article. Thanks for helping fight the vandalism. Cla68 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tulagishib?

"On August 7, 1942, Allied Forces (primarily U.S.) landed on Guadalcanal, Tulagishib, and the Florida Islands ..." Is Tulagishib a typo? I couldn't find it on Google.Dcheng 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Cla68 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bigger than Midway?

I have no doubt that some writers have formed the opinion that Midway was not as important as the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and that some even think that's what the Japanese believed. The Japanese interrogated after the war all seemed to have different ideas on where the turning points of the war actually were. Here is a link to a USSBS interrogation of a German Admiral stationed with the IJN as some kind of exchange program. Also accessible are interrogations of Japanese officers. Interrogation of: Vice Admiral Paul H Weneker, German Naval Attaché Japan Admiral Weneker mentions that the IJN high command seemed depressed about what happened at Midway but didn't mention this battle.

I reworded the assertion to make it as clear as possible that it's an author's opinion not necessarily a fact. Anynobody 06:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the Battle of Edson's Ridge article, there is a cited passage that states that the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (IGH) thought that the Guadalcanal battle could well be the "decisive battle of the war." The IGH never issued a similar statement about Midway. The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands article also covers the fact that the Japanese navy felt that Midway was only a temporary setback, and that they still had the ships and personnel fully capable of defeating the US in a decisive naval battle. Frank appears fairly certain in his assertion that many high-ranking Japanese officers considered Guadalcanal to be more significant than Midway. Cla68 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Were they referring to the months-long Guadalcanal campaign as a whole, or to this specific engagement? Comments from September or October couldn't have meant the latter. Using "Guadalcanal" or the phrase "Battle of Guadalcanal" in this article may be causing confusion. This battle was significant, as the Japanese defeat cost them any realistic chance of winning the campaign.

—wwoods (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about the whole campaign, just the engagements discussed in this article. When discussing the overall campaign, the Japanese blew several chances to turn the tide of it (for example by putting on troops in too small of numbers etc.)

It's just that if there had been no victory at Midway, there would not have been a campaign in Guadalcanal as we know it. Anynobody 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase in the article was supposed to mean the entire Guadalcanal campaign, not just the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it really belongs in the Guadalcanal campaign article, when discussing the entire struggle for the island. Anynobody 06:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but I put it here because this battle was the climatic battle of the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean no offense, really, and the material I removed is not meant to be a criticism or anything like it. We just need to minimize redundancy between related articles to a reasonable extent. Anynobody 07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Abe's decision to withdraw

"The way appeared clear for Abe to bombard Henderson Field, and, perhaps, finish off the U.S. naval forces in the area, ..."

The way was clear, but did it "appear" so to Abe, that night? If not, perhaps it'd be better to say something like, 'With the advantage of hindsight, the way was clear for Abe to ...'.
—WWoods (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that should be worded differently. [2] Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Australia?

I notice that Australia is listed as being involved in this battle. AFAIK, no RAN ships were involved in the Guadalcanal Campaign after Canberra was sunk during the Battle of Savo Island and this wasn't one of the areas the RAAF operated in. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe Australian coastwatchers and RAAF reconnaisance aircraft were involved, but since the article doesn't currently mention that anywhere, including in the footnotes, I think I'll remove Australia from the infobox for now. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

The lead contains the sentence: "In the resulting battle, both sides lost numerous warships in two extremely destructive nighttime surface engagements, with the U.S. suffering more losses and damage than the Japanese." However, the "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox does not bear this statement out, and in fact gives the impression that the Japanese losses were more severe overall. Someone should check this out and clarify. — Ipoellet (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

[3] I tried to make it sound better but I'm still not sure on the best wording. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Griffith

Ref number 5 says: "Griffith, Battle for Guadalcanal, p. 96–99", but there isn't any book of Griffith in the bibliography. I've found this on google books but pages 96-99 doesn't says the same thing of the ref number 5 ("In response, the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters assigned the Imperial Japanese Army's 17th Army, a corps-sized command based at Rabaul and under the command of Lieutenant-General Harukichi Hyakutake, with the task of retaking Guadalcanal. Units of the 17th Army began to arrive on Guadalcanal on 19 August, to drive Allied forces from the island."). Maybe another edition? --Bonty (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I added the book to the references. Nevertheless, Frank would probably be a better source for the passage you quote above. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Bonty (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"HIJMS"

"HIJMS" is not an official prefix for Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) ships, notwithstanding that some western historians have used the prefix. In Japanese, the ships were designated solely by their names, e.g. Hiei. That's it. Sometimes, Japanese literature will clarify the meaning by saying "Battleship Hiei", but that wasn't the official name of the ship. Some Japanese descriptions of their ships in English have used the "HIJMS" prefix, but this was apparently for aesthetic purposes to look more compatible with British and US warship names. Even if the IJN had used a prefix for their ships, it probably wouldn't resemble "HIJMS" anyway because the structure of the Japanese language is different than English. Cla68 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

USS Minneapolis

In the graphic, it says that Iron Bottom Sound includes the "wreck" of the CA USS Minneapolis. She did NOT sink during WW II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.126.238 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

USS Juneau Torpedo Hit

It was not the Japanese destroyer Yudachi that torpedoed the Juneau, it was the destroyer Amatsukaze commanded by Tameichi Hara. This is in his book "Japanese Destroyer Captain," Ballantine Books, 1961, written by Hara. The captain of the Yudachi is also quoted as saying that he was exchanging fire with the Juneau when Amatsukaze approached from the the other side and hit Juneau with a torpedo. Amatsukaze was heading North after having sunk the destroyer USS Barton with torpedoes. Azeh (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Charts Supporting the "Battleship Action" 14-15 November

I had some formatting errors with this, so deleted the entry. It appears in correct format below.

 User:SeymourBears|SeymourBears]] (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)SeymourBears (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Charts Supporting the "Battleship Action" 14-15 November

Looks like "copy and paste" doesn't work well. Let me try this again.

There are two charts to support the "battleship action" (the events of late on the 14th and early on the 15th). The first chart has all the formation tracks offset to the east. For example, the track for the main body (Kirishima, Atago, Takao and the two escorting destroyers) actually passes over Savo Island.

The second chart has the formation tracks in the correct general areas, and shows the general movement of the ships, except that the track for Hashimoto's force is wrong.

The uniqueness of this engagement is that the Japanese employed four independent maneuver elements (the main body; Kimura's force; Hashimoto's force, and Ayanami); in all other night surface engagements in the Solomons and Bismarcks the Japanese were more conservative in the maneuvering of their ships. Good charts of the ships' movements are essential for the reader to understand what happened; these current charts are inadequate.

Prior to the battle Kondo had a force much stronger that Lee's, and much more appropriate to the mission. In addition to outnumbering Lee 14 ships to 6, all of Kondo's ships save one carried the effective Long Lance torpedo. He should have cleaned Lee's clock, but he didn't. That's the real story here. But to understand what happened the reader needs to have access to detailed charts which show, in particular, the movements of the Kimura and Hashimoto groups. It was their job to neutralize the American force, to allow the main body to bombard Henderson Field. They failed in this assignment, forcing the main body to engage Lee's battleships, with unfortunate results for Kondo's force. I'd refer the interested reader to Robert Lundgren's excellent work on this battle ("The Battleship Action 14-15 November 1942"), and in particular his detailed track charts.SeymourBears (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The last quote of the article mentions "Cactus" but does not contain a link to what it is. You and I know that Cactus is the codename for Guadalcanal's airport (or was it the whole of Guadalcanal?); but the casual reader will have no idea who the men of Cactus are, that were so grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.118.86 (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "Cactus" was the code name for Guadalcanal itself, not just the airfield. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

The Avengers that attacked Hiei--Navy or Marines?

Can anyone clarify whether the Avengers that attacked the Hiei were VT or VMT? As far as I know, the only Avengers on Guadalcanal at the time belonged to VT-8. However, the article describes them as Marine torpedo planes. I'm not aware that any Marine units operated torpedo planes, at least not in the first two years of the Pacific War, but in any case, my source for this is Robert Mrazek's "A Dawn Like Thunder", which chronicles the combat action of Torpedo Eight, from its muster with the Hornet, through Midway, to the squadron's actions in the Guadalcanal campaign, to its eventual demobilization. I updated that line in the article, but it has been changed back to the original, "Marine". Please note that I mean no disrespect to the Marines; I simply sought to correct what I thought was a factual error.

Best regards TheBaron0530 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)TheBaron0530

I see that there is an article here about Marine torpedo squadrons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inactive_United_States_Marine_Corps_aircraft_squadrons and there are references there to Marine Avengers at Guadalcanal. Nevertheless, there isn't a clear citation that there were Marine TBFs flying between August and the end of November, 1942. So if anyone does have a citation, please feel free to clarify. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

Grumman TBF Avenger The Banner talk 00:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm confused by that reply. At question is not the make of the aircraft, but the arm (branch) of service they belonged to, whether they were Navy or Marine TBFs. The article originally stated that they were Marine. I thought they were Navy, belonging to VT-8, and edited the article, citing "A Dawn Like Thunder" as my reference. My edit was reverted, but unfortunately, no one added a comment, as far as I know, to indicate why my edit was incorrect. I have since found some evidence to support the idea that they were Marine TBFs--VT8's deployment ended at the beginning of November, for example, and they were left with a single air-worthy TBF, cobbled together from damaged and wrecked airframes; also, there was a Marine torpedo squadron (VMTB) deployed to Guadalcanal in November 1942. However, I haven't found a specific reference to verify that the TBFs that attacked the Hiei were Marine Avengers and not Navy. That's what I'd like to know, if someone can clarify it. Best regards

TheBaron0530 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

According to the Pulitzer award-winning, extremely well-researched and highly-regarded book on the Pacific Theater of WWII - John Toland's The Rising Sun (1970/2003), p.368-370 -- [They were fifteen fighters and six bombers from Ryujo bound for the airfield on Guadalcanal. Recently completed (named Henderson Field after Major Lofton Henderson, who was killed at Midway), it was the base for two Marine squadrons-nineteen Wildcat fighters and a dozen Dauntless dive bombers-and fourteen P-400's from an Army fighter squadron.

Fletcher moved fast, and within fifteen minutes thirty dive bombers and eight torpedo bombers were launched from Saratoga. In two hours the Dauntlesses found Ryujo and began diving at her from 14,000 feet. In the midst of the attack, six Douglas Devastators swept in and released their torpedoes from 200 feet. At least four bombs and one torpedo smashed into the little carrier. She listed 20 degrees to starboard and came to a dead stop.] - HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.238 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. 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/20080316122337/http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_battles/3026026.html to http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_battles/3026026.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. 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/20090326083700/http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/War_Damage/57.pdf to http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/War_Damage/57.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/4072/commendation.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. 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/20081211202648/http://www.ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=9 to http://www.ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=9

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"Laffey passed within 20 ft of hiei"

"Laffey" links to the disambiguation page not the ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.5.128 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Friendly fire

In his 2010 report on the action of 14-15 November 1942, Robert Lundgren argues that it is likely that Walke and Preston both mistook Washington for an enemy cruiser early on during the action, and that Walke briefly opened fire on the US battleship. Lundgren also posits that Preston appear to have taken friendly fire from Washington, and possibly also a torpedo hit from one of the Japanese destroyers, both of which helps explain the rapidity of her sinking (http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Battleship_Action_Guadalcanal.pdf - footnote 6, pages 9-10). This in turn helps explain Admiral Lee's reluctance to open fire on targets without positive identification during the later stages of the battle. Is it worth updating the article to reflect this? Verence (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

While Lundgren (ex: Battleship Victory: Principles of Sea Power in the War in the Pacific) is a Reliable Source, his POV on battleship importance over carrier air power has not gained traction in historical circles - this makes his opinions on other matters somewhat suspect. I would use his material with counter-sources to qualify ... 104.169.21.238 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong ship in picture?

User:Sormando has removed a picture of the USS Washington (BB-56) from the article Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, claiming this is not the USS Washington. He claimed that this is not the Washington, albeit the picture (and the description) are sourced. Based on this picture it think it is and restored the picture. But Sormando removed the picture again.

So, more eyes are needed to check what ship it actually is. The Banner talk 11:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The 1st and 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal - separation

Currently, the 1st and 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal are combined into one article despite being separate battles according to all sources. Would it be more appropriate to create two separate articles for each battle? - Matrek (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The Third and Fourth battles of Guadalcanal

"...sometimes referred to as the Third and Fourth Battles of Savo Island..."

Is there a source for this? It seems curious that a single conflict would be referred to as third and fourth, not third or fourth. Additionally, this seems to conflict with Battle of Tassafaronga, which also claims to be known as the Fourth Battle of Savo Island.

A cursory google search reveals no use of the term "Third and Fourth Battles of Savo Island" apart from in passages obviously directly lifted from this very article, and a sketchy wordpress site with no source other than "some American scholars". 82.24.224.106 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)