Talk:Battle of Tarawa

message: The table for this article seems to say that around 3,600 troops took part on the Japanese side, of which 4,600 were casualties. DJ Clayworth 13:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Insert heading

message: The Image:Kr-map.png is overlapping the text "the defenses, 1,000 Japanese and 1,200 Korean workers" in Mozilla firefox, not in IE. Someone who actually knows how to edit text should fix this. 210.49.16.218 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In Snow Falling on the Cedars, is this where Ishmael Chambers was to have lost his arm?141.157.227.141 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled 2

message: " 8-inch guns taken from the defenses at Singapore" - The fact these were taken from Singapore is apparently a myth, so ive removed it for now. If anyone finds evidence or sources to the contrary, please put it back.
According to a 2nd Marine Division history of the battle these guns were in fact from Singapore. (Richard Johnston's Follow Me!, cited in main article).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.246.211 (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1977 an historian located the serial numbers on the guns and used them to track down their origin.  They were British made, and had been part of a purchase of twelve 8" guns from England by Japan during their conflict with Russia in 1905.  The four guns were shipped out to Tarawa from Japan in 1943.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarawa

message: There is a statement that implys that the japanese forces used a Magnetic Mine to knock out a tank during the first day of the invasion, If this was the japanese version of the German Magnetic anti tank mine then this is auctaly not true, as the mine did not have a magnet on it, it was expected that the sodgler would simply hold the mine aginst the target and wait for it to explode. I would like to see the research on what auctaly happened to this petuiclar tank. Kera Dahlin, added Friday aug 3 2007
Tarawa rulez  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.38.206 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic Mine?? 

message: I also agree on the POV problem with the article. After some sections I felt like reading a war bulletin. It uses military language and rhetorics and it is absolutely US-centered. 
I very much miss numbers and a discussion about the civilians which I actually came for. But this article treats - in a very army manner - the islands as an uninhabited platform of battle.
:There weren't any 'civilians' during the battle - all had been evacuated by the Japanese a year before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.238 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda II

message: New question, new topic:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.110.164 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Marine Division participation at Tarawa?? 

message: It seems like the article should have a quote or mention from someone giving an opinion that it was necessary to take Tarawa, to help balance against Gen Smith's quote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.152.124 (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A quote from Admiral Nimitz was added.Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Smith 

message: This is referred to as the Battle of Betio in Murray/Millet A War To Be Won p345. I'm not pushing for a page move, but perhaps a redirect and a mention of this alternative name would be appropriate? Digestible (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Betio 

message: Since when was Tarawa the "second time" the Allies went on the offensive? Haven't you ever heard of MacArthur's offensive in New Guinea against Buna? Or what about the capture of Lae and Salumaua the month before the landings on Tarawa? The Navy and Marines were not the only ones fighting in the Pacific Theater.
SamMcGowan (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Offensive?

message: The 1st Battalion, Sixth Marines insignia shown (the Indian head in a red diamond) is from WWI, when they were part of the army 2nd Division.  It has nothing to do with WWII.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.29.135 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the image to the insignia of the 2nd Marine Division.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1/6th Marines Insignia

message: It is my understanding that if you are speaking of the United States Marine Corps, the word Marine would be capitalized, but if you were speaking of marines in general, as in a particular type of soldier who might serve on ships and be trained in seagoing and amphibious warfare, the word would remain small case.  Thus in the sentence:
:The force carried the 2nd Marine Division and a part of the army's 27th Infantry Division, for a total of about 35,000 soldiers and marines.
The first instance of the word would be capitalized, and the second would not.  Is there a Wiki directive on this or a consensus opinion to be referred to for guidance? Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Marines or marines?

message: Am I the only person who think the insistence of some folks to put ranks of Japanese officers without translation?  Japanese themselves, historically, translated their ranks into their English equivalents.  It seems rather over the top to list Shibasaki's rank as "Kaigun Shōshō" rather than "Rear Admiral."  71.226.32.149 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Seems like a fine idea to go through and translate the ranks of Japanese officers, as long as you are confident that the translated rank is the U.S. equivalent, or near equivalent. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Agree. This is the English language wiki. Leaving the ranks untranslated frankly strikes me as pretentious. --Yaush (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree, but it's appropriate to add the Japanese rank in parentheses on the first mention. This first mention might reasonably link to an en.wikipedia article describing the equivalence.  No article? Add it, even if it's a stub. We can hope that our jp.wikipedia colleagues will add an equivilent article so we can cross-link. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but military rank equivalences are generally more nuanced than simple dictionary definitions-Arch dude (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like all such links can go to Naval ranks of the Japanese Empire during World War II -Arch dude (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rank of Admiral Shibasaki

message: Couldn't we have bombed it out of existence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.170.17 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: King's plan was to take the Central Pacific islands as a base for airpower in preparation for an invasion of Japan. At the time, it was believed that carrier based aircraft were no match for land based aircraft, which were bigger and more powerful, and whose bases were not subject to being sunk. To get to the Marianas we had to first take the Marshalls.  No land based aircraft could reach the Marshalls, so it was felt necessary to take the Gilberts first to provide the airbases necessary to take the Marshalls, which would provide the airbases necessary to take the Marianas. No one had any idea of the extent of power the Fast Carrier Task Force was going to be able to generate.  Even aviation men like Mitscher were unsure of the ability of a carrier task force to operate off shore in the face of large land based airforces. The success of the raids on Truk came as a surprise to all. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the battle of Tarawa a tactical necessity?  

message: News articles dated on or about 09-Jul-2015 are stating that thirty six bodies, yet to be formally identified, have been discovered and will be returned to USA.
The link I attempted to provide is marked as "blocked" but if any of you still dance around Wiki's totalitarian political ideology, please do-- it is why I don't go beyond a talk page anymore.
Oh-- and there is a typo in there somewhere-- as I recall, it was "though" when the word was "thought."
Good article with good prose and which I enjoyed reading.  Thanks.
--cregil (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remains of 26 Marines found, July 2015. 

message: Operation Galvanic links to this page. But was this operation only about Tarawa? According other sources (e.g. : "The basic organization for GALVANIC was established by Operation Plan 143, issued by Admiral Spruance on 25 October. The task organization consisted of three major groups [...] One of these, the Northern Attack Force (TF 52) remained under Turner's command and was assigned to capture Makin.") it seems to me like Galvanic was about capturing Gilbert Islands - that means also Battle of Makin was part of this operation together with Battle of Apamama. Maybe it'll be better to have separate article about whole operation Galvanic. --Ozzy (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know the Battle of Tarawa was the biggist, most known, most important and most bloody of the three operations. The Banner talk 15:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Galvanic 

message: Why is the loss of a single escort carrier and her complement counted as losses in both the Battle of Tarawa *and* the Battle of Makin?  I understand that the carrier provided support in both battles, but to count the losses in both battles seems like double-dipping to make the US forces sound weaker.  Thoughts? DeeJaye6 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was in fact one operation with two invasions. The Banner talk 09:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Liscome Bay Counted Twice 

message: Uhh, no - it's more complicated than that. There *was* a high tide on that day, but due to the configuration of the moon and sun AND the latitude of Tarawa, the actual daytime tidal bulge / rise there was almost non-existent. This is well covered in an article in the November 1987 issue of "Sky and Telescope".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.228.152 (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "However, on this day and the next, the ocean experienced a neap tide, and failed to rise."  

message: The photo of "Rear Vice Adm. Richmond Kelly Turner" shows him wearing 3 stars.  A rear admiral wears only 2 stars.  
I found a photo of him wearing 2 stars, so I changed the photo to match the caption.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rear vs. Vice Adm. Richmond Kelly Turner 

message: I just noticed that none of the insignias match the photos for the 4 US army officers in command:  A colonel wears an eagle, not two stars.  A brigadier general has one star, not two.  A major general has two stars, not three.  A lieutenant general wears three stars.  
I don't have time to fix all these.  Perhaps someone else will.  
Thanks to all who have brought this article to this stage.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  US military rank:  caption v. photos 

message: http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/missing-world-war-ii-marine-makes-it-home-funeral-friday/article_0dda6d66-77e0-50dd-a12f-634ed7666c1b.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepkess (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veteran returns home after 74 years 

message: Links to the Preston M Rixby who died in 1928.
185.47.106.84 (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th Marine Reg, 1st Batt commanded by a ghost? 

message: I deleted this citation:  Two reasons: 1. I followed the link and found the YouTube account has been deleted. 2. YouTube is not an acceptable source when the identity of the account holder cannot be verified. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted YouTube video reference 

message: Is it known why so many Koreans died?  On the one hand at this early stage of the war it is easy to imagine that even the US Marine intelligence officers would have trouble making a distinction between Koreans and Japanese, on the other, it is hard to believe that Koreans would kill themselves for a Japanese emperor. Did the Americans kill them or did the Japanese kill them? MyIP19216811 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean deaths 

message: You show Spruance as a 4 star admiral.  Wikipedia says he wasn't promoted to that rank until 2/44, months after Tarawa.  
This article references him planning op Galvanic as a vadm in August of 43: 
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2013/november/taking-charge-red-beach-two
I think he was a 3 star at Tarawa. 73.234.251.117 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Spruance a 4 star at Tarawa?