Talk:1st Air Fleet

message: There are notes to some book by Peattie being used as a reference but I can't seem to find it ever listing which of his works this is actually talking about.
Statalyzer (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peattie book 

message: why were the Japanese successful in attacking Pearl Harbor?
:It was a surprise or pre-emptive attack and they just suddenly came out attacking early sunday morning. You were cooking breakfast, and then boom, bomb is dropping and machine gun firing near your house or area. That's how it happened 67.41.139.156
::Because they accomplished their goal of knocking out the Pacific battle line of the and inflicting major damage on the US pacific fleet.  It was one of the most successful naval actions in history.  The fact that they eventually lost the war doesn't change that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.6.25 (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well whether they were successful is up to one's point of view and is a subject of debate. With attack on Pearl Hrbor, IJN without doubt accomplished one of the most extraordinary feats in the naval history. But the impact was far less devastating than it seems and that is generally being presented. You must take into consideration that they only destroyed slow, old ww1 era battleships that were relatively unmodernized. Those battleships couldn't even be effectively used in escort role since they were too slow. The subsequent naval warfare proved that even new, modernized battleships were relatively of no use. The main goal of IJN was to disable USN aircraft carries that were not at the port at that the time. Whether that was a coincidence or not is a discussion for others. Path-x21 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pearl Harbor

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.combinedfleet.com/cvlist.htm/
** In 1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy) on 2011-05-25 06:50:43, 404 Not Found
** In 1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy) on 2011-06-09 12:39:02, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The last sentence of the first paragraph ends with "after Japan's entry to World War II".  Although WWII started in Europe in 1939, Japan already was killing the masses in Manchuria back in 1935-38 if memory serves me right.  The whole sentence is based upon the USA's involvement, and six months navel supremacy is correct in that light but Japan's "entry" to the war is technically incorrect, because 1938 was more than six months, and their attack on PH in Dec 1941, officially started WWII (from a US perspective), so the words "entry to World War II" should say instead, "since Japan's initiation of World War II".  Of course, PC language may be a standard that the Wikipedia editors prefer.   Comments?
Bcwilmot (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically Correct or Technically Correct? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070508230750/http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ijn-air.htm to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ijn-air.htm/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy). 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/20120630044158/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/nagumo.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/nagumo.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kojinsha.co.jp/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ships-net.co.jp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have taken the liberty of editing the paragraph about the land-based air fleet and the table underneath it.  One of my 
edits removes Dai 521 Kaigun Kōkūtai (NAG) from the units in the air fleet as of 1 July 1943.  According to Japanese Wikipedia, 
Dai 521 Kaigun Kōkūtai was not formed until August 1943.  I have also revised the date that the restructuring began
per the Japanese Wikipedia article, changing it from June 1 to July 1.  The Japanese article is well researched and has
numerous footnotes to reliable Japanese references, such as Senshi Sōsho.  Kabocha (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions dated 19 April 2018 

message: It is fine that this article has sections about the Battle of the Philippine Sea and the Battle of Leyte Gulf, but it should not focus on the carrier-based Japanese forces in those battles, as it does now.  First Air Fleet (second generation) was not composed of carrier-based aircraft.  The article needs to briefly discuss the combat histories of the land-based kōkūtai that were part of First Air Fleet from 1 July 1943.  Kabocha (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong focus on combat history post-June 1943. 

message: Considering the impatient and unnecessarily conspicuous demand placed in the article for maybe 48 hours, demanding that I cite a better source for the assertion that the first generation of First Air Fleet came to an end on 14 July 1942, which citation I have now improved, I am much amused by the vagueness of the last three items in the bibliography as of today.  That vagueness reveals a double-standard at Wikipedia about the quality of citation.  You can't point to an entire series of books or magazines and call that a proper bibliography, no matter how specific the date of "retrieval" is.  Couldn't the Wikipedia writer/editor read the titles and dates of publication?  Kabocha (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography Problems