Talk:Bombing of Darwin

message: Since when was a air raid killing less then 250 a Decisive battle in WW2.
I agree.  This should be changed to "Japanese victory."  Ultimately, the raid had almost no effect on the war.Jrt989 (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Decisive Battle

message: I added small flags to the infobox which was reverted, I thought they were common to use in infoboxes such as in Vietnam War or Korean War --- Astrokey44 13:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Warboxes maybe, but battleboxes no. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles. Gdr 13:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: To me there doesn't appear to be anything at Darwin 1942 which is not in this article, except for the figure of "40 ships", which I haven't checked. What do others think? 12:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is anything in it that can be used, fine. Otherwise, delete it. I included the merge tag because it looked like someone was working on it. Bjelleklang  -  talk 13:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging in [[Darwin 1942]]

message: The article states that the attack was less that significant, yet over 250 people still lost their lives in this attack, and any loss of life can be deemed significant. Talk User:Fissionfox 11:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article actually states that the attack was less significant than the attack on Pearl Harbour. Seeing as the attack on Pearl started the Pacific War and crippled much of the US fleet I think that this is a fair statement. Darwin was a significant Allied base in February 1942, but the attack on Pearl Harbour led to a greater loss of life and had a much bigger impact on the war. --Nick Dowling 12:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for that reason I'm changing the wording to put why it was less significant in context. RutgerH (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's your view not supported by a source. Bidgee (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you disputing that isn't supported by the sources? That it wasn't a military target? That it was a more significant military target than Pearl Harbour? I'd love to see the sources for that. If it wasn't a less significant military target then in what sense is it less significant? That they're Australian's not Americans? You'll have to go into a bit more detail instead of claiming it's just my view. As it stands the statement needs to be clarified and since you seem to know the second source so well you could add more information from that. RutgerH (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pearl Harbor was a military target and Northern Australia (Including Darwin) wasn't a military target. Sources in the article state that it was a less significant target and not one source states that Darwin or even Northern Australia (Broome, Townsville ect) were military targets. Bidgee (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes it was. I don't know what sources you're using but it was most definately a military base. If you can't find any sources I'll happily give you a large list starting with the very first line of this http://www.navy.gov.au/Fixed_Naval_Defences_in_Darwin_Harbour_1939_-_1945 RutgerH (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Darwin was a civilian town ( http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs195.aspx & http://www.orford.tased.edu.au/bombing%20of%20dawin.htm ). Problem with the ADF (Air Force, Navy or Army) will call any city or town (still do) a military city/town (IE: Wagga Wagga, Townsville, Darwin ect) even though it only plays a small part. Darwin as a whole during WWII wasn't a military base. Parap was the airfield, Stokes Hill was the Navy, East Point had the largest submarine net as well as some communications plus defences and Larrakeyah was Army and Navy. Excluding the suburbs developed after WWII will show you that the military only played a small part of Darwin. Bidgee (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about what darwin was as a whole but whether it was a military base and a military target (both very significant in terms of Australia) which it was and which you can't dispute and I can't for the life of me work out why you have such a problem with this. You don't own the article. RutgerH (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note I gave you ample time to respond to an above comment which you didn't see or chose not to. If you still dispute this then DON'T revert it or I will take action under WP:3RR but instead request a third opinion under WP:3O so someone else can explain why the context is important. RutgerH (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all it's only you who wants the change. This article has been reverted to the what has been long standing which is deemed as the consensus version. I don't have the WP:OWN issue but it's yourself. and again Darwin wasn't a military target (IE: It was a civilian town). Yes the military was targeted but civilian buildings were also targeted. Bidgee (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No the first editor also appears to want it clarified but didn't make the change and it's only you who wish to revert it. One person does not make a consensus. If you look at the history it's clear you do take a great interest in this article and petty "I didn't but you did" rubbish have no place here. Your reasons for changing it back are not consistent and if we expand on the latest reason Pearl Harbor and almost every other base located in a city can't be considered a military target if it was attacked which is not correct. I am simply stating that it was a military target, not a 'no reason whatsoever but insignificant' target. I am going to make the change again. If you wish to revert it instead of taking alternative action, as stated above, I will request action under 3RR. RutgerH (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First editor? Only editor I can see is you. I don't have an ownership of the article. If you look I've reverted vandalism, did some fixes, reverted unsourced POV as well as your edits with the reasons stated in the edit summaries and talk page. It's yourself who has ownership of the article but forcing the change over a long standing wording. Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop edit warring and making accusations of bad faith. The reference (which, from memory, I originally added) says nothing about Darwin being a 'military' or 'nom-military' target and the distinction seems unnecessary. The raids on 19 February 1942 did only target military targets though - the first raid focused on the ships in the harbour (the crews of which made up the great majority of casualties) and second targeted the RAAF base. The civilian township was hit only by bombs which missed their targets. The purpose of the raid was to prevent the Allies from using Darwin as a base to oppose the invasion of Java, and the Japanese didn't have any interest in attacking the totally insignificant civilian facilities in what was then a small town. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RutgerH was the one who made accusations at myself and I have the right to defend myself. I've found nothing to say that bombs missed there targets (if thats the case why was the whole of Darwin wiped of the map?) See: http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/bfa/attack.html . Yes it was to stop the military from using Darwin as a base/staging ground but all civilian structures were also destroyed. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick the point was just to add one word (two is probably better) to provide context as to why it was less significant rather than no context. We might all know why it's more important but that doesn't mean we shouldn't state it. fyi The Lowe report stated only three civillian houses were damaged in the first two attacks though wether that was the full extent due to wartime censorship I don't know but it would be pretty hard to cover up the complete destruction of a capital city. RutgerH (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

text: *Just to add a third opinion ... from what I have read, both online and a few books, most recently:It would appear the Japanese considered Darwin to be a more significant military target than the Allies, and were worried that it might be used to stage forces for a counter to thier invasions to the north.  In fact it was already being used as a staging area for aircraft heading to Timor and for refueling ships.  They had reconaisance photos from a few weeks earlier that showed what they thought were more warships and even an aircraft carrier in Darwin.  I think this was around Jan 20th, but I don't have the book right handy.On the subject of the wording you guys are fighting over... I dont think it really matters if the word military is there or not.  The fact is that the Japanese considered it a significant enough target to sent an entire carrier strike force and land based bombers to hit it to ensure the Allies would not be able to use it as a base anymore, which worked to a degree.  And please don't change the number of raids unless you can cite sources.  Every source I have seen states 64 total on Darwin and over 90 across the Top End from Broome to Townsville.  Darwin was heavily damaged, but was not in fact wiped off the map.  Why the government chose to hide the severity of the attacks is still argued to this day.  Yes, most civilian services and admin facilities were damaged or destroyed, but much also survived.  Fuchida claimed civilian buildings were not specifically targetted. The fact that military facilities were in close proximity to civilian, and in fact military aircraft were using the civilian airstrip, ensured that there would be civilian casualties.I plan to work on this article in the near future.  Cheers, Turgan Talk 09:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: **There is one issue with that book however. It has a point of view from the author. Also when I said "wipped off the map" I wasn't saying that every building was destroyed but everything needed for it to function as a town was destroyed (Photos can be found on the National Library of Australia, Australian War Memorial's website). Also aircraft were based at 4 of the airfields south of Darwin along the Stuart Highway (One of them is now being used for fire fighting). Bidgee (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Grose's book was published by a major publisher and was reasonably well reviewed, so there's no reason to dismiss it or him. Bear in mind that World War II-era bombing attacks were woefully inaccurate - for instance, the British Bomber Command had to move to targeting entire German cities in 1942 because they were the smallest targets which could be reliably hit! The airfields around Darwin weren't built until after the February 19 raid - RAAF Base Darwin was the main target of the second raid on the day because it was the only air base in the area, and was being used to stage aircraft into the Netherlands East Indies. The extent to which the Government 'covered up' the raid is disputed - Peter Stanley, the former principal historian at the Australian War Memorial, has written that reasonably accurate accounts of the raid appeared in the Australian media at the time. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *To a certain degree, all sources have the point of view of the authors.  I very much enjoyed the book, and it has been well reviewed, as Nick-D states.  It put much of the information I had seen elsewhere in a very different light, and added much that was not available, or public, at the time of many of the other references.Nick-D is right.  At the time of the first raid, the two main airfields were Darwin and Batchelor to the south.  After the raid, there were significantly more set up all along the Stuart Highway (and elswhere nearby) in an effort to disperse assets.  Something to the effect of "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket".  Had those airfields been operational at the time of the first raid, Darwin would not have been suprised, as the path of approach for the Japanese carrier-based force looks as if it passed near and over some of them.I have seen many of the photos Bidgee is referring to, and visited quite a few of the landmarks, sites and monuments (I happen to live in Darwin now, which is part of the reason for my interest in the area).  It is actually quite amazing how much of a "military town" Darwin actually was at the time of the raids.  The inaccuracies of high level bombing, and the intermixing of civilian and military installations could only have one outcome in a raid ... civilian targets destroyed.  Just as a few examples: There was an AA battery and a military facility for the boom net (Fort Hill Wharf, Stokes Hill Wharf was actually a civilian wharf) in close proximity to government house and the post office; Larrakeyah(sp?) Barracks next to the hospital; Doctor's Gully was a seaplane base, near civilan facilities; Fuel oil tanks for the Navy all along the shoreline ringing the town to the south and east; ... I don't think I need to go on.  Military personnell in the area significanlty outnumbered civilians.  Slice it any way you like,it definately looks as though Darwin was a military town/target at the time of the raids, and the military still has a large presence there.  Turgan Talk 11:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insignificant Attack? 

message: Change title from Bombing of Darwin (February 1942) to Bombing of Darwin. Later redirects to former. No reason for two articles, one about all bombings of Darwin (which this should be) and one specific bombing. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Air raids on Australia, 1942–43 covers the subsequent bombings, not this article. This article has only a single sentence all of the raids which followed the initial one while that article identifies each of the 57 other raids. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, both articles cover the other raids, but this other article has more detail. If this move goes ahead, it's probably appropriate to expand the coverage in this article a little. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. The entirety of this article's coverage of the other raids is "After the massive 19 February 1942 Japanese raid, the Northern Territory and parts of Western Australia's north were bombed 62 more times between 4 March 1942 and 12 November 1943.[18] One of the heaviest attacks took place on 16 June 1942 when a large Japanese force set fire to the oil fuel tanks around the harbour and inflicted severe damage to the vacant banks, stores and railway yards.". This is rather lacking in detail, and doesn't even come close to providing adequate coverage of the other attacks. If it's decided that this article should cover the other raids (and, I presume, the massive build-up of Australian and US combat units in the Northern Territory which both responded to the raids and led to further Japanese attacks as the Japanese feared that the Allies were developing Darwin into a base for offensive operations) then several paragraphs will need to be written so that it actually does this. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the other article covers all of the raids of Australia and this article is the only one to focus on Darwin it seems to make more sense to rename this article Bombing of Darwin and include in it the list of the other times that Darwin was bombed. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The bombing of Darwin, and particularly the first attack, had a big impact on the Australian Government and also on the public despite wartime censorship, and this is worthy of an article. But it's unlikely we'll have separate articles on later raids, so even if (as I suggest) the main focus of this article is the first raid, it's logical to include the others here and name the article accordingly. Air raids on Australia, 1942–43 and Axis naval activity in Australian waters are more general articles, and should be prominent in the see also section of this article. I'd also like to see an overview article on all hostile acts that have taken place in Australian territory since federation, more than a list or disambig but just an introductory paragraph on each linking to the more detailed articles... what do others think of this? Andrewa (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Thanks to User:Cenarium for moving this article in line with the above consensus. However, this means that a fair bit of work is now required. If the article is to cover all the raids on Darwin then something more than two sentences need to be included on the raids after the first one, the introduction needs to be re-written to reflect the changed topic and content and the infobox needs to be overhauled as the dates and casualties are now totally wrong (while there were relatively few casualties from the subsequent Japanese bombing, the Allies and Japanese both lost large numbers of aircraft during 1942 and 1943). Useful references for this work would be volumes I and II of the official history of Australia in World War II (full text available online) and The shadow's edge : Australia's northern war by Alan Powell. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Information that relates to this one raid should be moved from the infobox to a paragraph in the article text. If we simply update the infobox, whether by removing this information or by updating it to cover all the raids, we've lost valuable content. But as you say, it can't stay there. Andrewa (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go at doing this once my exams are over (the end of the month) if no-one else does by then. Ben (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-move work required 

message: There has still been no activity at all to change the content of this article following the above decision to rename it, and the article is still entirely focused on the 19 February 1942 raid. As a result, I'd like to propose that the article be split so that there's a new Bombing of Darwin article which covers all the 64 raids between February 1942 and November 1943 and the current article is moved back to Bombing of Darwin (19 February 1942). Thoughts? Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Nick, I have this page watchlisted and I did intend to have a crack at this, but another debate on Wikipedia is eating up all my wiki time. I have no objections to your proposal. Sorry again, Ben (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new article structure 

message: Added an "In Popular Culture" section to refer as to why Australia (2008 film) was in the "See also" section in the first place... people who don't know are left to guess.  - Aprogressivist (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "In Popular Culture" 

message: I think it's time we added a new section for this report or at least mention it. http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs195.aspx has a links to the actual report. Appointment of Justice Charles J. Lowe was on the 3rd March, 1942 and the inquiry was conducted in Darwin from the 5th to the 10th of March then in Melbourne from 19th to the 25th and presented on the 27th of March. In total approximately 100 witnesses presented evidence. 
Purpose being 
"To inquire into and report on all the circumstances connected with the attacks made on enemy aircraft on Darwin on 19th February 1942, including the preparedness of the Naval, Military, Air and Civil authorities; the damage and casualties sustained; the degree of co-operation existing between the various Services; the steps taken to meet the attack or to minimize it's effects; whether the Commanders or other officers of the Naval, Military and Air Force or any civil authority failed to discharge the responsibilities entrusted to them; and to recommend what changes may be considered necessary in the Naval, Military, Air and Civil defence measures to meet a recurrence of an attack of this nature."
That could be too much information for this article so I'll stop there for the moment. If someone else wants to comment or start adding as they see fit that would be appreciated. RutgerH (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lowe Commission of Inquiry 

message: :See [#Proposed new article structure]]
This article has been tagged for splitting into multiple articles but how would this be done and what would these articles be? Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the template as there has been no discussion here. -- PBS (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Editors of this article may be interested in this photo album from the American NH&HC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Navy pictures 

message: As the 70th anniversary of this raid will soon take place, I'm attempting to upgrade this article to B class. Contributions from other editors would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wished I could have been there to photograph the 70th anniversary, but not possible for me to get there. In other news the death toll debate continues, Historian denies Bombing toll was higher, NT News. Bidgee (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article upgrade in progress 

message: Resource per Australian War Memorial, http://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2012/02/17/filming-the-bombing-of-darwin/ 
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk)  12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming the bombing of Darwin 

message: The article seems to be fairly one-sided in telling the story of the bombing, there is virtually nothing about the Japanese side.  How was the attack planned?  What was the name of the operation?  It talks about "Consequences" and "Casualties and damage" but doesn't mention anything about the Japanese side.  How was the attack analysed? Was it considered successful?  119.12.139.72 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea. I don't know the answers to your questions. Do you? We would need to find some relaible sources with the information. Any idea where? HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Might find something in Aichi 99 Kanbaku 'Val' Units: 1937-42 By Osamu Tagaya (link is partial Google Books sample). Another reference with some ship details, including Admiral Halstead, an American cargo vessel loaded with 14,000 drums of aviation gasoline, was strafed and had her plates sprung by near hits but escaped more serious damage. (think of that going up) is Combat Narrative—The Java Sea Campaign—JAPANESE AIR ATTACK ON DARWIN FEBRUARY 19, a 1943 report of the Office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy. Palmeira (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese side of the story 

message: It appears some of the other side of the story about Japanese components exists already in North Australia Air War and its links and references. Looks as if some coordination harmonizing all these would be useful and the current authors, seemingly at least partly in Australia, of each might be the best to do that. Palmeira (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination with the North Australia Air War is needed. 

message: The info box states:
It has been stated that the number of bombs dropped on Darwin exceeded those dropped on Pearl Harbor.[5][6] Robert Rayner[7], Steven Bullard[8], and Tom Lewis[9] have demonstrated the speciousness of this argument. At Pearl Harbor, 273 bombers dropped 457 bombs (including 40 torpedoes) weighing 133,560 Kgs., killing more than 2,400 people. At Darwin 205 bombers dropped 681 bombs weighing 114,100 Kgs., killing 235 people.
The stats given (681 bombs v 457 bombs) directly contradict the earlier sentence.  This para needs to be cleaned up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.216.103 (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of bombs 

message: The lede is only a few paragraphs long, but devotes an entire paragraph to comparisons of the attack with Pearl Harbor. While it's appropriate information for the article, and in interesting comparison, I'm not sure the amount of detail here belongs in the lede. Perhaps just leave the sentence about it being compared to Pearl, and move the rest to the body if it's not already duplicated there? The lede in this case should be a summary of the event and major issues relating to it. This comparison is certainly apt, but I don't think it's crucial enough to the event to be such a large part of the general summary. Since it was the lede, I thought I'd bring it here first before boldly changing where no man has changed before.204.65.34.237 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Personally I think the comparison is overdone. It's simply a not very surprising example of the way journalists write about these things. The differences between the two events are huge. I don't think it belongs in the lead at all, and I thank you for raising it here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, and I've just removed the paragraph. I've also removed the somewhat odd material in the lead about how the raid was reported at the time and the early articles which covered it: it's not clear why this is very important or interesting to readers. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I think it's cleaner now. (sorry, I wasn't logged in before)Jbower47 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail in lede concerning Pearl comparison? 

message: This is also the day that Japanese American Internment began. that day is also remembered, in the US, as a Day of Remembrance (Japanese Americans).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What's ironic about this coincidence? Australia also interred its fairly small Japanese-Australian population and actually deported most members of the population group to Japan after the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sad irony

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bombing of Darwin. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121106071238/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-38718802.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-38718802.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've just noticed that the 33rd Pursuit Squadron (Provisional) USAAF has been virtually written out of the article. Not that we ever said much about its pilots,   including the fact that one of them, Bob Oestreicher, was the only pilot who claimed to have engaged Japanese aircraft on the day.
We also do not address the issue of the total number of damaged Japanese aircraft.
 Five of the American P-40s had been on patrol over Darwin at the time the Japanese aircraft arrived over the town, while the other five had landed to refuel.Gill (1957), p. 591 Four of the patrolling aircraft were rapidly downed by Japanese fighters and all five P-40s on the ground were destroyed as they attempted to take off. The remaining P-40 shot down two D3A dive bombers. Australian Army anti-aircraft gunners also shot down two Zero fighters and a D3A.Grose (2009), pp. 115–116 Another Zero was shot down after being struck by a single .303 bullet; it crashed on Melville Island and its pilot was taken prisoner. While another Japanese naval aircraft failed to return to the carriers, the reason for its loss is not known.Grose (2009), pp. 135–136
(Which was inaccurate – Oestreicher claimed one Val shot down and one damaged/probable.)
That has been replaced by the much vaguer:
 The Allied air defences at Darwin shot down one Japanese dive bomber. Another Japanese fighter plane was damaged and crashed at Melville island and the pilot was captured, and two other Japanese planes, a fighter and dive bomber, both damaged by anti-aircraft fire, ditched on the return to the carriers, resulting in the rescue of the aircrews.Takezo Uchikado and Katsuyoshi Tsuru were killed when their Val dive bomber crashed near Darwin. Hajime Toyoshima was taken prisoner when his Zero crashed on Bathurst Island. The Zero of Yoshio Egawa and the Val dive bomber of Takeshi Yamada and Kinji Funazaki, ditched upon returning to the carriers.
My impression has been that it's unclear whether the Japanese aircraft lost (whatever the number may have been) were brought down by AA guns, Oestreicher or spontaneous light weapons fire from infantry etc. The latter isn't as unlikely as it may sound, because e.g. Japanese aircraft lacked self-sealing fuel tanks at the time. (And there is the example during the attack on Broome of the Dutch airman, Gus van Winckel, who used a Browning .30 calibre, detached from a Lockheed Lodestar, to put down a Zero.)  
Do Lewis & Ingman actually say that AA gunners were responsible for the Japanese losses, and if so, is there any reason why we should take their word for it?
Bartsch (2010) attributes the downing of Tsuru's Val to AA fire and, citing Japanese records,attributes Yamada's ditching to Oestreicher. Apparently the records of the carrier air group on Soryu mentioned an attack on Yamada's section of three Vals by a lone P-40, which scored hits on two of them. (William H. Bartsch,Every Day a Nightmare: American Pursuit Pilots in the Defense of Java, 1941– 1942, College Station, TX; Texas A&M Press, p. 412
Tom Womack (2015, The Allied Defense of the Malay Barrier, 1941-1942), who cites Bartsch, among other sources, mentions that in addition to the Zero, two Vals and a Kate shot down/ditched, a total of 34 Japanese aircraft were damaged "although the number written off is unknown" (p. 162).
Grant | Talk 08:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of USAAF and Japanese losses/casualties 

message: Would Lee Kernaghan's song "When The First Bombs Fell" (featured in "Spirit of the Anzac's" album) be an appropriate addition to the popular culture section? The lyrics provide an account of the event.
- 115.70.125.97 (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee Kernaghan's Song