Talk:Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse

message: I bought a comic in Japan that's about pilots in World War 2, there's a picture of an ancient-looking bloke on so some of the stories may be taken from his life (though others are totally fantastic like a shot-down pilot falling into the cockpit of an American plane that's about to take off, and having a fist fight in mid air!). Anyway one of the stories is about this battle, or at least I was able to make out "Price of Wales" in Katakana. I can't read much else Japanese, though, so I don't even know the name of the comic, but I'll try and decipher it later. 131.111.53.207 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I looked and the comic appears to be called "Aa Taiheiyo" which roughly means "That Pacific Ocean", with emphasis on "That" like you'd say 9/11 was "That day in September". It seems to have originally appeared in a series of 1950's comics called "Shonen Senki" or "Boy's War Record". 86.159.19.189 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference in "popular"(maybe) culture

message: So were the Japanese planes land-based or did they come from one or more aircraft carriers? It'd be good if the article had a little more detail on that point. Thanks. — RJH 18:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always read these were Imperial Japanese Navy land-based torpedo bombers.PHG 21:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they came from Vichy French Indo-China (Vietnam), which the Japanese had taken over. I'll check it up and try and find a ref. Wiki-Ed 09:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese planes

message: There were 86 aircraft from a squadron that was based in Saigon.
*I added the next detail: the aircrafts was Mitsubishi G3M2 "Nell" (Attack bomber type 96 of Navy,Mark 22)from Mihoro Kokutai,22nd Koku Sentai and Mitsubishi G4M1(Attack bomber type 1 of Navy,Mark 11)of Kanoya Kokutai,21 Koku Sentai,both groups under led of 11th Koku Kantai(Land Based Bomber group)with Base in Saigon.from these air groups,ones 126 was preparing to Torpedo striking,but only 94 was ordered to take off for battle,also support by Mitsubishi C5M2 "Babs"recon plane.
*including added why the Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" identified "M- 323"(Bomber N° 23,part of Mihoro Group(M)) are part of Mihoro Kokutai s Strike force in such attack.
*Other versions say about such attack was realized for GenzanKokutai(G4M) and Takao Kokutai(G3M), both groups posted units in Saigon too.
*There is an interview with a Captain Sonokawa, Kameo, IJN who was Flight Leader of Genzan Air Corps, the complete text of it is available on the Force Z Survivors Association Website Click on 'Pilots Eye View' --Andy Wade 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this article some airplane models are identified only by their Allied code names.  It seems to me wrong to identify anything only by what its enemies called it.  David R. Ingham (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese bombers 

message: With reference to the picture: 
It has been described thus:
This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
I think this is a little bit tenuous to say the least, as it is clearly not the work of a US Navy employee, but a member of the Imperial Japanese Navy. It was taken at the time of the first wave of the attack on HMS Repulse.
Does the US Navy having the right to publish it (possibly with permission), mean that Wikipedia does also?
I'd like to see the right to publish it explained a little bit better or I think the picture should be removed. --Andy Wade 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo is tagged with both the U.S. government public domain and the Japanese public domain tags because it falls under both.  The photo was taken by a Japanese government employee so it's public domain under Japanese copyright law.  The photo was also included in the large body of documents confiscated by U.S. government administrators during the Allied occupation of Japan immediately after the war and placed in the U.S. National Archives which makes it public domain of the U.S. government also.  Both tags are therefore appropriate. Cla68 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Image:Japanese high-level bombing attack on HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse on 10 December 1941 (NH 60566).jpg 

message: There should be a mention of the nazis in the article. It was solely because of the need to watch over the hiding Tirpitz battleship that the british were unable to assign an aircraft carrier to provide fighter umbrella for the Z fleet. If the Tirpitz did not exist, HMS PoW and Repulse would have survived with the help of a CV and its fighter planes. 82.131.210.162 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Indomitable had been allocated to cover Force Z (Battleship by Martin Middlebrook and Patrick Mahoney), but ran aground whilst working up in the Caribbean. At this time, Tirpitz wasn't even in Norway and hadn't sortied. Emoscopes Talk 12:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not be too fanciful to imagine that Indomitable would have been sunk as well if it had been present. If Force Z had survived it would have to have contended with a much larger IJN force which visited the region a few months later. Wiki-Ed 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, carriers are vulnerable to land-based aircraft forces which was the case in this situation.  Plus, as you pointed out, Japan's large carrier fleet paid the area a visit a couple of months later. Cla68 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kriegsmarine 

message: The article claims that after Pearl Harbor and the loss of Force Z, there were no Allied capital ships left in the Pacific. What about Lexington, Saratoga, and Enterprise? They were still operating in the Pacific, as the Japanese would soon learn all too well. I am thinking of editing the article to reflect the fact that there were still 3 American capital ships left in-theater.--SpudHawg948 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, CVs don't rate as capital ships. That technically only covers BBs. (Boy, timely response, huh?)  TREKphiler hit me ♠  23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Allied Capital Ships? 

message: I deleted
:"The plans for the British defence of Singapore fell into the hands of the Axis when S.S. Automedon was boarded by the German raider Atlantis in the Indian Ocean, on 11 November 1940. The Germans discovered the documents and sent them to the Japanese.SS Automedon - The ship that doomed a colony "
as OT. This deals with defense of Singapore proper, & has virtually nothing to do with the sinkings. Move it to Battle of Singapore or someplace. I also deleted this
based on Stephen, p.114, as a very faulty view of what really happened.
Furthermore, given Winston's "fleet in being" idea, & experience with German raiders, was it ever proposed to use them as raiders against Japanese SLOCs?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  23:43 & 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Defence of the realm

message: For those interested in such details, a useful discussion is here on a forum about the Imperial Japanese Navy. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Off site discussion on the details of the sinking

message: Under heading Effects of the Sinking, "Combined with the earlier attack on Pearl Harbor, this left the Allies with only three operational capital ships in the Pacific Theatre."
Can anyone clarify as to what those three capitals ships were? Wolcott (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the American aircraft carriers Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga. They weren't present during Pearl Harbour as they were of course at sea at the time of that attack. --Andy Wade (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User Ed17 added a dubious/talk tag to this section - which I have subsequently removed - suggesting that the battleship USS Colorado was in the Pacific Theatre. First point: don't add tags asking other editors to talk about something without submitting a case yourself. Second point: the article on that ship says she was on the west coast of the US at the time being overhauled. A similar case could be made for Maryland being "active" since she survived Pearl Harbour, but I don't think anyone would accept that she was in a state to be deployed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three capital ships left in the Pacific 

message: The article basically says that air support wasn't called due to arrogance/underestimating the Japanese, but Purnell's History Of The Second World War paints this in a different light. According to that, air support was not called due to Admiral Phillips wishing to maintain radio silence, lest they alert the Japanese ships they were stalking. He knew that the nearest airbase was aware of their position and gambled on them instinctively sending them an escort, or taking the risk of breaking radio silence. Obviously, we now know that he chose poorly!
Any thoughts on this? An awful lot of this article does appear to have come soley from the book by Martin Stephen. 94.168.46.50 (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Support 

message: Are there figures for the numbers of survivors from each ship?  The HMS Prince of Wales (53) article says "However, the stronger hull and superior underwater subdivision of Prince of Wales enabled her to stay afloat much longer than her aged companion and resulted in a far larger proportion of her crew being saved, in stark contrast to the older Repulse which suffered a heavy loss of life when she rapidly sank", and this article says that nearly 1000 survivors of Repulse were picked up, bu there is only mention of two survivors from the Prince of Wales.  How many did survive, please?  How many were picked up form each ship by the Allies and how many were taken prisoner by the Japanese? 86.143.70.57 (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivor figures 

message: The IJN and RN aerial torpedoes are little different; The Type 91 mod 1 and 2 had 330 and 450lb warheads, respectively, while the standard RN torpedo, the Mk 12 or 15 had a 388-375lb warhead. The underwater speeds of both IJN and RN torpedoes were all 40-45 knots, so again little difference. The drop speeds for each were about 150knots. The Swordfish (relevance?) was being phased out of front line service by Dec 1941, in favour of the Albacore, but the RAF was had been using the twin engined Beaufort as a land based torpedo bomber since 1940, so the idea that Japanese twin engined aircraft or torpedoes were 'vastly' superior to UK types is simply not correct. The only advantage they possessed was superior range, combined with faulty UK intelligence that underestimated IJN capability.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) I agree the torpedo specs do not differ much (but I think we're comparing Mk12s, not later variants), although I had thought the Type 91s to be slightly superior, particularly in terms of range... which leads to the real difference: the delivery. The Swordfish had played a prominent role in the previous year (e.g. Taranto and the hunt for the Bismarck) and so one would expect that Admiral Phillips would have these planes in mind at the time of the attack. Instead he faced much faster aircraft which were based well outside what he might consider reasonable range and could drop torpedoes half a mile further away than contemporary British torpedo bombers. I think these are the key differences and I would hope that if he had known these facts he would have been more careful. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Swordfish was being phased out of frontline service by mid 1941, but in any event landbased UK torpedo bombers, such as the Bristol Beaufort were greatly superior to the Swordfish in speed and range and, for that matter, so was the Italian SM-79 which the RN and Prince of Wales had faced previously in the Mediterranean during Operation Halberd. The idea that the Swordfish was somehow represented to Phillips, as the pinnacle of torpedo bomber development is laughable, and simply untrue. Torpedoes dropped beyond the maximum ranges of the RN aerial torpedoes would pose little threat to manoeuvring ships. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying - there were better aircraft and weapons coming in to service - but that's not the point. Phillips would have been familiar with Taranto and he might have had some information about Pearl - both of which were attacks on non-moving targets. What he would not know is that the Japanese possessed fast aircraft that could attack him from distant land bases, had practiced hitting moving targets, and could drop torpedoes from outside the presumed envelope of his AA. Take away any one of those factors and the result would have been - almost certainly - different. I don't recall any events in the Med where the RN lost ships to aerial torpedoes, certainly not capital ships. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the key factor was Phillips lack of knowledge of IJN dispositions and the state of development of IJN aerial torpedo capability. The Italian airforce had torpedoed an RN battleship, HMS Nelson, at sea in Sept 1941, and had Philips thought that the IJN had torpedo bombers as capable as the SM-79 or BR.20 in the area, he probably would have been more cautious.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torpedoes and Torpedo bombers 

message: The article claims that the ships are Royal Properties, is it possible to list the locations of the sunken ships?  Are they truly in International Waters or within the national boundary of some country?  This could be a one sided claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.136 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ship today 

message: Still my apologies!!!! Upon figuring out how to retrieve the paragraph I ‘lost’ yesterday and reinserting it, I notice I have lost some of the direct links that were ‘attached’ to certain words that were there previously.
Important Note: The page in general contains many reference to Stephen and Grove's Sea Battles in Close-up. WWII. Now while their account of the sinking may be an ‘interesting’ read and is on the whole factual, it does contain several errors in timing and the numbers of planes involved in various attacks, besides the number of torpedo hits. As stated above, they may be 'jack of all battles', but some they are certainly not master of. Much more accurate accounts are found in Marder’s Old Friends, New Enemies, Tarrant’s King George V Class Battleships, and Middlebrook and Mahoney’s Battleships. Also Nicholson’s Hostage to Fortune contains a detailed appendix (20 pages) of many of the signals, including date and time, that passed amongst the ‘main players’ before, during and after the event. However it must be noted that all these books contain errors regarding the number of torpedo hits, but this is to be understood given the available data at the time they were written/published.
John  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.35.43 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you're new to wikipedia, so I assume you're that IP address that made all those edits. I've gone through a few of your edits and they may appear to constitute weasel words, which if I'm correct is highly discouraged according to wikipedia policy. I also understand that you've failed to provide inline citations and/or sources to some additions you've made. I'm not sure if these are your edits, but here are a few:
* "Many more planes, some armed with bombs and some with torpedoes soon followed." No source provided to support this claim.
* "After failing to find any Japanese invasion force at Kuantan Phillips was finally heading south, but had dawdled in the area too long and was now about to pay the price." Possible weasel words.
You edits have also removed a highly relevant image of the ships under attack from the article without giving any valid reason. When I restored it you removed it again (again without any reason), so please do not repeat it again as it is removing content and may constitute Vandalism. Regarding this "Stevens account", those are not my edits and/or additions, so you may want to discuss that with the users who made the edits, and not me. I'm just making sure your edits adhere to wikipedia rules. Nonetheless, if you claim that said author "contains more than one error", then it should adhere to a neutral point of view and not by your personal opinion.
Please go through the manual of style for editing articles on wikipedia and rewrite any edits you have done which are not in accordance with wikipedia's policy. Wolcott (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to my previous response, I'm not happy that you're telling me "to reinsert those links if you have the time." As you're the one who did the edits, you should be reinserting them. As for the author you referred to, which you claim that "using him solely as a source is an error in itself", it is true that we shouldn't rely solely on one source. But this article relies on more than just the author you mentioned, just scroll to the bottom of this article and see "Notes" and "References". And please use Preview before saving any of your edits. Wolcott (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Japanese Air Attack. 

message: One point seemingly missed by the various contributors is the temperature of the water. In the warm waters of the China Sea any survivor has a good chance of being picked up before drowning. Had the action been fought in the cold North Atlantic there would have been far fewer suvivors due to freezing.AT Kunene (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers of survivors 

message: The Background section has quite a lot of detail on strategic and political considerations which would sit better in the Force Z article. That needs expanding, and this one is already at the size where a split should be considered.</br> 
If there are no objections I propose to move the content of those sections and leave a summary here. Any thoughts?  Xyl 54 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force Z 

message: The overall inferiority of the Buffalo to the A6M is mentioned, but it seems to be irrelevant, because there were no Japanese fighters in the battle, or at least not in the article.  David R. Ingham (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brewster and Zero 

message: It appears number of torpedo aircraft and level bombers are mixed up - "34 torpedo aircraft, 51 level bombers, 3 scouting aircraft". Later in article 49 torpedoes were reported seen and so many torpedoes can't be brought by 34 aircraft. Here - in article BARRY GOUGH, Prince of Wales and Repulse: Churchill’s “Veiled Threat” Reconsidered the numbers are done right -  "The Japanese attack force (IJN’s 22nd Air Flotilla) in three squadrons—Genzan, Mikoro and Kanaya—consisted of thirty-four high-level bombers and fifty-one torpedo-bombers".    Tigga (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of aircraft types 

message: I have a question/issue with this sentence. Perhaps ambiguous wordage so I don't understand the intent. The line in question is: "Australian commitment to the war in Europe ... would be severely tested following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Darwin, and the Kokoda Track,[9] so Churchill's effort, while a military failure, may have been a political necessity." Did not the decisions involved in sending the naval squadron as well as deciding its size/makeup predate "attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Darwin, and the Kokoda Track"? Should we not just say he had to send something due to political necessity, so he did? Or is the argument in hindsight: having sent a squadron which got virtually annihilated, Churchill could argue: "see..I tried"? Someone help clear up the intent of this sentence. Juan Riley  (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the sentence - it implies Churchill sent Force Z to bolster the resolve of the Australians but his primary intention was to make the Japanese think the UK took the threat seriously and dissuade them from going to war. That was the political and strategic necessity. The threat to Australia was theoretical at the point the decision was made. Of course the strategic situation changed rapidly in December and the threat became real from that point forward, but he couldn't have known that in October when the ships were despatched. To imply this was a significant part of the calculation is misleading; if this section is to stay it will require much better sourcing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also wrong - Australia ceased to have a particularly strong "commitment to the war in Europe" following the attack on Pearl Harbor, for obvious reasons and with the agreement of Churchill (from memory, this was also in line with pre-Pearl Harbor imperial planning). What this para seems to be getting at is Churchill's response to Australia's concerns over the Japanese threat, but it's rather confusing at present. Material from the FA Singapore Strategy could be drawn on in improving this. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Singapore Strategy contains a good treatment of these issues. That's why I also added linkage to it yesterday in this section. Perhaps better if something like  is added to the section header? That way the reader is clearly presented with where to go for more details without adding too much new material here. Juan Riley  (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and added a Further template to the Background section header. Feel free to revert if you feel it is uncalled for or there is a better way. Juan Riley  (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of Background 

message: Statement in this article:
"Repulse did not have the anti-torpedo blisters her sister Renown had received,"
Statement in Renown class article
"The Renown-class ships were fitted with a shallow anti-torpedo bulge integral to the hull which was intended to explode the torpedo before it hit the hull proper and vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship. However, later testing proved that it was not deep enough to accomplish its task as it lacked the layers of empty and full compartments that were necessary to absorb the force of the explosion"
Same article on Renown:
"The bulges were reworked and based on those used in the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, although crushing tubes were only used abreast the magazines. "
Statement in Renown class article about Repulse and the almost identical statement in the specific Repulse article:
The ship's anti-torpedo bulge was deepened and reworked along the lines of that installed on the battleship Ramillies. The bulge covered her hull from the submerged torpedo room to "Y" magazine and the inner compartments of which were filled with crushing tubes. The bulges added 12 feet 8 inches (3.9 m) to her beam and 1 foot 4 inches (0.4 m) to her draught.
" The ship's anti-torpedo bulge was deepened and reworked along the lines of that installed on the battleship Ramillies. The bulge covered her hull from the submerged torpedo room to 'Y' magazine and the inner compartments of which were filled with crushing tubes. The bulges added 12 feet 8 inches (3.9 m) to her beam and 1 foot 4 inches (0.4 m) to her draught. "
Statement in the Renown class article about Renown, and without comma otherwise identical statement in the specific Renown article.
"The bulges were reworked and based on those used in the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, although crushing tubes were only used abreast the magazines. " 
"The bulges were reworked and based on those used in the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships although crushing tubes were only used abreast the magazines. "
So to be clear the Sinking article seems as if it should say that Repulse had an earlier less effective bulge system, not that she lacked a system.
Brooksindy (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you're right. That sentence is wrong, factual error and a non sequitur / poor synthesis. Both ships had anti-torpedo bulges. They weren't the same, but that wasn't really relevant to their surviveability against five torpedo hits, and nor was compartmentalisation (which wasn't enough to stop PoW sinking). I'll remove the line. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repulse configuration 

message: Consort is used in HMS Repulse (1916) but why not here?
BlueD954 (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  i don't understand why 

message: I know it's cited but at least two authors (Boyd and Hobbs) have stated that HMS Indomitable was not assigned to Force Z, she ran aground the first day of a work up in the Caribbean after which she was to head to Gibraltar to join Force H while Ark Royal was in refit, there was contingency that she might have to run the med and transit Suez as the only carrier that could go East but the earliest carrier was projected to join the Eastern Fleet would be Ark Royal in April, but of course Indomitable is damaged and Ark Royal is sunk in November and then Pearl and Force z in december totally change the landscape. 92.10.214.190 (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is about weighting. Churchill himself wrote confidently that he intended Indomitable should be assigned to the force. Respectable secondary sources like Middlebrook and Mahoney concur. There might be other authors who have a different view, but I think we should be wary of giving them undue weighting, especially if the argument you seem to be making revolves around the technical interpretation of one word ("assigned"). And arguably the paragraph in question is already problematic as it relies heavily on one author whose quoted views are somewhat at odds with the facts (e.g. Churchill's exchange with the First Sea Lord in August 1941 rather suggests he was anything but "consderably ignorant" of the threat). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally you need the consensus of primary records written prior to the sinking. I don't know if sources like Middlebrook have cited what the used to make their judgement on the matter. Indomitable is clearly the only available carrier when they have to sent one to the Indian ocean in the aftermath. But sending her to Force H makes more sense in October/November as it known that she will not be fully effective so soon after commissioning and the fleet build up in the east was expected to to see a more balanced force by mid 1942. Loss of Ark Royal, Barham, Prince of Wales, Repulse and then the temporary loss of Queen Elizabeth and Valiant in a 6 week period change the picture massively. 92.10.214.190 (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Indomitable