Talk:Battle of the Philippine Sea

message: It seems odd that the phrase "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" is not mentioned once in the article, considering that it is one of the most famous aspects of the battle. Grant65 | Talk 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Additional training and experience effects from the long pilot shortage was the resultant inexperience of the Japanese carrier deck crews, not just its newbie aircrews flying the same unimproved well understood planes with the same old weaknesses, for in contrast to the U.S. Navy's operational tempo which had grown steadily from mid-1943—Japan's older and newly commissioned aircraft carriers sat in port awaiting hastily trained pilots to arm and justify their existence while the U.S. Fleet had totally re-equipped with the more modern Grumman F6F Hellcat fighter, which was specifically designed to be superior to the Japanese Zero.
196.3.50.254 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the entire "background" section is rather hard to follow and contains run-on sentences, and all sorts of "purple prose".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.193.172 (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article but in several places incoherent, below I enter just one example. 

message: With a number of recent edits going back and forth, it seems prudent if we can come together on some general ideas.  Here are some thoughts: 
* First off, Binksternet is right.  The article overall is under referenced.  Certainly a fact tag is an invitation to track down something and reference it.  They should not be removed until we have it nailed down.  
::Japanese aircraft losses are pretty hard to nail down, Binks.  Particularly in attemting to assign how they came to be lost.  Certainly an awful lot of Japanese aircraft were destroyed, predominantly by Hellcats, but how many were actually lost to anti-aircraft fire?  How many of the aircraft shot down were land based, and how many were off the carriers?  Aircraft destroyed, was that in air combat, on runways and hangers, or in a carrier when it was sunk?  I will try to sort it out, but the sources are conflicting. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis section at end? 

message: The article had four different figures on the number of US aircraft in the attack of June 20 - 215, 226, 230 and 240. Counting the individual aircraft listed (95 F6F, 54 TBF/TBM, 26 SBD, 51 SB2C) in the article, I get 226. I have edited the other figures to match that.
 
However, and this is a big however, I have no idea if that number is correct. I am simply making it consistent. It would be good to figure out the correct number. I think we're looking for the number of aircraft that actually made the strike, not the number launched, and that might be contributing here to the messiness. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of US aircraft on 6/20/44 

message: I am having a confusion. In the section 'Submarine Attacks', it is written that Ozawa moved his staff to Zuikaku after the sinking of Taihō. In the section 'U.S. Counterattack', it is written Ozawa moved his staff to the destroyer Wakatsuki and then to the Zuikaku, while on the aircraft carrier Taiho's page, it is written that Ozawa moved his command to the cruiser Haguro. We need reliable sources and crowd agreements to make any change to make any change in this case. Any comments? ShauryaOMG (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Taihō went down, on which ship did Ozawa go? 

message: It seems to me that a big piece of the puzzle that is missing from this article is a comparison of air crew losses. I am not sure if there is a reliable source for this, but the air crew losses for the Japanese seem to have been even more fatal than the loss of planes. The US lost 123 planes, but many of these trained air crew were rescued, whereas for the 600 Japanese planes lost, almost all the trained air crew were lost with them. This seems to me the major reason why this was the last major carrier battle of the war; there was simply not enough time remaining in the war to train new Japanese air crew. The article shows that total dead were 2,987 to 109, but probably the most painful of these dead to the Japanese were the air crews. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Crew Losses 

message: It's easier than I thought. The Marianas lie 12 to 24 degrees north of the equator. The winds would come from the southwest, not easterly.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/geography-miscellaneous/difference-between-doldrums-and-horse-latitudes/ 
Summertime in that region the winds would likely be light variable. Here's a detailed battle map that shows no changes in Direction when launching airstrikes. In fact the air strikes of the 19th and the 20th on both sides appear to have been launched with the task forces headed to the northwest.
https://www.abebooks.com/maps/Battle-Philippine-Sea-18th-21st-June-1944/31106567953/bd#&gid=1&pid=1
Correct me if I'm wrong but the claim that easterly trade winds blow above the equator is so absurd that it makes me wonder if this is an example of an editor making something up that's completely bogus by linking it to book sources that are impossible to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: the Tradewinds were not a Factor