Talk:Battle of Tassafaronga

message: Are the mileage figures statute miles (1.61 km), as  assumes, or nautical miles (1.85 km)?
—WWoods (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frank doesn't specify so I assumed statute miles. Cla68 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Miles – Statute or Nautical?

message: Does anyone know the ranges of the torpedo actions by the Japanese in this action. I remember reading that some of the actions were at long range possibly twenty miles could this be correct? what were they preferably in miles? Bullseye30 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range of Japanese Torpedo action's 

message: How is this a US defeat? The Americans stopped the Japanese from delivering the supplies and denied the ability of the Japanese to sustain their forces on Guadalcanal. While the US suffered greater casualties, it was surely an American victory. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems that it should be an IJN tactical victory, but a USN strategic victory. Marjaliisa (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree completely. Japan failed in their mission so that is a defeat? PLus both sides lost just one ship each, damaged ships that then get repaired does not mean a victory?2A00:23C4:215:C500:2D0F:606C:5CA2:72A7 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added citation with quotes from USN, but I'm still ambivalent about wording, since one source says: "the naval battles around Guadalcanal were bookended with two of the worst defeats in U.S. naval history (Savo Island and Tassafaronga), eclipsed only by Pearl Harbor. " The other says: "Thus ended one of the most ignominious defeats in U.S. Navy history, although technically Wright and TF-67 succeeded in their mission, since none of the supplies from Tanaka’s destroyers made it ashore to starving Japanese troops on Guadalcanal." And the wording doesn't quite convey the idea that the cost was too high for achieving the mission. The factors overwhelmingly favors USN (cruisers vs. destroyers, radar vs. no radar at night, the element of surprise) but USN still suffered more damage. If this occurred to IJN, the IJN commander would be relieved of command. --Happyseeu (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defeat? 

message: Certain editors are posting unfounded pov on the article. If you have sources that this was a massive defeat for the US please post them here, dont just add them because that is what you believe. An action where Japan failed to achieve their objective is not a victory, never mind a massive victory. One ship lost each also does not say victory. So please place your sources here and we can get a consensusGiant-DwarfsTalk 13:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "one ship lost each" is remarkably disingenuous, a destroyer and heavy cruiser are NOT equivalent. Not to mention also taking out 3 more heavy cruisers for over a year is a pretty significant blow for the US. There is a fair argument to be made over whether it was a US strategic victory, but it's difficult to take you seriously when you portray the facts in such a biased light. 46.208.149.231 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions please