Talk:Battle off Samar

message: I haven't read the entire article, but while it cites references at the end of the article, there are no in-article citations, which is important to move up the assessment ladder. I need to see citations before I make any reccommendations for Class A.--Daysleeper47 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my position. You have a ton of references, but no inline citations. Wikipedia:Inline citation has information on how to cite inline, which, if you look at FA-class articles, is the norm for citations for articles of high quality. --Daysleeper47 16:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Military History Project just changed the requirements for B-Class under Criteria I.  As a result, I'm going to have to demote this one to "Start" class.  I hate to, but no inline citations results in a failure under that criteria.Cam (Chat) 04:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Inline citations are critical here and this article will go nowhere without them. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note regarding Class B 

message: Time in the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard is not reported or recorded with any colons. This is probably true for the Army as well. For an example, see HISTORY OF UNITED STATES NAVAL OPERATIONS IN WORLD WAR II by Samuel Eliot Morison. For a specific example, 0826 is written exactly like this, w/o any colons. The times are given on a 24-hour clock - for example, 1654. In reading aloud, the time is read "1654 hours", for example. It is hard to believe that such things are not obvious, considering how many thousands of times that they have been written in naval and military history books of WW II and the Korean War.
Just because other presentations might do it differently is no excuse, because this is an article about an American naval battle of WW II, which is considered to be modern times.
If you don't want to write times, dates, altitudes, and depths in the official Navy and Air Force ways, that brands you immediately as a rank amateur who cannot even emulate the genius of Samuel Eliot Morison -- who in civilian life was a professor of history at Harvard University, but he also retired as a rear admiral in the U.S. Naval Reserve.98.67.168.208 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Standards 

message: I am completely FOR TRUTH and accurate details. However, if you let the Japanese poiont of view run this, it will be a case of US aggression against the poor, poor Japanese. Don't you people know that they are completely rewriting their history books with less than truth. They blackmailed Clint Eastwood into doing Letters From Iwo Jimo so he could do Flags of Our Fathers. I think the Japanese are less than truthful about their past and even current events prove this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.12.42 (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks I can't understand why there is still a  tag and now the article doesn't seem to mention St. Lo being sunk in the narrative. I'm going to take off the tag and say St. Lo was sunk after a plane with a single bomb crashed into the flight deck during the 10:47 kamikaze attack. Anynobody 06:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I always presumed the Japanese point of view on the Battle off Samar was that Kurita should have committed seppuku for losing such a ridiculous mismatch. Jsc1973 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008

message: In the Battle section, a bit of info doesn't fit with the Leyte Gulf article. Halsey had not left with 4 carrier groups. He left with 3. The fourth was away on resupply and was not in the area during most of the battle.ParallelPain (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: The article first claims that St. Lo is credited with "the only hit in naval history known to have been made on an enemy surface vessel by gunfire from a carrier", then soon after states that not only that she score two more hits, but that Kalinin Bay hit a heavy cruiser, not once but twice, and a destroyer as well. Which is correct? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: In the article it states "He left behind only a light screen of destroyers and destroyer escorts to protect three escort carrier groups of the 7th Fleet."  This is misleading. The screen was part of 7th fleet, not 3rd fleet. They were left behind, but Halsey didn't leave them, they were not part of his fleet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfdavis668 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halsey's move north. 

message: When and where did this happen?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.83.198 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese destroyer sunk? 

message: Several references (17 total) from my website www.bosamar.com Action Reports and other documents added on 10 June 2012 are incorrectly listed as 'bosmar.com' (the letter 'a' being dropped) read = BOSAMAR.  I request the Originator (174.64.7.122) or someone other than myself fix all incorrect references.  Thank you.  Bosamar (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect references to www.bosamar.com

message: I think the opening paragraph of this otherwise fine article could possibly be written better. It is the second sentence that I cite:
"As the only major action in the larger battle where the Americans were largely unprepared against the opposing forces, it has been cited by historians as one of the greatest military mismatches in naval history." (current as of 11/11/2012)
Despite already knowing how this Naval History story ends, I found this sentence to be confusingly written. I could write it more clearly myself (just moving a few words around) but I thought I'd present the idea here first.
BTW, I am a Navy veteran who went against the SOVIETS (heard from them lately?), and am currently enjoying sitting in the shade of trees. And today is 11/11/12.
-Mole In The Hole  
JamesMadison (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph Could Be Better 

message: I think this sentence needs just a little clarification:
Due to the ferocity of the defense, Kurita was convinced that he was facing a far superior force and withdrew from the battle, ending the threat to the troop transports and supply ships.
There isn't anything here that I disagree with, but I think some might get a wrong idea from it. I would say that Kurita thought he was facing a force far superior to the one he was actually facing, so if that is the meaning then I agree, but think it needs clarification. I highly doubt that Kurita thought he was facing a force far superior to his own.
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  far superior force 

message: The sections for Hoel and Heermann both say that the ship in question launched the torpedoes that Yamato turned away to avoid, heading out of the battle for several minutes before the torpedoes ran out of fuel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.53.38 (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which destroyer launched the torpedoes that forced ''Yamato'' away? 

message: The quote attributed to CDR Robert W. Copeland was made by CDR Evans of USS Johnston. This (BTW) is noted in the wiki article on Robert Copeland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.214.229 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote incorrectly attributed 

message: The Battle Summary begins "A force of 33 Japanese warships (four battleships, eight cruisers, and eleven destroyers)"
Math: 4 + 8 + 11 = 23. Which is correct, 33 warships or 23?
Leperflesh (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle Summary: how many ships? 

message: Most of the information seems generally correct but a few things seem questionable or misleading, and I have no way of verifying for lack of citations. I will check some sources when I have the time and rephrase/remove if necessary. Boris0192 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several sections have very few or even no citations 

message: Ive often heard it stated that Kurita withdrew from the battle mistakenly believing that he was facing the main US fleet. However in this article there is no reference to that. (Although it is in fact what history books commonly say) What I am curious about is whether there is a reference that cites Kurita directly as to his motives for withdrawing. If not then why is this what is typically believed? I ask this because it is not at all obvious that is why he withdrew. The two sides were not really as unevenly matched as one might suppose. While the carries were small escort carriers instead of the larger fleet carriers, they had a large contingent of aircraft. WWII was the time when it was discovered that naval guns were no longer at the forefront  of naval warfare, and were instead replaced by carrier based aircraft. It matters little where the aircraft land, but instead what weapons they carry and that in fact was the true reason for the dire situation of the american forces in that fight. They, as was mentioned in the article, were conducting operations in support of ground operations for nearby us forces. As such the aircraft were outfitted with bombs designed for that role instead of the anti-ship bombs that would be needed for fleet combat. It would have taken close to a half hour to re-equip the aircraft with the appropriate weaponry so it was decided to use them as is. Their bombs however were largely ineffective against the ships they were targeted against. That in fact is the reason that it is not at all clear that Kurita withdrew because he thought he was facing a much larger and more capable fleet. Once the aircraft dropped their bombs they flew to an island airfield to be refueled and refit with the correct anti-ship bombs. The aircraft on their first attack run scored many direct hits however their bombs were largely useless. When those aircraft returned, properly armed, it would be expected they would again score multiple direct and accurate hits with their bombs. This time however the effects would have been devastating. Kurita likely would have noticed the aircraft were improperly armed, and realized that the reason was that he had taken them by surprise. He would also have likely realized that the aircraft that had flow off toward the island would be rearmed and sent back, how long it would take to rearm them and how long it would taken them to fly the round trip. If he had not sank the enemy fleet well before those aircraft returned, he would have had little choice but to withdraw, or lose his entire fleet. (Presumably if he HAD sank the entire fleet, he would still have withdrew before the aircraft returned) While this is also speculation, its as valid,or more so than speculation that he withdrew because he mistakenly believed he was fighting a much larger force. Unless there is an actual quote,or something written in a report to support that view, its dubious at best.
This is actually reminiscent of the oft stated confusion over the japanese rationale for canceling the planned second attack wave on Pearl Harbor. An obvious reason presents itself. One of the main objectives at Pearl Harbor was to destroy the American carrier fleet. However that day, the carriers were not there, but instead out on an exercise. The Japanese fleet was sitting out in the middle of the Pacific, with its aircraft at Pearl Harbor. Its hard to imagine that the US carriers would have sat around doing nothing when they heard that Pearl was under attack. They would obviously have put planes in the air to search for the japanese fleet, knowing they were vulnerable without their aircraft. In fact, if the american carriers were within a days travel from Pearl, and the Japanese were within striking distance of Pearl, there was a significant risk that the American carriers were within easy striking distance of the Japanese fleet. Perhaps,perhaps not, but if they were, it could have been a devastating loss to the japanese. They could have lost their carrier fleet and their trained pilots, at the same time they started a war and failed to take out the american carriers. It would not have required any great degree of tactical brilliance to see this. Any reasonably competent tactician should be aware of these factors. Unless there is clear documentation to indicate ineptitude, I would think that it would be more reasonable to attribute their actions to a basic degree of competence.
   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.75 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason Kurita withdrew from the battle 

message: There are several points that seem to be wrong, or unclear. I don't know enough about the subject, or the reliability of the sources, to "correct" them. The reference I've been using to check is the Potts article, which doesn't seem to be authoritative.
It talks of 235 US fighters, and 143 torpedo bombers, a precise number different from the ~400 or 450 stated in the article, and the breakdown of types is relevant and worth including. I suppose both types of aircraft would have been able to carry some sort of bomb load, in the absence of torpedoes.
Potts says the carriers were "not provided" with [any?] AP bombs or torpedoes. The article says, citing Potts: the carriers "only carried a few" armour-piercing bombs or torpedoes. It would seem reasonable, if 143 torpedo bombers were carried, that torpedoes would be available.
The article says, unsourced: "In later sorties from the carriers of Taffy 2, the aircraft had enough time to be rearmed with torpedoes and armor-piercing bombs that could be expected to be more effective against warships." This raises two questions: did the carriers actually have any of these weapons? And did the aircraft actually return to the carriers to rearm and refuel, as the article says? These two points are crucial: was the air element moderately fanged or almost toothless? No aerial torpedo attacks are mentioned in the article, and the bomb damage sounds compatible with non-AP bombs.
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Another inaccuracy concerns the Long Lance torpedoes.  The article states that they did not produce a wake.  I am pretty sure this is wrong.  The Long Lance, like our own Mk14 torpedoes, used an internal combustion engine.  The major difference was that the Long Lance, as stated, used compressed pure oxygen instead of compressed air and thus produced more efficient combustion.  But they still produced exhaust gasses that left a wake.  I have seen pictures of Long Lances in the water, from WWII, which showed a very clear wake. Mobius Mk2 (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies? 

message: The first half of the first paragraph is describing something also described as not true. Why?  --91.5.104.60 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the recent find of Chokai by RV Petrel seems to disprove the theory that its torpedoes were set off by bomb or 5" gunfire. Agreed, though, the passages need citation of reliable sources for both the old theory and the new findings by RV Petrel.  — sbb (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The wreck of the Chokai shows that the torpedoes were intact indicating the old theory is probably wrong.  Naval historians now seem to think it likely the explosion on the Chokai was the result of friendly fire, a hit from Kongo's main guns as Chokai crossed its line of fire. Mobius Mk2 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Japanese Losses" 

message: The info box states that the strength of the US force consists of "6 escort carriers (taffy 3)".
Why are the other 10 escort escort carriers from taffy 1 and 2 not in this infobox?
If their planes are listed shouldn't the ships be listed as well? Snellejelle99 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  amount of carriers in infobox 

message: As had been raised up several times before, not only does this article go overboard with pop history mythology, but it also uses questionable sources like 'last stand of the tin can sailors' wherever it does, and has a lot of original research, unverified claims, and to top things off it is written entirely from an American perspective (the article is split into sections, each dedicated to an American ship, and closes it off with a discussion of Halsey), aside from being absurdly biased it is also structured in a questionable format. Sormando (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem article 

message: This article, in section Japanese Losses, states:
While withdrawing from the battle area, Nowaki was herself sunk, with the loss of all but one of Chikuma's surviving crewmen, it is unknown how the Nowaki was lost and is still a topic of research today.
The main Battle of Leyte Gulf article states something contradictory:
Cruisers and destroyers of TG 34.5, however, caught the Japanese destroyer Nowaki—the last straggler from Center Force—off San Bernardino Strait, and sank her with all hands, including the survivors from Chikuma.
Either the other article is wrong, or it is known how the Nowaki was lost. (My uneducated guess is that it is unknown how TG 34.5 sank Nowaki, but that it is known that TG 34.5 sank Nowaki.)
Someone with knowledge of primary sources should update both articles to be consistent. LeTouchre (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking of Nowaki 

message: The previous lead felt kind of clunky and incomplete, so hopefully the new version is clearer and acceptable.  I mostly relied on the Encyclopedia Britannica article summary as a guide for what warranted inclusion in the lead.  I also ref'd the Naval History and Heritage Command website.  I don't think I added much that was new - mostly a reference to the Johnston and the awards received. Mbinebri (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead rewrite 

message: Samar is a small battle in a larger one Leyte Gulf. and After Leyte, Admiral Ozawa is quoted to say when asked about the battle of Leyte overall 'I felt that it was the end.'https://archive.org/details/militaryhistoryo00full/] (Page 618). So if Samar was a tactical victory than why did Admiral Ozawa say 'I felt that it was the end'. Jonnylego109 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is Samar a Tactical Victory for Japan