Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle/archive1

Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle

I've listed this article for peer review as a step to GA. It has recently undergone a major re-order to deal with size moving material from Battle of Buna–Gona to Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle and Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese forces and order of battle, which were existing pages (renamed). It is hoped that a peer review will identify any issues arising from the move. The other articles have also been nominated for review. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This article is in solid shape, and provides useful coverage of its topic. I have the following comments:

• Much greater use could be made of Adrian Threlfall's book Jungle Warriors. The article (rightly) places emphasis on the poor training of the Allied troops and mistakes made by the commanders, but this was only part of the story. As Threlfall demonstrates, their jungle warfare doctrine was woefully inadequate, meaning that even if the troops had been fully trained this training wouldn't have been terribly useful. Similarly, poor doctrine and training also led many otherwise-competent officers to make bad decisions during this battle.

I welcome the comment. It is a complex issue. Well trained and battled hardened troops could achieve significant gains, making up doctrine as they went. The issue was to suppress or neutralise attacked positions and those positions supporting them. Logistics, appropriate resources and command pressure all confounded the problem. I could make a number of observations about more appropriate equipment but these are all hindsight. I have made comments as you indicate in the "Aftermath" of the main article but would welcome any further improvements you might offer here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• The lead is highly critical of US Army officers, but the performance of most of the senior Australian Army officers was also somewhere between reckless and incompetent. Threlfall discusses this, and Garth Pratten's Australian Battalion Commanders in the Second World War should also have useful information at the tactical level.

Sorry but I am not seeing what you mean? The lead refers to Sutherland's initial intelligence and the pressure applied by MacArthur. Happy to discuss more? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "While lack of training and the availability of time able to be committed to this are clearly responsible for the criticism levelled at the 32nd Division, McCarthy contrasts this with what had been achieved earlier by the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in a similarly short time." - this sentence is a bit unclear. Again Threlfall notes that the AIF was also not ready for conditions in New Guinea and took heavy casualties as a result, and it seems unfair to compare combat-hardened formations with a green formation.

Clarified text? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that there isn't a section on the training and equipment of the AIF.

I haven't seen anything in the sources to warrant it. The AIF, while not trained for jungle warfare, was trained and experienced - many in the recent fighting along the Kokoda Track. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "most serious of General MacArthur's failings, he never got out from behind the desk to find out what was going on" - is this guy serious? While MacArthur didn't visit Gona-Buna, he regularly appeared at the front lines of other campaigns - sometimes recklessly so.

The source levels this criticism wrt to Papua and the Phillipines though this changed as the war progressed. I have tried to clarify this.Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The battle of Buna (commonly referring to the Buna–Gona–Sanananda area) was one of the bloodiest battles of World War II" - as above. This battle was pretty small scale compared to the Eastern Front (where battles which resulted in tens of thousands of fatalities and the destruction of entire divisions were common), or even the major battles of the Pacific War. I wonder if this is really a reliable source?

Clarified for US forces? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "More than 3,000 Papuans worked to support the Allies during the battle" - a short section on these men seems in order. It's worth noting that most were forcibly conscripted.

Changed text to conscripted. Don't see enough in the sources. All the good stuff is about Kokoda. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• The article briefly notes, but doesn't really cover, the amalgamation of Australian units which suffered heavy casualties. The (miss) use of the 7th Division's cavalry regiment as infantry could also be discussed: this was a pretty desperate expedient.

Have you looked at the main article? Sources say 2/7 Cav had trained as infantry and were subsequently designated as commando. It was the last available without stripping other defences. These things are discussed in the main article as the battle develops and puts these things in context. What do you suggest? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a bit surprised by the strong criticism of the 25-pounder. This gun remained the standard artillery gun for the Australian Army for the remainder of the Pacific War, and it was well-regarded from what I've read. It also seems to have been successful in Burma and even Malaya, so it doesn't seem to have been intrinsically unsuited to jungle warfare as the article suggests. Is the issue that the gun wasn't suited to the particular circumstances here and/or the Australian forces didn't know how to properly employ it?

I am only reporting the sources. Perhaps delay fuses is a factor? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• A key feature of the Battle of Buna–Gona was that the Allies did learn a lot of lessons from what went wrong during it: doctrine, training and equipment were improved, and this was a low-mark of the careers of officers who went on to lead highly successful campaigns (even the much-maligned MacArthur and Blamey - who gets of a bit light here at present - never did anything this bad again, and by mid-1943 were leading highly successful campaigns). This presently isn't really covered.

Again, this is raised in the 'Aftermath' of the main article. Is this sufficient without duplicating it here? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou @Nick-D for your time in reviewing the article. I would like to get some more feedback on this an the other articles before I address these comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D Adding some feedback to your comments as I go at this time as only AR has added further comment. I thank you again for your feedback and hope that we might collaborate to improve the article. I will say, that while your comments are very valid, I am not certain how I can use them? You may have access to sources that I don't. I welcome further discussion as I address your individual points and any edits you might add. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

G'day, nice work, just a few comments/suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• in the lead, "The Allied advance on the Japanese positions at Buna–Gona was..." probably best to provide some dates here for context

Done? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• in the lead, "Australian 7th Division and the 126th and 128th Infantry Regiments..." link the 126th and 128th Infantry Regiments

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Lieutenant General Richard K. Sutherland, MacArthur's chief of staff...": include MacArthur's full name and position here

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• " training regimen, MacArthur insisted...": same as above

Fixed above? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• " It is estimated that the Australians deployed in excess of 7,000 troops": who has estimated this? For instance, "Smith estimates..." or something similar

See note. This is my estimate based on simple (though somewhat fuzzy arithmetic - therefore not WP:OR?) in the absence of any number in the sources being identified. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• ""In almost two weeks of fighting they had failed to score even one noteworthy success." --> the quote should be attributed in text. For instance, "Milner writes, "in almost two weeks of fighting they had failed to score even one noteworthy success.".."

Done

• "Unfortunately, the dye was more...": it's best to avoid words like "unfortunately" as they create the impression of a point of view

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Good luck with taking the article further. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)