Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landing at Jacquinot Bay

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Landing at Jacquinot Bay[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Nick-D (talk)

Landing at Jacquinot Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


This article looks at an amphibious operation that marked the start of Australian ground operations on New Britain in late 1944, as they relieved the US garrison on the island. Nick and I have worked on this together and took it to GAN a couple of years ago. Last Christmas holidays we took the overarching campaign article through ACR, and I figure that we are slowly working through the child articles. (Nick's article on Arawe is already an FA, and the other battles are all B-class, some of which I hope to improve further these holidays). Thank you to everyone who stops by to help improve the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Australian_6th_Inf_Bde_stores_Jacquinot_Bay_November_1944_(AWM_photo_076679).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Australian_soldiers_disembarking_from_a_US_Army_landing_craft_at_Jacquinot_Bay_on_4_November_1944.JPG, File:Australian_Army_power_shovel_unloading_gravel_into_a_truck_at_Jacquinot_Bay_in_December_1944.JPG
    • All three images are PD as they're Australian Government created/owned and are more than 50 years old - I've updated the copyright tags. Their records on the Australian War Memorial's website also all state that they are PD. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:New_guinea.png: what is the source for the battle locations? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The caption in this article doesn't state that they were battle locations, though it includes many sites mentioned (with refs) in the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the map itself was sourced to Open Street Map by its creator. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I read through this as soon as it was nominated, and it looks in fine shape. I have a few comments:

  • should an alternative bolded title in the lead be Operation Battleaxe?
    • That name isn't used much in the sources, and it might lead to some confusion given that there's a much more famous Operation Battleaxe. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Battle of Arawe, Battle of Cape Gloucester and Battle of Talasea" → "Battles of Arawe, Cape Gloucester and Talasea" with the links piped
  • suggest "with the unitformation to assume responsibility"
  • perhaps mention where the Gazelle Peninsula is when it is first mentioned?
  • I reckon you could drop the parens from "(approximately 100 miles [160 km] east of Arawe)"
  • were the AIB NCOs also Australian? Perhaps reword this sentence?
    • They were Australians - reworded to clarify. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the SS Cape Alexander (AK-5010) likely to be notable? If so, redlink?
    • I think that's a later ship. I don't think that the World War II-era ship is likely to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • if ML 827 is notable, perhaps ML 802 is too? redlink?
  • I don't think the apostrophes on either side of 'B' (or 'A' etc) are needed, just B (or A) Company should suffice in each case
    • Good point - this is usually useful when you start a sentence with 'A' Company to avoid confusion, but isn't needed here. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know which squadrons from the RNZAF were based there?
    • Quite a few - the RNZAF practice was to rotate fighter squadrons between NZ and the Pacific every few weeks. The official history of the RNZAF actually says that three squadrons were at Jacquinot Bay, with the two fighter units rotating fairly frequently. I've fixed the number, but would prefer to not go into details on the rotations as it's a bit off the article's topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done, not much to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

The sources used all appear to be of high quality and reliable, mainly campaign-specific books and official Australian and US histories. The use of primary sources is limited to uncontroversial detail from war diaries, and I spot-checked all the primary source footnotes. The book source footnotes I've AGF'd, because they are published by reputable publishing houses, there doesn't appear to be anything controversial to be concerned about, and I know the standard of the work produced by the noms. A Google Books and Scholar search indicates that there isn't much recent scholarship on this operation other than Grant, which explains the relative age of many of the campaign-specific sources. The only thing that I might remark upon is the cluster of four footnotes starting with [36] in the Landing section relating to the ORBAT of the force, could this footnoting be done in a bit more granular way? That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, thanks for looking at this. I have split out the citations you have highlighted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Initial Comments by Cinderella157[edit]

Hi, here are some initial observations.

  • Firstly, the article appears to struggle a little - perhaps because it was largely uneventful. This causes some concern WRT the balance between the parent and daughter article. Suggest that expanding base development might go some way to this (Hawkeye7?).
    • Expanded a bit more. Hopefully Hawkeye will point out any errors or omissions in this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest reorganising background section along these lines.
  1. Background (general military situation NG/New Britain)
    1. Geography
    2. Preliminary ops (AIB)
  • Good point, thanks. Added a geography section and some subheaders. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am seeing many localities mentioned which are not on the maps provided or which are not otherwise referenced relative to localities on maps. further, many don't have links making it more difficult. The map in Long (CH 10 p 243) of New Britain covers all of the key locations he mentions. The map "Australian operations in central New Britain", used in the article, covers the area in sufficient scale but lacks many of the locations. It may be possible to add these? It does not; however, cover some locations between Gasmata and Jacquinot Bay. Locating Cape Dampier on the map "eastern New Guinea and New Britain" would probably resolve any residual problems, since Massau and Awul are either side of the base of the cape. You might check I have not missed any other locations that cannot be dealt with by adding to "Australian operations in central New Britain". I might be able to help but I think we asked for help WRT the NG map previously.
    • Added File:New Britain map Long p 243.png, which includes Cape Dampier. I don't know if it would be possible to add Cape Dampier to File:New guinea.png, but I have asked. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This added map resolves any locality issues I think, since I am pretty certain that all localities referred to on New Britain are indicated on the new map.
  • The question begging for me, was "where was (the rest of) 5 Div?". Long didn't clarify this for me nor did 5th Division (Australia). It might be necessary to go the war diary to get some idea of who, what and where, at the time in question?
    • I think that's answered in the last para of the 'Base construction' section, which notes that the division couldn't be brought forward immediately due to shipping shortages. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After being re-designated once again as the 5th Division, the headquarters moved to Finschafen, assuming control of the 4th and 8th Brigades, and taking over the advance along the Rai coast towards Madang, which was secured in April 1944. Throughout the coming months, the 15th Brigade was reassigned to the division, as was the 7th Brigade, although both the 15th and 4th Brigades were returned to Australia in July and August 1944.
This too is refed to MacKenzie-Smith p 2036. Not strictly part of this but if MacKenzie-Smith is handy, it might be possible to add a bit more there so there is no "appearance" of inconsistency between the two articles. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified the reorg at the 5th Div article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed some repetitive phrasing, passive voice etc that I might tweak as I have done in the past with AR.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noticed result in infobox as allied victory. This is more an "operation" than a "conflict" and "Allied success" might be a better result. Not saying that the infobox type has to be changed. I am looking at making some amendments to the infobox guidance re this but leaving off ATM as the close for the RfC might still be up in the air. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, good point. That works for me. I was, in fact, wondering about this last night. @Nick-D: are you happy with this change? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking the same thing yesterday as well... As we're in agreement, I've swapped the infobox to the military objective one. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest moving the first two maps up by one section each, making them more "apparent" for discussion to which they are relevant? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The southern part of the island is dominated by a densely forested central mountain range that rises to 6,000 feet (1,800 m) which sits inland from a narrow coastal shelf." Presumably this is that part of the island excluding the Gazelle Peninsula and isthmus? I suggest that southwest is a better description that might be clarified similar to what I have done here.
    • Adjusted to make it clearer hopefully. Wasn't sure about "south-west" as a description as the source is describing eastern New Britain. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The data for temp and rainfall precedes by date the time of the landing. Is there info more relevant to the time of the landing, even if only qualitative - even if it uses more recent data that can be contexturalised?
    • Not that I've found yet. I've adjusted the wording to make it clear that the figures come from prior to the operation. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • [1][2][3] Might be helpful? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure, really. These are from the late 1950s, some 12-14 years after the operation and don't seem to cover Jacquinot Bay unless I missed it. The figures from the 1943 study seem more likely to me to be closer to the situation in late 1944 and are what the planners would have used. They are only meant to be indicative anyway. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both are long-term averages(?) so the extra years isn't that significant. The difference in average rain in September and November is more significant? If Gasmata is indicative of weather at JB then it follows that the relative changes in the amount of rain are also indicative. The Gasmata rain data follows a similar pattern (broadly) to JB and the monsoon. From the Gasmata data, falls in November are about half of September's. It is likely similar at JB. Suggest a note citing Gasmata data "For comparison, average rainfall in at Gasmata in November (the month of the landing) is less than half that in September." Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Added something about last quarter and specifically November; to clarify, these are figures for Palmalmal, which is on the southern shore of Jacquinot Bay. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... with the heaviest rain falling between July and September, mainly during periods of darkness." Suggest: "... with the wettest period between July and September. Rain events were mainly at night [or "in darkness"]". I note your edit to "periods of darkness" but suggest a more active voice and shortening sentences for readability.
    • Adjusted, but added "or in the early morning", as it wasn't only at "night" as such. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per immediately above, active voice and shortening sentences (less complex structure) is a general observation. I mentioned this before. The article has been in a bit of flux as a result of review comments until now. @Nick-D: are you comfortable with me copy-editing IAW this rather than toing-and-froeing and on the basis that edits are suggestions subject to discussion?
  • "The indigenous population was concentrated in two areas: the coastal area and the mountains." There is something wrong with this but not certain what or how to fix. It is almost tautological? There were only two choices and both were taken? There were indigenous communities (villages?) in both the coastal areas and the mountains? (ie they lived all over the place) Perhaps: "Both the coastal area and the mountains were inhabited by the indigenous population?"
  • Was it "under control" since 1920 or was it mandated in 1920. It reads to the former but was more likely the latter? Suggest then: "... was mandated in 1920 and considered under gov control ... "?
  • To "Strategic situation": perhaps a little (tiny) more "big picture" detail re what was happening on New Guinea mainland and south (Bougainville etc).
    • Added something now. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is the right stuff but tacking it on the end seemed out of place. I have tried to integrate it into the previous text to give it more of a top-down feel. Took a bit of nutting and then I lost a para just as I was going to post and had to try to get it right again. Hope this is an improvement, though you will have to cross-check that I have not dislocated the sources too much. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Moved the citation slightly as I think Drea covered some of it, and moved mention of Talasea as it seemed a bit out of place in the second paragraph. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general point, why Jacquinot Bay? My brief reading is that there were many possible options on the south coast?
    • I'm not sure, sorry, beyond the recon assessment, anchorages (added some more on this), suitability for liberty ships and airfield development possibilities. From a quick map recon, I'd consider a few options: Montagu Harbour, Jacquinot Bay and Waterfall Bay. Montagu Harbour was probably too exposed to the weather to the southeast, and may have been too far away from the objective (establishing a defensive line across Wide Bay-Open Bay). Waterfall Bay appears to be smaller and less sheltered, and is also closer to the Japanese airbases at Rabaul, so maybe that had something to do with it. All speculation on my part, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first couple of paras of the 'preparations' section provide all that the sources say on this. Jacquinot Bay was one of two sites investigated for the 5th Division's logistical base, but the source (the official history) doesn't give the criteria used to assess the sites. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi @Nick-D:, I raised the question, inpart, because I think Long indicated multiple possible locations along the south coast. It is also a question begging an answer. However, if there is none available, there is none. Some edits by AR have been helpful in making the question "less prominent". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rupert is correct. The area was selected as most the most suitable for the development of a base on the basis of:
            1. The area had suitable locations for brigade groups
            2. There was a suitable area around the Palmalmal Platation for the establishment of a base sub area
            3. There was a protected anchorage capable of accommodating up to six Liberty ship, and a suitable site for a wharf in the Palmalmal Platation area
            4. There was a suitable site for an aircstrip between Cape Cunningham North and Manginuna
          • See [4], which also details the problems with Cape Hoskins/Talasea Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I've added some more details. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nick-D: G'day, Nick, have you got anything that could be added here? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All points above resolved. Will get more done. regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More comments[edit]
  • After my copy-edit, last para in "strategic situation" reads: "The main force was stationed around Rabaul." There are two other statements in this section of the Japaneses force being concentrated on the Gazelle Peninsular. A bit repetitive?
    • Deleted here so that the para is focused on the Japanese not near Rabaul Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second para of "Landing" section. I hope my edit rearranging the para is self-evident but I can give a detailed rationale. References will need to be checked for possible dislocation. Is it known where the MLs escorted from? I am guessing they were from separate locations but it may have been from the same loc but separate because of speed? The text may need tweaking to make it clearer that they were separate movements but I have left it pending as the answers (if known) may make it easier to deal with. Might clarify that Frances Peat was a cargo transport (I assume it was?). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just clarified this. Frances Peat was carrying the New Guinean troops, and the coastal craft departed from Arawe with all others departing from Lae. 10:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ogders p 328 identifies Japanese Division on New Britain at the time and the proportion of naval/army personnel. Suggest incorperating this. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think those figures may be outdated - the 'Strategic situation' provides other numbers from the most recent source. The unit designations aren't terribly meaningful given that the various formations had been bashed up, and none were near complete - even by Japanese standards the order of battle was a mess. As they weren't engaged in this landing or the subsequent campaign, I'd rather not name them here. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Nick-D, Ogders gives 50k army and 30k navy. The Grant probably counts some omitted by Ogders (perhaps labour units) that were not reported by Ogders - ie a difference in reporting rather than an error. Long also quotes 93k and gives some break-down, similar to Ogders.
      • Then, "there were 93,000 Japanese on the island,[14] forming part of General Hitoshi Imamura's Eighth Area Army" but were they all part of the Area Army, as this reads? Were marines under army command?
      • "forming part of General Hitoshi Imamura's Eighth Area Army" It begs the question regarding the rest. As you say, you would rather not name the actual formations defending the island but this statement; however, makes the article look vague rather than that the situation was vague.
      • I previously suggested additional material to give a more top-down view from the Allied perspective. I might suggest something similar for the Japanese situation - for balance. A broad brush of the Japanese campaign might form a new first para in this section - ie main base in SWP AO for ops in Solomons, mainland New Guinea and Islands of Aust Territory of New Guinea; 8th area Area Army formed in ... and HQ there; naval base, suffered reversals in Solomons, Papua etc and gradually isolated ...; garrison troops for defence plus support units etc. This can then follow much as it does, through the allied intent etc to the penultimate para that details the current Japanese situation. In Summary, add a new para at the start but keep everything else pretty much as is (broadly speaking). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a bit on the Japanese defensive priorities and strategy on New Britain, noting that they made few efforts to defend anywhere outside the positions around Rabaul which I think covers those topics adequately. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi, I was thinking more globally (ie, from the assumption that a reader had no prior knowledge of what had happened in the theatre (so - for those that came late). However ... : " or if the size of Australian forces on the island was increased.[15] Imamura retained almost all of the forces on New Britain in defensive positions near Rabaul until the end of the war, and made few efforts to contest the Australian operations on the island; Australian official historian Gavin Long wrote that it was unclear why the Japanese stance on New Britain was so passive when the Australian offensive on Bougainville was strongly resisted.[16][17]" As a summary of the strategic situation (ie before the fact) the references to "Australians" appear to be temporally out of context given the Australian forces had not landed? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added a bit on the goals of Operation Cartwheel, and moved the material about Long down. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Japanese air raid was conducted against Jacquinot Bay on 23 November." Any indication of damage/degree of success? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the source doesn't say. No source mentions significant damage from the small number of Japanese aircraft at Rabaul. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this period the 14th/32nd Battalion remained near the landing area" Which period? See my ce that removes "During this period" (?) Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That shortly after the landing - your edits fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: Are you now in a position to support this nomination? Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the short break. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several LCMs were used to move water forward." A little ambiguous as to where forward was. From where? presumably the wells were saline and water was shipped from nearby sources to the base? Pls clarify as best the sources might. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source is a bit unclear, but states that the water was delivered to "the forward area", which would have been the troops operating near the Japanese. I've tweaked the wording. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Politely, nup. I agree: would have been the troops operating near the Japanese. Question is: how close? JB was operating near the Japanese [and is likely "forward" in this context]. A lack of water at JB does not necessitate LCMs moving water from JB forward? The tweaking is worse and does not resolve the ambiguity. Your "tweak" just clarifies how ambiguous this is. I am looking at the source. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • ? Go for it then. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • HI, don't know if I have been successful in communicating the issue I see; however, ... Have looked at Mallett and war diary for 5th Div and 5th Sub-Area and have not seen ref to lack of water, water restrictions or transport of water by LCMs that would clarify Mallett. There is no specific citation by Mallett wrt this? Logically, if water was low at JB, it would be shipped to JB. Mallet's water carts might be a Furphy? Unless there is a source that can clarify where the water was being shipped from and to, it might be safest to remove the reference altogeather and simply say that: "... began to run dry. Water restrictions were imposed. While wells were dug the water found ..."
            • From re-reading the source, it seems that Jacquinot Bay was totally out of water for few days, so water was shipped there. I've amended accordingly. This could be omitted given that it seems to have been a minor crisis. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following day, bad weather affected further landing operations around the bay. The beachhead around Wunung was found to be unsatisfactory, while operations ceased at Kamalgaman and the landing of the 1 NGIB troops around Pomio had to be delayed, although the beach around Mal Mal was useable and the nearby road found to be suitable for jeeps. This "although" seems out of place and what follows seems unclear. Is this what is intended?
The following day, bad weather affected further landing operations around the bay. The beach around Mal Mal was useable and the nearby road found to be suitable for jeeps; however, the beachhead around Wunung was found to be unsatisfactory. Operations ceased at Kamalgaman and the landing of the 1 NGIB troops around Pomio had to be delayed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that reads better. Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, have revised sections and made suggestions for voice/readability. Please check re 8th Area Army edit for citation continuity and generally that I haven't made any typos - if acceptable. Regards Cinderella157 (talk)
    • I made a couple of tweaks with the refs, etc. Thanks for your time with this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • IJN is the Imperial Japanese Navy. not the Army
    • Thanks, good spot. Adjusted introduction of the abbreviation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In late April 1944, the US Army's 40th Infantry Division assumed responsibility for garrisoning the Allied positions in New Britain. The use of an Australian division was considered at this time, but rejected in favour of bringing the 40th Division up from the Solomons as requiring too much shipping. It was understood that the move would have to be done later.
  • As a result, the fighting on New Britain devolved largely into what Peter Dennis has called I know who Peter is, but the reader is probably none the wiser.
  • In mid-1944, the Australian Government agreed to take on responsibility for the military operations in the northern Solomon Islands and Australian New Guinea, including New Britain, as US troops were reallocated towards operations to secure the Philippines. These were Australian territories. (For some reason, people forget that Bougainville was part of Australian New Guinea - Blamey had to remind Curtin of this.) The Australians also took over in Dutch New Guinea.
  • By the time of the Australian take-over New paragraph here.
  • Sandover and his three battalion commanders were all Australian Imperial Force veterans who had taken part in the fighting against the Germans and Italians in North Africa, Greece and Syria during 1941 and 1942. Actually, they fought the French in Syria. (Why not name the battalion commanders at this point?)
  • The 36th Battalion was dispatched to Cape Hoskins from Lae, in early October,[28] and relieved a battalion of the US 158th Infantry Regiment. This was the 158th Regimental Combat Team (Bushmasters), was not part of the 40th Infantry Division, and was not there. (Has a look.) Argggh, typo. You want the 185th Infantry, which was part of the 40th Division.
  • The company from the 594th Engineer Boat and Shore Regiment, equipped with 14 LCMs and 9 Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel (LCVPs) Perhaps mention this when B Co., 594th EBSR is introduced?
  • allowed the LCMs to withdrawn by mid-April 1945 Be withdrawn?
  • As Allied intelligence regarding the Japanese was still uncertain Or indeed, as has already been mentioned, incorrect. Ultra tended to miss small logistical units, but as the combat units diminished, they were fed into the fight as reinforcements. Repeated underestimates in 1942-44 made Australian and American commanders wary, especially as they could not be quickly reinforced if things went wrong. In some areas, the Japanese were quite aggressive; those in Rabaul were not.
  • The Australian advance was hampered by shortages of shipping, aircraft and communications What communications are we talking about? And how did an aircraft shortage affect the advance?
    • Attempted to clarify. I think communications may have been a misinterpretation of the source, which talks about "intercommunication or reconnaissance aircraft". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for taking a look at this, Hawkeye. Please let me know what you think of the changes? @Nick-D: would you mind taking a look and adding anything you think I may have missed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good to me Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz[edit]

Hi @Nick-D and AustralianRupert: just a few gnomish suggestions and questions...

  • two fresh water rivers - should fresh water be hyphenated or one word?
  • Pomio - wlink Pomio District?
  • The coastal region experienced a higher rainfall than the northern coast - ?
  • between July to September - between July and September or swap "between" to 'from'?
  • darkness at night - maybe remove darkness?
    • Went with "periods of darkness" and removed "at night or in the early morning" as the later seems redundant. 02:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • so it could not be used to launch attacks against the flank - used 'by the Japanese'?
  • guerilla campaign - wlink Guerrilla warfare?
  • and the Australian New Guinea - is "the" correct
  • By the time of the Australian take-over - in lede has no hyphen
  • coastwatching stations are same as observation posts? not suggesting any change here, just curious
    • For me they have similarities but slight differences: observation posts are used by military forces in ground conflict (i.e. to detect enemy troops), or potentially also aerial threats to ground forces. Coastwatching stations detect movements of enemy ships. Please note this is not a sourced definition, just my opinion and potentially biased by my land lubberness... AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That's right, although coastwatchers also looked out for aircraft. Some were located under Japanese flight paths in the Solomons. I wrote an article on one coastwatcher, Ruby Boye. An OP is usually in contact with the artillery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks both for explaining that... and yeah Hawkeye7, I remember enjoying reading Ruby's story. JennyOz (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • drawn from Nos. 6, 8 and 100 Squadrons - I can't remember... No.s?
  • Nos. 6, 8 and 100 Squadrons v No. 8 and No. 100 Squadrons - style diff
  • two days, HMAS Vendetta, Barcoo and Swan proceeded - is HMAS necessary ie already used above
    • Adjusted. The HMAS is redundant, IMO, as it already says they were RAN vessels. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Japanese air raid was conducted against Jacquinot Bay on 23 November. - to any effect?
    • Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything about damage at this stage. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • advance party v advanced party - (2 each) intentional?
  • arriving on 16 December - add year? (because previous sentence is talking about May 1945 and following is April 1945)
  • meaning that the there was a delay - remove "the"
  • caption "... the landing craft which carried them the northern shore..." - tweak?
  • unloaded 3,400 cubic metres (4,400 cu yd) - all others are imp > metric

Citations and Bibliography

That's all folks, thanks JennyOz (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz: thanks your time with this, Jenny. I have responded to your comments above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @AustralianRupert: happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Landing_at_Jacquinot_Bay&oldid=875958980"