Talk:Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse

'Notes' edit link not working

Clicking directly on the 'edit' word after 'Notes' at very bottom does not allow one to edit the notes.

Does one first have to edit the 'note' where it is first inserted in the page?

Reference in "popular"(maybe) culture

I bought a comic in Japan that's about pilots in World War 2, there's a picture of an ancient-looking bloke on so some of the stories may be taken from his life (though others are totally fantastic like a shot-down pilot falling into the cockpit of an American plane that's about to take off, and having a fist fight in mid air!). Anyway one of the stories is about this battle, or at least I was able to make out "Price of Wales" in Katakana. I can't read much else Japanese, though, so I don't even know the name of the comic, but I'll try and decipher it later. 131.111.53.207 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I looked and the comic appears to be called "Aa Taiheiyo" which roughly means "That Pacific Ocean", with emphasis on "That" like you'd say 9/11 was "That day in September". It seems to have originally appeared in a series of 1950's comics called "Shonen Senki" or "Boy's War Record". 86.159.19.189 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese planes

So were the Japanese planes land-based or did they come from one or more aircraft carriers? It'd be good if the article had a little more detail on that point. Thanks. — RJH 18:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've always read these were Imperial Japanese Navy land-based torpedo bombers.PHG 21:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think they came from Vichy French Indo-China (Vietnam), which the Japanese had taken over. I'll check it up and try and find a ref. Wiki-Ed 09:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Wreath drop? Was the wreath dropped to honor the British fight or to honor the two planes from the pilot's squadron, shot down by Repulse? The reason cited sounds very "after the fact." Bushido courtesy, across belligerant & service lines (in this case, pilots v. sailors), was a rare thing, I gather. ~~ Howard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.170.250 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese bombers

There were 86 aircraft from a squadron that was based in Saigon.

• I added the next detail: the aircrafts was Mitsubishi G3M2 "Nell" (Attack bomber type 96 of Navy,Mark 22)from Mihoro Kokutai,22nd Koku Sentai and Mitsubishi G4M1(Attack bomber type 1 of Navy,Mark 11)of Kanoya Kokutai,21 Koku Sentai,both groups under led of 11th Koku Kantai(Land Based Bomber group)with Base in Saigon.from these air groups,ones 126 was preparing to Torpedo striking,but only 94 was ordered to take off for battle,also support by Mitsubishi C5M2 "Babs"recon plane.
• including added why the Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" identified "M- 323"(Bomber N° 23,part of Mihoro Group(M)) are part of Mihoro Kokutai s Strike force in such attack.

• Other versions say about such attack was realized for GenzanKokutai(G4M) and Takao Kokutai(G3M), both groups posted units in Saigon too.

• There is an interview with a Captain Sonokawa, Kameo, IJN who was Flight Leader of Genzan Air Corps, the complete text of it is available on the Force Z Survivors Association Website Click on 'Pilots Eye View' --Andy Wade 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In this article some airplane models are identified only by their Allied code names. It seems to me wrong to identify anything only by what its enemies called it. David R. Ingham (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture Image:Japanese high-level bombing attack on HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse on 10 December 1941 (NH 60566).jpg

With reference to the picture:

Attack on HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse.

It has been described thus: This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

I think this is a little bit tenuous to say the least, as it is clearly not the work of a US Navy employee, but a member of the Imperial Japanese Navy. It was taken at the time of the first wave of the attack on HMS Repulse. Does the US Navy having the right to publish it (possibly with permission), mean that Wikipedia does also? I'd like to see the right to publish it explained a little bit better or I think the picture should be removed. --Andy Wade 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The photo is tagged with both the U.S. government public domain and the Japanese public domain tags because it falls under both. The photo was taken by a Japanese government employee so it's public domain under Japanese copyright law. The photo was also included in the large body of documents confiscated by U.S. government administrators during the Allied occupation of Japan immediately after the war and placed in the U.S. National Archives which makes it public domain of the U.S. government also. Both tags are therefore appropriate. Cla68 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kriegsmarine

There should be a mention of the nazis in the article. It was solely because of the need to watch over the hiding Tirpitz battleship that the british were unable to assign an aircraft carrier to provide fighter umbrella for the Z fleet. If the Tirpitz did not exist, HMS PoW and Repulse would have survived with the help of a CV and its fighter planes. 82.131.210.162 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Indomitable had been allocated to cover Force Z (Battleship by Martin Middlebrook and Patrick Mahoney), but ran aground whilst working up in the Caribbean. At this time, Tirpitz wasn't even in Norway and hadn't sortied. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It would not be too fanciful to imagine that Indomitable would have been sunk as well if it had been present. If Force Z had survived it would have to have contended with a much larger IJN force which visited the region a few months later. Wiki-Ed 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

True, carriers are vulnerable to land-based aircraft forces which was the case in this situation. Plus, as you pointed out, Japan's large carrier fleet paid the area a visit a couple of months later. Cla68 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Casualty figures

The casualty figures in the articles on the Prince of Wales, Repulse and the sinking of both ships do not agree with one-another (Eg. According the article on Repulse more survivors were rescued from the ship than were in its complement, and >300 died). I have no idea what the correct figures are and since there are no in-line citations it's impossible to work out where the data has come from. Does anyone have verifiable information on the complement of each ship and the number that perished in December 41? Wiki-Ed 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wiki-Ed, the official figures are in dispute, and have been for many years. The Prince of Wales and Repulse Survivors Association maintains that it is a total of 840 (for both ships), but the 'official' records show that it is less than this, and despite several attempts to verify the correct figures, no one has yet come up with a verifiable count. The main reason for this is that it is believed that several men who were drafted aboard the ships when they sank were only registered aboard the ships, and these records went down with the ships. Any other records were lost/destroyed when Singapore fell some months later in February 1942. Anecdotal evidence from survivors has names not 'officially' listed as being aboard during the sinkings. And they would not forget this in a hurry I guess.

The best available list I know of is the one I maintain on the Force Z Survivors Association website, complied from official lists and records from the Survivors Association. All names on the lists have been verified with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission database, and they have figures of 328 for HMS Prince of Wales and 435 for HMS Repulse, which makes for a total of 763. Clearly this is unacceptable but in the absence of any verifiable lists it's all we have. Whilst the association does dispute the official figures it only has the official names on the website. I have not had any access to the alleged missing names, or I would add them to the lists with a caveat against each name.

Part of the problem is that men who are listed as serving at Singapore's Naval Base were actually aboard the ships, and so they have 'HMS Sultan' appearing against their names on the CWGC database. Cue confusion.--Andy Wade 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

---

HMS Indomitable: -anomaly-

Main article - also with reference to 'Kreigsmarine' section, in discussion above.

The aircraft carrier Indomitable may have been nominated as the air-defence component of force Z, ( the battleships Prince of Wales & Repulse ) but, given the times of events and distances involved, it seems doubtful that Indomitable would ever have been able to rendevous with the other warships at Singapore in early December of 1941. With the Indomitable in the vicinity of Kingston, Jamaica, on November 3rd, it is questionable whether it could have reached Singapore by December 10th. - even if the grounding damage to the aircraft carrier had never occurred. There may have been some preliminary planning for the Indomitable to join the Far-East task force at an unspecified later date. However, the fact that the aircraft carrier was delayed, as a result to grounding damage on November 3rd, was never a contributory factor in the eventual loss of the two capital ships on December 10th.

Using the actual voyage of HMS. Prince of Wales as a comparison, the time taken to reach Singapore, from the UK, was thirty nine days (24th. October to 2nd December 1941). The distance from the Clyde, in Scotland, to Singapore, is similar to the distance between Kingston, Jamaica and Singapore, - via the Cape of Good Hope. (the distance from Kingston is about a hundred miles more.) Allowing for the days spent at re-fueling ports en-route, the time taken for the Prince of Wales' voyage suggests that the greater part of the route was traversed at economical cruising speed. Assuming that the grounding of Indomitable never happened, and that on November 3rd. the ship received orders to proceed to Singapore, then a likely date for arrival would have been December 12th. - given that that Indomitable would have followed much the same route as that taken by the Prince of Wales.

In theory, if Indomitable had received urgent orders, the time required to reach Singapore could have been reduced - perhaps by choosing a more direct route, via either Panama or Suez. Increased speed might also have shortened the duration of the voyage. However, in the circumstances of the time, those speculative options would seem to lack credibility. (Selecting either of the canal transits would have been a gift to spies acting for Axis naval intelligence. Increased speed on the voyage would have involved very complex logistics for re-fueling points and escort vessels. )

Leaving the speculation aside, it isn't clear why Indomitable wasn't ordered to join the Prince of Wales, en-route, - long before the grounding occurred. One possibile location for a rendevous would have been at Freetown, Sierra Leone. The battleship was there about November 6th. 1941. J.Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.235 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No Allied Capital Ships?

The article claims that after Pearl Harbor and the loss of Force Z, there were no Allied capital ships left in the Pacific. What about Lexington, Saratoga, and Enterprise? They were still operating in the Pacific, as the Japanese would soon learn all too well. I am thinking of editing the article to reflect the fact that there were still 3 American capital ships left in-theater.--SpudHawg948 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, CVs don't rate as capital ships. That technically only covers BBs. (Boy, timely response, huh?) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Defence of the realm

I deleted

"The plans for the British defence of Singapore fell into the hands of the Axis when S.S. Automedon was boarded by the German raider Atlantis in the Indian Ocean, on 11 November 1940. The Germans discovered the documents and sent them to the Japanese. "

as OT. This deals with defense of Singapore proper, & has virtually nothing to do with the sinkings. Move it to Battle of Singapore or someplace. I also deleted this

“ It was obvious that the three destroyers were going to take hours to pick up those hundreds of men clinging to bits of wreckage and swimming around in the filthy, oily water. Above all this, the threat of another bombing and machine-gun attack was imminent. Every one of those men must have realised that. Yet as I flew around, every man waved and put up his thumb as I flew over him. After an hour, lack of petrol forced me to leave, but during that hour I had seen many men in dire danger waving, cheering and joking, as if they were holiday-makers at Brighton waving at a low-flying aircraft. It shook me, for here was something above human nature. - Flight Lieutenant Tim Vigors, DFC, RAAF ”

based on Stephen, p.114, as a very faulty view of what really happened.

Furthermore, given Winston's "fleet in being" idea, & experience with German raiders, was it ever proposed to use them as raiders against Japanese SLOCs? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:43 & 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephens should not be seen as an authoritive text on the action either. While a jack of all battles, he is not a master of all'. Much more authoritive works are by Marder, Tarrant, and Middlebrook and Mahoney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.35.43 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Off site discussion on the details of the sinking

For those interested in such details, a useful discussion is here on a forum about the Imperial Japanese Navy. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephens is entitled to his opinion but I have evidence from members of the crew of HMS Repulse who were there on the day. Several viewpoints have been made regarding the actions and feelings of the crew members at this particular time. Some were shaking their fists at the Air Force - who for no fault of their own arrived late, but others were very relieved to see them as they'd heard reports of men in the water having been machine gunned by Japanese planes in previous encounters. Vigors report may be flawed but it forms part of the London Gazette report by officers and was echoed personally by Air Vice Marshall C. Pulford at that time. We are recording this event are we not? So Vigors' contribution and opinion is just as valid as anyone else who was there. Stephens was not. --Andy Wade (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Three capital ships left in the Pacific

Under heading Effects of the Sinking, "Combined with the earlier attack on Pearl Harbor, this left the Allies with only three operational capital ships in the Pacific Theatre."

Can anyone clarify as to what those three capitals ships were? Wolcott (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably the American aircraft carriers Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga. They weren't present during Pearl Harbour as they were of course at sea at the time of that attack. --Andy Wade (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Prince of Wales & Repulse were the only allied battleships in the Far East, I guess the American carriers are the obvious capital ships the sentence is referring to. Would it be necessary to make the sentence more specific by adding the names of those carriers to it? Wolcott (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User Ed17 added a dubious/talk tag to this section - which I have subsequently removed - suggesting that the battleship USS Colorado was in the Pacific Theatre. First point: don't add tags asking other editors to talk about something without submitting a case yourself. Second point: the article on that ship says she was on the west coast of the US at the time being overhauled. A similar case could be made for Maryland being "active" since she survived Pearl Harbour, but I don't think anyone would accept that she was in a state to be deployed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Air Support

The article basically says that air support wasn't called due to arrogance/underestimating the Japanese, but Purnell's History Of The Second World War paints this in a different light. According to that, air support was not called due to Admiral Phillips wishing to maintain radio silence, lest they alert the Japanese ships they were stalking. He knew that the nearest airbase was aware of their position and gambled on them instinctively sending them an escort, or taking the risk of breaking radio silence. Obviously, we now know that he chose poorly!

Any thoughts on this? An awful lot of this article does appear to have come soley from the book by Martin Stephen. 94.168.46.50 (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you provide an online source, I cannot verify it. Wolcott (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Survivor figures

Are there figures for the numbers of survivors from each ship? The HMS Prince of Wales (53) article says "However, the stronger hull and superior underwater subdivision of Prince of Wales enabled her to stay afloat much longer than her aged companion and resulted in a far larger proportion of her crew being saved, in stark contrast to the older Repulse which suffered a heavy loss of life when she rapidly sank", and this article says that nearly 1000 survivors of Repulse were picked up, bu there is only mention of two survivors from the Prince of Wales. How many did survive, please? How many were picked up form each ship by the Allies and how many were taken prisoner by the Japanese? 86.143.70.57 (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There should be roughly 1194 survivors being as the crews complement was a complement of 1521 in 1941 and 327 killed in the sinking according to the prince of whales page.

Torpedoes and Torpedo bombers

The IJN and RN aerial torpedoes are little different; The Type 91 mod 1 and 2 had 330 and 450lb warheads, respectively, while the standard RN torpedo, the Mk 12 or 15 had a 388-375lb warhead. The underwater speeds of both IJN and RN torpedoes were all 40-45 knots, so again little difference. The drop speeds for each were about 150knots. The Swordfish (relevance?) was being phased out of front line service by Dec 1941, in favour of the Albacore, but the RAF was had been using the twin engined Beaufort as a land based torpedo bomber since 1940, so the idea that Japanese twin engined aircraft or torpedoes were 'vastly' superior to UK types is simply not correct. The only advantage they possessed was superior range, combined with faulty UK intelligence that underestimated IJN capability.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC) For more information on torpedoes read the following sections at navweapons: http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm and http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_Main.htm Damwiki1 (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I was referring to the Mk 14, not Mk 15 torpedo in the above statement.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree the torpedo specs do not differ much (but I think we're comparing Mk12s, not later variants), although I had thought the Type 91s to be slightly superior, particularly in terms of range... which leads to the real difference: the delivery. The Swordfish had played a prominent role in the previous year (e.g. Taranto and the hunt for the Bismarck) and so one would expect that Admiral Phillips would have these planes in mind at the time of the attack. Instead he faced much faster aircraft which were based well outside what he might consider reasonable range and could drop torpedoes half a mile further away than contemporary British torpedo bombers. I think these are the key differences and I would hope that if he had known these facts he would have been more careful. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Swordfish was being phased out of frontline service by mid 1941, but in any event landbased UK torpedo bombers, such as the Bristol Beaufort were greatly superior to the Swordfish in speed and range and, for that matter, so was the Italian SM-79 which the RN and Prince of Wales had faced previously in the Mediterranean during Operation Halberd. The idea that the Swordfish was somehow represented to Phillips, as the pinnacle of torpedo bomber development is laughable, and simply untrue. Torpedoes dropped beyond the maximum ranges of the RN aerial torpedoes would pose little threat to manoeuvring ships. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Also the RN Mk 14 was deployed to Singapore and the above source states that most were lost when Singapore surrendered.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying - there were better aircraft and weapons coming in to service - but that's not the point. Phillips would have been familiar with Taranto and he might have had some information about Pearl - both of which were attacks on non-moving _targets. What he would not know is that the Japanese possessed fast aircraft that could attack him from distant land bases, had practiced hitting moving _targets, and could drop torpedoes from outside the presumed envelope of his AA. Take away any one of those factors and the result would have been - almost certainly - different. I don't recall any events in the Med where the RN lost ships to aerial torpedoes, certainly not capital ships. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the key factor was Phillips lack of knowledge of IJN dispositions and the state of development of IJN aerial torpedo capability. The Italian airforce had torpedoed an RN battleship, HMS Nelson, at sea in Sept 1941, and had Philips thought that the IJN had torpedo bombers as capable as the SM-79 or BR.20 in the area, he probably would have been more cautious.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The ship today

The article claims that the ships are Royal Properties, is it possible to list the locations of the sunken ships? Are they truly in International Waters or within the national boundary of some country? This could be a one sided claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.136 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese Air Attack.

Still my apologies!!!! Upon figuring out how to retrieve the paragraph I ‘lost’ yesterday and reinserting it, I notice I have lost some of the direct links that were ‘attached’ to certain words that were there previously.

Important Note: The page in general contains many reference to Stephen and Grove's Sea Battles in Close-up. WWII. Now while their account of the sinking may be an ‘interesting’ read and is on the whole factual, it does contain several errors in timing and the numbers of planes involved in various attacks, besides the number of torpedo hits. As stated above, they may be 'jack of all battles', but some they are certainly not master of. Much more accurate accounts are found in Marder’s Old Friends, New Enemies, Tarrant’s King George V Class Battleships, and Middlebrook and Mahoney’s Battleships. Also Nicholson’s Hostage to Fortune contains a detailed appendix (20 pages) of many of the signals, including date and time, that passed amongst the ‘main players’ before, during and after the event. However it must be noted that all these books contain errors regarding the number of torpedo hits, but this is to be understood given the available data at the time they were written/published.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.35.43 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

11-20-11 To Walcott. With all due respect, your comment in the ‘View History’ section on 15th November after you reverted to they pre 15th September version of the article, that is that the following edits (post 15th Nov that is) "………appear to have messed up the article" is completely in error. Far from 'messing up the article' I corrected the Japanese Air Attack section as it was disjointed and contained errors and inconsistencies, and relied almost solely on one authors' (Stevens) description of the attack, rather than comparing various better informed authors' descriptions to get the facts straight.

What was 'messed up' if you want to call it that, was what I stated above, and that is the direct links (to other Wikipedia pages) for some of the words was 'lost' during the edits. For that I apologize. You are more than welcome to reinsert those links if you have the time.

I don't know if you wrote the pre 15th September version yourself, but if so it seems you have a very very small reference library with which to 'quote' from, use or refer to, basically just using Stevens account. If you do have the books or reports that are used in the post 15th Sept version (see References) then if you had taken the time to read and/or refer to the reference links I put in to the post 15th Sept edits before you reverted to the old version, you would see that everything that I wrote there is backed up by more knowledgeable authors than you or I (and Stevens for that matter). As stated above, Stevens book contains more than one error, so using him solely as a source is an error in itself.

So I implore you Walcott, before you yourself 'mess up' the section on the Japanese Air Attack again, that you refer to some of the books and or reports that I use as references and reread the sections / pages quoted before reverting to an (your?) old version of what actually happened that day.

I must say that I find it rather rude of you that you left no note in this discussion section of what you were doing and why, when you yourself 'messed up' the article on 15th November by reverting to that old version. However,no hard feelings, I am willing to work with you on allying any concerns you have re what I have written, as I want to see a factual portrayal of events posted here, not just one mans version of events.

JohHor (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)John HortonJohHor (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you're new to wikipedia, so I assume you're that IP address that made all those edits. I've gone through a few of your edits and they may appear to constitute weasel words, which if I'm correct is highly discouraged according to wikipedia policy. I also understand that you've failed to provide inline citations and/or sources to some additions you've made. I'm not sure if these are your edits, but here are a few:

• "Many more planes, some armed with bombs and some with torpedoes soon followed." No source provided to support this claim.
  
• "After failing to find any Japanese invasion force at Kuantan Phillips was finally heading south, but had dawdled in the area too long and was now about to pay the price." Possible weasel words.

You edits have also removed a highly relevant image of the ships under attack from the article without giving any valid reason. When I restored it you removed it again (again without any reason), so please do not repeat it again as it is removing content and may constitute Vandalism. Regarding this "Stevens account", those are not my edits and/or additions, so you may want to discuss that with the users who made the edits, and not me. I'm just making sure your edits adhere to wikipedia rules. Nonetheless, if you claim that said author "contains more than one error", then it should adhere to a neutral point of view and not by your personal opinion.

Please go through the manual of style for editing articles on wikipedia and rewrite any edits you have done which are not in accordance with wikipedia's policy. Wolcott (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to my previous response, I'm not happy that you're telling me "to reinsert those links if you have the time." As you're the one who did the edits, you should be reinserting them. As for the author you referred to, which you claim that "using him solely as a source is an error in itself", it is true that we shouldn't rely solely on one source. But this article relies on more than just the author you mentioned, just scroll to the bottom of this article and see "Notes" and "References". And please use Preview before saving any of your edits. Wolcott (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

numbers of survivors

One point seemingly missed by the various contributors is the temperature of the water. In the warm waters of the China Sea any survivor has a good chance of being picked up before drowning. Had the action been fought in the cold North Atlantic there would have been far fewer suvivors due to freezing.AT Kunene (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Force Z

The Background section has quite a lot of detail on strategic and political considerations which would sit better in the Force Z article. That needs expanding, and this one is already at the size where a split should be considered.
If there are no objections I propose to move the content of those sections and leave a summary here. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The picture the Force Z article is also better, the one here is a doctored photo or something (Fdsdh1 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC))

Brewster and Zero

The overall inferiority of the Buffalo to the A6M is mentioned, but it seems to be irrelevant, because there were no Japanese fighters in the battle, or at least not in the article. David R. Ingham (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's correct, there were no IJN fighters present during the attack. According to Bloody Shambles all the IJNAF flights that attacked were unescorted.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of aircraft types

It appears number of torpedo aircraft and level bombers are mixed up - "34 torpedo aircraft, 51 level bombers, 3 scouting aircraft". Later in article 49 torpedoes were reported seen and so many torpedoes can't be brought by 34 aircraft. Here - in article BARRY GOUGH, Prince of Wales and Repulse: Churchill’s “Veiled Threat” Reconsidered the numbers are done right - "The Japanese attack force (IJN’s 22nd Air Flotilla) in three squadrons—Genzan, Mikoro and Kanaya—consisted of thirty-four high-level bombers and fifty-one torpedo-bombers". Tigga (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence of Background

I have a question/issue with this sentence. Perhaps ambiguous wordage so I don't understand the intent. The line in question is: "Australian commitment to the war in Europe ... would be severely tested following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Darwin, and the Kokoda Track,[9] so Churchill's effort, while a military failure, may have been a political necessity." Did not the decisions involved in sending the naval squadron as well as deciding its size/makeup predate "attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Darwin, and the Kokoda Track"? Should we not just say he had to send something due to political necessity, so he did? Or is the argument in hindsight: having sent a squadron which got virtually annihilated, Churchill could argue: "see..I tried"? Someone help clear up the intent of this sentence. Juan Riley (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence - it implies Churchill sent Force Z to bolster the resolve of the Australians but his primary intention was to make the Japanese think the UK took the threat seriously and dissuade them from going to war. That was the political and strategic necessity. The threat to Australia was theoretical at the point the decision was made. Of course the strategic situation changed rapidly in December and the threat became real from that point forward, but he couldn't have known that in October when the ships were despatched. To imply this was a significant part of the calculation is misleading; if this section is to stay it will require much better sourcing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also wrong - Australia ceased to have a particularly strong "commitment to the war in Europe" following the attack on Pearl Harbor, for obvious reasons and with the agreement of Churchill (from memory, this was also in line with pre-Pearl Harbor imperial planning). What this para seems to be getting at is Churchill's response to Australia's concerns over the Japanese threat, but it's rather confusing at present. Material from the FA Singapore Strategy could be drawn on in improving this. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Singapore Strategy contains a good treatment of these issues. That's why I also added linkage to it yesterday in this section. Perhaps better if something like

Main article: Singapore Strategy

is added to the section header? That way the reader is clearly presented with where to go for more details without adding too much new material here. Juan Riley (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and added a Further template to the Background section header. Feel free to revert if you feel it is uncalled for or there is a better way. Juan Riley (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Philips

From all the introduction he gets, I gather Mr. Philips (showing up even before this paragraph) was with secret services. To add a touch of chaos to the prevailing state of confusion, there is another Admiral of same name showing up three times throughout the article …

How to replace the 'heavily retouched' photo (with a clearer one)?

I have a (rare?) copy of the 'original' Japanese photo (top right of page) showing HMS Express in foreground and the two capital ships in background.

The photo I have was published in Japan during the war and although the ocean surface / destroyer's wake seems to have been slightly retouched, the ships, especially the destroyer in foreground - which is so obviously bogus / heavily 'retouched' in what is here now - is much much clearer. That is, the destroyer is readily identifiable / confirmable as HMS Express. Even the two capital ships (in the background, which themselves have been heavily 'altered' in the current photo) in the copy that I have are much clearer / sharper. To say the difference between the copy I have and what is there now being night and day would be an understatement.

So, how can one replace said 'heavily retouched' photo with one much much less so? After all, the photo that is there now is laughable at how poor the 'retouching' on the destroyer has been done (not to mention the 'odd' look of the two capital ships)! No wonder many people think this is an out and out fake photo.

Thanks in advance.

KevinVD (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. First, could you check [1] and make sure the image you have is better that the original upload (in the version history)? If not then save yourself some effort.

Thanks for your reply. Mine below in bold.

The image I have is 'similar' to the main image you link to above, but much much / clearer and sharper; that is I can assure you that the image I have is orders of magnitude 'better' than the 'other' image.

However, if your image is indeed better than that version then please could you upload to Wikemedia commons with the correct license (which might be the same template as the one listed for the current image, but you'll need to check or it will get deleted), then update the link on this page to point to the new file. If you're new to editing Wikipedia and struggling - it can be a pain to get images sorted - then I'm sure someone will be able to help - just shout. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I wish I was able to upload it (and / or other photos to Wiki), but......................just can't see how too do so as not that 'website / computer' savvy. So, if someone would like me to send them the photo so they could upload it, then maybe that's the way to go? I am not trying to weasel out of 'work', I just don't know / can't see how to do the upload; I am just trying to find a way to help make the page better (and in the process get rid of the damn awful image that is there now!),

Realize most people do not want to put their email address on-line / here, but I have no problem putting a 'one off' (just for this purpose) email address here should someone like to contact me directly re me sending them the photo to upload.

KevinVD (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. It's not too hard once you get going, so we could try step by step? I had to check this myself because it's changed since I last tried it!)

1. Login to Wikipedia. Then open Wikimedia commons. It should carry your Wikipedia login credentials over, but if not then you'll need to create a new account.
2. Once you're logged in, go to the page for the existing image and click 'edit' next to Licensing. There will be some wikitext you need to copy - I can't replicate it here because it will transpose incorrectly. Basically you need to catch the two curly brackets at the beginning of PD-Japan-oldphoto and the two curly brackets at the end. You'll need to paste this later
3. Click upload on the left hand side of the screen. Ignore the cartoon - you'll have a waiver. Click next and then find the image file on your computer.
4. Click through the wizard process - it's relatively straightforward - until you get to the Release Rights section. You'll need to select the option for 'not your own work', then fill in the 'source' and 'author' boxes. (I assume you have this information - the newspaper?)
5. Then scroll down and select 'Another reason not mentioned above'. Paste the License wikitext (step 2) into the box there.
6. Click next and continue. The rest of the process should be relatively straightforward - filling in details. Some categories are optional if you don't have the info.
7. Once the file is uploaded you just need to point Wikipedia to the correct location on Wikimedia. So click edit at the top of the article here and change the fifth line down so that the text just after 'File:' is your image title. I can help at this point - just tell me where the file is.

Hope that makes sense!? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

THANKS! Not sure if you can teach an old dog (me) new tricks, but I will certainly give it a go and get back to you if I fail. However, should anyone like to contact me directly and debate the various images of this particular photo, and be sent definitive photographic proof that it is HMS Express in the foreground in the original genuine photo (as opposed to the bogus heavily doctored one), they can contact me on - wikiedit AT nym DOT hush DOT com. Of course should I start getting spam at this address, it will immediately be closed down. KevinVD (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I guess and old dog can learn new tricks after all, especially with such clear instructions! Thanks!!

However, although I have managed to place the new photo on the main page, it has changed the existing caption location (which was underneath the previous image) to be primarily at the side of the new image rather than underneath. I tried many iterations but could not 'fix' that issue. Maybe you could fix that please? And again, THANKS for your help. KevinVD (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Kevin, I think that the position of the caption is a function of your screen size as it's always been underneath on my 27 inch monitor. At any rate, I've cleaned up the image and the cite; the only mistake that you made was to add the thumbnail property as it's not used inside infoboxes. See how it displays for you now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Sturmvogel, it appears perfectly on my screen now. Re your comment -.....the only mistake that you made was to add the thumbnail property as it's not used inside infoboxes. Yes, I could see that 'property' - I assume you mean what I had named the jpg image itself? - but I couldn't figure out how to load image without that text embedded so to speak. Anyway, all good now. Again, thanks! KevinVD (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, look at the edit history to see exactly what I removed. The file name was fine, but you had two other properties specified, thumb and the alt text, separated by pipes. Which is perfectly appropriate for image outside of infoboxes. So [[File:Force-Z-evading.jpg|thumb|Force-Z-evading]] became Force-Z-evading.jpg Just be aware that this trick is appropriate only for ships infoboxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad you got it uploaded. I had wondered if a more authentic image would enable us to understand some of the other funny things with that image. I'm still intrigued as to why (a) the smoke from the capital ships is seemingly going in opposite directions and (b) the destroyer has no funnel smoke despite moving at speed. And also how on earth the crew of the plane got such a close range shot - and pretty much in focus - one would think the destroyer would have been shooting back. But hey, he got it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

According to the real experts (and I am not referring to myself by any means), much of that smoke you are seeing, especially the 'puffs' above and above left of the destroyer (DD) is simply left-over smoke from heavier AA air bursts, not funnel smoke. And by all accounts it was, basically, a windless day, hence the capital ships funnel smoke itself is just going to trail behind the direction of travel (and both capital ships are after all traveling in opposite directions at the point in time this image captures). As for the DD in foreground, i.e. HMS Express not firing back, she is 'firing back' with her light AA; look at the white smoke 'splotches' beside the bridge and just aft of amidships, right where some of her light AA is situated. As for height of plane, the Japs were on a mission to sink those two big ships at all costs, and if they were on their attack set-up runs, they were not changing that course for anyone. Why, numerous planes even directly overflew the two capital ships at mast head height or less on some post torp-drop run-outs, spraying decks with cannon fire on several occasions. So a 'little' DD would not have overly concerned them too much after all, although I would assume they did not intentionally plan to fly over it, she just 'got in the way'. As is often the case, that photographer was just in the right place at the right time. Sometimes ya' do just get lucky! But I would hardly say the photo is 'in-focus' by any means. As for lack of DD funnel smoke, in all likely-hood it may have disappeared with the sea surface retouching (more on that below), but that's just my opinion.

I think by far most of the retouching in this pic is done on the sea surface / DD wake. That is, I think DD in foreground was not doing a 'U turn'; IMO it had been traveling in a straight line so to speak. Look far left of photo directly behind DD but outside of white wake. See the 'discolored' sea surface there, that's where she came from IMO. So yes, I'll admit there has been 'touching up' done on this image for dramatic effect (the U turn wake for example), but the DD herself was not simply 'inserted' there in a darkroom, as far as I, and many other people with far more knowledge than I of these events are concerned.

Anyway, each to their own, and no doubt there still will be some that will rail against it, as they've based their entire argument against this depiction of the event by citing a totally fake DD, and I assume they aren't now or ever going to admit they were wrong / change their opinion. That's their prerogative of course. Be that as it may, the image that is there now is sure a lot cleaner of an image than the painfully obvious fake that was there for so long.

Anyway, I have done my bit, and have other pressing things to do for now, so I will say addios for the time being folks, and thanks for the help. Stay safe everyone! KevinVD (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for explaining that - I hadn't spotted those white puffs or the wake on the far left. And I didn't know it was so controversial. Fascinating. We learn something every day! Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Repulse configuration

Statement in this article:

"Repulse did not have the anti-torpedo blisters her sister Renown had received,"

Statement in Renown class article "The Renown-class ships were fitted with a shallow anti-torpedo bulge integral to the hull which was intended to explode the torpedo before it hit the hull proper and vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship. However, later testing proved that it was not deep enough to accomplish its task as it lacked the layers of empty and full compartments that were necessary to absorb the force of the explosion"

Same article on Renown: "The bulges were reworked and based on those used in the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, although crushing tubes were only used abreast the magazines. "

Statement in Renown class article about Repulse and the almost identical statement in the specific Repulse article:

The ship's anti-torpedo bulge was deepened and reworked along the lines of that installed on the battleship Ramillies. The bulge covered her hull from the submerged torpedo room to "Y" magazine and the inner compartments of which were filled with crushing tubes. The bulges added 12 feet 8 inches (3.9 m) to her beam and 1 foot 4 inches (0.4 m) to her draught.

" The ship's anti-torpedo bulge was deepened and reworked along the lines of that installed on the battleship Ramillies. The bulge covered her hull from the submerged torpedo room to 'Y' magazine and the inner compartments of which were filled with crushing tubes. The bulges added 12 feet 8 inches (3.9 m) to her beam and 1 foot 4 inches (0.4 m) to her draught. "

Statement in the Renown class article about Renown, and without comma otherwise identical statement in the specific Renown article. "The bulges were reworked and based on those used in the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, although crushing tubes were only used abreast the magazines. " "The bulges were reworked and based on those used in the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships although crushing tubes were only used abreast the magazines. "

So to be clear the Sinking article seems as if it should say that Repulse had an earlier less effective bulge system, not that she lacked a system. Brooksindy (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes you're right. That sentence is wrong, factual error and a non sequitur / poor synthesis. Both ships had anti-torpedo bulges. They weren't the same, but that wasn't really relevant to their surviveability against five torpedo hits, and nor was compartmentalisation (which wasn't enough to stop PoW sinking). I'll remove the line. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

i don't understand why

Consort is used in HMS Repulse (1916) but why not here?

BlueD954 (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

HMS Indomitable

I know it's cited but at least two authors (Boyd and Hobbs) have stated that HMS Indomitable was not assigned to Force Z, she ran aground the first day of a work up in the Caribbean after which she was to head to Gibraltar to join Force H while Ark Royal was in refit, there was contingency that she might have to run the med and transit Suez as the only carrier that could go East but the earliest carrier was projected to join the Eastern Fleet would be Ark Royal in April, but of course Indomitable is damaged and Ark Royal is sunk in November and then Pearl and Force z in december totally change the landscape. 92.10.214.190 (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is about weighting. Churchill himself wrote confidently that he intended Indomitable should be assigned to the force. Respectable secondary sources like Middlebrook and Mahoney concur. There might be other authors who have a different view, but I think we should be wary of giving them undue weighting, especially if the argument you seem to be making revolves around the technical interpretation of one word ("assigned"). And arguably the paragraph in question is already problematic as it relies heavily on one author whose quoted views are somewhat at odds with the facts (e.g. Churchill's exchange with the First Sea Lord in August 1941 rather suggests he was anything but "consderably ignorant" of the threat). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ideally you need the consensus of primary records written prior to the sinking. I don't know if sources like Middlebrook have cited what the used to make their judgement on the matter. Indomitable is clearly the only available carrier when they have to sent one to the Indian ocean in the aftermath. But sending her to Force H makes more sense in October/November as it known that she will not be fully effective so soon after commissioning and the fleet build up in the east was expected to to see a more balanced force by mid 1942. Loss of Ark Royal, Barham, Prince of Wales, Repulse and then the temporary loss of Queen Elizabeth and Valiant in a 6 week period change the picture massively. 92.10.214.190 (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)