Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bougainville counterattack

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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Bougainville counterattack

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

Featured article candidates/Bougainville counterattack/archive1

Launched in March 1944, the Bougainville counterattack was a large-scale assault by Japanese forces on the US lodgement that had been established around Cape Torokina on Bougainville. Aimed at destroying the Allied base, the attack was hampered by poor intelligence and a failure to concentrate forces in sufficient numbers to achieve break in. The Japanese attackers ultimately suffered heavy casualties before the counterattack was called off. Afterwards, the fighting on Bougainville largely petered out until the arrival of Australian forces in late 1944. The article is the result of a collaboration between Nick and myself, and was partially developed by Nick in draft space in 2012, before being expanded by both of us and moved to article space in 2016. It went through GA in September last year and is presented here now for further development and review. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the maps and providing a legend in the caption for the first. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Nikki, I've done this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

It's not immediately clear that the Allied base is at Torokina in the lede. Either specify the location in the first sentence or drop it from the second, saving it for the main body.
Artillery guns Not a phrase I'm used to seeing. Suggest dropping the "guns"
Link mortars, trenches, foxholes, beachhead, searchlight, artillery, gunboat, pillbox, platoon, company, bunker, brigadier general, major general
Japanese troops were also detected around the outpost, which was held by the 1st Fiji Battalion at Ibu to the north of the perimeter what outpost? Should be discussed as part of the defenses.
Put a non-breaking space between gun size and unit. forex 75mm pack howitzers
Who did the air units belong to? I presume Navy and Marine, but clarification would be nice.
Suggest switching to military time to obviate need to specify and link am/pm
well coordinated attack hyphen between well and coordinated and another one here: follow up attacks
There's a nice photo of tanks from the 754th during the counterattack on the unit's page that might be useful here.
No DABs, no overlinking.
I'll make one further pass once these have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sturmvogel 66: G'day, Sturm, thanks for taking a look. I have addressed these points. These are my edits: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything looks good, but I'll wait another couple of days to give my brain time to settle before I make another pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move the link for US Navy to the first usage. Same with howitzer.
Provide conversions for all measurements on first use.
Link mountain gun, destroyer, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, fighter
The air units on Bougainville (designated AirSols) had 64 SBD Dauntless dive bombers and 32 TBF Avenger torpedo bombers available for ground support tasks.[29] These aircraft were assigned to the 1st Marine Air Wing. Suggest combining these two sentences.
I'll finish going through the combat narrative later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I think I've got all of these now. These are my edits: [2]. Thanks, Sturm. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that you've got a redundant conversion for 75 mm, but that's the only problem I noticed with your changes.
    - Removed that one now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After initial gains, this attack was held up and eventually the company had to be withdrawn for the night after reinforcements from the 132nd Infantry Regiment failed to reach them before dark. Which company is meant here? Presumably the company with the flamethrowers immediately preceding, but I found it confusing because I assumed that the reinforcements were meant for the defenders of the North Knob, not the attackers on the South Knob. Perhaps some tweaking?
- Adjusted with this edit: [3]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By this time, I presume that the Japanese cavalry was dismounted?
- Yes, I think so, but I can't find anything as yet to confirm. I checked Tanaka p. 276 , Miller p. 377 and Gailey pp. 166 & 169 and all of them mention the 6th Cav, but don't mention if they were dismounted or not. Nick: do you have anything that might confirm this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nick-D: G'day, Nick, would you have anything on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It just so happens that I do! Added: the 6th Division left behind most of its horses when it was sent to the South Pacific as conditions there meant that the poor things wouldn't survive long, and all such units were formally dismounted and converted to small rifle battalions in August 1943. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hyakutake concentrated his forces early in the attack, rather than cumulatively I think that you mean consecutively here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjusted with this edit: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sturmvogel 66: G'day, Sturm, with Nick's addition, I think we've addressed all of the above points. When you get a chance, would you mind letting us know if there is anything else you think needs adjustment? Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks good to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, Sturm. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this at GA and with the changes made so far as part of this review I believe this meets the A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - minor comment, could you add in a sentence early on describing the island? I'm guessing from the pictures that it was covered with jungle and mountainous, but it would help readers who are less familiar with the campaign. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good suggestion, especially as the terrain had an important impact on this battle. I've added about two paras on the topic. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for this Hchc2009. I've added a little bit in this regard also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

Great job on this article. I have a few comments/queries:

If Second Battle of Torokina is a significant alternative title, suggest bolding per MOS:BOLDTITLE.
- Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "Pacific War of World War II" in the lead
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest linking Empress Augusta Bay in the lead
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest " around Cape Torokina within which airfields"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest linking US Marines to "Marine fighters"
- Linked earlier now, but I've tweaked the wording to be a bit clearer about which Marines this refers to Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"as it had been diverted"?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what tanks did the 754th operate? Stuarts and Shermans?
- I actually think both. I've added something now: [5]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"expanded slightly since late 19443"
- Fixed (pretty sure that was my typo) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you could drop the General on General Beightler
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G Company of the 182nd Regiment is a bit unusual, I expected to see the battalion mentioned? Same with B Company of the 182nd Infantry Regiment and others. It is also a bit inconsistent, with other companies having their battalion named
- Added this now. US companies are consecutive throughout their parent regiment, so they are arguably a bit more unique (possessing a more defined identity) than the British and Australian systems. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
assistant US divisional commander
- Given the context, I think that it's helpful to note the nationality here. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the Logging Trail is capitalised as if it is a proper name, but perhaps it should just be "a logging trail" If kept as is, I suggest briefly explaining what it was/where it ran? Otherwise you are relying on readers looking back at the map to locate it.
- The source uses caps. I've added a bit about the trail. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
when you introduce Miller for the first time, introduce him fully, then as Miller thereafter.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the importance of the airbase and the naval support available, I'm interested in what work the US air support did other than helping the counterattack around Cox's Creek, and what the US Navy contributed?
- Added what I could find in Miller and Gailey. These are my additions: [6]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just added a para and a bit about the US Navy's activities - which were largely of the dog which didn't bark variety, given they were focused on stopping an amphibious attack on the beachhead which the Japanese did not intend to conduct. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
another query I had was about the experience of the troops involved on both sides. Were they all experienced in jungle combat?
- The Japanese 6th Division had seen action in China, while the US formations had fought previously in the Solomons. This is in the Opposing forces section now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, my comments have been addressed. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, and happy new year. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 1 January 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.