Talk:Battle of the Java Sea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Casualties[edit]

The text says that 4 loaded Japanese troop transports were sunk. But the table said "0 sunk". This reference http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/java_sea.html agrees that troop transports were sunk. So I changed 0 sunk to 4 loaded troop transports sunk. If the troop transports aren't significant enough to be on the table, then remove my change, but "0 sunk" is still misleading. Art LaPella 16:48, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

According to www.combinedfleet.com Japanese losses in the night battle of Sunda strait were friendly-fire casaulties, victims of some of 88 Long-Lances (type 93 oxygen torpedos) fired at USS CA Houston and HMAS CL Perth by the convoy protection (HIJMS CA Mikuma, HIJMS CA Mogami, HIJMS CL Natori, HIJMS DDs Shikinami, Shirakumo, Murakumo, Shirayuki, Hatsuyuki and Asakaze (see TROM of HIJMS CA Mogami or HIJMS CA Mikuma)

Veljko Stevanovich 25. 11. 2005. 19:10 UTC+1

In relation to Japanese casualties, I would like to propose that they be amended, or at least include a section on Allied vs. Japanese reporting of casualties. According to the Captain of the Exeter, as submitted to the Lords Commissioner of the Admirality, at least 1 Japanese "four funnel cruiser" was sunk and, as reported by surviving officers of the USS Houston and HMAS Perth, a Japanese destroyer sunk. Details can be found at http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/BattleoftheJavaSeainwhich.html

RV 29.11.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.235.121 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunda Strait[edit]

The entry on the USS Houston has more info on the Battle of the Sunda Strait than is given here. Shouldn't this entry have more detail? CFLeon 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please feel free to jump-in and improve the article. I've provided what I think is a fairly extensive list of references to the article to help whoever wants to get involved with it. It's probably going to be awhile before I get to this article as I've got several others above this one on my "to do" list. Cla68 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Destroyers[edit]

Someone asked in the UK Daily Mail on 27 April 2007, "Why did the 4 US destroyers abandon the British and Dutch ships...?" Anyone know? What was the command structure of this multinational fleet? "On their own initiative"? What does that mean?Emrys2 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means they decided it was time to go, so they went. Xyl 54 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emrys, see American-British-Dutch-Australian Command. One of the main problems with ABDACOM was that it was hastily assembled, the forces of the four partners lacked enthusiasm for it, distrusted each other and were unwilling to follow orders from officers whom they didn't know, were inexperienced and who didn't command respect. Doorman seems to have exacerbated this poor relationship with his ignorance/disregard of conventional naval tactics, i.e. the doctrine that destroyers should act as a mobile screen between cruisers and the enemy fleet. If they apprehended that US Admirals would not punish them for leaving Doorman's fleet, its not hard to see why the destroyer commanders left the scene. Grant | Talk 12:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emrys: more information; Morison, the US Navy historian, says about this that they were out of torpedoes, and under previous instructions from Doorman to leave in such an instance; on the other hand, they had no order to do so at the time, it was their own decision to go; and its not at all clear they told anyone they were going either. The article on USS Alden is the most comprehensive; it says they left independently.
Grant: are you saying it was Doormans fault? I think he made the best of a pretty bad hand, and showed a lot of guts as well. Xyl 54 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Still rather obscure, but perhaps it'll never be clear. Emrys2 08:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xyl1: The naval historian Vincent P. O'Hara says, quoting Walter G. Winslow: "'Such an unorthodox deployment of forces suggested Doorman knew little about proven naval tactics...'(-7-) Generally destroyers would be positioned to screen the main body and deliver torpedo attacks while the light cruisers would proceed the heavies in the column, grouping guns by range ("Battle of the Java Sea: 27 February 1942")." Grant | Talk 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay:Thanks for the source; so Winslow thinks it was Doorman’s fault? And you’ve taken his word for it?
I know the best practice is to use destroyers in this way; a text-book example would be Vian’s use of them at the Second Battle of Sirte. But on the other hand, for example, Scott kept his destroyers on a tight leash at the Battle of Cape Esperance, presumably for the same reasons as Doorman. But as Scott won, whilst Doorman lost, maybe he attracted more understanding.
I also know other authors have been less scathing, and more appreciative of the difficulties involved. Xyl 54 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Pope[edit]

I've deleted USS Pope from the list of ships involved; she was at Surabaya,according to my book, with engine trouble Xyl 54 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope can be found at the battle in this report: http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/BattleoftheJavaSeainwhich.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme374 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added USS Pope (in the Shipwrecks section), as although she did miss the Battle of the Java Sea (27th Feb), she was sunk along with Exeter and Encounter during the so-called Second Battle of the Java Sea (1st Mar).

Photo Captions[edit]

I have altered what were incorrect captions to two of the photos, and made a clarification to a third.

1) Re photo of high altitude bombers. This photo was taken from HMAS Hobart (as stated in the actual AWM source details http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P02620.005), not HMAS Perth; and besides, Perth was not accompanying the ships on this day (i.e. 15th February); nor was HMAS Hobart involved in the Battle of the Java Sea (27th Feb), so she couldn't have taken this photo on that day. Nor for that matter were ships under aerial attack on 27th Feb (Battle of the Java Sea).

2) Re Exeter being bombed on 15th February. HMAS Perth was not in the force that day. The pic itself was taken from HMAS Hobart (and the ship in far right background - as can be seen in larger clearer photos of same - is a Dutch destroyer).

3) Re image of Hr Ms (HNLMS) Java with the caption - Bombs from Japanese aircraft falling near the Dutch light cruiser HNLMS Java during the battle - which would imply it was taken during the Battle of the Java Sea (27th Feb 1942).

This caption is also incorrect, as no ships were ‘bombed’ by aircraft during the Battle of the Java Sea (27th Feb. 1942). As a matter of fact, the AWM data for this image is also incorrect, as it was not taken during that battle (27th). This image was taken on either the 4th Feb bombing of the fleet, or more likely on 15th Feb (http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=4296 ) as the others above, but certainly not on 27th.

So a change to - Bombs from Japanese aircraft falling near the Dutch light cruiser HNLMS Java during a battle in the Java Sea - would seem more appropriate.

InterestedINhistory (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


High altitude bombers taking AA fire photo caption[edit]

This photo is NOT of a formation of planes from the IJN carrier Ryujo, but a formation of twin engined land based bombers, which were not capable of carrier launch/recovery. A better/sharper image of this photo clearly shows the twin engines. Have changed caption acordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.195.129 (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Allied Command leadership[edit]

This was a fiasco on part of Allied commanders - They sent ships without air cover into fatal danger Had Japanese torpedoes worked better even quicker destruction would have followed. 75.163.191.215 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest battle since Jutland?[edit]

I wonder on what basis the claim is made that the Battle of the Java Sea was the biggest surface engagement since the Battle of Jutland. The Battle of Cape Matapan of March 1941 involved more and heavier ships, while the losing side took comparable losses. (Paaskynen (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I agree on this. But I believe that the claim should go to the Battle off Calabria (Punta Stilo) on 9 July 1940, given that around 70 warships were involved, among which five battleships and one aircraft carrier.Italianhistorian88 (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shipwrecks[edit]

I have removed several vessels that were recently input in this section because they were 1) either not sunk in either of the two battles that this section refers to, i.e. the so-called First and Second Battles of the Java Sea (27th Feb and 1st March respectfully), or were simply scuttled in port. I also re-added USS Pope as she was sunk during The Second Battle of the Java Sea (1st Mar).

I removed HMAS Perth and USS Houston as both were sunk during The Battle of Sunda Strait, and several other Dutch vessels that were recently added to this section as they were scuttled in Surabaya port, not sunk at sea during the two 'Battles of the Java Sea' that this section directly refers to, so have no business being included as sunk in the above two Java Sea battles.

And by the way, ALL dutch naval vessels during WWII were prefixed Hr. Ms. not as HNLMS. So if one wants to be historically accurate, one should refer to them as such.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Java Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Java Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

Hey! Just wanted to compliment this page, since I know it's really hard to gather information about this topic. You did a great job! ;) Stuart (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 Japanese destroyers damaged?[edit]

The infobox says 3 Japanese destroyers were damaged, but the text provides the name of only one: Asagumo. Japanese Wikipedia says only 1 destroyer was damaged, and one transport was damaged by air raid, not naval attack. Until there is a better source, I'll change it to "1 Japanese destroyer damaged" for now. --Happyseeu (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive Japanese Victory[edit]

Should we change the textbox to say decisive Japanese victory? After this the ABDACOM navy was pretty much destroyed and contributed to Japan capturing the Dutch East Indies. ScotPolHist (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, per MOS:MIL/template documentation. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Java_Sea&oldid=1216251078"