Talk:Battle of the Philippine Sea

Untitled

It seems odd that the phrase "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" is not mentioned once in the article, considering that it is one of the most famous aspects of the battle. Grant65 | Talk 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a typo?

"While the air battle raged, US submarines sunk two Japanese fleet carriers. The US counterattack, however, failed to do significant damage in return." Should it be Japanese counterattack?Harold14370 10:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

nope - the counterattack was against the IJN by the USN. --89.54.153.194 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I may be extrapolating a little wildly here, but wouldn't the sinking of two aircraft carriers be considered significant damage? I understand the necessity of some to use Wikipedia articles on WW II in the Pacific to construct a virtual Shinto shrine to the Japanese participants, but isn't this claim of failing to do signigicant damage a stretch?

Glad somebody else noticed that...unfortunately, much like the Japanese education system, Wikipedia has a policy against unpopular facts in Imperial Japanese related articles. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go lay a wreath at William Calley's grave for his honorable service to the US Army against the hated foreigner enemy. Oh no wait, that's what the Japanese Prime Minister does every year... Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe what they're trying to say is that the counterattack from aircraft failed to do significant damage. The submarines were not apart of the air counter attack. That is my understanding at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.209.32 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The box thing on the side says 7 fleet carriers, but the article says 5 large carriers. The box thing on the side says 8 light carriers, but the article says 4 light carriers. The box thing on the side says 7 battleships, but the article says 5 battleships. Johndoeemail (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The crew complement of Taiho (1750) differs from the info on the Taiho page of 2150.

Good article but in several places incoherent, below I enter just one example.

Additional training and experience effects from the long pilot shortage was the resultant inexperience of the Japanese carrier deck crews, not just its newbie aircrews flying the same unimproved well understood planes with the same old weaknesses, for in contrast to the U.S. Navy's operational tempo which had grown steadily from mid-1943—Japan's older and newly commissioned aircraft carriers sat in port awaiting hastily trained pilots to arm and justify their existence while the U.S. Fleet had totally re-equipped with the more modern Grumman F6F Hellcat fighter, which was specifically designed to be superior to the Japanese Zero. 196.3.50.254 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire "background" section is rather hard to follow and contains run-on sentences, and all sorts of "purple prose". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.193.172 (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Analysis section at end?

With a number of recent edits going back and forth, it seems prudent if we can come together on some general ideas. Here are some thoughts:

• First off, Binksternet is right. The article overall is under referenced. Certainly a fact tag is an invitation to track down something and reference it. They should not be removed until we have it nailed down.

Japanese aircraft losses are pretty hard to nail down, Binks. Particularly in attemting to assign how they came to be lost. Certainly an awful lot of Japanese aircraft were destroyed, predominantly by Hellcats, but how many were actually lost to anti-aircraft fire? How many of the aircraft shot down were land based, and how many were off the carriers? Aircraft destroyed, was that in air combat, on runways and hangers, or in a carrier when it was sunk? I will try to sort it out, but the sources are conflicting. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• The material that Hyperionsteel has added is fine, but it is an analysis of the decisions made, and I think that would be better at the end of the article. Where it is now (Initial stages) is in the midst of the description of the events as they came to unfold, and I believe it disrupts the narrative if left there.
• Mitscher handled the aircraft, so we should not be referring to Spruance when we are speaking of the CAP.
• I think an analysis section to follow the aftermath sections would be helpful, and it would be the best place to contrast Halsey and Spruance and their handling of Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf.

What do the other editors think? Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fleet carrier vs. light carrier designation

The carrier forces brought to battle were the 1st Carrier Squadron (fleet carriers Taiho, Shokaku, and Zuikaku), the 2nd Carrier Squadron (light carriers Junyo, Hiyo, and Chiyoda) and the 3rd Carrier Squadron (light carriers Chitose, Chiyoda, and Zuiho). Of these, Shokaku, Taiho, and Hiyo were sunk. Zuikaku, Junyo, and Chiyoda were damaged. The article (or at least the infobox) seems to consider the Hiyo class (Hiyo, Zuiho) to be fleet carriers, when they clearly are not. (Merchant conversions, 23 knots, 35 aircraft; they would be escort carriers by USN designation.) Confusing the issue further is that the light carriers of the 2nd Carrier Division were in fact reclassified by the IJN as fleet carriers after Midway, and operated in this role during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. By the IJN's reckoning, they brought 6 fleet carriers and 3 light carriers. But it seems more appropriate to classify their carriers on capability rather than official designation - upgrading Junyo from an auxiliary carrier to a fleet carrier didn't suddenly make it 10 knots faster and able to carry twice as many aircraft. For this reason it seems reasonable to assert the IJN brought 3 fleet carriers and 6 light carriers, and lost 2 fleet carriers and 1 light carrier. Alchemy3083 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hiyō-class aircraft carriers (Hiyō, Junyō) were converted passenger liners (not merchant hulls or cruiser hulls) (most escort carriers were built from, or based on merchant hulls, while most light carriers were built on, or based on, cruiser hulls). (Note: I think you may have confused the Zuiho with the Junyo). However, most of these sources (as far as I can tell), describe them as fleet carriers. The IJN did designate both as fleet carriers (but this may have been done due to a lack of any true fleet carriers available after the Battle of Midway).

However, I would be reluctant to label the Hiyō-class aircraft carriers as light carriers largely because of their displacement the size of their air groups. The standard displacement for the Hiyō-class was 23,770 long tons (in comparison, the standard displacement for the Shōkaku-class aircraft carriers was 25,675 long tons). In contrast, the standard displacements for the light carriers Chiyoda and Zuihō were about 11,200 long tons. In addition, the Hiyō-class carriers could carry 48-53 aircraft, where as Chiyoda and Zuihō could only carry 30. Of course, the Shōkaku-class carriers could carry significantly more (72 aircraft + 12 in reserve).

There is no doubt that the Hiyō-class carriers were smaller, slower, had smaller air groups, and overall, less offensive power than the Shōkaku-class carriers, but they were still significantly superior in all of these respects to the light carriers of the IJN. Thus, classifying them as either fleet or light carriers may not be entirely appropriate. However, since the IJN designated them as fleet carriers, and since the sources cited in the article designate them as fleet carriers, we should probably use this designation to avoid confusion.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

Five major carrier-to-carrier engagements?

If the article is going to say that in the first paragraph, a link or a note listing these engagements would be useful. --75.144.57.49 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If the article is going to mention 'five major "carrier-versus-carrier" engagements between American and Japanese naval forces', then a footnote or link should enumerate them. --Tbanderson (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I am trying to figure out the list myself. First "carrier-versus-carrier" will be Coral Sea (May 1942), second is Midway (June 1942), (known & certain) Using Wikipedia, I say 3 & 4 are : Battle of the Eastern Solomons (Aug 1942). 3rd Battle of Santa Cruz (Oct 1942) - Interesting this article clearly call the following Battle of Leyte Gulf (Oct 1944)- several months later NOT a carrier-versus-carrier- that the Japanese carriers were purely diversionary. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Japan's carriers were largely used as a diversionary force, since there were so few planes/pilots available. While I suppose you could say that the carriers were involved in the battle, their lack of any real offensive power makes calling this is a "carrier-versus-carrier" engagement a bit of a stretch.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC))

It seems that this concern has still not been addressed. As a casual reader of the article, I would like to know: what are the "five major engagements" that it cites? Ishboyfay (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The five major engagements are Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, and Philippine Sea.Boris0192 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well but I mean the Battle of Cape Engaño (part of the Leyte operation) was a carrier battle. It was awfully one-sided, but then so was the Battle of the Philippine Sea, granted that Engaño was even more one-sided. But I'm not sure where we want to draw the line where we say "well, sure, this was a carrier battle, but it sucked so bad we don't even want to include it."

According to the Wikipedia article, Ozawa had 108 aircraft. "Around dawn on 25 October, Ozawa launched 75 aircraft to attack the 3rd Fleet. Most were shot down by American combat air patrols, and no damage was done to the U.S. ships" after which "Mitscher... ordered the American carrier groups to launch their first strike wave, of 180 aircraft, at dawn... At 08:00, as the attack went in, its escorting fighters destroyed Ozawa's combat air patrol of about 30 planes. The U.S. air strikes continued until the evening, by which time TF 38 had flown 527 sorties against the Northern Force, sinking Zuikaku, the light carriers Chitose and Zuihō, and the destroyer Akizuki, all with heavy loss of life. The light carrier Chiyoda and the cruiser Tama were crippled."

Sounds like a carrier battle to me. After all Ozawa did launch a carrier-to-carrier strike which found and went in on the American carriers. He did have a combat air patrol which engaged the American attackers and defended the fleet. And the Americans also launched carrier-to-carrier strikes and engaged carrier-borne enemy aircraft with their own combat air patrol.

Major? Well, the Japanese lost a carrier, two light carriers, and another ship, and two more "crippled" and those were their last carriers. It wasn't important -- Japan was going to lose the war either way -- but it was major with that level of ships and aircraft involved and shot down or sunk.

What more do you want? Yes it was pathetic. So are lots of battles. The Alamo, Thermopylae, so on. They're still battles. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's "we" who are drawing the line. I don't know where the person who put that in the article got it from, but I seem to recall the phrase "five carrier battles of WWII" used in several books but never "six". In Santa Cruz 1942: Carrier duel in the South Pacific Stille says the "United States Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) fought five carrier battles during the course of the Pacific War." In Carrier Battles: Command Decision in Harm's Way the introduction starts with "There were five carrier battles in World War II."

Personally, I think for an engagement to be regarded as a major carrier battle that implies there is at least some intention of achieving victory on both sides, which wasn't present at Cape Engaño. Two of the Japanese carrier vessels did not even have aircraft. I don't really care whether it says five or six on the article, but I do think the consensus is that there were five.Boris0192 (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Seconding Boris here: This isn't about a "we" as much as it is consensus. The 'five carrier battle' figure has been mentioned before in e.g. Dunningan and Nofi's Victory at Sea, pp. 164–165. Douglas V. Smith, who is head of Strategy and Policy as the US Naval War College, wrote his dissertation on this subject in 2005 and specifically referred to "...the five carrier battles of the Second World War." John Lundstrom, a premier historian of the war in the Pacific, also specifically pegs the number at five: "Ideally the admiral who led the U.S. carriers in the first three of the only five carrier battles in history..." (Black Shoe Carrier Admiral, very first page of the book's Introduction) I work directly in this field. Having read available literature and actually focusing specifically on Leyte Gulf, I agree rather strongly with the doyens on this point. Finktron (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Mnmh. I guess. There's always a tension when you have sources that are 1) generally reliable and notable, but 2) wrong. Then you have two things in conflict, and which are you going to go with?

My take on "reliable sources" is that sources are reliable and not reliable for a particular instance. And if a source is wrong (as here) that's a strong indication that that it's not reliable for that particular fact.

But, you know, it's not even a fact. It's an opinion. It's an opinion that many people share, including some eminent ones. So? A fact is something like "Ozawa had 108 planes". He either did or he didn't. You can count them (or look at records made by somebody who did). An opinion is something like "Ozawa didn't have many planes" or "Ozawa had a lot of planes, all things considered and accounting for the circumstances".

Apparently the number of carrier battles is an opinion which is disputed. Another person might say "Well, the Philippine Sea wasn't a battle. It was a massacre. I don't count it and so there were four battles".

See Battles of Lexington and Concord. "Though often styled a battle, in reality the engagement at Lexington was a minor brush or skirmish". Here we actually flat refuse to lie to the reader. It wasn't a proper battle by any reasonable definition of "battle" (one side fired no shots (or maybe a couple-few shots at most) and had less than 100 engaged, and the affair lasted a couple of minutes; if that's a "battle", then WWI and WWII had hundreds of thousands of "battles" and the word acquires a completely new definition.)

So it's commonly called the Battle of Lexington and (probably because of that) a lot of people think it's battle. So what? Who cares what people who are wrong think? We're not going to tell the reader wrong things regardless. A lot of people think Betsy Ross made the first American flag, are we going to tell the reader that she did? Herostratus (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Number of US aircraft on 6/20/44

The article had four different figures on the number of US aircraft in the attack of June 20 - 215, 226, 230 and 240. Counting the individual aircraft listed (95 F6F, 54 TBF/TBM, 26 SBD, 51 SB2C) in the article, I get 226. I have edited the other figures to match that.

However, and this is a big however, I have no idea if that number is correct. I am simply making it consistent. It would be good to figure out the correct number. I think we're looking for the number of aircraft that actually made the strike, not the number launched, and that might be contributing here to the messiness. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Decisive victory

@Bertdrunk:

I'm tempted to revert this edit again. I'm perhaps willing to drop "decisive", but I think it is inappropriate to say the battle was not decisive. Midway is viewed as a decisive battle in that it devastated Japan's carrier : Japan lost irreplaceable carriers, planes, and pilots. Midway did not decide the outcome of the war, but it did decide the issue of Japan's westward expansion. The Battle of the Phillippine Sea destroyed Japan's naval air arm. Yes, some carriers escaped, but Ozawa's function for Leyte Gulf was sacrificial lamb to pull Halsey away from Leyte rather than to actually destroy Halsey. I'm not an RS, so I cannot say it was a decisive defeat, but using one source by a Lt. Cmdr. to say it was not a decisive defeat seems thin. A google book search[1] turns up books such as Miller[2] who call it a decisive victory. Glrx (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know that some people label this battle as "decisive", as others don't too. I suppose that when RSs agree on substantives but are on dissonance over the adjective to be used, the contested words should not be presented, or stated as a fact, or should be explained with some length in the body of the article as why historian W thinks X and why historian Y thinks Z. If you wish to drop the line that I wrote and the word decisive that's alright for me. Bertdrunk (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"nevertheless a decisive victory" despite the Japanese fleet escaping. https://books.google.com/books?id=JNoexC3LhuEC&pg=PA441&dq=%22battle+of+the+philippine+sea%22+decisive+victory+morison&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfodiKn8zRAhWLhlQKHV-3DP4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22battle%20of%20the%20philippine%20sea%22%20decisive%20victory%20morison&f=false

Adm. King, Morison, others characterize it as the effective destruction of Ozawa's carrier fleet and crippling Japanese naval aviation for the rest of the war.

Would others here support reinserting "decisive victory"?

Glrx (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

yes it was a decisive victory--Japan lost 95% of its naval power. 1) Turning the Tide: Decisive Battles of the Second World War by Nigel Cawthorne says it "was ultimately of more strategic importance than the fall of Saipan." 2) Mark W. Allen - 2011 says Midway, the Solomons, the Philippine Sea, and Leyte Gulf "all turned out to be decisive Japanese defeats" 3) James B. Wood - 2007 -"decisive" ... " Philippine Sea completed the destruction of Japan's carrier force and its air groups." 4) it is included in Decisive Battles of the Twentieth Century: Land, Sea, Air by Noble Frankland, ‎Christopher Dowling - 1976. Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This looks like WP:SYNTHESIS, but I know how to do a Google Books search too: Coleman: "The US victory at the Philippine Sea was not decisive. The bulk of the Japanese carrier force along with the battleships and cruisers escaped to the northeast and remained a possible threat to further US advances." Hone: "The outcome in the battle of the Philippine Sea, however, was not decisive, even when the successes of submarines are considered." Y'Blood: "If Spruance had been more conversant with the aviation capability of his fleet perhaps he would have headed west for the “decisive” action."

As I said I have nothing against stating that some authors consider something, or X, Y and Z say anything else, but at least don't pretend it's 2+2. Bertdrunk (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It does not look like synthesis to me; references refer to it as a decisive victory. I see it as a matter of weight. King and Morison have stature and weight. I've already raised an eyebrow about the opinion of Lt. Cmdr. Coleman; I've never heard of Pickle Partners Publishing Co. The Lt. Cmdr. was also writing about Leyte Gulf rather BotPS. In Hone, you failed to quote the next sentence: "Nonetheless, the first phase of the decisive naval battle of the Pacific War, the carrier duel, was over." Y'Blood: seeing "decisive" in quotes before "action" suggests a reference to IJN's prewar focus to engage and destroy the US fleet in a "decisive battle".

Nobody here doubts that battleships and carriers escaped the battle. The battleships are not a part of naval air. The Japanese carrier air arm was destroyed; carriers without planes are useless.

There is second guessing that Spruance should have pursued for a more complete victory, but that was not his job at the time, and Halsey was roundly criticized for abandoning Leyte and getting suckered by Ozawa's feint.

Glrx (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to drag a historiographical discussion, or argue over dictionary definition. I got those from a thirty second search just to point that reality maybe, just maybe, be a little more nuanced than a single adjective may be. Although I don't get all the fuss about, as I already suggested the inclusion of something, and as I'm uninclined to wrote something it will stand as gospel true. If you have King in such high regard, why don't you quote him as a eyewitness of the events?

BTW, I found some more interest opinions. Goldberg: "Despite its outcome, this battle of the Philippine Sea was not the decisive battle the United States had hoped for to crush Japan finally and totally. That battle would be fought sixteen weeks later at Leyte Gulf in the Philippine Islands" Cleaver: "What was called the Battle of the Philippine Sea was not the decisive carrier action that had been sought in terms of sinking enemy ships... Nimitz and his admirals believed all the Japanese carriers had lived to fight another day... momentous effect on the final and greatest sea battle of the war, the Battles of Leyte Gulf". Anyone could find anything searching for common phrases, there're certainly more elaborated works showing that the Japanese were losing the war of attrition since Rabaul and before. Bertdrunk (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted @Bertdrunk: again. Once again, nobody is saying BoPS decided the war. It was not the "decisive battle" (destruction of US Navy) that Japan always sought. Similarly, Midway did not decide the war. BoPS destroyed the Japanese carrier arm. Morison and King are not WP:UNDUE opinions. Glrx (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Both are WP:PRIMARY if you prefer, as they were involved in the events, but that's not my point as I never said they aren't valid opinions. Your attempt of definition is irrelevant, stating as fact that someone is correct when there's plenty of divergence around is cherry picking. Bertdrunk (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Morison is not a primary source. Morison reviewed primary sources (such as battle reports) to compile his histories; Samuel Eliot Morison may well be the premier historian of the US Navy in WW II. King was also looking back, but an Army publication in 1995 using other sources can hardly be called primary; the Army need not puff the Navy. You quoted the opinion of a Lt. Commander in a book from a fourth-rate publisher that does not have a Wikipedia article; the book was about Halsey and Leyte Gulf rather than BoPS.[3] A lot of that publisher's business is reprinting earlier books such as Harm's Way. After the ranks of the author and publisher were pointed out, you did a 30-second search to find Goldberg (a book about the 1940s rather than a military history)[4] I didn't find your Cleaver quotation in a Google search, but I did find a YouTube video and a website listing publications. Cleaver is an aviation buff who has written about planes and pilots in the BoPS, but the titles do not show a broad historical scope.

The first sentence of our article states, "The Battle of the Philippine Sea (June 19–20, 1944) was a major naval battle of World War II that eliminated the Imperial Japanese Navy's ability to conduct large-scale carrier actions." The Japanese aftermath section states, "These losses to the already outnumbered Japanese fleet air arm were irreplaceable. The Japanese had spent the better part of a year reconstituting their carrier air groups, and the American Fast Carrier Task Force had destroyed 90% of it in two days."

The article infobox has used "decisive victory" since 2 July 2004.[5]

Glrx (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia's own definition of decisive victory would seem to make sense here, so why not just Wikilink this in the infobox to put this problem to rest? From the page in question, "The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage." Clearly the FBotPS qualifies under this definition since it marks the endpoint of Japan's ability to successfully wage carrier warfare. While we can quibble over the meaning of "decisive victory" as other authors have used it, if we use the definition already extant here on Wikipedia it'll make our meaning quite clear. Finktron (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but Wikipedia is not necessarily a good source. I don't agree with the definition "Definitively resolves the objective being fought over" which "can take place from the tactical or unit level [up]". And then it adds in "battles that bring an end to hostilities", which is not right IMO. Was the Battle of Berlin in 1945 "decisive"? I think the issue had already been decided...

It's a tough question because with even the best sources it's a matter of subjective opinion. "Decisive victory" is like "great general": sez who?

In the literal sense of the word "decisive"... after the Battle of the Philippine Sea, there was a 100% certainty that, sooner or later, Japan would be forced to surrender. Problem is, there was a 100% certainty of that before the battle, too. Even if Japan had won big, so what? They were going to be ground down and forced to surrender. The Americans were never going to give up. So as a practical matter, the battle changed nothing and decided nothing. And it wasn't even a turning point (as Midway was) -- things just kept going in the same direction they had been going.

I guess people (include erudite history writers) use "decisive victory" as an idiom, to mean "turning point" (which is quite a different thing from deciding point, e.g., Stalingrad -- German defeat was inevitable either way) or "big famous victory" (e.g, Waterloo -- Napoleon was toast regardless) or "big battle with a clear winner who went on to win that war" or whatever. In this idiomatic sense the Battle of the Philippine Sea was a typical "decisive battle": it was big, it was famous, it was very clearly won by one side, and the winner went on to win the war.

I'm on board with that. Let's not overthink the matter. As a point of actual usage, the term "decisive victory" is an idiom with a broad and vague meaning. Which the Battle of the Philippine Sea fits under. Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a slight confusion in this discussion about the implications of the term. The 'decisive' part relates to the margin of victory in the battle, not the significance of the battle within a wider campaign. So as long as there is agreement about the scale of victory it can be used without broader discussion.Martinlc (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussors may not be confused. They might just not agree. "Clear victory" or "definite victory" or "overwhelming victory" might be better terms for what you describe. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Perhaps we could do something akin to Battle of Leyte Gulf, whose infobox lists the result as "Decisive Allied Victory" and then has a bullet point beneath specifying "Japanese naval capabilities crippled." For Battle of the Philippine Sea, it could list "Decisive Allied Victory" with a bullet point stating "Japanese carrier warfare capabilities crippled," or some such. So far though it appears that users disagree with the form this takes or the definition of 'decisive,' only @Bertdrunk: seems to have a problem labeling the battle this way in the infobox. At the very least, it would make sense—if 'decisive' winds up stripped out—to describe the outcome in the infobox as I have suggested above. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that seems good. Herostratus (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for a clear, descriptive and objective narrative; as stated at MoS "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.". I'm not for peacock terms that, as it's obvious by the discussion, everyone has a different personal definition and two people can't agree what it really means. But I'll step aside from the discussion as it's merely a editorializing question.

As a afterthought, one cannot stat how bad the Japanese were crippled without a large chunk of hindsight. The American didn't know it at the time; the fleet could, and was, used as a fleet-in-being; and as Leyte proved, decoy or not, the carriers still possessed operational capacity and played a (important) role on the offensive. The piece about this in the article is unsourced and badly wrote, a common problems over articles and discussions that orbit around adjectives and not substantives. Bertdrunk (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "decisive allied victory" with the bullet point underneath.

I don't think we can read too much into the fleet-in-being. Ozawa's feint worked, but the US probably had a good estimate of Japan's naval air after the BotPS. If you've shot down 360 carrier aircraft, then you've cleaned out 4 carriers worth of planes. Halsey could have just wanted to sink the carriers at some gut level rather than rational thought. Maybe the Japanese knew Halsey would be in command during Leyte and specifically played the blood lust card. But even if the US thought carrier air was still powerful, the battle did destroy the carrier air arm. Glrx (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

To "wrest" is the correct verb

@@Coltsfan: Your undo of the IP edit (changed the verb "wrestling" to "wresting") should be undone. "Wresting" is the correct verb – to wrench, forcefully take, etc. – as opposed to "wrestling" (i.e., grappling).

After Taihō went down, on which ship did Ozawa go?

I am having a confusion. In the section 'Submarine Attacks', it is written that Ozawa moved his staff to Zuikaku after the sinking of Taihō. In the section 'U.S. Counterattack', it is written Ozawa moved his staff to the destroyer Wakatsuki and then to the Zuikaku, while on the aircraft carrier Taiho's page, it is written that Ozawa moved his command to the cruiser Haguro. We need reliable sources and crowd agreements to make any change to make any change in this case. Any comments? ShauryaOMG (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Air Crew Losses

It seems to me that a big piece of the puzzle that is missing from this article is a comparison of air crew losses. I am not sure if there is a reliable source for this, but the air crew losses for the Japanese seem to have been even more fatal than the loss of planes. The US lost 123 planes, but many of these trained air crew were rescued, whereas for the 600 Japanese planes lost, almost all the trained air crew were lost with them. This seems to me the major reason why this was the last major carrier battle of the war; there was simply not enough time remaining in the war to train new Japanese air crew. The article shows that total dead were 2,987 to 109, but probably the most painful of these dead to the Japanese were the air crews. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

the Tradewinds were not a Factor

It's easier than I thought. The Marianas lie 12 to 24 degrees north of the equator. The winds would come from the southwest, not easterly.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/geography-miscellaneous/difference-between-doldrums-and-horse-latitudes/

Summertime in that region the winds would likely be light variable. Here's a detailed battle map that shows no changes in Direction when launching airstrikes. In fact the air strikes of the 19th and the 20th on both sides appear to have been launched with the task forces headed to the northwest.

https://www.abebooks.com/maps/Battle-Philippine-Sea-18th-21st-June-1944/31106567953/bd#&gid=1&pid=1

Correct me if I'm wrong but the claim that easterly trade winds blow above the equator is so absurd that it makes me wonder if this is an example of an editor making something up that's completely bogus by linking it to book sources that are impossible to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)