Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Cockpit

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Cockpit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Cockpit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Operation Cockpit was the first of a series of hit and run aircraft carrier raids conducted by the British-led Eastern Fleet during 1944 and 1945. Dubbed "perhaps the most cosmopolitan naval operation of the war", it included an American and a British aircraft carrier, a French battleship and ships from the Australian, Dutch and New Zealand navies. Amazingly enough, the American carrier had been dispatched there from the Pacific in order to prevent the British from having to cancel aircraft carrier raids in Norway! The attack on the Japanese-occupied island of Sabang on 19 April 1944 was successful, with the Allies suffering the loss of only a single plane. It failed to divert Japanese forces away from other areas as hoped, as the Japanese did not consider the Eastern Fleet a serious threat.

I developed this article during the first half of last year, and it was assessed as a GA in July. I've since expanded and copy edited it (aided by libraries re-opening since then), and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look OK. Ideally there would be less reliance on official histories, but maybe that's just what there is. I did find one 2019 book that could be cited in addition to what you have[1] (search "Sabang"), you can access it with
    WP:TWL (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Buidhe: belated thanks here. I actually own that book, and will add some material from it. I was hoping to do so on the weekend, but was a bit unwell unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

This is a blast from the past. I worked on this article way back, only a few months after I created my account. It's changed so much since. I'll claim my seat here and post comments during the week. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it did not inflict heavy casualties on the Japanese, the Royal Navy learned useful lessons. Such as?
    • The source doesn't say unfortunately - Hobbs states only that "the strike had no effect on Japanese plans to oppose the American landings in Hollandia but the Royal Navy learned a number of valuable lessons". I presume that he's discussing lessons in conducting offensive carrier raids in the region given this was the first such operation. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm inclined to agree with you, but the lede specifies it provided useful experience in carrier tactics for the British and if the source material does not specify this it has to be removed.
  • Was the British's ability to reinforce their Eastern Fleet facilitated by say, the decline in action in the Mediterranean? One would wonder why it was only in 1944 that they decided to give them more ships. If this was the case, a brief note might be helpful.
  • The IJN's 9th Base Force was the main unit stationed at Sabang, and was commanded by Rear Admiral Hirose Sueto from February 1944. This is sourced to combinedfleet, which is ok but not the best source. Could this information be found elsewhere?
    • Not that I've been able to find so far. Sources on Japanese occupation forces in the Netherlands East Indies are pretty scarce - I struggled with this regarding the Operation Boomerang article as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They considered also using surface ships to bombard Sabang, but decided against this. This was done in later raids, why not then? Fear of placing their ships in a more vulnerable position?
    • The source doesn't discuss the rationale, but a safe assumption is that as this was the Eastern Fleet's first offensive operation they didn't want to run extra risks. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British pilots failed to engage a number of worthwhile targets of opportunity. Which included?
    • The source doesn't say, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, this resource seems to list all of the Allied ships involved in the operation. Might be UNDUE to mention them all, but putting it here in case it proves useful. It also states two Japanese warships were destroyed.
  • According to the Dutch government, (here) US Naval aviator Joseph C. Clifton led the actual air attack on Sabang. His New York Times obituary confirms this, and says that for this action he was made an Honorary Companion of the British Distinguished Service Order.
  • This work seems to suggest that Somerville thought the raid had shown that the Allies had some faulty intel interpretation.
    • I'm afraid that I don't have access to that book, but I've added some related material from one I can access. I'll also follow up on this ahead of a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indy beetle: Thank you again for this review, and sorry for my slow response. I think that I've now addressed your comments as best I can. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supporting. I'd say maybe consider adding Clifton to the infobox but it's just an infobox. Good luck at FAC. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

Article is in pretty good shape, but I have some nitpicks:

  • Mawdsley is misspelt "Mawdlsey" in fn 1, 3, 5, 16 and 34
    • Oops, I added that shortly before I went to bed. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somerville" is misspelt "Sommerville" in the Attack section
  • "Barracudas" is misspelt "Baracudas"
  • "Sabang" is misspelt "Sebang"
  • "Allies" is used before "Allied" is linked.
    • Fixed. The first para was added after the second para, and I didn't notice this. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "battleship" is linked twice.
    • Fixed, excuse per the above. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From early 1943 the fleet did not include any aircraft carriers or battleships" Warspite returned to the UK in May 1943, and Revenge and Resolution in September 1943.
    • Oops, missread. I've tweaked that. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Royal Navy learned useful lessons" Like?
    • Per the source above, the usually detailed Hobbs is irritatingly vague here and doesn't say what they are. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Nick, not a lot stood out to me. Overall it looks quite a tidy article. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Operation Cockpit was an attack against the Japanese-held island of Sabang on 19 April 1944" --> "Operation Cockpit was an Allied attack against the Japanese-held island of Sabang on 19 April 1944 during World War II"?
  • "Illustrious's air group comprised two squadrons equipped with 14 Vought F4U Corsair fighters": suggest maybe making it clear these were Fleet Air Arm squadrons given that they are US aircraft it might be confusing to readers
    • Good point - I've tweaked the text to reflect this. Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the afternoon of 20 April Renown mistook the Australian destroyer HMAS Nepal for a Japanese vessel and briefly engaged it": did Nepal suffer any damage from this?
    • The source doesn't say that it did, and none is recorded in the history on the RAN website [2]. Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Works consulted section Cox should come after Brown
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Cockpit&oldid=1030439749"