Talk:Battle of Vella Lavella (naval)

Untitled

Again the original work here is intriguing. The original template called this a Japanese victory. In a sense I suppose it was, as Dunkirk was to the British--except that the Japanese didn't ballyhoo their loss of the lower and central Solomons. This action was the final retreat of the Japanese in the campaign, yet it was a victory. Morison was right when he said, "A string of such victories added up to defeat."--Buckboard 07:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

On Talk:Land Battle of Vella Lavella, a proposal has been made to rename this article "Battle of Vella Lavella (naval)", while the land battle would be retitled "Battle of Vella Lavella (land)". Are there any opinions about this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath

Pls see: "This ended the second phase of Operation Cartwheel—the reduction of the main Japanese base at Rabaul—with the Allied capture of the central Solomons after a three-month campaign that cost the Allies six ships; the Japanese lost seventeen." But this didn't result in the reduction of the main Japanese base at Rabaul? It appears to be wrong. Is it a mix-up? I could just tag this but would rather do it this way. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: I think it means, Cartwheel was the reduction of Rabaul and this was the second phase of this plan? Suggest: "The Allies had captured the central Solomons after a three-month campaign. It cost the Allies six ships for seventeen lost by the Japanese. This naval battle ended the second phase of Operation Cartwheel – the plan for the reduction of the main Japanese base at Rabaul." Implementing this edit on this basis. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day, your suggestion seems good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)