Talk:Battle of the Malacca Strait

Article name

I believe that "Battle off Penang" would be a better title for this article, since that appears to be the commonly used name for the battle that was a result of Operation Dukedom. Cla68 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally among historians its known as "The battle of the Malacca Strait" so in wiki terms, probably the best name would be "Battle of the Malacca Strait (1945)". Galloglass 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I support changing the article name to "Battle of the Malacca Strait (1945)." I'll leave this open for further comment for awhile before I or someone else moves the article to the new name. Cla68 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, providing that the current name redirects (as it would normally). BTW, which historians? The alternative name I've seen is "Sinking of the Haguro". Folks at 137 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Like several other battles in the Pacific War, this one doesn't seem to have a truly pervasive, generally accepted title. "Battle of the Malacca Strait" or "Battle off Penang" seem like the best two options to me. Because of Wikipedia's large influence on the Web, whatever title we choose may become the de facto title of the battle from here on out. Cla68 22:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Roskill refers to it as "The battle of the Malacca Strait" in 'The War at Sea, 1939-1945'. Can't give the page ref I'm afraid so if someone out there owns Vol 3 could they give it. Galloglass 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Searching around a little appears to indicate that "Battle off Penang" is the Japanese title for the battle and "Battle of the Malacca Strait" is a "Western" title (along with "Sinking of the Haguro"). If true, then I'm leaning towards going with the Battle of the Malacca Strait as the new name for the article. Cla68 23:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Miles & miles & miles

While I don't doubt the number (hence no fact tag), I do wonder if it meant statute miles, seeing how it's written by an RN officer in a naval journal.... I would expect, in those circumstances, nautical miles, hence 34mi =63km. (This is, btw, a perennial complaint for me, due to writers not knowing the difference, or not drawing the distinction.) Can it be said more firmly which was intended? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the radar contact at 34 miles (nautical or otherwise) correct? An eye (or radar) height of 100 feet produces a horizon 12.25 miles away (according to [[1]]). A horizon of 34 miles would need the radar antenna to be +/- 775 feet high!! What was the height above waterline of the radar antenna on V-class destroyers? 192.88.94.1 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)