Talk:Landing at Lae
 | Landing at Lae has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 27, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first waves of the landing at Lae were carried in four destroyer transports? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Gallipoli
editG'day, Hawkeye, with regard to this [1], I just wanted to clarify that it was removed because of the landing during the Battle of Goodenough Island? If so, perhaps the wording could be tweaked a little. For instance Dean p. 218 in Australia 1943 uses the construction "first major Australian amphibious operation since Gallipoli", with a footnote about the Goodenough Island landing on 22 October 1942. Would that work in your opinion? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- That would work. The reason was that both Goodenough and Lae were unopposed. Per your article on the Huon Peninsula campaign: [Finschhafen] was the first opposed amphibious landing that Australian forces had made since Gallipoli. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Finished with this article unless you can think of something else that needs covering. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, Hawkeye, thanks for your efforts. I've added the Gallipoli point back, albeit based on how Dean words it. Please feel free to tweak as you see fit. I will try to see if maybe I can fit a bit more about the advancing units themselves, but overall I think you've done a fantastic job. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think I'm done now, too. Thanks for your work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, Hawkeye, thanks for your efforts. I've added the Gallipoli point back, albeit based on how Dean words it. Please feel free to tweak as you see fit. I will try to see if maybe I can fit a bit more about the advancing units themselves, but overall I think you've done a fantastic job. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Finished with this article unless you can think of something else that needs covering. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Location of Red and Yellow Beaches
editI've edited this sentence:
"Red Beach" was to the east of the mouth of the Busu River, 27 kilometres (17 mi) east of Lae, and "Yellow Beach" near Malahang.
This is completely inconsistent with the (presumably original) maps supplied. It makes the discussion of the campaign impossible to follow.
In fact, the relevant river is not the Busu, which is close to Lae, and contrary to the text, would have been subject to Japanese artillery fire, but the Buso. The 27km East of Lae is too far as a 'crow flies' distance, or even as the cross-country route the troops actually took. I've changed it to roughly 15km, which (given neither start nor end points are precisely defined) is close enough to the straight line distance.
It's unclear whether "near Malahang" applies to both beaches, or only to Yellow (with the existing punctuation, it applies only to Yellow). Either way, it's highly misleading (the distance from Malahang to Lae is trivial relative to the distances of both beaches from Lae). The wording would put Yellow Beach between Red Beach and Lae, making a complete nonsense of the discussion of how the 2/13th surprisingly reached Lae first! In fact, Yellow Beach was to the East of Red Beach. I've completely removed the reference to Malahang, as it seems to serve no useful purpose. Urilarim (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)