Talk:Take Ichi convoy

Ultra intercepts

How did interception of (German) Ultra communications assist in the detection of Japanese convoys? Would these not have been Magic or one of the Japanese naval codes? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence collected from both German and Japanese codes was labeled 'Ultra' (see the title of the book by Ed Drea used in this article or the 'Ultra' entry in the Oxford Companion to the Second World War. The Wikipedia article only briefly mentions this, however. The SIGINT used in this battle came from both Japanese Navy and Army transmissions. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai to Manila

Was the single plane which sighted USS Jack part of a systematic air coverage for the convoi or only one random reconnaisance mission? --Bomzibar (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Casualty figures

The deaths in one ship sinking was given as the suspiciously exact "3,000" soldiers. (Really? How many real wartime units are an exact multiple of a thousand? No crew deaths?) The Japanese source in the article on the ship says it was "2,586 soldiers, 81 ship's crew, and 2 armed guards". As this acknowledges the crew deaths and is a more likely size for a unit, I suggest it is more likely to be accurate.

This means the total in the main box is unreliable - it was 4,290, clearly arrived at by adding the 1,290 deaths from another attack to the 3,000 attributed to the first one.

I have changed it to "c4,000". 2,586+81+2 + 1,290 = 3,959, a tiny fraction less than 99% of four thousand. It would also be surprising if no-one else died on the voyage, given the Japanese army's problems with keeping its men healthy. Lovingboth (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I take your point about the 3000 figure, but that's what the source says. I've reverted your replacement of this figure with the figure from the Seaman's Union - can you please clarify why this source is a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My written Japanese is non-existent, so I've asked the person who found it (who appears to have access to a wide range of sources on naval matters) to comment. But it is clear that the figure from Blair is 'just' an estimation - I'll have a look to see where it came from when I am next at the British Library (it has a copy). Even if it were correct, which for the reasons given is extremely unlikely, there are only two possibilities: all 3,000 "soldiers" died, but none of the crew - that would be extremely notable in itself - and their guards, OR some (everyone suggests 'all') crew also died, in which case the total loss for the convoy figure is wrong because it would not include them. I think by far the most likely explanation is that the 3,000 figure is wrong and that the Japanese Seaman's Union is likely to be a reliable source for the figures of a Japanese requisitioned merchant ship. Lovingboth (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah ha, the person who provided the translation was User:Snlf1, see their talk page:

" Yoshida Maru No.1 (第一吉田丸) - 2649 dead (2586 soldiers of 32D, 2 army ship guards, 61 seamen)

 Aden Maru (亜丁丸) - 523 dead (507 soldiers of 35D, 4 guards and 12 seamen)
 Taijima Maru (但馬丸) - 70 dead (58 soldiers of 35D, 9 guards and 3 seamen)
 Amatsusan Maru (天津山丸, Tenshinzan Maru is miss pronunciation) - 95 dead (all 32D soldiers).

Sources of the Report are Senshi Sōsho and The List of Lost Ships in military transport missions (部隊輸送間における遭難船舶一覧, This is the report by IJA Shipping Division just after the end of WW2)."

So it's a Seaman's Museum report based on the figures of the people who should know better than anyone else. Lovingboth (talk) 22:33, 18 September 09014 (UTC)

Willoughby (1966)

Willoughby (1966) looks like a primary source and doesn't seem like an RS. The reports of Gen MacArthur? Surely a history book would be better? Consequently, some details in the background seem to be missing or incorrect. The "defensive line" was a euphemism for a change of strategy from aggressive imperial expansion to "holding the line" on recent imperial gains. It wasn't really defending the "homeland," that's just what the Japanese army called it. And I think this change was brought about by the defeat at Midway, which isn't mentioned. I think these discrepancies are a consequence of relying on Willoughby (1966) for the history and not on modern history books? Levivich (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How many personnel were in these two divisions?

The article states that the convoy was carrying two divisions and that 4,290 soldiers were killed: I think it would be helpful to also state how many personnel were in the convoy overall. Alexysun (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)