Talk:Operation Cottage: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:25, 27 February 2013 editBallchef (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users606 edits →US and Canadian landing points ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:11, 13 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,299,760 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{Project Alaska}}.
(12 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Project~~ ~~Alaska~~\|class=~~start~~\|~~importance~~=~~mid}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|1=
			{{WikiProject Alaska\|importance=mid}}
	{{~~WPMILHIST~~\|class=Start\|B1=no\|B2=no\|B3=yes\|B4=yes\|B5=yes\|Canadian=yes\|Japanese=yes\|US=yes\|WWII=yes}}		{{WikiProject Military history\|class=Start\|B1=no\|B2=no\|B3=yes\|B4=yes\|B5=yes\|Canadian=yes\|Japanese=yes\|US=yes\|WWII=yes}}
			}}

			This makes absolutely no sense. If Japan didn't participate in that battle, who was the battle against? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	==No battle infobox needed==		==No battle infobox needed==
Line 13:		Line 17:
	== US and Canadian landing points ==		== US and Canadian landing points ==

	Why does the article say that US and Canadian forces landed on opposite sides of the island but the map shows them landing on the same side? There is also an arrow pointing into Gertrude Cove with no formation label attached to it. ''']]''' 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)		Why does the article say that US and Canadian forces landed on opposite sides of the island but the map shows them landing on the same side? There is also an arrow pointing into Gertrude Cove with no formation label attached to it. ''']]''' 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

	:Also, the numbers in the article and the numbers in the infobox are wildly disparate. what's the deal? ] (]) 04:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)		:Also, the numbers in the article and the numbers in the infobox are wildly disparate. what's the deal? ] (]) 04:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

			== Japanese tactical victory? ==

			Why is it considered a Japanese victory when they lost the island?
			] (]) 21:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

			I mean, when you can cause 313 casualties of the other guys without so much as a papercut or a stubbed toe among your own, that's a victory any way you slice it. ] (]) 00:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

			Yet Operation Wikinger is considered an operational failure towards Germany? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== No need for an infobox ==

			The subject of the article is not a battle, so there is no reason to keep the infobox. A conflict with "no presents" on one of the sides is almost satirical. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== One sea mine WAS present. ==

			Ok an operation can cover many battles, and so this operation can cover both the battle of USA vs Canada, and also allies vs Japan. But no need to break this up into battles, its a story of the operation.


			One sea mine WAS present.

			Japanese Commanders,whereever located, had authority over the departure of the japanese forces,
			and also the placement and recovery of the sea mines.

			So there was a commander responsible ? Even if it wasn't deliberate ....

			There was a strength of japanese which sufferred no losses ? I guess that would be their operation, Operation Scared Cat, or something.? But if its almost the same time, the japanese knowing Operation Cottage was on, and the japanese escaped ? Isnt it the same thing ? Isn't there room to say "2000 japanese escaped the island".


			There was a unit responsible for laying sea mines. Didn't they achieve their objective ?
			Weren't they an important presence in this ? by having one mine present and it actually carried out its duty ???

			Japanese strength... well at least one sea mine WAS present, doing what sea mines do, wasn't it?? thats how strong they were... one sea mine. ?

			But it was an allied victory, even in the war of attrition, because control over the Kiska area for 70 KIA, seems cheap compared to other invasions KIA per acre , which are also considered a victory. ] (]) 02:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:11, 13 January 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alaska Mid‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Canadian / Japanese / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

This makes absolutely no sense. If Japan didn't participate in that battle, who was the battle against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.6.222 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No battle infobox needed

Since this wasn't a battle since only one force was present, the battle infobox isn't needed. Instead, the generic military event infobox should be used. I'll replace it when I get a chance. The Japanese occupation of Kiska and the associated air campaign and naval blockade are addressed in a different article. Cla68 (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers wrong

Some numbers must be incorrect, e.g. there's no agreement on how many were killed aboard the destroyer. Even in the first two pages of google results you can find three figures: 61, 70 or 71. Other numbers are not conclusive as well, some say over 200 total casualties, some say 313. As for the friendly fire losses, the number was taken apparently from http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/kiska-homepage.htm however some other sources claim that the number was 25. Egh0st (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

US and Canadian landing points

Why does the article say that US and Canadian forces landed on opposite sides of the island but the map shows them landing on the same side? There is also an arrow pointing into Gertrude Cove with no formation label attached to it. Spinning Spark 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the numbers in the article and the numbers in the infobox are wildly disparate. what's the deal? Ballchef (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Japanese tactical victory?

Why is it considered a Japanese victory when they lost the island? 85.216.233.211 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, when you can cause 313 casualties of the other guys without so much as a papercut or a stubbed toe among your own, that's a victory any way you slice it. Popecrunch (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yet Operation Wikinger is considered an operational failure towards Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.4.17 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No need for an infobox

The subject of the article is not a battle, so there is no reason to keep the infobox. A conflict with "no presents" on one of the sides is almost satirical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:CC92:AEAE:49B7:E7E0:F422:4B20 (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

One sea mine WAS present.

Ok an operation can cover many battles, and so this operation can cover both the battle of USA vs Canada, and also allies vs Japan. But no need to break this up into battles, its a story of the operation.

One sea mine WAS present.

Japanese Commanders,whereever located, had authority over the departure of the japanese forces, and also the placement and recovery of the sea mines.

So there was a commander responsible ? Even if it wasn't deliberate ....

There was a strength of japanese which sufferred no losses ? I guess that would be their operation, Operation Scared Cat, or something.? But if its almost the same time, the japanese knowing Operation Cottage was on, and the japanese escaped ? Isnt it the same thing ? Isn't there room to say "2000 japanese escaped the island".

There was a unit responsible for laying sea mines. Didn't they achieve their objective ? Weren't they an important presence in this ? by having one mine present and it actually carried out its duty ???

Japanese strength... well at least one sea mine WAS present, doing what sea mines do, wasn't it?? thats how strong they were... one sea mine. ?

But it was an allied victory, even in the war of attrition, because control over the Kiska area for 70 KIA, seems cheap compared to other invasions KIA per acre , which are also considered a victory. 115.69.5.24 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: