Talk:Axis naval activity in Australian waters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Axis naval activity in Australian waters article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	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.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
More information... This article has passed an A-Class review. PEER This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Related task forces... Australian military history task force German military history task force Japanese military history task force Maritime warfare task force World War II task force

	Axis naval activity in Australian waters is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Military|Axis naval activity in Australian waters
WikiProject Australia To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia: The current Australian collaboration of the fortnight article is United States-Australia relations. Requests: Insurance in Australia, Lismore Base Hospital, Poppy Industries, Rossiter Bay, Sports Rorts affair, Yarmirr v Northern Territory Attention: Aboriginal Protection Act, Australian Payments Clearing Association, Coral Sea Islands, Qantas, Peter Foster, Reg Ansett Expand: Barossa Valley, Coorong, South Australia, List of Australian military memorials, Palm Island, Queensland Stubs: Australian Racing Museum Australian women's cricket team, Barry McKenzie, Calgardup Bay, Western Australia, Mortein, Prospect Creek, Russian Jack, Yabbying, Younghusband, South Australia Images: Darwin beer-can regatta, Darwin International Airport, Dingo Fence, Driza-Bone, Eucalyptus coolabah, Esky, Four'N Twenty Pie Quality watch: 33 FA-Class Australia articles - 22 GA-Class Australia articles.

Contents 1 Definition of 'Australian waters' 2 Organisation of article 3 Submarine sunk off Victoria 4 HSK 5 Headings 6 FA

[edit] Definition of 'Australian waters'

I have, arbitrarily, selected a very broad definition of 'Australian waters' as being the massive area which fell within the Australia Station, with the exclusion of the waters around New Guinea following the Japanese entry into the war. My rationale for this definition is that Australia's maritime area of responsibility stretched significantly beyond the Australian coastline. As such, actions such as the Japanese cruiser raid on the Aden-Fremantle route in early 1944 constitute 'activity in Australian waters' as this raid was targeting shipping heading to or from Australia (though this is about as far west as I think should fall into this entry). I propose excluding the Japanese actions in New Guinean waters as these operations formed part of the New Guinea campaign, which has its own entry.

There is, however, the question about how to treat Japanese attacks on convoys heading between Australia and New Guinea. I propose including these attacks in this article, though attacks on convoys heading between parts of New Guinea should be excluded. --Nick Dowling 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to adopt a broad definition, including some events mentioned on Japanese air attacks on Australia, 1942-43. But I don't think we should mention air attacks on ships by land based planes, which really belong at the other article. Grant65 | Talk 05:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. --Nick Dowling 09:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of article

Nick, great work on this article. At the moment I'm thinking that it might be better to organise the article chronologically, rather than with the division into surface, aerial and submarine attacks. For example, if we end with the U-Boat activity in 1945, it gives a better idea of the ongoing nature of the threat, throughout the war. I think the list of ships sunk would be better at the end also, following the convention in other Wikipedia articles of having lists at the end. What do you think? Grant65 | Talk 12:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grant. That's an excellent suggestion. I've set up a possible lay out at User:Nick Dowling/sandbox - what do you think? I think that it's much easier to read and definetly highlights the continuing, but changing, threat Australia faced during the war. The only downsides are that list of ships sunk should be expanded to include those sunk by surface raiders and a bit of new introductory/linking text is needed. --Nick Dowling 10:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, looks great to me. Grant65 | Talk 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. --Nick Dowling 11:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine sunk off Victoria

There is a rumour of a submarine sunk by aircraft off SE victoria toward the end of the war, possibly axis, possibly allied. searches haven't found it as far as I know, but it's not mentioned in this article.

It's just a rumor - all the sources I consulted in writing my contributions to this article state that no Axis submarines were sunk off the east coast. The I-124 was the Australian military's only submarine 'kill' in Australian waters and she was sunk off Darwin. --Nick Dowling 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HSK

The article uses an "HSK" prefix for German auxiliary cruisers (eg HSK Kormoran). Is this correct? I find no support here and it's not included in HSK. Folks at 137 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi 137, check HSK again -- it says "Hilfskreuzer or Handels-Stör-Kreuzer, a German term for Auxiliary cruiser". Grant65 | Talk 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa!! Don't know what happened there, temporary blindness. There's still a point, 'tho' whether HSK should be used. My understanding is that, after WWI, German naval ships didn't use prefixes. I had to remove "DKM" and "KM" prefixes I'd added after being put right. Folks at 137 08:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the link in the article, it goes to German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. To explain: I created the Battle between HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran article, as distinct from articles about the two ships. My reasoning for the title was that the battle doesn't have a name because the closest landmark is unknown and "HSK Kormoran" was less wordy than German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. If you Google " "HSK Kormoran" -wikipedia -site:wikipedia.org" there are 1,250 hits, which suggests that it isn't a term of my invention. Grant65 | Talk 10:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't suggest it was. Just querying its validity. "KM" & "DKM" are also extant, but are definitely incorrect usage, as is "IJN". For all I know, "HSK" was used for other reasons - that's why I've raised it as a query here and here. Brevity still needs to be accurate; particularly in an A-class article. I'll dig a bit more, in case there's a definitive answer. Did a Google on "HSK Pinguin": found 183 hits. Did it again on HSK Pinguin (ie, unlinking the string) and got 15,400. Most hits pick up on HSK in isolation, used as a hull number - rather like the US CAnn, BBnn, etc and the German Znn for Zerstorer (destroyer). Also got 33,700 hits for Kormoran cruiser, ie with no HSK prefix and 520 for HSK Kormoran. Must get out more!Folks at 137 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I included the HSK prefix when I wrote that section of this article was that it was used on other Wikipedia articles concerning the ships. It's not used in the Australian Offical Histories though, so it probably should be removed if there's no consensus on this naming convention. --Nick Dowling 11:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it...HSK Kormoran is an abbreviation of Hilfskreuzer Kormoran i.e. "Auxiliary cruiser Kormoran", which is....the name of the Wikipedia article ( -"German").

A search of .de sites turned 213 hits for "Hilfskreuzer Kormoran" and 34 for "HSK Kormoran", so it seems to be an acceptable abbreviation, just as "AC" would be (by way of analogy) if it was a common English abbreviation for auxiliary cruiser. Grant65 | Talk 10:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Nick, I went along with your reversion of my restucturing previously, but I still feel strongly it would be better to do away with the simple year headings ("1942", "1943", etc) and incorporate them into the other headings ("German surface raiders, 1939-41", "Early Japanese submarine patrols, 1942", "Japanese naval aviation attacks, 1942-43" etc). A simple division into years is not considered good practice in historical writing as (other than basic timelines) as the flow of events doesn't conform to calendar units.

That aside, it was a good idea to request peer review and I think the article is close to featured article quality. Grant65 | Talk 15:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grant. I think that the single year level 2 (==) headings should be retained to make it very clear that these sections include all the Axis operations in Australian waters during these period. However, adding dates to all the other headings seems like a very good idea. I've had a go at doing this at: User:Nick Dowling/sandbox - what do you think? Due to the episodic nature of the Axis attacks against Australia I think that sticking to a conventional cronology is the best way to approach writing the article (eg, in broad terms, the Axis offensive against Australia was German suface raiders, then Japanese recon patrols, then Japanese air attacks, then the attacks on the East Coast, then the actions of Japanese raiders in the Indian Ocean and finally the 'U-862's cruise. --Nick Dowling 10:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just incorporated new headings with dates into the article. I think that they definetly make things clearer. --Nick Dowling 01:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA

I think this article is ready for FA nomination. Cla68 06:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)