Talk:Battle of Dutch Harbor

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Asian / Japanese / North America / United States / World War II C‑class

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 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	Asian 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

Diversion

Recent historians, such as Tully and Parshall in Shattered Sword, with better access to Japanese records, have said that the Japanese Aleutian Islands operation was not meant as a diversion for the rest of the Combined Fleet approaching Midway. Instead, they argue, the goal of the plan to attack and occupy the Aleutians was, as with Midway, to extend Japan's defensive perimeter outward to give greater protection to the home islands. If it served as a diversion, that was only a secondary objective. Cla68 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I know that Fuchida says that it was meant as a diversion. Tully and Parshall, however, say that Japanese records don't support his claim. Cla68 (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POW/MIA

"As a result of the enemy actions the Eleventh Air force lost 4 B-17s, 2 Martin B-26 Marauders, 2 P-40s, the Fleet Air wing suffered the most with 6 PBY Catalinas destroyed and 23 killed. 3 POW, 10 MIA and 2 wounded.[9]"

Since this battle was an aerial attack, how is it possible that any US troops were taken prisoner? MIA is confusing too -- it's a tiny isolated island, where are they going to disappear to? -- though I suppose it's possible they died but their bodies weren't found.

The reference is a Google books link and that only shows you part of the text so it's difficult to get the context for these numbers. Is it possible that they're the casualty numbers for the 11th Air force for the entire war? There's no indication other than this sentence that there were B-17s on the island during the battle, for instance. --Jfruh (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Dutch Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]