Talk:Battle of Cape Esperance

Web addition

I added, "It would also check additional Japanese advances" as 1 of the objectives & "In addition, they expended destroyers IJN desperately needed for commerce defense." as 1 of the effects of the Tokyo Express. Also, re Henderson Field: who was it named for? I know he was KIA at Midway, but I don't recall his name. Can somebody footnote it in the article? Trekphiler 10:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added information about Lofton R. Henderson to the footnote. Cla68 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article refers to Boise returning to formation at 03:05, after taking hits at 00:10 and pulling out of formation in flames. "Pick Out The Biggest": Mike Moran and the men of the Boise states that Admiral Scott (or other officers under his command, presumably aboard San Francisco) were highly sceptical when the approaching ship claimed to be Boise. Having seen Boise take severe hits and pull out of formation with its forward half in flames, they even doubted the coded recognition lights displayed by Boise. According to the book, the other ships of Task Force SUGAR nearly opened fire on Boise because they doubted the ship could have survived the damage she'd sustained and therefore believed her reappearance to be a Japanese trick. The book is the only reference I've been able to find to this aspect of the battle's aftermath (no mention is in the ONI Battle of Cape Esperance Combat Narritive). Is there any other source of confirmation? Also, was there any investigation into the hit on the forward magazine of Boise? Supposedly, she had an anti-torpedo armor belt, which begs the question as to how a shell falling just short (in the water next to the ship) managed to retain enough energy to pierce the hull and reach the forward magazine.

Up to this point in the Guadalcanal Campaign, there had only been one surface battle, Savo Island, which resulted in 4 allied cruisers sunk, not the 8 identified in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.73.254 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Concurring with the previous comment, I corrected the entry to reflect the fact that only one major surface action had occurred at Guadalcanal prior to the Battle of Cape Esperence. I also deleted the false assertion that the USN had been defeated in every prior night action against the USN. For comparison see the wikipedia entry for the Battle of Balikpapan in 1942, a night surface action in which the Japanese were defeated by a USN destroyer squadron. (Mike Diehl)

Point conceded. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again the phrase "as the first American victory in a surface action against the Japanese," as above. See wikipedia entry for Battle of Balikpapan 1942for first American victory in surface action against the Japanese. Thanks in advance. Mike Diehl (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Japanese lost two destroyers, not one

Currently the table shows IJN lost 1 destroyer. However, the text clearly states that both Natsugumo and Murakumo was sunk during the battle. It should be corrected. --Happyseeu (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

IJN lost 3 destroyers total (Fubuki by gunfire, Murakumo and Natsugumo by air) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.181.81.144 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)