Talk:Operation K

Longest 2-plane air raid in history?

I don't think it is. I think the 36-hour around the world flights by B-2 bombers during Operation Allied Force and Operation Enduring Freedom were longer. WDW Megaraptor (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And I think the Vulcan bombing of airstrips during the Falklands war was also longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.26.48 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I love it when a plan comes together

Who was the Suzuki credited as chief planner? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unable to decipher this paragraph, I removed it.

Here's the paragraph, which was at the end of the article:

The raid did affect U.S. Navy morale. Nimitz's chief of intelligence, Captain Edwin T. Layton, whimsically suggested one of Commander Rochefort's men, Wilfrid J. "Jasper" Holmes, had planned the attack, since it closely followed a story he had written for the Saturday Evening Post before the war, "Rendezvous". Holmes was exonerated.

Not having access the source, problems are:

1. "The raid did affect U.S. Navy morale".
2. "Nimitz's chief of intelligence... whimsically suggested... Jasper Holmes had planned the attack..." [emphasis added]
3. "Holmes was exonerated"

Regarding #1:You can affect morale by weakening it or strengthening it. I assume here that "affect" means "weakened", but given the following sentence I'm not 100% sure. Needs to be stated more clearly: "Morale was shaken" or something. ("Morale was badly shaken" or "Confidence was shaken a little, but not seriously" or whatever it was would be even better.) Was the morale problem with the sailors, or somewhere in the high command, or both? It's not a very useful sentence generally... it's pretty general and vague... "morale" is a slippery thing so I'm not inclined to take any source's word for this without some concrete examples or something.

Regarding #2:People making whimsical suggestions like that does not jibe with a situation where morale had been shaken. It's not clear to me what's going on here. The editor needs to clarify by opening the sentence with something along the lines of "In spite of this...." or "In an attempt to boost morale..." or "In sharp contrast to the generally gloomy response..." or "As an example of how no one took this very seriously..." or whatever this was about.

Regarding #3: If it was "whimsical" how did he need to be exonerated? Was there a court of inquiry? Does the editor mean something like "brushed off with laughter all around as being all in good fun" or something? That's very different from being exonerated. So which was it?

All in all I consider the paragraph a net subtraction of information so I removed it, subject to rebuttal of course, although cleanup by someone with access to the source would be much better. Herostratus (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say morale was "shaken", but there was some surprise or shock; I'd add that fact, if I could cite it. As for the rest, Layton's suggestion Holmes was responsible was a mere inside joke (Holmes had written a short story with the idea in it years before), & nobody really took the "charge" seriously--but that isn't exactly what Holmes says...so "exonerated": it captures the mock seriousness & stays inside what the source actually says. As for a delete, I'd oppose it mildly (it's a neat story), but I can live with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)