Talk:USS Strong (DD-467)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States Start‑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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Minelaying escort details[edit]

Looking at the pages for USS Strong and USS Chevalier (DD-451), both mention this minelaying escort mission on 7 May 1943, but have very different details for the minefield's effects. Chevalier's page claims that three Japanese destroyers (listed by name) sailed into it and were badly damaged, later being sunk by aircraft, while this one claims that four Japanese destroyers sailed into it, with one sinking immediately, two being badly damaged and sunk by aircraft, and the fourth escaping. Neither has in line sourcing, so I'm not sure how to tell which is accurate. KiraLiz1 | she/her 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ 27.109.114.59 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]