Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Operation Return

37,575pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 21:07, December 15, 2012 by Thomsons Gazelle (Talk | contribs)

FA status

Nomination (13 May - 16 May 2004, Success)

Operation Return

{{msg:DWB}}

Might as well nominate all articles linked to in this msg. -- Redge 15:52, 13 May 2004 (CEST)

Archiving: Originally tagged as "Featured" by User:MinutiaeMan at 11:02, May 16, 2004. --Alan del Beccio 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconfirmation (21 Mar - 07 Apr 2012, Success)

Nominated en mass in 2004 with the rest of the other five Dominion War battles at the time. This article would require a blurb if reconfirmed, and I have no opinion either as of yet on if it should. - Archduk3 05:31, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - After reading the article and having done some work on the sidebar, I do find this article still up to specs and a nice readable addition to a larger story line..--Sennim 03:47, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, now that I worked on some of the wording and format issues. I had to undo the changes Sennim made to sidebar though, as they broke the format. This is the reason the Dominion War article doesn't have the image sidebar originally from the blurb incorporated into it. - Archduk3 04:04, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Removed speculation

I removed:

Statistically, numbers of ships and lives lost in the Operation Return are uncertain. It is believed that up to 50,000 to 110,000 Starfleet officers died, and between 200 and 400 starships were destroyed. Klingon and Dominion losses are not known.

and:

For that reason, despite the reverses that would come later, the Battle of Bajor will always be remembered as the fight that set the Federation on the road to triumph. Also, because of the horrendous casualties and starship losses suffered, the battle would unofficially be known as the "Valley of Death".

"Believed" by who? "Remembered" by who? "Unofficially be known as" by who? There is no fact behind the above statements. --Alan del Beccio 10:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the name "Valley of Death" is coming DITL, as that is what they call this battle. Still a made up name, of course. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, come to think of it, it is probably from the poem read at the beginning of the battle, The Charge of the Light Brigade. "Valley of death" is used several times, but not in the sections heard in the episode. Still, no basis for calling the battle this. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

DS9 resistance

moved from [talk:Deep Space 9 resistance]

I'm a little unsure about this article title - it is used only once, and on that page even as a piped link: [[Deep Space 9 resistance|resistance]]. That probably means that this is not a widely accepted term that needs to be an article title. If there was such a thing as an "official resistance cell" (which is what this article is about at the moment), we could just move this article to a title containing "cell". Another, IMO preferable, option would be to merge this article with one of the Dominion War articles, perhaps even the one that links to it. I'm putting a merge suggestion on the page, but am open for other suggestions. -- Cid Highwind 14:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think this really needs a page of it's own. A paragraph in another article, such as Operation Return would be just dandy. -- Renegade54 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

We don't actually see many ships destroyed onscreen. Allied casualties are only about three Birds-of-Prey, three Miranda-class starships and a couple of Federation fighters.– The All-knowing Sith'ari 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For Starfleet, it was very quickly becoming a losing battle. Unable to concentrate their attack on specific points in the enemy fleet, the Dominion's superior firepower gradually wore down the swifter but less powerful Starfleet vessels. Many of the older Excelsior and Miranda-class starships were lost in this phase of the battle, overwhelmed by incoming fire from all sides.

We Didn't see them lose any Excelsiors!--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Starships,Aftermath/Significance/Background

Removed:

This engagement bears some resemblance to The Battle of Towton in the War of the Roses in England during the 15th century. At Towton, a Yorkist army which had not received its full contingent launched an attack on the Lancastrian army and nearly lost. However the unmobilized troops arrived near the end of the engagement and ensured a decisive Yorkist victory.

1. If I understand their respective articles correctly, there is no proof the USS Leeds and USS Trinculo were present in that battle.

2.The Aftermath and Significance parts seem to be partially redundant.

3. The Background about the Battle of Towton seems completely out of place, there are dozens of battles in history where a partially complete force attacked and was saved by reinforcements arriving I'm sure.

I'll remove it for now and put it here. Kennelly 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Insignificant significance

I removed the following:

This battle proved the tactical reliability of Federation Starships; the Miranda and Excelsior types were only designed to ward off potential attackers, but faced against the coordinated fire from the Cardassian and Jem'Hadar, they proved very vulnerable. The Galaxy class ships could hold their own against the larger enemy craft, but not enough were present to cause any major effect.

This was added under the "significance" section... but how is this significant? How is the inability of a few class of starships to destroy apparently superior vessels significant to the operation and its outcome? Am I missing something? This sounds more like an attack on the vulnerability of Federation starships than anything else. --From Andoria with Love 09:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think the whole section is significantly insignificant, (That doesn't make much sense but I couldn't resist) and needs to be rewritten. The first paragraph seems to be speculation, stretching canon facts to make an analysis. There certainly is the valid point there, but I think it needs some tightening. The second paragraph is pure speculation from what I can gather.– Cleanse 09:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Operation Return"

Where exactly does the name come from? Is it on a screen in an episode? -- DS9 Forever 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as well, if anything it needs a background note. I couldn't find it on any of the viewscreens or the scripts. — Morder (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is only called "Operation Return" in the DS9 Tech Manual. I'm not sure if they got it from somewhere or just made it up.--31dot 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I just checked and you're right, 31dot, it comes from the tech manual. — Morder (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Related events

There are some related events to this engagement that I think should be included in the article somewhere or other. For example, the Dominion also lost 2,800 ships did they not in the wormhole? Should there be reference to these reinforcements in the infobox, afterall the Dominion did have them, and they did lose them as a result of the engagement. Also, the Dominion did have the space station Terok Nor in their posession, and it did play a minor role in the battle, for example it was attacked by the Defiant at the very end of the engagement. (82.28.237.200 14:55, September 8, 2009 (UTC))

Is it too blatantly speculative to say that the Klingon forces were far more effective arriving when they did than if they'd been there the whole time?--Ten-pint 18:11, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe, but we really can't say. I think the reason they opened holes in the Dominion lines so quickly is because the Dominion wasn't expecting them. They probably had just decloaked right before the firing began. leandar 00:07, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I agree, I'm wondering, since it was never flat-out stated as such, if it's too much speculation that theory in the article proper.--Ten-pint 20:29, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
It was stated in the episode that "If the Klingons had not arrived when they did, then the battle would have gone differently" 86.183.197.113 21:45, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Rotarran?

I don't remember the Rotarran being mentioned as taking part in "Sacrifice of Angels". – 202.76.147.1 04:52, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Martok was present when the Klingon forces boarded Deep Space Nine with the other Federation ships however. It is wise to assume that the Rotarran was part of the Klingon fleet that attacked the Dominion. (82.28.237.200 18:24, October 15, 2010 (UTC))
Assumptions are not proof. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:39, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

If Worf and Martok went to Gowron to get ships to bring back to the battle. It's not an unreasonable assumption that THEY came back with the Klingon Reinforcements. Martok would be in command of them. It makes no sense for it to work out any other way.

Decisive Victory

I think this battle should count as a decisive victory, because:

  • The Federation permanently cut off the Dominion's supply line to the Gamma Quadrant.
  • The Dominion leadership was heavily damaged.
  • It led to a major boost in Starfleet's morale.

- JustPhil 16:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't because:
  • These adjectives are entirely fan made, and sound extremely fanboyish
  • Federation forces endured terrible loss of material and life
--OuroborosCobra talk 03:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
I think it should because;
  • These adjectives are not entirely fan made; the Dominion never sent reinforcements through the wormhole again after the Prophets wiped out 2,800 of their ships.
  • It did lead to a major boost in Starfleet morale; it being the first victory since the start of the war
  • The Dominion leadership WAS heavily damaged for this reason; Dukat was very aggressive and in favour of the Dominion. Damar was just going along with it because Dukat was onboard, with Damar in charge of the Cardassian Union it set a sour working relationship between him and Weyoun, ultimately leading to the Cardassian Revolt, a major factor in the eventual Allied victory.
  • So what if the Federation suffered heavy casualties? At the Battle of Towton, the Yorkist army lost 12,000 men, out of an army of 36,000. The usual acceptable norm is 20% casualties for any detachment. Here, the Yorkists lost a third of their force, and Towton is still considered a decisive victory. At Stalingrad, the Russians lost hundreds of thousands of men, and it is still considered a decisive victory. A victory is measured by its effect on the campaign and / or war as a whole in retrospect, not by how many troops were lost in battle. (82.28.237.200 18:20, October 15, 2010 (UTC))

I go by the textbook definition, which is essentially "a battle in which the outcome is so overwhelming that it alters the course of the war". Like at Midway, Japan lost its entire striking power in the span of five minutes. Here, the Federation re-secured the wormhole and the Dominion's political structure collapsed.- JustPhil 16:55, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ok NONE of those are Adjectives. An Adjective is a describing WORD! These are phrases to show the outcome of an event. It was a costly decisive victory would be a more adpt way to describe it. 86.183.197.113 21:55, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

U.S.S. Centaur?

Im wondering where the information about the U.S.S. Centaur being in this battle comes from. At no point during Favor the Bold or Sacrifice of Angels do we ever see a "centaur class" ship in the fleet. The only possible mention of this is Captain Sisko relaying orders to "Captains Diego and Reynolds" And while the U.S.S. Centaur was commanded by a Captain Reynolds, i think it's fair to assume that there is more than one Captain in Starfleet named Reynolds, and I don't think this constitutes proof of the U.S.S. Centaur as being part of this fleet. --76.118.24.19 17:12, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

It was a large fleet, are you sure you didn't see it? That said, if it wasn't seen, we may want to address this situation. 31dot (talk) 01:47, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
I think I saw it hanging around the starbase at one point, but I could be wrong. It could even be a different Centaur-type ship. - Mitchz95 (talk) 03:42, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Name of Article

This article uses a name that only exists in the technical manual. Most other battles are named after the location they took place at. Operation Return could be accurately described as the name of the operation. But that doesn't make it the name of the battle.

For example. Operation Overlord is the name of the entire invasion of France in World War 2. But most people know it by Normandy Landings (or some derivative) or D-Day.

The Battle itself was only a part of the Operation. I think it would be better to select a name that more accurately reflects the battle. There are already two names in use. The First Battle of DS9 and the Second Battle of DS9. You could almost use "The Third Battle of DS9". But that doesn't quite work. The battle took place 3 hours at warp from DS9. Thats not even inside the Bajor system.

In classic naval battle names, they use something similar. The Battle of and the Battle Off. Off indicates the nearest shore that the battle centers around. Well, you can't battle off shore from a planet in space. But you can battle Near a planet in space if you aren't at it.

I propose the name "Battle near Bajor" or "Battle near Deep Space Nine". The battle was nearest the Bajor system. The stragegic importance was DS9 for control of the wormhole, but the battle was technically nearest the Bajor system. Either name could work.

Just an idea from someone with too much time on his hands. Alyeska (talk) 01:11, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

While using the Technical Manual as the source is not ideal, it is preferable to making up a name ourselves(which would be even less canon than using the Tech Manual) or an Unnamed Battle article. We also do this with other things such as Livingston and even Akira class, neither of which were named in canon. 31dot (talk) 02:31, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. The TM gives us a base to go off of. Alyeska (talk) 03:29, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Admiral Ross called it the "Battle to re-take Deep Space 9" in Tears of the Prophets. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn (talk) 12:50, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
....which is only a description of what the battle did, not a name. The script does not have that phrase capitalized, which would indicate that it was a name. 31dot (talk) 12:56, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
It's referred to as 'Operation Return' by Doug Drexler here as part of the Ships of the Line calendar artwork (larger here), too. if that counts for anything. - Aatrek 13:34, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as the battle wasn't over Bajor itself (Bajor was a "Neutral" party in the war, as they were strongly advised by the Federation to not sign on as it would make them a target) it would be more accurately described as the Second Battle of DS9. Or Operation Return. Dont forget that the Normandy Landings are only known as them because it provides an easy generic term for a more complex operation that is used to teach children about it (I'm a Primary School Teacher and its what we got told when we asked about it during our training, to use the simplest term to describe a key event). One could argue that this was actually a campaign and not a battle. I'm for keeping it as Operation Return as it more accurately describes what happens. 86.183.197.113 22:02, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
The Battle Near Bajor and The Battle Near Deep Space 9 both sound like something from The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. And, as someone else said, the battle was only part of the operation. It should remain Operation Return The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomsons Gazelle (talk • contribs).
And if you must rename it, at least make it The Battle Of Terok Nor. That was the name of the station at the time, and it was control of the station they were fighting for.Thomsons Gazelle (talk) 21:07, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki