Jump to content


We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!


Photo
- - - - -

The Taranto raid


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 JimboHarrigan2010

JimboHarrigan2010

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 03:45 AM

In my opinion, I'd say that Taranto was an early Pearl Harbor. The Japanese studied the raid and learnt it's lessons. However, the failure of the US to take in the lessons was one of the biggest military blunders of the war which would lead to tragedy for the US Pacific fleet. Cunningham's raid on Taranto proved that it was possible to mount an airborne torpedo attack on a fleet in port.

#2 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,163 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 05:19 AM

A night attack by a squadron of planes targetted at ships is a very different story from a massed attack aimed at knocking out a whole base. The FAA Swordfish had performed numerous attacks on Italian bases before that, IMO Supermarina's failure to predict Taranto was worse than the USN to predict PA (thinking out of the box is not a common military trait).
Truth is the first victim of conflict

#3 CTBurke

CTBurke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 03:42 PM

What the British managed to do with ONE aircraft carrier attack at Taranto was, IMHO, a more efficient and devastating blow to an enemy's naval capabilities than the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. With ELEVEN (the other ten Swordfish in the attack carried light bombs and/or flares) torpedo-bombers, flying through a WARNED and READY air defence, past barrage balloons and anti-torpedo nets, the British managed to put THREE Italian battleships on the bottom of the harbor. One never sailed to war again. That attack disabled HALF of the Italian battlefleet!

TOS--the Japanese were not trying to "knock out Pearl Harbor as a base", just the ships, and the defensive air components that might oppose the attack on the ships. Supermarina, too, had "defended" Taranto MUCH better than the Americans did at Pearl. Anti-torpedo nets, barrage balloons (neither one used at Pearl), searchlights and AA sites were a reasonable defense. The Italians had ample warning of the coming attack and were nominally ready. Italy and Britain, however, were decidedly already AT WAR, so there was no question of *IF*.

So the Japanese also disabled half of the American battlefleet, but it took them SIX carriers with some six times the number of torpedo-bombers, and did about three times the damage.

My hat is off to Andrew Cunningham (named my first son after him!), the Illustrious, and the "Stringbag warriors" of the Fleet Air Arm!
  • urqh, brndirt1 and scipio like this

#4 urqh

urqh

    Tea drinking surrender monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,683 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 06:29 PM

My hat is off to Andrew Cunningham (named my first son after him!)

Now that deserves a salute on its own merit....Thank god Sosabowski was not an admiral.

British Army 1939-1945 - World War II Tribute Video

 

 

[URL="http://youtu.be/Zbp_4XBmD4w"]

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users