Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
BobDonnald
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:44 am

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by BobDonnald »

So how does the Japanese counter attack on the USN shipping at Guadalcanal figure in. It was a land based naval torpedo plane attack against pre-war surface ships.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Dave Saxton »

That's a good question. There were two attacks on the US shipping a day apart. In both cases coast watchers had gave warning in ample time. The US warships were in AA formation and all ships at speed before the attack arrived. In both cases the Americans had the AA cruiser San Juan well positioned. In the first attack the attack was broken up by 18 wild cat fighters. In the second attack, the Wildcats didn't get there in time. However, the Japanese did a poor job themselves. They did not hold formation and dissapated their attacks in poorly timed "penny packets" as they sought to find carriers in the sound as ordered. Finding none, were then poorly positioned when the did attack. I think once again it proves the power of several ships combining their firepower in mutial support while in a well formed formation.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
pdunderhill
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:31 pm
Location: London

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by pdunderhill »

As an addendum to the OP, Oerlikonn and Bofors were both, I believe European Arms makers, so did the RN just filch the designs?

To badly mangle an expression: 'all is fair in love and war' but were the Allies liable for patent theft if they'd used a weapon design from the Axis or occupied countries.

As a complete aside, if you don't mind, the BBC used a recording of the first bar of Beethoven's 5th Symphony as a Clarion to begin it's Radio transmissions to occupied Europe,
dit, dit, dit, dah 'V' for victory. In the late 40's the Berlin Philharmonic attempted to sue Auntie for copyright infringement, the case 'failed to progress'.

Again thanks to all of you for the breadth and depth of the forum.

Peter
User avatar
tameraire01
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm

Re: Taranto.

Post by tameraire01 »

Keith Enge wrote:
Evaluating the Taranto raid

The British raid consisted of one carrier, launching only 21 obsolete Swordfish, only 11 of which carried torpedoes. The rest carried either bombs or flares (bombs for level bombing, flares to backlight the target area). Furthermore, those 21 planes were actually separated into two waves, attacking an hour apart. Two planes were lost. By contrast, the Japanese had six carriers launching 355 planes, in two waves only slightly separated. The breakdown was 132 divebombers, 104 level bombers, 79 fighters, and 40 torpedo bombers. They lost 29 planes, a lesser percentage than the British. Even the name is significant, Taranto was a nighttime raid to protect the vulnerable Swordfish; Pearl Harbor was a daytime attack.
Might i point out that britain had the empire to protect where as the Japanese had limited gains to protect. There were supposed to be two carriers to attack Taranto but one suffered a problem which left the only RN CV HMS Illustrious to attack the Italians. Hitler went mental when he heard about Taranto he told the Lufftewaffe and kreigesmarine to sink lusstie by anymeans possible. Hence why she spent some time in america getting repaired.
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. Joseph Stalin
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Taranto.

Post by RNfanDan »

tameraire01 wrote: Hitler went mental when he heard about Taranto he told the Lufftewaffe and kreigesmarine to sink lusstie by anymeans possible. Hence why she spent some time in america getting repaired.
Hmmmm....wow! :shock:
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by aurora »

Taranto- 11th November 1940-British torpedo bombers successfully attack heavy Italian units at anchor.
East China Sea- 10th December 1940 Force Z Battleship Prince of Wales and Battlecruiser Repulse both sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers.
The "Taranto Effect" expeditiously put to the test by a keen, observant enemy. :oops: :oops:

aurora
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by alecsandros »

aurora wrote:Taranto- 11th November 1940-British torpedo bombers successfully attack heavy Italian units at anchor.
East China Sea- 10th December 1940 Force Z Battleship Prince of Wales and Battlecruiser Repulse both sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers.
The "Taranto Effect" expeditiously put to the test by a keen, observant enemy. :oops: :oops:

aurora
... 10th Dec 1941.

The higher-ups in all the navies , except perhaps the IJN, were very sure that air attacks were little cause for concern for moving capital ships, because the AA systems of the fleet , and the radical manovreings at high speed would make air attack very hard to score hits.
The war showed that they were both right and wrong.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Dave Saxton »

Mostly wrong.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by alecsandros »

Dave Saxton wrote:Mostly wrong.
well, Italian torpedo bombers and dive and level bobmers achieved very little against moving warships in the Med, despite very large numbers deployed. British torpedo bombers and level bombers were also rather poor in hiting enemy warships on the move.

The killing blows came mostly from carrier-born USN and IJN strike aircraft. German dive bombers caused big damage to British warships, but not on the magnitude of damage caused by Japanese carrier-born bombers.

So it was a mix ...
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by aurora »

Matapn had been a disaster. Three heavy cruisers and two destroyers lost. Supermarina now realized that if the fleet were to put to sea again- it would have to have its own aerial protection and offensive force. Taranto was a tremendous psychological defeat, Matapan was a naval defeat that more or less finished the Italian navy as a major military unit. The next time the Italian fleet came out in force was two years later, to surrender to Admiral Cunningham at Malta. :clap: :D

aurora
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
OpanaPointer
Senior Member
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by OpanaPointer »

Discussion relevant to the impact of Toranto on USN planning.

Letter from CNO to Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet
Letter from Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet
And Letter from CNO to all District Commanders Regarding Anti-torpedo baffles (nets) for protection against torpedo planes.
(Hart Exhibits #17, 18, and 19).
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by aurora »

The lateness of the communiques- smack of "stable doors and horses"; but again thank you for the research OP
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
Post Reply