Talk:Battle of Taranto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article title[edit]

Why Battle of Taranto? Wouldn`t it be more appropriate to name this article Attack or Raid on Taranto? Shouldn`t it be named according to the same logic as the article about the similar action at Pearl Harbor that occured almost exactly 64 years before I wrote this? Veljko Stevanovich 7. 12. 2005. 18:45 UTC+1

This action has always been known as the Battle of Taranto and it is appropriate that the article be named using the usual name. What constitues a battle, a raid or an attack is not clearly defined, so I think it appropriate to follow common usage for each action. Thus we have the attack on Pearl Harbour, the Raid on Rabaul and the Battle of Taranto.Nick Thorne 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only Western Allied Victory in the First Punic War???[edit]

I speak now, having entered this page by the link for the "Battle of Tarentum" from the First Punic War's battle box. Needless to say, I believe that this has to be corrected. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. ELV



Planes vs Torpedo bombers[edit]

I really don't wish to get into the revert war between Kurt Leyman and Nick Thorne over this, but if I might shed some light on the issues involved. Namely that of the 21 Swordfish involved on the raid only 11 carried torpedoes, the other 10 carried bombs and flares. So the current info box information stating 21 Torpedo Bombers is somewhat misleading. I would suggest that it be changed to 21 Swordfish Aircraft. Please discuss it here as endless reversions do not do anyone any good. Galloglass 16.25, 14 June 2006

The issue is not what the aircraft were armed with but what type of aircraft they were. The Fairy Swordfish was a torpedo bomber and in the Information box it seems that rather than name specific units, generic terms describing the type of unit are used. The use of the term torpedo bomber is entirely consistent with the use of terms like light cruiser or battleship etc to describe ships, rather than giving the name and class of the ships concerned.Nick Thorne 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"British" Royal Navy?[edit]

Sijo Ripa has added the word "British" the term Royal Navy in the opening section of this article. I submit that this use of the word "British" is redundant. The name of the organisation is the Royal Navy and in an English language article about WWII there is no need to qualify it since it is understood that the Royal Navy is the British naval force. There can be no confusion because other navies, such as the Royal Australian Navy include the name of their respective countries in the title. If there are no objections I will remove the word in a couple of days or so.Nick Thorne 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't mean it as disrespect for the hard work put in this article. However it seemed and still seems like a systemic bias, as not everyone knows what the Royal Navy exactly is, and it also isn't explained in the introduction (one sentence or one word could be enough however). At least it should be made more clear in the introduction, whether or not you put British before Royal Navy. Sijo Ripa 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed no disrespect, so no offence taken and I hope none given. My concern is that saying "British Royal Navy" sounds clumsy. If a reader is unsure what the Royal Navy is, he or she can simply click on the link and find out. I doubt that there are very many English speakers with a passing interest in things naval who would not know that the Royal Navy is British. After all this instituion has been in existance and know as the Royal Navy for at least 500 years.Nick Thorne 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "British". I tend to look for random articles and just read the introduction. If the introduction sounds interesting, I read further. I only have read the introduction at starters, and I found it a "little bit" confusing (so not a real problem) as only in the last sentence it is said that it were "British" aircraft. But as I said, not a real problem. Sijo Ripa 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of big gun naval warfare[edit]

Good article in general, and I find it interesting to draw a comparison to the relatively lack of use of the (super) battle ships Yamato and the Musashi in the Pacific part of WW II due to the fact that wars were fought mainly from the airs and those ships couldn't reach the carriers, which led to the transformation of the third ship (which was still under construction) to an aircraft carrier, see: Shinano) and the abolishment of the Super Yamato class plans in 1942 (mostly due to th defeat in the Battle of Midway). Perhaps it can be put in the "See also" section. Sijo Ripa 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive British victory[edit]

I am reverting Kurt's edit which removed the word decisive. There is no question that this was a decisive victory for the British since it in effect took the main surface forces of the Italian Navy out of the war and removed the threat that the Italian fleet in being posed to British forces in the Med. Kurt, if you want to ask a question about the use of a term in an article, it is more polite to place the question in the talk page and thus allow others to have a say before you edit and then put your question in the edit summary.Nick Thorne 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The Battle of Taranto was not decisive at all. The Italian Navy continued to be a serious threat in the central Mediterranean. I believe most of the ships damaged were repaired and operational by the end of the year, and convoys to Libya were not greatly affected. Though a tactical victory, the attack failed to knock out the Italian Navy decisively. AnnalesSchool (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Taranto attack knocked out a number of the Italian's big-gun ships and ensured that for a time the Royal Navy would not need to use precious battleships in the Mediterranean to counter these Italian ships when they might be urgently needed for other purposes. Such as bombarding shore targets during invasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian attack on Alexandria.[edit]

The Italian answer to the British attack to Taranto was the attack on Alexandria on December 19, 1941, when two British battleships ("Valiant" and "Queen Elizabeth") and a tanker ("Sagona") were sunk. The battleships were refloated but this operation lasted several months.

a year later doesn't sound like much of an answer. GraemeLeggett 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It Italy "Alexandria" is usually call "the answer". If you prefer: "a pondered answer".

Who was Lumley Lyster?[edit]

It's odd that there is no information at all in the article - or indeed in Wikipedia - about the British commander (info box). Any explanation? --Zeisseng 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Kurt Leyman[edit]

I have reverted two edits by Kurt. He deleted two images without explanation and the majority of the first edit seemd to be about subtly changing the tone of the article, changing (incorrectly) a direct quote and inserting a clumsy rider to the section about the effects of the battle. When talking about the "strength" of a Naval force, it is not uncommon to refer to the capital ships in that regard. Losing half your capital ships would most commonly be considered as equivalent to losing half your strength. Talking about the "battleship strength" of a fleet seems clumsy to say the least. Nick Thorne talk 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt, you have reverted part of my recent edit.

  • Firstly, you seem to dislike the sentence "The Italian fleet had lost half its battleship strength in one night" and seem to prefer "The Italian battleship fleet lost half its strength in one night". The first of these sounds better to a native English speaking person, plus as an ex naval officer I have some familiarity with the form of words used in Naval disussions and I can assure you that the term "battleship fleet" is incongruous. The first sentence is one that someone well versed in things Naval might well use, the second would definitely not be used.
  • Secondly, you have replaced "Even with this serious setback, the Regia Marina was able to put two battleships and other ships to sea and fight at the..." with "Even with this setback, the Regia Marina had the adequate resourceso fight the...". Now I fail to see how you can possibly suggest that Taranto was not a serious setback for the Italian Navy, also your version is less informative. It removes information. My version includes the information about just what capital ship strength the Regia Marina was able to muster after Taranto. Your version is not equivalent at all.

I am at a loss as to why you want to make the changes you have unless it is part of some bizarre sort of campaign to gloss over Axis defeats and make their strengths seem greater than they were. Whatever your motivation, unless you can come up with some rational encyclopedic reason why I should not do so, I will chage the article back again in a day or so. Nick Thorne talk 07:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got a complex[edit]

In ref "complexity", any objection to including mention of complex, & failed, IJN operations, in particular Operation MO & Operation MI, as a point of contrast? And, if it can be sourced, some comment on why Cunningham made it work & Yamamoto couldn't? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mo' better judgment[edit]

I've had "judgement" changed here, but Stephen spells it "judgement", which I used. Is there an MOS issue? Or did Stephen boob? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy spells it Operation Judgement on their web site (see the ref listed on the article page). That's good enough for me. Nick Thorne talk 07:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's become a moot ish, since it's evidently Brit Eng, & reverted there; should've said something here sooner... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 07:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I must admit I had trouble seeing what the problem was with your first comment, at least until I checked your link, because that's how I have always spelled the word. LOL Nick Thorne talk 11:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I split about evenly between the 2 spellings, as the mood strikes me. I've never been really sure which was correct; looks like both are. ;D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting a note[edit]

Seeing somebody's cleaned up the string of Stephen links, can you also add it's "Volume 1" of 2? I don't want to bugger it up, & citenote always bites me. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nick Thorne talk 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, sir. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture dates back to the 1930's[edit]

A major detail about the infobox image. One of the warships seen at port is without doubt the Italian destroyer Freccia, which was commissioned in 1931. Thus, this picture is at least 25 newer than the date claimed on the rationale.--Darius (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was rather doubtful about the earlier date and had not yet had time to check it out. - Nick Thorne talk 07:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks to Battle section[edit]

The first attacking group split in two - it did not split in half since the two parts were of unequal size - the next sentence goes on to say "the smaller group...". Regarding the baloon barrage, the barrage consisted of the baloons and the tethering wires - which were an integral part of the barrage. Indeed it is genearlly considered that the wires were the main part of the barrage and the balloons sole purpose was to suspend the wires in the hope that attacking aircraft might fly into them. Thus it is correct to say that the aircraft dodged the balloon barrage whereas to say that the attacking aircraft dodged the barrage balloons ignores the wires and tells only part of the story. - Nick Thorne talk 06:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swordfish biplane obsolete or obsolescent?[edit]

I changed obsolete to obsolescent because of the strict definitions of those terms at Merriam-Webster:

  • Obsolete:
    • a) no longer in use or no longer useful
    • b) of a kind or style no longer current
  • Obsolescent: going out of use, becoming obsolete

In WWII, biplanes were going out of use but were not fully out. The Italians had the Fiat CR.42, there were the Gloster Gladiators which made so much publicity on Malta, the Soviets had three Polikarpov biplanes, the Japanese had five including three Nakajimas, the Americans had some Curtiss Hawk IIIs in second line duties, the Finns flew a few Bristol Bulldogs, etc. Nobody argues that the biplane was the best aircraft available, but it was not yet dead. The a definition of obsolete is not supported by history. The b definition is supplanted by the only definition of obsolescent.

Both obsolete and obsolescent have been used to describe the Swordfish at Taranto:

I think we are free to select the right word for the job, and the word obsolescent appears more suited. If we use obsolete the reader wonders how it could possibly be "a highly effective weapon". Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using obsolescent in this case. No one is suggesting that these aircraft were the latest technology only that they were still in use and hence not yet obsolete. Also, it should be remembered that the stringbag continued in service throughout the war, even after its supposed replacement the Fairey Albacore, also a bi-plane, was withdrawn - in fact the last Swordfish to be constructed were delivered after the Albacore had been withdrawn from service. - Nick Thorne talk 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As severely dated as the TSR was, and seeing it's the only bipe torpedo plane remaining in service anywhere, I'd say "obsolete". F2As & F4Fs were obsolescent. That said, I won't scream over "obsolscent". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicker's song[edit]

"possessing a very experienced air group composed entirely of Swordfish aircraft"
"possessing an air group composed entirely of very experienced Swordfish aircraft. "

I'm seeing a subtle change in meaning between these two. Am I the only one? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later this is now "a very experienced air group composed entirely of obsolescent Swordfish aircraft." It works but there's an odd implication that the Swordfish flew themselves. I think of an Air Group as a collection of pilots and their aircraft, and I would write "a very experienced air group equipped with obsolescent Swordfish aircraft." -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An American Observer[edit]

I have added a paragraph to the "Attack" section to briefly describe the actions of Lt Commander John N Opie, an American naval officer who was aboard Illustrious and wrote intelligence reports on the Taranto Raid and other activities of the Mediterranean Fleet in 1940. I could not figure out how to add a footnote, so I placed a comment in the text about the location of Opie's reports at the National Archives. I added my book to the "Further Reading" section. I could do more, but would like to hear from others first. Thanks....Chris O'Connor

Your paragraph gave too much weight to Opie's presence and opinion, and it was poorly written. It gave the failure to apply the lessons of Opie's report the responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster. In doing so, it ignored the fact that US Navy Admiral Bradley A. Fiske described such an attack in 1915, a few years after he was awarded the patent for the concept of aerial torpedoes. Fiske told the world (via The New York Times) that ships at anchor could be torpedoed in their supposedly safe harbors. The US Navy in 1940–41 was more at fault for failing to determine how the Japanese were working very industriously in Kagoshima Bay on new aerial torpedo tactics appropriate for shallow harbors, in the same manner as the British at Taranto. Pearl Harbor is about 42 feet deep on average, and Taranto is about 39 feet. The Japanese developed a method of attack in which the torpedo dived only 35 feet before coming back to intended depth. Their technical achievement was greater than the British because the Japanese torpedo bombers had to fly faster than the British biplanes, making it more difficult to get the torpedo not to dive deep. Anyway, when (or if) Opie's report was read, the US Navy authorities pooh-poohed its importance because they thought it was impossible for the Japanese to work out the proper tactics. Even if Opie had come to Pearl Harbor as commander, he may not have implemented precautions against in-harbor aerial attack. We cannot know for sure. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm new here, and not sure how things work. You feel that an article on "The Battle of Taranto" should not mention that Opie was aboard Illustrious? I stated facts, except for my last remark that Opie's intelligence was "wasted." I don't think that I "gave the failure to apply the lessons of Opie's report the responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster." You think that last sentence is well written? You think a New York Times article from 1915 is more relevant than a 1940 intelligence report? Opie was there, he wrote reports, he asked to go to Hawaii, nothing came of it all. These things are true, and I made no larger claim about responsibility for the Pearl Harboe disaster. You disagree, and do so rather pejoratively. Does anybody else get a vote, or is that it? CPO1955 (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You get a "vote", though we don't simply count hands to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. I think a bit about Opie would be good, but don't make it a mini biography of the guy. Don't describe his previous posts or where his reports are currently located. Instead, make it 100% about Taranto, and about what lessons were learned (or not.) What book or magazine article or webpage are you quoting? Take a look at WP:CITE to add the sources you are using, or just ask for help on that part. Any analysis of Opie's futile efforts should be cited to an expert opinion. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)♠To start with, it wasn't just a Times piece, it was by a professional sailor. It demonstrates the idea had been around long enough it didn't take the allegedly special attention or presence of Opie. (If more evidence is needed, compare Fleet Problem XIII. IIRC, Mitchell also commented on Pearl's vulnerability.) Thus, it's evident it didn't take Opie's "special powers" to see it.
♠The add also suggests the lack of Opie's presence in Hawaii somehow led to the attack, which is not supported by the facts. The allegation "intelligence was wasted" isn't, either, since the failure at Pearl had less to do with the technical aspects (significant tho they were) than the perceptions IJN was incapable of it, & Japan was unlikely to attempt it in any event. (I daresay Opie wouldn't have changed any minds on these scores.)
♠In addition, the tone is too cheerleaderish, unencylopedic.
♠Finally, there's way too much weight on this unknown character. If he'd done more than serve as an observer, if he was, say, McClusky or Waldron, it would be different. He's not. So, leave it out.
♠In regard anti-torpedo measures, these were cosidered & rejected by Kimmel as interfering too much with normal operations; nobody in DC told him the hazard warranted a different view, & I see no reason to believe Opie's presence would in any way have changed that. (Not even if he was, by then, Admiral Opie & CinCPac, which I doubt.)
♠As far as "pejorative", I don't see anything in Bink's comments remotely qualifying.
♠I do have to disagree with him on adding at all. Opie's views seem to be in line with prevailing opinion in both USN & RN at the time: ships at sea were nearly invulnerable to air attack, but in harbor, at risk. All Taranto did was prove it. I see nothing new.
♠For this to be merited, IMO you need him to be an observer of the goings-on at Kagoshima Wan whose report was ignored, in the fashion of the report on the A6M. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:21 & 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have tried again. I think this edit is neutral on the Pearl Harbor implications. Also, your footnote 13 quotes Gannon as saying that the Japanese "borrowed from the British" the idea of using wooden fins to allow shallow-water torpedo launching. Wellham, a pilot who flew in the Taranto attack, says in his book that the British did not use wooden fins, rather, a wire that pulled up the nose of the torpedo. I have added this, but not presumed to change the Gannon quote.CPO1955 (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this one leaves the impression Kimmel was incompetent in ignoring the report. There are a few things wrong with this. One, the obvious, Kimmel wasn't responsible for defense of the fleet; Short was. Two, the idea of an attack wasn't news; this implies Kimmel was to stupid to have heard about Fleet Problem XIII or Mitchell's warnings, or, indeed, to have actually read the damn newspaper reports. Three, nobody in DC saw Opie's report & added, "Oh, BTW, the Japanese might've noticed & decided to bomb you, so watch out", because nobody in DC expected Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. (Neither did Kimmel or Short, AFAIK.) Moreover, I continue to have a concern about the weight attached to a report by this comparative nobody. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last effort is better, but I repeat, what is it about his presence that makes his presence of particular significance? I don't see any sign of it. The mere fact a USN observer was on the scene is of no moment, unless you can show he had some qualification or influence that makes it special. Was he the Fleet torpedo bomber training officer (who trained, say, VT-8)? Was he (later) on the staff of Stark, King, Richardson, Bloch, or Kimmel? Did he warn in some other report of a Japanese attack on Hawaii? Did he even visit Japan? Did his report say Pearl was at risk, or even potential risk? Is there anything making this more than a routine assignment which somebody wants to elevate because Japan carried out a similar attack & people want to make the Hawaiian commanders look especially stupid? Maybe I'm getting impatient with it, but I don't see anything else. This report wasn't news to anybody in authority at the time, & that's why no particular action was taken. Even this much mention, without any sign Opie was more than a nobody, is more than it deserves. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Have a nice life....CPO1955 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to wade and add a sentence to the effect that the Attack on Taranto was studied by the Japanese but that it was not the inspiration for their attack. Given that this is such a sensitive area is this likely to annoy anyone. I have references from Wragg, Sword Fish, with its chapter on Pearl Harbour and Taranto. All the best. 88.86.188.195 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest footnoting & leaving it be. It's not like it's news IJN knew about it & even took lessons from it; anything more, in particular the common fiction Fuchida & co. needed it to achieve their success, is on a par with the conspiracy loons claiming they needed help from FDR to achieve surprise. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional American PoV issue + misc.[edit]

I feel that the whole section about Pearl Harbor and what the Japanese learnt from it, is quite out-of place here. Sure, Taranto had influence on japanese Torpedo bombing strategy, but this could be covered nicely and neatly in one sentence. Additionally, the sentence about how the US came out of Pearl Harbor is entirely unnecessary, has nothing to do with the subject and sounds heavily like US pride has been hurt... Also, "Italian defences fired roughly 13,489 shells" is somewhat odd. This seems to be an exact number, unlike a "rough" estimate. red (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More decisive than Pearl Harbor?[edit]

Who exactly has made such claim? I certainly don't see how it could be the case. In fact, it is pretty obvious that the short-term gain was considerably smaller than in Pearl Harbour, and neither attack produced a lasting advantage in control of the sea. Just little over a year later British suffered a setback of similar scale which swung the tide on Axis favour and the control of the Mediterranean was not decided for good until 1942-43. I also agree with the above, whole Pearl Harbor-connection is way too detailed. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the inapt comparison part. I left in the bit about the Japanese attack being more massive. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that seems adept. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive?[edit]

I can't see how this battle could be describe as decisive in the infobox. Not even in the Attack on Pearl Harbor article such a claim is made.Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was tactically decisive, as was Pearl Harbor, but there is more to it than that. Churchill wrote about Taranto, "By this single stroke the balance of power in the Mediterranean was decisively altered..." The Taranto attack changed Italy's naval situation forever. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's good for Churchill that he could write his own history, but i don't think we nowadays have to sticky with that vision. Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Different viewpoints are always useful. Do you know of a respected historian writing that Taranto was not very important, or otherwise contradicting the "decisive" camp's view? Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would[edit]

I would be prepared to compromise on a form of words here, but would would not be correct. Here's an online source that explains what would would mean if we were to use it. --John (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

♠With all respect to both Merriam & Webster, I don't need you telling me to read a dictionary to know correct usage.
♠What we have is a situation discussing a past event in a way where the specific event, the attack, has not, in the context of the page, happened yet. Thus, we have a situation akin to discussing Monty's career: "Appointed Commanding General of Eighth Army, he would defeat Rommel at El Alamein". Historically, his victory is a settled issue; in the context of the passage, it is still a future event. Do not tell me "would" is incorrect in context, because I defy you to offer another correct form. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of Water[edit]

First sentence of third paragraph in Aftermath section states that the common belief in 1940 was that water of 30 foot depth was necessary for successful aerial torpedo drops. No reference. US Navy in February of 1941 stated that 75 foot depth was minimum necessary (CNO letter to CINCPAC, 2/14/1941). I am not aware of any British, German, Japanese, or Italian references for this issue. Still, 30 feet seems to be too small a number. CPO1955 (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, & it contradicts the common wisdom which held Pearl Harbor, at 40 feet, was immune, being too shallow. (That may have been a difference between RN & USN practise, tho...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better to say that some naval officers thought that shallow water was protective against aerial torpedo attack, while others worked to develop new techniques to make shallow water attacks effective?CPO1955 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Different navies drooped their aerial torpedoes from different heights, the USN using a rather higher altitude than others pre-war. This meant the USN torpedoes plunged deeper on entering the water before levelling out. IIRC, the RN dropped from around 30 ft, the RNAS having successfully used aerial torpedoes in WW I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lt Commander John N. Opie, III, USN[edit]

Opie was aboard Illustrious. Several books on the subject do not mention this fact, and 2 that do mention his name do so parenthetically. Opie was the first of many US naval officers to observe the Royal Navy in action in 1940 and 1941. The presence of an American naval officer aboard a British ship on a combat mission was not a common thing in 1940; and , indeed, may have been a violation of the Neutrality Act. An article on Taranto that does not mention Opie is incomplete.CPO1955 (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's giving undue weight to somebody who's a comparative nobody. Show me he influenced USN policy. Show me he held a higher command of significance. Otherwise, it's trivia. And it's been discussed before, & settled: leave it out. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Erm, well... Liuetnenant Commander John N. Opie III, USN definitely contributed something and it should be noted, just as it is in the Osprey work. Opie wrote a summary of the operations, and detailed five key main points:

1. Aircraft attacking should fly low to discourage anti-air from firing due to the fear of them hitting their own. 2. That the mental strain on attacking pilots was great. 3. That AA fire was ineffective, other that of it's psychological affects. 4. Ships may be after at sea than in harbour. 5. The the Royal Navy abandoned the concept of high-level bombing against ships.

Opie expressed a desire to visit Haiwaii to discuss the 'implications of harbour defence'. His reports were widely circulated, to those like Admiral King and Admiral Kimmel. EDJT840 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Fins[edit]

The Battle of Taranto was an interesting military mission from WW2. Its larger significance lies in the technical issues surrounding the launch of aerial torpedoes in shallow water. The British at Taranto were successful in shallow water use of aerial torpedoes, as were the Japanese on December 7, 1941. It has often been stated that the Japanese studied British methods and that this study led to their success. This argument fails on two counts: the Japanese had no access to British methods and tactics, and they ended up using a different method. As Wellham & Lowry state in their book, - and Wellham was the pilot of one of the attacking planes at Taranto - the British used a wire connecting the torpedo to the aircraft to alter the path of the dropped torpedo in ways that reduced its initial dive. Opie reported on the torpedo attack on HMS Liverpool, which he witnessed first hand, that the Italians used wooden fins attached to the torpedo. The Japanese were allies of the Italians. A Japanese attache to the embassy in Berlin traveled to Taranto and interviewed the Italian Naval offers there soon after the attack. In May of 1941, a full military mission from Japan went to Italy, and spent time in Rome and Taranto. It is likely that they learned then of the Italian method using wooden fins. They then went home and worked diligently to perfect this methods using their own equipment. Japanese success at Pearl Harbor was due - in torpedoes as in other tactical skills - to their own hard work, constant practice, and training under conditions similar to what they would encounter in the attack. Anyone who uses Taranto in any way to diminish the tactical accomplishments of the Kido Butai is uninformed and unfair. Those that say that the facts of the Taranto raid cannot be stated because such use might be made of them are equally unfair.CPO1955 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting IJN needed the lesson of Taranto does diminish Japanese efforts; AFAICT, nobody's doing that. The Brits did use wooden fins to slow the dive of their air-dropped fish, which is what the article is saying, contrary to your past edits. (It's an RN attack, not an Italian one, so Italian practise makes no difference.) Did IJN study Taranto? Undoubtedly. Did they know the Brits used wood fins? Probably, based on reports from Regia Marina eyewitnesses; it's also possible they got the idea from the Italians (tho I've never seen a source saying they did). As for "cannot be stated because such use might be made of them are equally unfair", I frankly have no idea what that means. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the article to discuss what the Japanese may have learned from the Italians, if anything. It is relevant to discuss what they may have learned from the British operation, even if they did so through the Italians. I'm doubtful that anything critical should be found coming from this operation; the Japanese were using wooden fin attachments in 1936 on their aerial torpedoes. In 1937, they also invented a breakaway wooden nose to absorb the water impact. This per Mark R. Peattie, in his 2007 Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, 1909–1941. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Taranto attack was the first time in war that aerial torpedoes had been successfully dropped in such shallow water. Prior to this there was serious doubt whether such an attack was possible. After the attack there was no longer any doubt. Thus Taranto proved something to naval onlookers everywhere.
BTW, IIRC, the Japanese Military Attaché in Rome sent Tokyo a full report on the attack, compiled with the assistance of the Italians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath says battleship sunk after changing sides, article says scrapped[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Conte_di_Cavour

Who did the Germans sink, then? Littorio was hit by them but not sunk.

Caio Duilio was an ironclad scrapped in 1909; we have nothing about a modern battleship.

The Caio Duilio in question was an Andrea Doria class battleship. Its article page is somewhat clumsily-named Italian battleship Caio Duilio. The Cavour was not sunk by a glider bomb in 1943: someone is confusing it for the Roma, which wasn't commissioned at the time of the Battle of Taranto. I'll remove the incorrect line.Konchevnik81 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Taranto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunninghams strength[edit]

There was/is for me an extremely unclear sentence in the Origins section

It read : The older carrier, HMS Eagle, on Cunningham's strength, was ideal, possessing a very experienced air group composed entirely of obsolescent Swordfish aircraft.

I templated it but have been reverted twice, with responses saying its a standard military term and is not confusing. Well it is confusing. It is not clear. I have edited the sentence to read The older carrier, HMS Eagle, was ideal, possessing a very experienced air group composed entirely of obsolescent Swordfish aircraft. which seems perfectly clear. I'm not sure what the reference to Cunnigham's strenth adds, except confusion. If someone can explain what it adds to the sentence, I'm quite happy to walk away. Anyone? CalzGuy (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means that Eagle was part of the force that Cunningham commanded. This is conventional naval terminology, a completely unremarkable use of an English word in one of its usual meanings, see the next section. - Nick Thorne talk 12:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it is an unneccessary additional qualification in the sentence? 'The older carrier' - being a comparative automatically limits the point of reference to the current battlegroup under discussion. Repeating that it is Cunnighams force really doesn't contribute to the narrative. It's a confusing structure with 4 commas in 10 words. It really is not clear. And it would be simple to clarify and make it more accessible - not dumbed down. CalzGuy (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Strength" clarification[edit]

Clarification of the word "strength" has been requested. See definition 5 on the relevant page of Oxford Dictionaries. - Nick Thorne talk 11:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the difference between "on Cunningham's strength" and "in Cunningham's force"? other than the latter would be more readily understood by those unfamiliar with military terminology? CalzGuy (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strength is the word commonly used in this context. Your inability to understand an ordinary English word used in a perfectly ordinary way is not a reason to dumb down the encyclopaedia. Perhaps this might be an opportunity instead for you to extend your vocabulary. - Nick Thorne talk 13:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So let me try a different question in an attempt to extend my vocab. Is there a difference between "on Cunningham's strength" and "in Cunningham's force"? CalzGuy (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And btw the OED does bot seem to include the usage "... on X's strength ..." anywhere. Plenty of "in strength" usages. CalzGuy (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a kind of Engvar issue, here. I've seen "on strength" mainly in Brit sources; AFAI recall, I've never seen an American use it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I'd just like to see a definition or example of its use, other than this one. CalzGuy (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help there, I'm afraid; haven't seen it recently enough to point you. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I was trying to find some references for the use of this phraseology and I googled [ "on his strength" naval ] on the basis that the phrase "on his strength" might be the most common genericised form of " on Cunningham's strength" given most naval commanders would have historically been male, with the word 'naval' in close proximity. It returned one possible use of it on this blog about the history of the South Africa naval police. While not suitable for use as a reliable source it does indicate that the phrase is sometimes used. But with all due respects to our South African cousins, they are not necessarily at the forefront of accessible English. But the lack of other results says to me that this is not a commonly used construction. It fits MOS:JARGON very well and WP:TECHNICAL. There is no necessity for such in-world phraseology. It is not in common parlance and the sentence doesn't need to be so convoluted. Multiple variants of The older carrier, HMS Eagle, was ideal, possessing a very experienced air group composed entirely of obsolescent Swordfish aircraft. would all deliver the same information in a simpler and more accessible form without any need to refer to either Cunningham's strength or force. CalzGuy (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to South African police, but I've seen it in connection with British Med or North African air or naval forces, or both; maybe Army. As said, it's been awhile. I never expected to need to cite a source for using the phrase. As said, my sense is, this is idiomatic usage, not technical jargon; it's not Pentagonese. Quick add: I recall being a bit thrown the first time I saw the phrase, but it wasn't unclear in context; do you really think it is here? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:00 & 22:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that you have. The idea of finding a reference is really just a way of getting rid of me quickly. If I can be shown that this is common parlance, then I'm out of here. My contention that it is not. I have shown my, albeit limited, research which indicates it is not a very common construct. The use of strength as a collective noun is not in the dictionary definition previously offered. The other contributors here who oppose any change could put their combined thinking hats on and find a few instances where it is used, in MSM or relatively modern literature, and that is likely to convince me that it is time to disappear. You guys are the ones that say you are familiar with this use, so it must be possible for you to find some other uses, yes? CalzGuy (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative constructs[edit]

The original sentence read:

  • The older carrier, HMS Eagle, on Cunningham's strength, was ideal, possessing a very experienced air group composed entirely of obsolescent Swordfish aircraft.

I believe that sentence can be improved. Here are a list of alternatives. My personal fave is first:

  1. HMS Eagle, the older carrier, was ideal, possessing a very experienced air group composed entirely of obsolescent Swordfish aircraft.
  2. The older carrier in Cunningham's force, HMS Eagle, was ideal, possessing a very experienced air group composed entirely of obsolescent Swordfish aircraft.
  3. HMS Eagle was ideal, possessing a very experienced air group composed entirely of obsolescent Swordfish aircraft and was a key part of Cunningham's squadron/fleet/flotilla/command.

Feel free to add anymore at the end of the list. CalzGuy (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one editor does not like it is no reason to make a change to a grammatically correct, perfectly normal English sentence. This article is about a British attack during WWII and is written in British English, so WP:ENGVAR applies as well. We get it that you don't do British English, but that is beside the point and not a reason for change. Do I need to point out that this is the English Wikipedia, not the American one? Varieties of English other than US English exist. - Nick Thorne talk 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well a couple of things wrong with that. 1) I generally contribute in British English. If not then in Hiberno-English which would be my native tongue. 2) It's not a matter of IDL. It's a case of an experienced mariner saying this is not terminology I recognise. I'm astonished that the reaction of many editors is one of WP:OWN (yeah I can throw out the TLAs too), that they refuse to consider constructive suggestions for simple improvements in sentence structure. What is not in doubt is that there are no other recorded instance example of this use, and that the dictionary definition offered does not address the use of 'strength' as a collective noun. I work in the maritime sector although I've come from the commercial sector I work with the naval sector including the RN. Many of my colleagues have a military background and none of those recognise this phraseology, albeit that none have served in a force command role. I am very familiar with much of the material relating to the Falklands and subsequent RN fleet operations and have never encountered this phrase in relation to those. I am beginning to understand the nuances of the phrase in my discussions with the original author on his talk page. It may be that what is needed here is an outside eye.3)What is at dispute is the question "Is this a grammatically correct, perfectly normal English sentence"? Saying it is does not make it so. It is usual to bring evidence and discuss. CalzGuy (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RL intervenes I'll try to get back to this tomorrow night, in about 20 hours or so. - Nick Thorne talk 16:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've established Cunningham was in charge, so if we said Ealge was ideal & key to successs, & leave off the rest, I could live with that. I don't think the change is warranted, however. I also think exposure to unfamiliar idiom is a broadening experience. Readers coming here are liable to be interested in RN subjects & reading other things, & they're gonna see this eventually. Why not here? Why go out of our way to treat our readers like they're dumb? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that one editor has not encountered this use of the word strength before. Here are a few examples (the first seems particularly apropos):
  • Fleet Air Arm Carrier War: The History of British Naval Aviation, Kev Darling, Pen & Sword Books (2009), ISBN 978 1 84415 903 1, p72:

    "Heading the naval effort was Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, Commander of the Mediterranean Fleet. Initially this force had one carrier on strength: HMS Eagle."

  • Far Aft and Faintly, Mark Klimaszewski, Lulu Publishing Services (2016), ISBN 978 1 4834 3957 0, Chapter XI

    "In Captain Hawke's estimation, the Battlecruiser-carrier was an unnecessary warship type for the Royal Navy. It did not need multi-role warships such as these, for she had on strength plenty of big gunned ships, five carriers and enough cruisers to counter any enemy"

  • Royal Navy Aces of World War 2, Andrew Thomas, Osprey Publishing (2007), ISBN 978 1 84603 178 6, p94:

    "Although on strength with 1839 NAS on April 1945, JX886 was flown by six-victory ace Sub Lt Edward Wilson of 1844 NAS on this date."

Once again I make the point that one editor's unfamiliarity with a particular usage of a word does not mean that the usage is invalid. - Nick Thorne talk 07:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they settle it. It appears they're all written by Brits & published in UK, indicating it's common idiom there, which makes this an Engvar matter in my mind. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. Thanks for the usgae. CalzGuy (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions[edit]

While the original quoted definition didnt quite hit the spot in addressing the usage in question, I think the more complete OED equivalent gets much closer. It has 19 different definitions, many of which have multiple contexts/definitions, all supplemented by multiple quotes, phrases and compounds, None addresses the current usage directly. The closest are these 2:

  • 10.b A body of soldiers; an armed force. Cf. sense 15a. Now literary and somewhat rare.
  • "Our expectations..are more than fulfilled in the Naval Report. Of a strength consisting of 17,254, there were treated 55 cases of consumption."
  • "In these two places a strength of men was needed."
  • "The King's been taken prisoner by my lord of Warwick and the Duke of Clarence, and my lord of Gloucester's gone into the west to raise a strength to deliver him."
  • 15.b A strong unit, a power. Obs.
  • "We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven."
  • "Reformers, instead of falling asunder like a rope of sand, at every strain will be consolidated, by their co-operation, into a mighty strength."
  • "When the idea, knowledge and opinion are combined together they form a strength which constitutes the great vigor and energy of union."
The above comment was added by CalzGuy (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Nick Thorne talk 00:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can cherry pick your definitions all you want. It does not alter the fact that your unfamiliarity with a particular usage of a word has no bearing on that usage's validity. Your claim that "the original quoted definition didnt quite hit the spot in addressing the usage in question" is laughable. That is exactly what this usage is, no matter how much you don't like or understand it. - Nick Thorne talk 07:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not alter the fact that your unfamiliarity with a particular usage of a word has no bearing on that usage's validity.

Very true, but what does impact is if the dictionary definitions in OED indicate that this usage is obsolete, which it is. CalzGuy (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant OED definition is 18a: 'Mil. etc. The number of people on the muster-roll of an army, regiment, etc.; the body of people enrolled; the number of ships in a navy or fleet. E17.' It is not obsolete. The supporting quotations are: 'B Montgomery: Rifle platoons... were under strength and the reinforcement situation was bad. C. Ryan: Some companies had lost... 50 per cent of their strength.' The term 'on the strength' is commonly used in organisations from schools to businesses to sports teams as well as the military. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Khamba. There are numerous and varying editions of the OED, the full one consists of 20 volumes totalling around 20,000 pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a few comments[edit]

for what regards the first photo, a single Trento (the Trento itself) was slightly damaged by an unexploded bomb when was moored at the pier and should be the large vessel close to the shore, the other two should be the sisters Trieste and Bolzano that were not damaged -- as correctly stated below in the text. the oil cannot came from them but from a land tank for the seaplanes (inferred from MacIntyre: Aircraft Carrier, the magnificent weapon) or from the battleships in the Mar Grande via the channel and a rising tide.

The battleship grounded in the last photo is the Duilio (inferred from the mooring plan)

It would be nice to speak of the fourth torpedo against the Littorio mentioned in the Littorio entry.

Long time ago (about 1970) I read that the Cavour was hit below the hull and that the damage was so great because the vessel was hit also by the wave reflected by the bottom. I never found again an explicit statement of this, but in Orizzonte Mare (Edizioni Bizzarri) there is a photo showing the hole in this place. This, by the way, means that the Cavour loss is irrelevant to the value of the Pugliese system.

The strength is 21 swordfish in the table and 20 in the text (a more careful reading shows that one returned, so the count is ok; there is also the figure 24, so a statement like 3 did not start seems nice -- this seems typical of a many-hand article).

The italian strength 6 battleships, 9 heavy cruisers, 7 light cruisers ... is wrong. If refers to the ships actually present at Taranto, are 7 heavy cruisers (Italy had never 9) and two light ones.

I will move the statement about repairs and small damages before that on the ammunition fired.

The table says that the RN forces included 5 destroyers, but the text lists 4.

"2 aircraft destroyed" misses the plural s.

pietro151.29.218.113 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"'2 aircraft destroyed' misses the plural s." No, it doesn't. "Aircraft" is the same singular or plural. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I have improved my english. pietro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.218.113 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]




I signal an article by G. Fava on Storia Militare of april 2104 where the comment to the first photo is "Fumo e fanghiglia sollevata dal moto delle eliche furono in primo tempo erroneamente interpretati come perdite di nafta da navi colpite" i.e. "smoke and mud raised by the screws were initially mis-interpreted as oil from wounded vessels". At least in the italian books, this photo has a long history of wrong captions, that describe it as referring to the Mar Grande and showing the battleships badly damaged there. pietro151.29.218.113 (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote containing the word "Itiys"[edit]

The following quote in the aftermath section "The Taranto show has freed up our hands considerably & I hope now to shake these damned Itiys up a bit. I don't think their remaining three battleships will face us and if they do I'm quite prepared to take them on with only two." contains the word "Itiys", is this the correct quotation? I can find no other references in the English language internet to this word other than copypastes from this article and am unable to check the source. Should it perhaps be "italians"? --JaggedMallard (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, there's the following quote which features the correct spelling of the term, by C. Lieutenant Lea of 819 Squadron, in L5H ‘ let’s hope the Eyeties run out of ammunition before we get there!' EDJT840 (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Taranto&oldid=1208340736"