Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Taranto

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CPO1955 (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 19 June 2011 (→‎An American Observer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article title

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???

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

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?

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

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

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]

The Italian attack on Alexandria.

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?

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

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

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

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

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]

Erledigt 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

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

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?

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

"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]

An American Observer

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Taranto&oldid=435046424"