Talk:Battle of Taranto

message: 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)
thread_title: Article title

message: 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)
thread_title: Planes vs Torpedo bombers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "British" Royal Navy? 

message: 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)
thread_title: End of big gun naval warfare

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Decisive British victory

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Italian attack on Alexandria. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who was Lumley Lyster? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by Kurt Leyman 

message: 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)
thread_title: Got a complex

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mo' better judgment

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Nick Thorne talk 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you kindly, sir.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  23:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitting a note

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox picture dates back to the 1930's 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tweaks to Battle section 

message: 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:
*"...utilizing the obsolescent Fairey Swordfish biplanes against battleships..."
*"The biplane was clearly an obsolete concept by the beginning of the Second World War; and so it is somewhat surprising that one biplane, the British Fairey "Swordfish" torpedo bomber, proved to be a highly effective weapon. The Swordfish remained in first line-service through the entire war in Europe."
*"Ironically, the Fairey Swordfish aircraft used by the British were among the most obsolescent of World War II."
*"The British used obsolescent Fairey Swordfish biplanes with torpedoes specially adapted to run in the shallows of Taranto"
*"Using obsolete Fairey Swordfish biplanes nicknamed 'stringbags'..."
*"The curtain raised on the Age of Air-Sea Warfare on 11–12 November 1940, the night twenty-one obsolescent, open-cockpit, canvas-covered Fairey Swordfish torpedo planes..."
*"The British Fairey Swordfish was already approaching peacetime obsolescence when the war began."
*"The Fairey Swordfish aircraft, despite their age and obsolescence, have taken part in many notable..."
*"...21 of these seemingly obsolescent torpedo-bombers..."
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Swordfish biplane obsolete or obsolescent? 

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nitpicker's song

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, that seems adept. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional American PoV issue + misc.

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, that seems adept. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More decisive than Pearl Harbor?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Decisive?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Depth of Water 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lt Commander John N. Opie, III, USN 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aftermath says battleship sunk after changing sides, article says scrapped 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024184628/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/history/battles/taranto/ to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/history/battles/taranto/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Cunninghams strength

message: 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)
replies: text: "'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)
thread_title:  a few comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quote containing the word "Itiys"