Pearl Harbor Thoughts

[KenpoKev]

This is a take off of the "Thank You" discussion in this forum, as I thought it would be more appropriate as a separate topic.

It is my understanding that the Pearl Harbor attack strategy was actually something Yamamoto personally observed while visiting the Italian Navy in 1940. I generally recall that the vast majority of the Italian Fleet was in harbor in a Mediterranean port when the British Navy launched a dive bomber and torpedo attack aircraft assault against the fleet, largely destroying most of the vessals at anchor. It was an attack launched from a carrier in the Mediterranean Sea.

I am sure there are others here (Joe Svinth immediately comes to mind) that can more accurately discuss this historical point.

I find it curious though, if my recollection is correct, that this attack by the British and its' historical impact, has been largely ignored by the mainstream historical text.

Food for thought,
Respectfully,
Kevin Schaller

[Nacho]

The action you refer to took place the night of the 10th of November, 1940. Most of the Italian fleet was based on the port of Tarento (4 battleships, 8 heavy cruisers, 20 destroyers), by order of Admiral Cunningham the carrier Illustrious (love the way the British name their warships...) launched it's planes (21 total) at a distance of 200 km. The surprise was total, since the italians lacked radar. Three battleships were badly damaged and half of the fleet was crippled, they had no choice but to retreat to Naples, leaving the Mediterranean Sea to the British fleet. This victory is not overlooked by military historians and it was certainly studied in detail by the japanese military before launching their bold attack against Pearl Harbor. However there is evidence the americans studied this too, in fact running military exercises with results similar to the real attack months later...

Ignacio "Nacho" Jaramillo Moreno

[Joseph Svinth]

Although the Japanese studied Taranto, it is not absolutely certain that the attack did more than convince the Japanese general staff that torpedo attacks on anchored warships could work. Also, there are arguments from American academics that the actual planning was "uniquely Japanese"; the idea that the Japanese were so stupid that they had to borrow ideas from Hector Bywater, etc., is after all little more than wartime propaganda. Finally, it is highly probable that the Japanese attack would not have occurred at all if the A6M2 Zero had not been fielded recently, AND found superior to any known Allied aircraft. (As a result, the Japanese general staff knew that its attack had a reasonable chance of attaining temporary air superiority over Hawaii. Remember, the Kamikaze concept was still several years in the future, and was a tactic born of desperation rather than general staff planning.)

For specific online background, see http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/982/peattie.html .

For general online background, try http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/pt_12/x12-008.html .

Meanwhile, at the library, read anything written by Gordon Prange.

And yes, the Americans also studied the Taranto attack, but decided that Pearl Harbor was too shallow for aerial torpedoes. Therefore the risk was assumed to be dive bombers and level bombers, which were not as dangerous to battleships. The Japanese knew that, too, but reacted to the problem by specially modifying their torpedoes to drop (and run) shallow.