You're the Best! Thanks For this 😊😊😊❤❤

This video should not be sponsored! The Japanese assessed the effects of this raid ONLY BECAUSE Admiral Yamamoto had already been planning the attack of Pearl Harbor for many months! What is it with British "historians" who must insist they did everything first & better? Propaganda....

The USA Navy, we will practice such an attack at Pearl Harbor 6 months before the attack, but still be surprised. Oops

More like "Hold my sake!" 😀

@@mrbaab5932 It was more like ten years before. Drachinifel has a series on the US Fleet problems which covers this...

@@johncunningham6928 The USN carried out a mock attack on Pearl Harbor in the spring of 1941. The force split in to two - one was to attack from the sea, the other overland through the valleys and ravines on Oahu. The 'attack' from the sea was declared to be shot down; but the best bit was the overland attack took the 'defenders' totally by surprise! The umpires screamed 'foul' declared the force as totally destroyed. The Japanese spies sent reports back to Tokyo, and their 'observers' at Taranto likewise reported back.

It was a practiced attack. A navy officer saw the weaknesses in pearl harbors defenses and came up with the plan for the attack. The planes that were used hit all of their targets with their “bombs”. The navy brass said that no one would attack in the manner he did because it was unfair or something like that. December 7th came and the attack was the same as this military officers plan, everything was the same except for the mini subs that the Japanese had.

Your right but also not entirely, technical advantage was on the Brits side but the Italians still should have won they had a huge advantage in numbers (in terms of in theatre the UK had ships but they needed to be guarding the Atlantic). Above everything the main advantage the Brits had was military tradition the Italians were repeatedly extremely cautious and not using what they had to press home and advantage. While as soon as the Brits sensed an advantage or an ability to even do battle all available ships were brought out. This mindset is why the British won and had continued to win since the days of sail. The problem is your looking back with hindsight, radar was new to everyone in 1938, the UK wasn't any better than the Italians at night fighting and carriers went seen as that important. The Radar is what made the UK good at night fighting, (look at HMS Ajax rampage and the sinking of the Schanhorst). The UK had a military tradition of grabbing any tech with both hands to make sure they stay at the top of the pile and with Radar it payed off. Aircraft carriers before and during the early war was more seen as a scout force with limited impact with a primary goal of counter sub but it very quickly changed. This change was forced as admirals like Cunningham weren't able to match up with battleships having 3 to Italy's 6. Italy failed to push this advantage and gave the Brits time to adapt and go though documented war games from the interwar. Where they found plans for this raid, at the time thrown out as implausible but recorded as that's what the Royal Navy does. As now the Royal Navy was desperate enough to try such a risky plan. And in 1 night 1 ship took out 3 of the previous top dogs. That's why this battle is so important as it shows the point where carriers go from a side arm of the Navy to the primary focus.

Thought I'd do a tiny bit of research before I put this next part in more detail. The reason why the UK has so many carriers going into WW2 was for completely different doctrines than we think of today. I can't remember what it's name was but in short the idea was to use Carriers to aggressively hunt U-boats. This plan backfired spectacularly at the outbreak of WW2 with the sinking of HMS Courageous. Leaving the UK with a huge U-Boat problem, not enough escorts to protect the convoys and funnily enough a bunch of carriers that aren't very good at there intended role. Leaving them to get assigned to tasks such as aircraft transport (sinking of HMS Glorious and the Malta convoy) and scouting for the Mediterranean Fleet. While there had been theory for the effectiveness of carriers and I believe most knew it was a matter of when not if. It was still believed by all major Nations the battleship was the primary navel weapon just look into what was being laid down in dry docks I don't feel bad for the Italians as contemporary reports from the Italian side knew how much they outnumbered the UK forces yet they completely failed to press home that advantage through lack of fuel and aggression.

It blows my mind that the Italians didn't have their entire Navy just bum rush Gibraltar as their very first act the very day they declared war while the Brits were getting pummeled in France and not at all prepared for a Mediterranean conflict, throw the entire Navy and any Amphibious forces they had at Gibraltar, take it at all cost and fortify it with everything they had and at the same time throw their entire airforce and any airborne troops they had at Malta while it was relatively undefeated and the Brits were very distracted.... they basically could have had full control of the Mediterranean on day one.... once France fell basically insist the Germans force the French to give up their fleet and split it with the Germans, give then the trade off that you'll help them in the Atlantic, bring Franco in by promising him Gibralter (though insist your Navy stays to help protect it until the end of the war) maybe even promis him all of Morocco after the war... or don't but threaten Vichy with giving it to him, plus letting them keep their fleet if they join the Axis (maybe even promis them french soeaking areas of Belgium post war)... which ever is more likely to get both on board and/or whichever either is most likely to accept... in any case, Mediterranean becomes an Axis lake, Greece and Yugoslavia have no Chance of going over to Allies meaning no Balkan Campaign, meaning operation Barbarosa starts earlier which woukd likely mean reaching Moscow before winter and a possible knockout blow against the Soviets, also Egypt is cut off and likely falls fairly easily, Brits cut off from Pacific, Iraq stays in the Axis camp giving them more oil (also Romanian airfield would have never been bombed by Brits, also more oil) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...... It could have totally changed the course of the war,,, it should have been their number one objective by far!!! Why not?

@@daveweiss5647 The same reason Germany failed, one man giving the orders who had no proper military training in leading a large military force.

​@BatMan-oe2gh in fairness, I've read a bit on the traditional Royalist Officer Corp running the Italian military as well (the Italian troops and junior officers were actually quite brave and under rated) let's just say... they didn't exactly wrap themselves in glory, I remember reading one anecdote of some young officers sent as military attache to the Wehrmacht who came back to his superiors raving about this new thing called the "Blitzkrieg" that he thought they should look into and was politely told something to the effect of "it sounds interesting we will consider it for the next war" and essentially shelved his report without even looking at it... quite sad so many have been sacrificed to the incompetence and stubbornness of fools...

The Japanese Navy and Airforce had already worked night operations for most of their planes by then.

@@mrbaab5932 But not in combat. Akagi proved it could be done operationally but under serious combat conditions however the brits were the first.

The advantage of the Fairy Swordfish was that as a biplane it had incredibly low takeoff speeds, something which had hampered many monoplanes adopted for naval service, with carriers having to turn into the wind to launch. This in combination with its still all canvas construction meant most small caliber (13-30mm) shells would pass right through it without the contact fuzes functioning. The fact it lacked a radio set is counterintuitive to its ability to launch at night, where everything Nav is done my compass, star and voice comms.

Thank you for finally explaining why it was called the string bag. Idk how many documentaries I've seen that quote the name but never explain it. Maybe it's a British thing where they all understand that reference instantly but the rest of us have no idea what a string bag is 😂

... it was called the string bag because it was a spruce and canvas biplane with the various members held in tension by struts and wire ...

plus they had 3 rudders

Actually, Taranto reinforced what the yanks had done BEFORE 1940. They carried out at least one mock attack on Pearl Harbor. It was declared that all attacking aircraft were shot down by the defenders. However, the attacking force comprised two sections - one attacked from the sea, the other came in through the valleys of Oahu. All eyes on the sea watching for the attackers, and the ones coming in from the land took the defences totally by surprise. Several ships were declared hit or sunk, but the umpires declared 'foul' and that the attack had been shot down - same as the attack from the sea. What happened next gave the Japanese the next piece of the jigsaw - the yanks went out in to Honolulu visiting the bars, and whore houses where they bragged in detail. Japanese intelligence operatives listened, and noted everything being said. That information went back to Tokyo - courtesy of the US Mail. The IJN started improving its preparations, and when they received the intelligence about Taranto, they had almost everything they needed to carry out the attack on Pearl Harbor. The decision was made to attack at dawn, and it just so happened that the fleet was in position on Saturday 6th December 1941, meaning the attack would be at about sunrise on the Sunday - 7th December 1941. So yes, the IJN carried out the attack which kicked the US off the fence, but ultimately they US actually showed the IJN how a surprise attack could succeed. Even today the yanks still brag about how they achieved something in an exercise - and then repeat it and are surprised when it goes tits up - Bosnia Stealth Bomber flew the same route at least twice and was shot down!

Ironically the swordfish was the most successful torpedo bomber of WW2.

that raid was by commando frogmen

@garethmatthews7939 yes, and? That's not relevant to my point.

I have read the same thing, that the Regia Marina held the speed trials when the ships hadn't yet been completed, and were thus significantly lighter.

@@shawngilliland243 yes they held the trials when the hull was launched before turrets had been lowered on and before the ship had its other supplies and equipment on board the french also tested without supplies and equipment at was all about boasting who had the best new ships on paper compliant with the Washington naval treaty

British "Hold my beer"

John Tovey, HMS King George V, HMS Rodney, HMS Victorious, HMS Norfolk, HMS Dorsetshire, HMS Suffolk and HMS Ark Royal: "You sure about that?"

They were not.

​@@HaydenLau.Historical evidence disagrees with you

@@edwardhuggins84 Only because the Germans were terrible at naval aviation and naval AA. The Bismarck was a lone battleship with reduced AA. If the swordfish ever fought in the Pacific they would have lasted all of 5 seconds. The swordfish folds whenever there is any decent resistance. Case in point, Squadron 825 which crippled the Bismarck also attacked the German ships at Cerberus. They scored 0 hits and were all shot down.

@@HaydenLau. lol, what a load of rubbish

@@edwardhuggins84 Every success the swordfish had were surprise attacks against targets with no fighter cover and poor AA. Taranto, Bismarck. They wouldn't last a second against Japanese fighters or American AA. Cunningham would have killed for a squadron of Avengers

Thank you!

Marconi, an Italian, might have invented radio, but he didn't do it in Italy. He did it in Chelmsford, England.

@@paulclarke1207Marconi played the Mambo. He listened to the radio. Don’t you remember?

@@GrahamCStrouse We built this city...

You do realise the attack was a night don't you?

@Zottyo IFF it had been a daylight operation then possibly more stringbags might have been shot down. It wasn't though, partly because the base had no radar - only sound detectors, the Moon was rising in the East meaning the aircraft approaching from the west were 'invisible' but the ships were silhouetted against the rising Moon. Plus the Italians never expected an attack from carrier based aircraft! There are a lot more facts available if you do do due and diligent research, which you clearly didn't!

The Italian navy was a puzzle in WWII. They were truly innovative in some areas, particularly special ops but woefully retrograde in others. The ammunition quality for their otherwise excellent big guns was astoundingly bad and their indifference to radar development was catastrophic.

Thanks for the great suggestions, I will have a look!

Welcome aboard!

It can take a few hours to get the boilers up to working pressure, depending on how they left them running. In the First World War, the German High Seas Fleet needed 6 hours to get ready for sea. Destroyers would probably have been quicker though.

​@@WhatHoSnorkerssomething that a lot of people get wrong thank you for pointing that out

I was confused about that aswell as the aircraft show wasn't a swordfish either

Sounds more like the average british politician when making economic stratageys

Many Italians hated Mussolini long before the war. He is very lucky the military didn't mutiny, because they did not want to fight Britain. Then 'My country right or wrong,' kicked in and they fought for Italy not Mussolini. Which is why as soon as they could they surrendered, declared war against Nazi Germany, and fought with the allies.

Explain : what blunders were not caused by inferior technology ? ( radar code broken, old planes, silly tanks etc) to lose against an army better equipped is not a blunder is normal. So having said that which blunders are they exactly?

That's definitely the plan!

The italian had 6 battleships 3 were dmaged but he said that the italians had now 2 battleships to fight. What happened with the 6. battleship?

​The other battleship, in typical Italian fashion, immediately surrendered. It was called: Whatsa Matter U.

Go away. Start your own channel

Also the data sheet is incorrect as it states the techincal data for the duilios and cavours before the reconstruction

UK didn't have that many carriers at the start of the war

the old Carrier HMS Eagle was supposed to participate in this attack but she had an engine malfunction and had to drop out.

@@neilbuckley1613 thank you for answering Martin's question correctly. Imagine how much more damage might have been done to the Regia Marina had TWO Royal Navy carriers launched their torpedo bombers at Taranto!

​@@shawngilliland243 it's not just that, there could have been another 24 bombers in the deck below

The battleship Andrea Doria had just recently completed her rebuild modernization. She was not fully worked up and operational at the time of the raid on Taranto, so she is often not included in the number of battleships that remained "operational" following the attack. This is also seen shortly afterwards at the battle of Cape Spartivento on November 27th, when the Italians only used the undamaged Vittorio Veneto and Giulio Cesare. The Andrea Doria did not participate.

Average british naval battle

Yamamoto was at sea there didn't have land based aa and searchlights to supplement it's own and the planes that hit Yamato were moving 500mph instead of 100mph, making them much harder to hit

Almost 400 us aircraft attack yamato, the taranto raid only with 21 aircraft.

You do realise this attack was at night? Yamato was caught in daylight and by a much larger force

U​@@RaEndymion1231no 14:46 u

Although there WAS that American pilot along with the stringbags if you spotted him!

​@@WhatHoSnorkersI'm pretty sure that was a mistake as I can't find any info on an American pilot at Taranto. Plus the animation shows a floatplane not a swordfish torpedo bomber

@@tigerland4328It did surprise me a bit. I re-watched and the man with the Stars and Stripes was en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Torrens-Spence who was born in Ireland in March 1914 and was Royal Navy through and through. 11:39 or so is the timestamp!

no they would have been a lot more successful, as much shit as Italy gets for ww2, the kreigsmarine would have lost in 1941 had it not been for the regia marina, also can i point out that more German surface raiders were sunk in harbor by bombers than at sea. but still in a list of most powerful Axis navy's Germany is the weakest out of the there main countries

On the other hand they might have more successful, we will never know, stupid comment.

This is some hearts of iron brain boss. You wanna put the entire Italian fleet into an attack on possibly the most fortified position on earth, far out of range for air cover, and at the risk of being surrounded on both sides? Spain consistently felt no need to join the war, the Vichy French fleet was scuttled when the Germans tried to capture it, and even if Gibraltar was somehow captured supplies would still run to Egypt around the cape of Africa, as they often did. The Italians had pretensions of empire that their military was simply unequipped to realise

It would have been a hell of a hail Mary to say the least but I think younover rate the state of the Brits during the fall of France, they essentially didn't have an effective army left, their Navy was tied up in the Atlantic with Uboats and English Channel keeping a line of escape open and their Airforce was barely enough to protect England their Naval forces in the Mediterranean were no match for the Italians at that stage and I think Gibralters Defense was no match for WWII tech, I don't even think they believed they could hold it (they built a hidden room in a cave for a stay behind Cadre for when it fell) the French fleet was scuttled, amd still may have been, but it happened well after the surrender, I think if the Germans had acted quickly while they were in shock immediately after the fall they may have gotten a chunk of it... Malta definitely would have been much easier a target and I think would have been a gimme very early in the war and still would have been a huge pick up for the Italians in its own right. I know they did send supply around Africa but I don't think it would have been sustainable on its own to support Egypt plus all their other African ajd Pacific operations, especially when you consider that the Axis wouldn't have had to use resources in the Balkans and could have sent them all to Egypt with no attrition from allied forces... I definitely think it would have been worth a shot, but that is definitely looking at the situation in hindsight.

@@daveweiss5647 the navy forces involved in the u boat campaign and evacuation were primarily light, destroyers, frigates and corvettes. With a threat to a position as important as Gibraltar undoubtedly the admiralty would send a decently sized task force from the home fleet. The Mediterranean fleet also consistently outfought the Italians, despite being smaller. Although the raf was struggling to defend Britain at the time, the fighters are not the issue for the Italians here, it’s swordfish naval bombers stationed at gib that could cause significant damage to an Italian fleet away from their own fighters. Gibraltar surely wouldn’t have held indefinitely, but the tunnels would have allowed a defence for significant time, likely until a relief force could appear. The British army was on the back foot at the time, but still strong enough to destroy the Italians in North Africa, and I believe the vast majority of supplies for the 8th army were delivered around the Horn of Africa, the few exceptions being crucially rushed convoys. Malta would have possibly been an easier target, but crete showed the difficulties with airborn ops of that scale. You assume no operations in the balkans but why would the Greeks simply surrender without firing a shot? The Gibraltar operation you propose could have robbed the Italians of their strongest arm, their navy, within a month of joining the war. You’d rarely find a commander willing to make that gamble. Like Churchill said about jellicoe, how was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon. The Italians wouldn’t have lost the war so quickly, but I’m willing to bet any Italian admiral who rolled those dice and lost would also lose their head.

By going straight for Gibraltar the Italians would have bought even more British forces to the Mediterranean. The Royal Navy would have sent a sizeable number of ships from the home fleet to counter the Italians(that's not even mentioning the British ships already in Gibraltar) Also the British Mediterranean fleet was based in Alexandria not Gibraltar so any attack in the western Mediterranean would have left the eastern med completely vulnerable to the Royal navy.

​@@tigerland4328 That's why them seizing Malta was so important, these actions would have had to be a "Pearl Harbor" like action... Surprise attacks before Italy was officially in the war while they were relatively lightly defended... then turn Malta into a fortress packed with as much airpower as it can hold... creating a Scilily/Malta/Libya defensive line isolating Egypt and protecting Gibralter from any attack from the east/make Brits pay for any Naval activity by air or Submarine attack... do the same with Gibralter (possibly getting support from Spain in exchange for promising it to them after the war) also keep in mind this was early in the war when the German surface fleet still terrified the Brits and was tying up a ton of their fleet and the Uboat campaign as well as surface raiders being able to cut off supplies to UK was a real fear... as was the French fleet going over to the Axis... plus a fully defended Gibralter expecting an attack from the Brits would be different animal to a Gibralter who thought it had no enemies from the Med side... like I said... it would be a long shot/hail Mary... but possible, and possibly worth it... considering the final outcome...