What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Jakerson
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:46 am

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by Jakerson »

ORIGINAL: Dili
PS: it should be noted that Italian had a very low number of Torpedo bombers initially, they started the war with zero in fact. Later missions against warships were all done against convoys for Malta, that had carrier escort.

It never stops supricing me how poorly prepared Italians went to ww2. No torpedo bombers. No carriers. 400 000 men sitting inside forts at north africa than can be encircled with 1-2 tank divisions and forced to surrender without fireing a shot.

No plans or ways to supply troops in africa. No plans or ways to counter tank divisions. Without German Africa corps help Italians would have lost war in africa in 1-2 months.
kev_uk
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:36 am
Location: South Wales, UK
Contact:

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by kev_uk »

And the consensus is that the French were 'surrender monkeys'...what were the Italians?
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
ORIGINAL: Dili
PS: it should be noted that Italian had a very low number of Torpedo bombers initially, they started the war with zero in fact. Later missions against warships were all done against convoys for Malta, that had carrier escort.

It never stops supricing me how poorly prepared Italians went to ww2. No torpedo bombers. No carriers. 400 000 men sitting inside forts at north africa than can be encircled with 1-2 tank divisions and forced to surrender without fireing a shot.

No plans or ways to supply troops in africa. No plans or ways to counter tank divisions. Without German Africa corps help Italians would have lost war in africa in 1-2 months.
warspite1

Somewhat of an exaggeration - the number of troops encircled was not 400,000 - 130,000 in total for Compass as a whole if I recall correctly - and the Italians most certainly fired back. Still not a bad haul for Wavell's 30,000 [:)]

1-2 tank divisions? If only. I am sure Richard O'Connor would have loved two properly equipped armoured divisions.

As to being unprepared - don't forget also that a large part of the Italian merchant marine was captured outside the Mediterranean [8|]

To be fair though the Italians did not think they needed carriers as Italy was one giant carrier that commanded the central Med. That was the theory anyway.

But why were they unprepared? Well remember Mussolini did not think he would be doing much fighting so it did not matter. He launched Italy into the war only once he had assumed it was over - the French were on their last legs and the British were licking their wounds from Dunkirk. "I have only to present a few thousand dead to the peace conference to get a share of the spoils". What a 24-carat $%^& [:(].




Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: kev_uk

And the consensus is that the French were 'surrender monkeys'...what were the Italians?
warspite1

Whose consensus? That is very unfair on the French.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: spence

The attack of the TBDs (22 I think) at Coral Sea also deserve some mention since they apparently scored 5 hits in the first wave and 2 more in the second wave. That's somewhat over 30% total. The SBDs scored some hits (2) first aand it didn't slow Shoho down much but Lexington's TBDs apparently got 5 torpedo hits - pretty good.

I'd second that as a deserved mention.
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Barb

What about Midway USN torpedo strikes? They scored exactly 0 hits while losing 35 of 41 planes themselves... Yet their contribution to battle was absolutely critical!
I'd always considered this a Pyrrhic contribution.
Image
spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by spence »

I'd always considered this a Pyrrhic contribution.

The exact nature of the Pyrrhic part has only recently come to light. "Shattered Sword" describes their contribution as keeping the Japanese recycling their CAP: keeping their flight decks clear so that CAP planes could land and take off rather than the more traditional view that they kept the CAP at low level. In fact having worked out the time line better than before it seems VT3 conducted its attack at the same time and actually later than the dive bombers.
kev_uk
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:36 am
Location: South Wales, UK
Contact:

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by kev_uk »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: kev_uk

And the consensus is that the French were 'surrender monkeys'...what were the Italians?
warspite1

Whose consensus? That is very unfair on the French.
Well its not my opinion - they surrendered quickly because they never wanted another war on the same scale as WW1 - it was too fresh in their minds considering that nearly every village in France has a WW1 memorial with local dead folk in it.

'Consensus' meaning that there is an opinion that France surrendered quickly. I am sure you can find references to it on the internet - I myself have argued against this opinion many a time, based on my argument above.

Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by Dili »

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
ORIGINAL: Dili
PS: it should be noted that Italian had a very low number of Torpedo bombers initially, they started the war with zero in fact. Later missions against warships were all done against convoys for Malta, that had carrier escort.

It never stops supricing me how poorly prepared Italians went to ww2. No torpedo bombers. No carriers. 400 000 men sitting inside forts at north africa than can be encircled with 1-2 tank divisions and forced to surrender without fireing a shot.

No plans or ways to supply troops in africa. No plans or ways to counter tank divisions. Without German Africa corps help Italians would have lost war in africa in 1-2 months.


They started the war with only 2 battleships - Cavour an Cesare - if we can call battleship to a warship with 320mm guns and not even 300mm belt armor. More of a battlecruiser.

Like Warspite says not even Mussolini wanted war. He just wanted to be able to seat at peace conference and get some French spoils.

To be fair though the Italians did not think they needed carriers as Italy was one giant carrier that commanded the central Med. That was the theory anyway.

That was the theory and with proper aircraft might have worked. But SM-85 was failure, a dive bomber who couldn't dive, and the unique long range fighter Reggiane 2000 they had was only produced as a small series because the airforce didn't like wet wings, (in fairness and compared to others Italian aircraft since late 30's had their fuel tanks protected to 12.7mm(0.5) as a policy even in aircraft without armor)

The story of torpedo bombers were even more dismal, no one wanted them despite the industry producing aerial torpedoes, and several successful tests done in 30's. The Navy tested Radar in 1936 but the Admirals ignored it.

And the only reason they had at least some torpedo bombers in late summer of 1940 is because the new R.Aeronautica boss went against is own and believed in it.
The first aerial torpedoes that Italians employed in 1940 was from an order that the German put to the Italian industry.

The truth about Italy it is they were never a power at other major power league( France,England,Germany, USSR, Japan, USA). You can't be without a capable aircraft engine. So they would always be dependent on some major power.


Should be noted that debacle of Italians in North Africa was not certainly worse than the British debacle in Malaysia. In Malaysia at least there is water and life everywhere. In the desert you are motorized, you live in a oasis fort with a water well or you are dead.



spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by spence »

The Italians had to supply the average infantry division in their army with 65 different calibers of ammunition.

The corruption within their officer corps, especially those who could have changed things, was criminal.
desicat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:10 pm

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by desicat »

This topic has expanded a bit so I'll just add that Luftwaffe operations against the British fleet during the Battle of Crete makes excellent reading. German Ju-87's and Ju-88's decimated the Mediterranean Fleet; sinking at least 6 Cruisers and 3 destroyers, damaging the CV Formidable, several BB's, Cruisers and DD's. It was a clinic on dive bombing. The Luftwaffe War Diaries does a great job in chronicling that campaign and others, I highly recommend it.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by wdolson »


ORIGINAL: kev_uk

And the consensus is that the French were 'surrender monkeys'...what were the Italians?
warspite1
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Whose consensus? That is very unfair on the French.
ORIGINAL: kev_uk
Well its not my opinion - they surrendered quickly because they never wanted another war on the same scale as WW1 - it was too fresh in their minds considering that nearly every village in France has a WW1 memorial with local dead folk in it.

'Consensus' meaning that there is an opinion that France surrendered quickly. I am sure you can find references to it on the internet - I myself have argued against this opinion many a time, based on my argument above.

The French surrender in 1940 is often held up as indicative of their entire military history by people who don't understand the full scope of history. To those who know more about French military history, statements like yours sound kind of like the drivel often quoted by those who like to dismiss the French as a weak military power. Their performance in 1940 was dismal, but the rest of their military history wasn't bad. The Free French even made a good accounting of themselves later in the war, at least in the same ballpark with the other Allies.

The early successes of the Germans and Japanese are indicative of what a decently equipped mid-20th century military could do against a foe who was not fully prepared. The French didn't have the greatest military leadership and they were faced with a new type of maneuver warfare nobody had ever been able to do before. They had the bad luck to be the first major land campaign with the new maneuver warfare capable with 1940 tank technology.

Italy didn't fare well in the war either. As others have pointed out, their military hardware was not the greatest. They also had severe military hardware shortages because their industrial base was just not up to the challenges and many of their designs were at least a generation behind their opponents.

Another factor was the will to fight. The Italian officer corps was full of Anglophiles. The upper classes in Italy looked to Britain for inspiration and followed their lead. So the officer corps was not very interested in fighting the British. Additionally once the US was in the war, a significant number of the enlisted ranks had family in the US and had heard stories about the US. They weren't sold on stories from the government demonizing the US. They also knew they were likely facing Italian-Americans in battle who could be their cousins. Surrender meant getting out of a war they didn't want to be in in the first place.

Mussolini never had the emotional hold on Italy that Hitler had on Germany of the rulers of Japan had on that country. When it came to taking third world countries as new colonies, people didn't have a serious problem with that, but few had the stomach for a major war and nothing Mussolini said could change their minds.

Bill

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
kev_uk
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:36 am
Location: South Wales, UK
Contact:

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by kev_uk »

The French surrender in 1940 is often held up as indicative of their entire military history by people who don't understand the full scope of history. To those who know more about French military history, statements like yours sound kind of like the drivel often quoted by those who like to dismiss the French as a weak military power. Their performance in 1940 was dismal, but the rest of their military history wasn't bad. The Free French even made a good accounting of themselves later in the war, at least in the same ballpark with the other Allies.

Not my intention ever to dismiss their Military capability - considering their successes, such as under Napoleon and La Grande Armee. Quite a formidable enigma at one time past. I never ever have called the French 'surrender monkeys', which is the usual derogatory term I hear banded about over the internet, and other racist conceptions of their character and National Identity.

Your right, Blitzkrieg threw them. However, their quick capitulation is not just a military argument - rather more social factors must be considered (such as the decimation of a whole generation of French youth during WW1, the political chaos after the Popular Front govt. et al), but mainly their lack of will to engage in more bloodshed that the country couldn't afford to loose. As I stated, nearly every village in France has a WW1 memorial with the local dead of that village engraved. WW1 was a very very costly experience.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by wdolson »

Yup.

I would not expect anyone on this forum to be one to believe the cultural narrative about the French. Most of us know far too much history for that. However, your initial comment did look somewhat like the sort of ignorant comment the uneducated make. I suspect that's why Warspite1 responded the way he did.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by Dili »

I think the "surrender monkeys", is not badly applied for the France of 1930's political and military class and actually not the France of 1940 that fought. French society - those that could make their voices heard at least- seem to have been inherently pessimistic at point of inviting defeat.
But this is not an anathema to the French as a whole and forever, it is valid only for a spot in time. When the Government folded, Petain took over and pursued the Armistice, many in France wanted to continue to fight.

Mussolini never had the emotional hold on Italy that Hitler had on Germany of the rulers of Japan had on that country.

Well Italy was not a Mussolini dictatorship. It was a Monarchy. With a King. And then only the Duce. And Mussolini didn't wanted a "major war" at this time. He only entered in it because he thought with France defeated a Peace Conference will follow and he wanted to have a seat. Some fascists like Ciano, Balbo warned him against it but to no avail. The King as in favor of it. He hope to get the French Riviera that once belong to the Savoia dynasty.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: desicat

This topic has expanded a bit so I'll just add that Luftwaffe operations against the British fleet during the Battle of Crete makes excellent reading. German Ju-87's and Ju-88's decimated the Mediterranean Fleet; sinking at least 6 Cruisers and 3 destroyers, damaging the CV Formidable, several BB's, Cruisers and DD's. It was a clinic on dive bombing. The Luftwaffe War Diaries does a great job in chronicling that campaign and others, I highly recommend it.
warspite1

Re sinkings I think you have cruisers and destroyers the wrong way round.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
desicat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:10 pm

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by desicat »

You are correct sir. I took the count from page 199 and that selection was actually a quote from Richthofen's diary, he thought they got 6 cruisers.

Appendix 7 on page 370 shows 3 Cruisers sunk (Gloucester, Fiji, and Calcutta) along with 6 DD's. Damaged ships included 1 CV, 3 BB's, 7 CA's and 4 DD's. A very brutal fight from May 21 - June 01, 1941 that showed the lethal accuracy of German DB's.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: desicat

You are correct sir. I took the count from page 199 and that selection was actually a quote from Richthofen's diary, he thought they got 6 cruisers.

Appendix 7 on page 370 shows 3 Cruisers sunk (Gloucester, Fiji, and Calcutta) along with 6 DD's. Damaged ships included 1 CV, 3 BB's, 7 CA's and 4 DD's. A very brutal fight from May 21 - June 01, 1941 that showed the lethal accuracy of German DB's.
Warspite1

Looks like a good book - I will give this a go.

You mention the JU-87 and JU-88 - but interestingly it was the ME-109 (in a fighter bomber role) that damaged HMS Warspite. Not sure whether this aircraft was responsible for other sinkings/damage off Crete.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
desicat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:10 pm

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by desicat »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: desicat

You are correct sir. I took the count from page 199 and that selection was actually a quote from Richthofen's diary, he thought they got 6 cruisers.

Appendix 7 on page 370 shows 3 Cruisers sunk (Gloucester, Fiji, and Calcutta) along with 6 DD's. Damaged ships included 1 CV, 3 BB's, 7 CA's and 4 DD's. A very brutal fight from May 21 - June 01, 1941 that showed the lethal accuracy of German DB's.
Warspite1

Looks like a good book - I will give this a go.

You mention the JU-87 and JU-88 - but interestingly it was the ME-109 (in a fighter bomber role) that damaged HMS Warspite. Not sure whether this aircraft was responsible for other sinkings/damage off Crete.

I just did a quick scan and a ME-109 FB did hit the Warspite, but so did the DB's. A 109 also got the crippling hit on the Fiji with a 500lb near miss that ripped her open like a mine hit would, she was finished off later by the DB's as well.

The book is one of my favorites. You will enjoy the chapters that describe Luftwaffe "Air Bridge" supply attempts in Russia.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: What was the most succesful aerial torpedo attack?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: desicat

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: desicat

You are correct sir. I took the count from page 199 and that selection was actually a quote from Richthofen's diary, he thought they got 6 cruisers.

Appendix 7 on page 370 shows 3 Cruisers sunk (Gloucester, Fiji, and Calcutta) along with 6 DD's. Damaged ships included 1 CV, 3 BB's, 7 CA's and 4 DD's. A very brutal fight from May 21 - June 01, 1941 that showed the lethal accuracy of German DB's.
Warspite1

Looks like a good book - I will give this a go.

You mention the JU-87 and JU-88 - but interestingly it was the ME-109 (in a fighter bomber role) that damaged HMS Warspite. Not sure whether this aircraft was responsible for other sinkings/damage off Crete.

I just did a quick scan and a ME-109 FB did hit the Warspite, but so did the DB's. A 109 also got the crippling hit on the Fiji with a 500lb near miss that ripped her open like a mine hit would, she was finished off later by the DB's as well.

The book is one of my favorites. You will enjoy the chapters that describe Luftwaffe "Air Bridge" supply attempts in Russia.
warspite1

I will check that out - I was unaware of any other damage sustained off Crete other than the attack by the three ME-109's when she entered the Kithera Channel.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”