AHC/WI: Royal Navy Copenhagen Italian Navy in 1935 - 1937

There is as well as the example of Taranto using a carrier which was actually done to the Italians in wartime also the example of Mers-El-Kebir where the British simply used a squadron of battleships and shelled the French in the harbour. As ships in harbour cannot manoeuvre very well it made for more than usually accurate shooting.

You may want to adjust the odds based on those examples.

not with tech and equipment available in 1935

Not if its Navy has been smashed it won't be. Take a look at a map of Italy some time, you will an awful lot of it is accessible from the sea. That is great for trade but does mean that foreign naval power worries you.

The problem is that the italian navy is not totally concentrated in a single port and Taranto while was a serious blow had not crippled Regia Marina; for this to work you need that the great great bulk of the italian major units being stationed in a single place and that nobody will notice the aircraft coming (even OTL Taranto attack while well planned, was succesfull due to some luck)
 
Not if its Navy has been smashed it won't be. Take a look at a map of Italy some time, you will an awful lot of it is accessible from the sea. That is great for trade but does mean that foreign naval power worries you.

Not only that but a Britain as aggressive as the one postulated in this thread won't hesitate to mobilise in support of France in 1936 meaning no war in 1940

A UK as aggressive as that would be a stupid one. Just because they won WWII in OTL doesn't mean that any more aggressive stance before any war is a good thing for them. The UK wasn't exactly in control of the Mediterranean nor did they have the best of Naval supremacy. Italy has the ebst strategic position in the Mediterranean to do operations, a more prepared Italian Navy would make life for the British very difficult indeed. Only on land could they outmatch the Italians cleverly, instead of bold and insane attacks on Italian territory.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
A UK as aggressive as that would be a stupid one. Just because they won WWII in OTL doesn't mean that any more aggressive stance before any war is a good thing for them. The UK wasn't exactly in control of the Mediterranean nor did they have the best of Naval supremacy. Italy has the ebst strategic position in the Mediterranean to do operations, a more prepared Italian Navy would make life for the British very difficult indeed. Only on land could they outmatch the Italians cleverly, instead of bold and insane attacks on Italian territory.
Well, but the Italian naval units was very weak both in speed, armour and firepower, as fast ships like Littorio were not yet completed.
 
Well, but the Italian naval units was very weak both in speed, armour and firepower, as fast ships like Littorio were not yet completed.

yes, but it was a fleet-in-being. Meaning that the presence of the fleet alone would be enough to deter the British. Even if the British attack their fleet in ports or would attack their cities the Italian fleet will remain a serious threath, the British won't suddenly get a magical upper hand. Not unless they actually sink one or 2 battleships and stop porduction of the new ships, which would have been 4 if the Italian would respond to the sudden aggressive British stance. It may even include the Aquila-class carrier.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Fleets the Royal Navy attacked or planned to attack in port in the 20th century:

German Navy (both in WW1 and WW2, using the Fleet Air Arm)
French Navy (Plans and operations going back decades or centuries, and also Mers-el-Kebir)
Italian Navy (Taranto)
They also hit the Russians, Spanish, Americans and sundry others (including Denmark) in previous centuries.

Basically anyone within range.

That seems to suggest that they would, in fact, consider attacking the Italian Navy in port in the 1930s - after all, the Royal Navy has never felt honour-bound to allow their opponent a sporting chance when they can possibly help it.
The RN has considered attacking the enemy in port to be basically the best way to sink their enemy - if I may quote:

Well, I say, if they will not meet us on the open sea, we must visit them in their own homes, and teach them that a war with England is not to be engaged in with impunity. (Sir James Graham, First Lord of the Admiralty 1852-1855, HC Deb 29 June 1854 vol 134 cc920-21)



not with tech and equipment available in 1935
False. Mers-el-Kebir was an attack performed by the Hood, Ark Royal (for spotter planes), Valiant and Resolution.
Hood commissioned 1920, Valiant commissioned 1916, Resolution commissioned 1916, and the RN has used spotter planes since WW1.
Mers-el-Kebir is an attack that could have been done in 1921, let alone 1935, and could have been done in 1918 if Hood was replaced with another battlecruiser.

As for the torpedo plane attacks, the first torpedo bomber the British put into FAA service was the Sopwith Cuckoo in 1918 - the intended role for this aircraft was a mass torpedo plane attack on the German High Seas Fleet in harbour, involving as many as 120 aircraft.

You will need to provide some kind of indication what you mean by "not with tech and equipment available in 1935".
 

Thomas1195

Banned
And I think it is a good way to abandon LNT, by fighting another LNT member. But they might need to declare sanctions on Italy via League of Nations first.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
And I think it is a good way to abandon LNT, by fighting another LNT member. But they should declare sanctions on Italy first.
Yes, the idea of it being a way to indicate displeasure is perhaps not going to be the "done thing" in the 20th Century, but certainly attacks on a fleet in port are quite possible.
 
And I think it is a good way to abandon LNT, by fighting another LNT member

Well to me they wouldn't so much be abandoning the LNT as it would never have happened, I mean if you have the UK going to war in 35 they wouldn't have signed up to a Treaty limiting the Navy in in 31.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well to me they wouldn't so much be abandoning the LNT as it would never have happened, I mean if you have the UK going to war in 35 they wouldn't have signed up to a Treaty limiting the Navy in in 31.

Well, but tensions only began to really escalate in 1933-1935
 
Did Italy have costal defense gun emplacements and defensive minefields to protect naval harbors? That's the reason fleets in World War One did so little combat. Surprise attacks came into vogue in WW2 with air strikes from out of range of those shore-based defenses, and Operation Catapult was a really unusual situation. In theory any fleet could attack the enemy in the home port, but in practice that just results in the Gallipoli naval campaign.
 
False. Mers-el-Kebir was an attack performed by the Hood, Ark Royal (for spotter planes), Valiant and Resolution.
Hood commissioned 1920, Valiant commissioned 1916, Resolution commissioned 1916, and the RN has used spotter planes since WW1.
Mers-el-Kebir is an attack that could have been done in 1921, let alone 1935, and could have been done in 1918 if Hood was replaced with another battlecruiser.

As for the torpedo plane attacks, the first torpedo bomber the British put into FAA service was the Sopwith Cuckoo in 1918 - the intended role for this aircraft was a mass torpedo plane attack on the German High Seas Fleet in harbour, involving as many as 120 aircraft.

You will need to provide some kind of indication what you mean by "not with tech and equipment available in 1935".

Torpedoes and aircraft; Taranto shallow waters were a serious obstacle and the experience at Mers-el-Kebir was needed to try the OTL attack and here will be used the Mark VIII torpedoes on Balckburn Baffin against what were more or less the same defence of the Taranto attack (modernization was delayed due to money issue).
Using battleship against the Taranto base is too risky due to coastal defences and even OTL the admiralty thought on an aircraft only operation
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Torpedoes and aircraft; Taranto shallow waters were a serious obstacle and the experience at Mers-el-Kebir was needed to try the OTL attack and here will be used the Mark VIII torpedoes on Balckburn Baffin against what were more or less the same defence of the Taranto attack (modernization was delayed due to money issue).
Using battleship against the Taranto base is too risky due to coastal defences and even OTL the admiralty thought on an aircraft only operation
To be clear, what you mean by your "not available in 1935" is specifically that the torpedoes of the time could not be used in shallow water.

Well.


As it happens the shallow water torpedoes of the Taranto attack (Mk. XII) were improved Mk. XI (which had the shallow water specification of not diving below 60 feet) and in OTL - in peacetime - the Mk. XI was designed 1934 and entered service 1936. (The Mk. XII was a year later on both counts.)
Taranto had water of 60 to 75 foot depth where the torpedoes were launched, so in other words torpedoes that had already been designed in 1935 and which were being manufactured for the Royal Navy that year were capable of the attack. The technology certainly existed in 1935 even if it wasn't in general deployment yet, and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could hurry a couple of dozen of them into operation.

As for the point about the defences of Taranto, OTL there were about twenty Swordfish (launched by one carrier) of which two were shot down. In a maximum effort strike by an undistracted Royal Navy you could expect there to be at least four carriers (Eagle Hermes Glorious Courageous Furious) supplying aircraft, so the strike should be considered to be potentially up to four times that number.
Defences able to shoot down two Swordfish out of twenty are not going to shoot down fifty Baffins out of ninety (and even then to get only the torpedo-carrying ones would be impressive).


As for the seaward defences of Taranto, I'm unable to substantiate their scale. I have certainly found allusions to the idea that the RN was considering capturing Taranto as far back as 1935, and presumably that would involve a bombardment and neutralization of the sea defences - possibly the issue is the difference between having to deal with the German fleet, defending the UK and the Italians all at once and the simpler problem of just having to deal with Italy. (In 1935 the RN has about twelve BBs and three BCs, which should be quite enough to deal with unmodernized defences - the Mers-el-Kebir attack was against a port with modern defences and that involved only three battle-line ships.)
 
As it happens the shallow water torpedoes of the Taranto attack (Mk. XII) were improved Mk. XI (which had the shallow water specification of not diving below 60 feet) and in OTL - in peacetime - the Mk. XI was designed 1934 and entered service 1936. (The Mk. XII was a year later on both counts.)
Taranto had water of 60 to 75 foot depth where the torpedoes were launched, so in other words torpedoes that had already been designed in 1935 and which were being manufactured for the Royal Navy that year were capable of the attack. The technology certainly existed in 1935 even if it wasn't in general deployment yet, and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could hurry a couple of dozen of them into operation.

Basing your attack plan on an handfull of weapon quickly put on production and hastily used for an operation that will start a war IMVHO it's not a very wise operational decision and as i said, it was the Mers-el-Kebir attack that demonstrate how to use better that type of weapons in that situation, so if this not happen it's very probable that all the effort will be for nothing

As for the point about the defences of Taranto, OTL there were about twenty Swordfish (launched by one carrier) of which two were shot down. In a maximum effort strike by an undistracted Royal Navy you could expect there to be at least four carriers (Eagle Hermes Glorious Courageous Furious) supplying aircraft, so the strike should be considered to be potentially up to four times that number.
Defences able to shoot down two Swordfish out of twenty are not going to shoot down fifty Baffins out of ninety (and even then to get only the torpedo-carrying ones would be impressive).

First the Swordfish entered service in 36 so it will not be used and second using four carriers mean basically put on Malta the enourmous sign: We are gonna attack you very soon, dagos; in OTL the Royal Navy used a massive effort to convince the italians that the carriers were there for other operations and finally, the original attack was succesfull also due a healthy dose of luck and the total surprise, as even Regia Marina using smoke will have caused serious problem and even forced to abort the operation. Using 4 times the craft mean risking even more to be discovered...and you still need the weapons for this aircraft
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Basing your attack plan on an handfull of weapon quickly put on production and hastily used for an operation that will start a war IMVHO it's not a very wise operational decision and as i said, it was the Mers-el-Kebir attack that demonstrate how to use better that type of weapons in that situation, so if this not happen it's very probable that all the effort will be for nothing
But they had these torpedoes, in fact they deployed them the very next year. It might not necessarily be a wise operational decision in isolation, but in a choice between (if it works) crippling the Italian fleet and (if it doesn't work) no real loss... which would they go for? (And we know it would work.)

ED: The torpedoes are actually designed and built to bottom out and rise upwards again at precisely the minimum depth of Taranto (in the dropping area used OTL) so I strongly suspect they were actually designed to hit Taranto. (This fits with the way the Admiralty has often considered how to attack enemy ports.)


First the Swordfish entered service in 36 so it will not be used and second using four carriers mean basically put on Malta the enourmous sign: We are gonna attack you very soon, dagos; in OTL the Royal Navy used a massive effort to convince the italians that the carriers were there for other operations and finally, the original attack was succesfull also due a healthy dose of luck and the total surprise, as even Regia Marina using smoke will have caused serious problem and even forced to abort the operation. Using 4 times the craft mean risking even more to be discovered...and you still need the weapons for this aircraft

Blackburn Baffin:

Fairey Swordfish:

  • Maximum speed: 143 mph with torpedo at 7,580 lb (230 km/h, 124 knots) at 5,000 ft (1,450 m)
  • Range: 522 mi (840 km, 455 nmi) normal fuel, carrying torpedo[48]
  • Endurance: 5.5 hr
  • Service ceiling: 16,500 ft at 7,580 lb[47] (5,030 m)
  • Rate of climb: 870 ft/min (4.42 m/s) at sea level at 7,580 lb. (690 ft/min (3.5 m/s) at 5000 ft (1,524 m) at 7,580 lb)


Speed difference 6 knots
Range difference 100 nmi
Endurance difference 1 hour
Service ceiling difference 1,500 feet
Rate of climb difference is 15%.


These are not massively different aircraft - I'm not especially sure why the Baffin should be hugely more vulnerable, it's barely any slower. In any case, the Admiralty were willing to accept 50% losses and they got 10% - TTL even if they do get ten times as many aircraft shot down out of a 40-aircraft attack (i.e. twenty torpedo aircraft and twenty bombing aircraft - the kind of thing that a single CV could have launched) then they're going to consider that worthwhile.

Note that OTL the Italians didn't do any kind of preparation like you mention before OTL Taranto, despite the following carriers being in the Med: Eagle, Ark Royal, Illustrious. (Of which Illustrious conducted the attack.) This suggests that they would not necessarily conduct the defence procedures you suggest if there were three RN carriers in the Med - and two of them put together could easily launch a 40-aircraft strike, twice as heavy as OTL Taranto.
 
Last edited:
Basing your attack plan on an handfull of weapon quickly put on production and hastily used for an operation that will start a war IMVHO it's not a very wise operational decision and as i said, it was the Mers-el-Kebir attack that demonstrate how to use better that type of weapons in that situation, so if this not happen it's very probable that all the effort will be for nothing

So you are saying that because they worked the first time (sort of gunnery practice was a thing for the Royal Navy so they did not think of it as first time) that time, then they cannot possibly work first time (allowing for the fact that shooting ships is something the RN practise) this time?



First the Swordfish entered service in 36 so it will not be used and second using four carriers mean basically put on Malta the enourmous sign: We are gonna attack you very soon, dagos; in OTL the Royal Navy used a massive effort to convince the italians that the carriers were there for other operations and finally, the original attack was succesfull also due a healthy dose of luck and the total surprise, as even Regia Marina using smoke will have caused serious problem and even forced to abort the operation. Using 4 times the craft mean risking even more to be discovered...and you still need the weapons for this aircraft

So despite the fact that Saph has repeated the point that he is making about using Baffins you want to talk about Swordfish. Okay first a question, how long must smoke start being deployed before it effectively masks the target area? In addition what level of wind conditions might disperse smoke before it can concentrate effectively to obscure the target area?

Now some operational intelligence questions. How can the RM be sure that the two carriers the RN is sending to the Indian Ocean are not in fact heading for the Indian Ocean? Alternatively if the RN say they are swapping carriers for Mediterranean and Home Fleets and the carrier ostensibly returning Home instead stodges about out at sea before running the Straits under cover of darkness, how sure can the Italians be to detect this? Thirdly, do we actually have any evidence that the RM ever managed to pick up on a peace time Royal Navy deployment that was not announced in advance?
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
An additional point - the air defences at Taranto are not going to be the same as that met by the OTL Swordfish attack, because a substantial fraction of the AA was provided by the battleships themselves. In 1935 the Littorio class does not yet exist as commissioned units (two of them haven't even been laid down) and that's a difference of 12 90mm guns, 20 37mm guns and 20 20mm guns per ship. In addition, the Conte di Cavour (whose reconstruction added 8 100mm AA guns) will not be present, as she's being reconstructed; the same is true of the Giulio Cesare.

In fact, looking into it, the only BBs that will be potentially present in Taranto are the Andrea Doria and the Caio Duilio - these are the only two operational BBs of the Regina Marina and have 12 76mm AA guns between them (instead of the OTL Taranto count of 20 90mm guns, 30 37mm guns and 32 20mm guns for these two ships)
The cost of 20 (or 40) torpedo bombers in return for disabling the entire remaining Italian battle line is a risk that the Royal Navy would take with great enthusiasm, and the AA gun defences are significantly worse because the two Andrea Doria class ships are at this time barely armed with any AA guns at all.

(Deficit of AA compared to OTL Taranto, battleships only: 16 100mm guns, 44 90mm guns, 70 37mm guns, 72 20mm guns; benefit of AA, 12 76mm guns)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It is a British disaster. You have just made the UK the aggressive power that attacks people for no good reason. It is a God send to Hitler and every other aggressive leader out there. It will play terribly in the USA. This type of action would likely mean no USA/UK cooperation in the Pacific. We might well take War Plan red more seriously than Orange. Everytime someone brings up Nanking, their opponents bring up Italy. It probably makes France nervous. Hitler building naval assets looks like a response to UK aggression. So does every ship Japan builds. And Italy will be an enemy of the UK for a couple of generations.

And as other posters get into, it is very technically difficult to execute.
 
It is a British disaster. You have just made the UK the aggressive power that attacks people for no good reason. It is a God send to Hitler and every other aggressive leader out there. It will play terribly in the USA. This type of action would likely mean no USA/UK cooperation in the Pacific. We might well take War Plan red more seriously than Orange. Everytime someone brings up Nanking, their opponents bring up Italy. It probably makes France nervous. Hitler building naval assets looks like a response to UK aggression. So does every ship Japan builds. And Italy will be an enemy of the UK for a couple of generations.

And as other posters get into, it is very technically difficult to execute.

The implication that the RN is launching an attack on the Italian fleet is that the situation politically warrants it and that a 'good reason' exists. Britain was not in the business of starting wars in Europe without a major reason at the time it was not in her interest. So no.

And technically while it is difficult the RN was capable of such a mission.

And lets hope it makes France Nervous might make them pull their finger out that much earlier and start rearming and reorganising their armed forces.

Nanking 200,000+ dead Chinese most of whom were civilians murdered by the IJA vs Taranto where OTL 59 sailors were killed - yep sounds very similar.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It is a British disaster. You have just made the UK the aggressive power that attacks people for no good reason. It is a God send to Hitler and every other aggressive leader out there. It will play terribly in the USA. This type of action would likely mean no USA/UK cooperation in the Pacific. We might well take War Plan red more seriously than Orange. Everytime someone brings up Nanking, their opponents bring up Italy. It probably makes France nervous. Hitler building naval assets looks like a response to UK aggression. So does every ship Japan builds. And Italy will be an enemy of the UK for a couple of generations.

And as other posters get into, it is very technically difficult to execute.
I mean after the Ethiopia crisis occurred, especially after Italy leaving League of Nations. To punish Italy
 
Top