Pearl Harbor without Taranto

It's no secret that the British attack at Taranto that severely damaged the Italian fleet was a major inspiration for Pearl Harbor. But what if there was no Taranto? WI Italy remained neutral, for example?

I'm assuming some Pearl attack still happens, as such would seem to be the only hope of actually defeating the US and since memories of their defeat of the Russian fleet at Port Arthur were still fresh. But I may be underestimating the impact of Taranto.

Still, if there is a PH how does the operation change? Certainly there's not that screaming example of a torpedo-plane victory to base a plan off of, but would the idea of a carrier-plane attack still be rather apparent? Or would a "big gun" attack be the plan, parking off of the mouth of the harbor and shelling old-school (and inviting more Japanese casualties)?
 
I think its been said that the Raid on Taranto showed the Japanese that an air attack could work and it reinforced and validated plans already under consideration. The attack is an improvement upon Admiral Togo's destroyer attack upon the Russian fleet at Port Arthur at the opening of the Russo-Japanese War.
 
It's no secret that the British attack at Taranto that severely damaged the Italian fleet was a major inspiration for Pearl Harbor. But what if there was no Taranto? WI Italy remained neutral, for example?

I'm assuming some Pearl attack still happens, as such would seem to be the only hope of actually defeating the US and since memories of their defeat of the Russian fleet at Port Arthur were still fresh. But I may be underestimating the impact of Taranto.

Still, if there is a PH how does the operation change? Certainly there's not that screaming example of a torpedo-plane victory to base a plan off of, but would the idea of a carrier-plane attack still be rather apparent? Or would a "big gun" attack be the plan, parking off of the mouth of the harbor and shelling old-school (and inviting more Japanese casualties)?
I believe that the Japanese were just as, if not more, influenced by the US Navy's simulated bombing attacks on Pearl Harbor during the 1930's. I think that both Taranto and Pearl Harbor were examples of a common idea being put into practice.
 
All kind of what I thought, but fishing for other possibilities. Since it's looking very much like I'll be doing the Viva Balbo TL, unless there's a massive spike of voters to my TL poll that don't like it, I'm trying to figure out the full extents of Italy's involvement in WW2 and it's indirect effects.

Any differing opinions on Taranto and PH?
 
I dont think Taranto would affect the attack on PH itself - Yamato already saw this as the only way of possibly winning the first phase of the Pacific War.
However it might have let to an attack with far more dive bombers and fewer torpedo planes, if the Japanese were the first to try out a shallow-water torpedo attack. Unlike Taranto, its vital to Japan this works, so I would see them less likely to trust a concept which had only been proved on a test range.
US fleet still gets it, though :p
 
I dont think Taranto would affect the attack on PH itself - Yamato already saw this as the only way of possibly winning the first phase of the Pacific War.

Are you talking about Japan or the battleship? If you are talking about the C-in-C that would be Yamamoto.
 
I believe that the Japanese were just as, if not more, influenced by the US Navy's simulated bombing attacks on Pearl Harbor during the 1930's. I think that both Taranto and Pearl Harbor were examples of a common idea being put into practice.

Yes, you are right. Admiral H. E. Yarnell was to command a task force to attack pearl harbor during a wargame, while the rest of the fleet defended. He left the battleships and cruisers behind to act as a decoy, and had 2 carriers and 4 destroyers head for Pearl harbor. On February 7 1932, 152 fighters, bombers, and torpedo planes from Saratoga and Lexington led a mock attack in the early hours of Sunday.They knocked out the airfields and then concentrated on the harbor, theoretically sinking all targets. But Japan had spys acting as observers on the island, and they knew the details of the attack and how it was carried out. Source- Secrets & spies: behind the scenes stories of ww2 1964 edition.
 
Yes, you are right. Admiral H. E. Yarnell was to command a task force to attack pearl harbor during a wargame, while the rest of the fleet defended. He left the battleships and cruisers behind to act as a decoy, and had 2 carriers and 4 destroyers head for Pearl harbor. On February 7 1932, 152 fighters, bombers, and torpedo planes from Saratoga and Lexington led a mock attack in the early hours of Sunday.They knocked out the airfields and then concentrated on the harbor, theoretically sinking all targets. But Japan had spys acting as observers on the island, and they knew the details of the attack and how it was carried out. Source- Secrets & spies: behind the scenes stories of ww2 1964 edition.

The thing I dont know about the American attack, was it using (simulated) dive bombers or torpedo bombers? IIRC, the US navy didn't do much with torpedoes - in fact, at one time in the 30's I believe they didnt carry any torpedoes on their carriers!
So..was the raid level bombing and dive bombing, or did in include torpedoes? I suspect the former, if only because the umpires would probably have declared any torpedoes stuck in the mud at the bottom of the harbour...:rolleyes:
 
Hmmm...I'm really curious about the torpedo thing now. Anyone know the answer? No Taranto = no/less torpedo bombing? I'd suspect that since the Val had been under development since 37 that TBs were an integral part of the Japanese attack structure, but could a no Taranto potentially lead to no time spent trying to develop the shallow wood-fin torps?
 
Hmmm...I'm really curious about the torpedo thing now. Anyone know the answer? No Taranto = no/less torpedo bombing? I'd suspect that since the Val had been under development since 37 that TBs were an integral part of the Japanese attack structure, but could a no Taranto potentially lead to no time spent trying to develop the shallow wood-fin torps?

I think it would be pretty evident to anybody involved that the depth of the harbor would be something to take into account for.
 
I think it would be pretty evident to anybody involved that the depth of the harbor would be something to take into account for.

I think you misunderstand what I'm asking. What I mean is might the Japanese have, without Taranto, assumed that torpedo bombing in shallow water was not worth the effort and concentrated on DBs, hence not "wasted" time developing shallow-water torps.
 
I think you misunderstand what I'm asking. What I mean is might the Japanese have, without Taranto, assumed that torpedo bombing in shallow water was not worth the effort and concentrated on DBs, hence not "wasted" time developing shallow-water torps.

I think they would have looked at it from a practical point of view, that its easier to hit a warship on the broadside with a torpedo than using a dive bomber. Then one just needs to take into account about the shallowness of the harbor and plan accordingly.
 
Top