Swordfish's Appearance: 🐑 Swordfish's Service Record: 🦁

@charlesunderwood6334

Ай бұрын

Largely because it was pretty much indestructible. You could destroy quite a lot of the wing area and out will still fly.

@uncletiggermclaren7592

Ай бұрын

@@charlesunderwood6334 Not with a torp onboard it couldn't.

@johnendersby1619

23 күн бұрын

You look at it and you think it belongs in WW1. What an unexpectedly incredible plane.

@robertstorey7476

15 күн бұрын

The Bismarck attack that disabled it couldn't have been carried out by any other torpedo bomber because the take off weather conditions would have grounded them.

Swordfish was not a relic from a previous war. It was a heavy lift short take-off aircraft that could operate from small carriers heaving over heavy seas. It was used throughout WW2. Not bad for a relic?

The Italian navy invariably showed great resolve and courage when brought to battle. The raid on Alexandria and the motor boat attacks on Malta being great examples. Unfortunately their army colleagues were completely different primarily due to absolutely crappy leadership. BTW my old school Mathematics teacher was a navigating officer on one of the British battleships attacked in Alexandria and was a great admirer of the Italian divers courage.

@ianwilkinson4602

22 күн бұрын

The Royal Navy had pride and tradition on their side, and they had a lot of history to live up to, the Fleet Air Arm although relatively new, operated under those same traditions . Aye,Aye Captain 😁

11:10 they only asked the Light Brigade to do it once!

My first step father was on this raid , when they had released their torpedos they flew in again to take the flak off their mates . He was also the only pilot to survive a stall turn in a Bristol Beaufighter , he was a legend and a gentleman.

@Copperpotish

Ай бұрын

First stepfather? How many dudes did your mom have?

@MrBagpipes

23 күн бұрын

First step father?

As an American, I was unsurprisingly. Never talk about this particular engagement. It is fascinating and I have little doubt that the Japanese did in fact, learn from this battle.

@jimtalbott9535

Ай бұрын

More likely, they learned from their own surprise attack on the Russian Fleet in 1904, at Port Arthur. A surprise attack by the Japanese on an enemy fleet, that started a war? Naaahh, that’s crazy. ;)

@barbaraanneneale3674

Ай бұрын

@@jimtalbott9535 A very convincing and sound argument. Thank you.

@alanconway94

Ай бұрын

Taranto is actually mentioned in the film Tora! Tora! Tora!

@barbaraanneneale3674

Ай бұрын

Kind of remember that now the you mention it.

@hectorcot597

16 күн бұрын

The Japanese used Taranto as a template for Pearl Harbour. It's even referred to in the film Tora Tora Tora

I imagine that the Japanese notes on the attack were something to the effect of, if the British could do all that with one carrier against an enemy they are already at war with; then imagine what we can do with six carriers in a surprise attack!

@ianwilkinson4602

22 күн бұрын

I doubt the news of this got as far as Japan.

@hectorcot597

16 күн бұрын

​@@ianwilkinson4602Taranto was studied in minute detail by the Japanese and used as a template for their own attack on the US Fleet. It's even referred to in the Film Tora Tora Tora

@ianwilkinson4602

15 күн бұрын

@@hectorcot597 Hola Hector, yes that's fine. I have seen Tora,Tora,Tora at least a couple of times and never noticed that dialogue 😁😛🤗 I will have to be more attentive 🤐

Before you start this is the fleet air arm attack on the Italian navy at Teranto! Still remembered by the fleet air arm and royal navy.

The Italians did rather level the score little over a year later when they sank HMS Valiant and HMS Queen Elizabeth in Alexandria harbour using limpet mines placed by frogmen on human torpedoes. Fortunately Alexandria harbour is also very shallow and both ships merely settled a little bit lower in the water, to be salvaged and repaired later. Also, there were two highly successful air attacks on Pearl Harbor at the beginning of the Thirties. This, however, was parte of a series of 'Fleet Problems' that the US Navy set itself, and it seemes that lessons were not learnt at the time, or had been forgotten. This wasn't helped by the umpires discounting much of the notional damage that had been caused.

@DK-gy7ll

Ай бұрын

Progressive minds in the Navy knew of the risks but the "Battleship Admirals" in control of the fleet were too arrogant to believe any of it. The only good thing about Pearl Harbor is that the fleet wasn't warned earlier, because if they were they'd have sortied and all those lumbering battleships would've been sunk out at sea where they couldn't be salvaged.

@jimtalbott9535

Ай бұрын

Don’t forget, also, the 1904 attack on the Russian Pacific Squadron by the Japanaese. Started a war then too, just as with 1941.

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

Ай бұрын

@@DK-gy7ll There was one Big Gun Admiral who understood the dangers of aircraft. He would use his authority to buy radar, 20 mm and 40 mm AA guns, and then altered orders to state that those guns were to be installed on the ships. But then again Willis Lee liked anything that could go bang. He would get the drop on the Kirashima and the gun crews he had drilled pummeled. Lee was on of the few who underestimated hits by a couple instead of overestimating. The Japanese had a more accurate count of hits and based on the underwater investigation of Kirashima, it is estimated that a few of the 16" shells that landed short turned torpedo and hit below the water line. This was at a point when aircraft carriers were at battered and the US barely had one left at sea with the others at the bottom of the sea or in dry dock.

@Dionysos640

21 күн бұрын

"limpet mines placed by frogmen on human torpedoes" ... this statement makes literally no sense but it made me laugh and I think I know what you meant, hopefully ...

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

21 күн бұрын

@@Dionysos640 The torpedoes in this case were meant to be underwater craft to move them quickly

The British Raid on Taranto did surprise naval warfare experts who doubted aerial could be used in a shallow harbour. They used a wire and spool to control the decent of the torpedo from a nose dive to a belly flop, allowing the torpedo to run at a shallow depth. Whilst the Japanese did investigate the incident in Italy, they had already been planning and testing shallow running topedoes in the 1930s. The Japanese used breakaway wooden nose cones and wooden addition to the rudder to keep their torpedoes from diving too steeply on contact with the water. The British attack was not as successful as the Japanese attack, but considering the difference between obsolete Fairey Swordfish of the FAA, and the modern Japanese aircraft at Pearl Harbour, it was a credible, if short-lived, victory for the British. The Fleet Air Arm expected 50% of their aircraft to be shot down, but only lost two out of 21 that took off.

Kind of amazing the number of warnings the us had in regard to an attack on Pearl and yet just seemed to hope for the best that it wouldn't happen. I know that in the 30s the US was doing an exercise, and one force surprised the fleet sitting in Pearl and bomb them, I think with flour bags. In the late 30s the Army wanted to have another exercise to see if the bombers could, in theory find a ship and bomb it. The Navy didn't like the idea but, did it anyway but, they wanted to have it off of Northern California. They selected a time and place when the fog would be heavy. They agreed that a certain time the Navy would send a message of a ship's position and then try to avoid the bombers. The Navy lied and reported a position over an hour old. Just so happened that Curtis LeMay was in command of a B 17 and found the battleship and dropped 50 pound bombs full of water on the ship. Also, the Navy was so sure they wouldn't be found, they let their sailors out from below decks and they looked up to see a B 17 dropping bombs on them. It is unknown if any were hurt as the scrambled to get below decks but, the wood decking took some damage.

4:36 "torpedos of the time could only be used in waters less than 23 meters deep" I think you misspoke & it should be "more than" Not criticizing, just a friendly poke in your ribs :D Everyone knows Simon and his crews put out the highest quality, most well-researched content on the internet. Thanks for this one. I'd never heard of this raid, and it was great to follow along with the narrative and the fantastic graphics that made everything clear as crystal.

@joppadoni

Ай бұрын

;-)

@foo219

Ай бұрын

I thought he was going to say "no less than" and the "no" got swallowed. Either way, no big deal.

@bartfoster1311

Ай бұрын

At the end he said waters at least 23 meters deep

@MrU4theChillWind

Ай бұрын

@@bartfoster1311 that is true. But we expect nothing less than perfection from Facts Boi! :-)

@davidelliott5843

Ай бұрын

23 metres is 75 feet. I suspect no meant 23 feet deep. Especially as the Royal Navy didn’t go metric until 1980s.

Most Naval Historians consider that Torranto was not sole inspiration for Pear Harbor. The decision to attack Pearl had already been made. Torpedoes were only a small part of the attack, especially since the battleships were double parked. The Japanese used converted 16" Naval shells dropped from level bombing and that is actually what did in Arizona.

If Simon's scriptwriters thinks this is a niche subject which is novel for 1940, the seed of this operation lies as far back as ......1918 where the Royal Naval Air service had planned an operation using torpedo carrying aircraft to attack the German High Seas fleet anchorage of Wilhelmshaven- and attack to be launched from the then "new" aircraft carrier HMS Furious. So the RN had this plans for such an attack on a fleet in being , thinking was safe in its anchorage was set up in their back pocket for 19 years.

@davidtrail4731

21 күн бұрын

The attack on the German fleet didn't happen because Sopwith didn't produce enough planes before the war ended

Unknown? It's probably less well known than Bismarck, Pearl Harbour, the Battle off Britain and Stalingrad but not exactly obscure.

Since when was Taranto ever forgotten? It was a stunningly well planned and organised raid executed with great skill by the FAA pilots using aircraft that were perfectly adequate for the task..

Thanks for the remarkably good subtitles.

This was a staggering achievement on the part of the British Fleet Air Arm. 21 torpedo bombers- 21 obsolete torpedo bombers- sank one modern Italian battleship, severely damaged two more modern Italian battleships and damaged a modern Italian heavy cruiser. British losses were 2 planes lost with 2 aircrew killed and 2 aircrew captured. A case could be made that, proportionally, less damage was done to the US fleet at Pearl Harbor.

It was also a good example of inter-service cooperation, as the RAF had developed effective photo reconnaissance in the Mediterranean. It was only through a Royal Navy attache taking it upon himself to first study the art of photographic interpretation and then building a good working relationship with the RAF photographic analysis department in Alexandria that he noticed what he believed were barrage balloons around Taranto, which could have destroyed many of the Swordfish if the crews didn't expect them. Unfortunately the RAF, citing operational security, refused to let him take the photos to show the fleet commanders in order to prove the risk. So he 'borrowed' them one afternoon, hastily went out to the fleet, demanded a meeting with the commander, showed him and his staff the photos, and then had the photographs back in Alexandria the next morning before any RAF staff noticed. They were not missed, and no aircraft hit the balloons during the mission.

It’s hardly a forgotten battle for naval enthusiasts.

@singleflow

Ай бұрын

He's probably talking to the other 99% of the population.

@chrisjeffery9582

Ай бұрын

Or anyone who has read any of the books or watched any of the many videos about the Fairy Swordfish, some of which are his videos 😀

@phil-anthrophist3960

Ай бұрын

Enthusiast is the key word there,, I'm pretty interested in WWII but never heard of this operation until now,, unless you go looking for it you're not gonna know about it,, doesn't show up in any docos or books I've seen

@JohnDoe-xz1mw

Ай бұрын

its not a foregotten battle for me eithr and i dont care about ships ...it just sounds good in a title.

@jjeherrera

Ай бұрын

Let's just say Pearl Harbour is widely known by most people, but WW II enthusiasts know well Taranto was the precedent.

A case for for laying the blueprint for Pear Harbor could also be the 1932 US Naval war game "Fleet Problem #13” meant to test the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor. The attacking forces were led by Rear Admiral Harry Yarnell and utilizing aircraft from the carriers Saratoga and Lexington attack on a Sunday morning and from the north-northeast, similar to the day/time and direction of Japans attack. He achieved total surprise and won the drill. The War Department later changed its ruling.

@jimtalbott9535

Ай бұрын

And another case could be made for the Japanese attack on the Russian Pacific Squadron at Port Arthur, in 1904. No Aircraft of course, but it was a surprise attack, and it absolutely started a war.

@michaelhart7569

Ай бұрын

I was also interested to hear the information about Kimmel and his culpability. Some other accounts appear quite sympathetic towards his having to carry the can for the Pearl Harbor disaster.

Love this story, never heard it before. Thank you. Love to know more about the bomb nets.

Thanks!

Done with 2 Carriers and (less than 20?) Obsolete Biplanes, 3 Battleships sunk.

@MichaelJones-zs6yf

Ай бұрын

One carrier, 21 aircraft

@moosifer3321

Ай бұрын

Better `Batting Average` wouldn`t you say?Were USN `Intelligence` Asleep?@@MichaelJones-zs6yf

@moosifer3321

Ай бұрын

Pretty good `Battting Average`! Was USN `Intelligence` paying attention to an attack in a protected, shallow Naval Anchorage by Carrier Aircraft? PS - The Swordfish, tho` few, came from TWO Carriers. @@MichaelJones-zs6yf

The Battle of Taranto inspired the Japanese to put wooden fins on their Long Lance torpedoes just like the British. The wooden fins enabled the torpedoes to submerge and run in a shallow harbor like Pearl Harbor.

Great seeing you guys use content from the Operations Room, I’d love to see a collaboration between your Warographics Channel and the Operations Room for episodes about a particular historical battle or campaign

Pathway to Peril is one of my favorite AC/DC songs.

How often does the Stringbags have to get called obsolete and then clearly performing excellently and effectively to, like not to be NOT called obsolete?

@melissasmith5109

Ай бұрын

Outdated perhaps out classed no. The stringbag sunk more axis tonnage than any other aircraft

@brucefoster2289

15 күн бұрын

More l I'll keep obsolescent

Thank you

Taranto has been a big part of my childhood thanks to a il2 video about a decade ago

Thank-you for this exposé, Simon. I had never heard about this attack previously.

@Theshropshireratter

Ай бұрын

There's a great documentary on the raid called most daring raids very good.

@jimtaylor294

21 күн бұрын

Most people with a casual knowledge of WWII know about this raid. Simon's narrative is garbage 😂

Very interesting! 👌😊

Swordfish has always been my favourite plane, just on how it kicked ass every time it was called upon.

@ianwilkinson4602

22 күн бұрын

Without them we may never have sunk the Bismark. Another unlikely aircraft that did sterling work to occupied France during the war, was the LYSANDER, a lovely aircraft.

We learned about Taranto from an Airfix Stringbag kit, the box picture greatly exaggerated with the whole port burning merrily.😊

Wow. A bunch of grumpy old men spouted out of the water.

@karlfimm

Ай бұрын

"All around, geezers of water and flame erupted into the air"

Simon Whistler: one of Britain's better known eccentrics.

Billy Mitchell would've been proud.

I grew up near Pearl Harbor. You should really do a deep explanation of the attack

Since Britain and Italy were already at war, wouldn't this simply be a typical attack on docked ships versus a forgotten Pearl Harbor?

@danielherrera2482

Ай бұрын

The similarity with Pearl Harbor isn’t in that it was an attack that completely took the Italians by surprise because they weren’t at war but instead the similarity is in that it was an areal attack on docked ships which I guess wasn’t really a thing beforehand

@Cailus3542

Ай бұрын

An attack like this had never been attempted before. It was anything but typical. The Japanese already had a plan to attack Pearl Harbor, but Taranto was a helpful proof of concept.

@noworriesnoproblems6382

Ай бұрын

No it would not be.

@Turf-yj9ei

Ай бұрын

It's often referred to as Italy's Pearl Harbor because when Japan heard about it they asked Germany to share everything they knew about the attack so they could plan Pearl Harbor. The Japanese literally used Taranto as their blueprint for Pearl Harbor

@frankanderson5012

Ай бұрын

When had there been a ‘typical attack on docked ships’ by carrier borne aircraft with the purpose of specifically knocking out a fleet, that was a surprise and successful?

Taranto was studied closely by the Japanese. If they discovered the trick to making torpedoes work in a shallow-water harbour, by fitting them with wooden breakaway tailfins, then they used it at Pearl Harbour. It's sometimes mentioned that the Japanese realised the US fleet could be attacked in a shallow harbour, because the Royal Navy had just done it, but the secret device is almost never shown. - and the Swordfish was not an antique. It went into service in 1936, the same year the Spitfire flew. Things were moving VERY QUICKLY in aircraft design and use in the 1930s. The Swordfish stayed in production when better designs came along as well, as to change over would have meant no new planes for a year or more in the middle of the war. It was eventually replaced by the Barracuda, Firefly, and several US types purchased to fill the gaps before the Wyvern, Firebrand, and other British designs from the late 1940s. Some aircraft types lasted perhaps one year as front-line weapons. Look up the USNavy's procession of early jets, the Pirate, the Banshee, the Panther, Skynight, Cougar, Tiger, Demon, and many others less successful. The USAir force had a similar progression from the P-80 to the F-86, F-89, F-94, F-100, 101, 102, 104, 105, and many others.

My Dad was a Stoker 2nd Class on Illustrious when she did the Taranto raid.

The most surprising thing is that the Royal Navy knew the vulnerability of ships to carrier dive bombers and torpedo bombers, yet the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sent to intercept the Japanese invasion fleet off the East coast of Malaya, only to be sunk within hours of contact. An act of monumental stupidity.

@paulfriar9952

Ай бұрын

The repulse and Prince of wales weren't sent to do anything other then a deterent. British strategy in Far East relied on the idea that Japan wouldn't dare attack and that if they did they'd hold out on Singapore. A battleship and a battlecruiser weren't meant to do much if war actually broke out. Definition of a paper tiger.

Can you do the battle of monte casino as well as an episode on the history of monte casino itself

Simon, my apologies. Now I got to watch the ending of the video, most importantly the conclusion. I got trigger happy with commenting on this one, right after the opening lines of this one. My bad.

@leighbellouny3904

Ай бұрын

Tell me you didn’t watch the whole video without telling me you didn’t watch the whole video. The last 5 minutes goes over this point

@PsychicalTraumaPL

Ай бұрын

@@leighbellouny3904 touché! I went through half of it, still have to finish it 😅 Good to know that, I guess I'm for the first time happy with spoilers 😅

@leighbellouny3904

Ай бұрын

@@PsychicalTraumaPL I get it. The setup at the beginning definitely made it seem like that was what they were saying. They buried the main idea, that the Japanese got confirmation that their already long planned attack would be feasible. And also, good on you for updating your original comment. Always pays to have an open mind on changing ideas, as fact boi always says

Though you have a tiny credit in the top corner of the screen. It would be nice to give a more obvious credit for the animations from the operations room given how heavily they feature in this video.

I believe some Fulmars took part as well

Fleet Problem XXI was a U.S. Navy exercise conducted in the Pacific near the Hawaiian Islands in April and May of 1940. Like similar exercise going back to 1923, it tested ideas of offensive and defensive naval warfare. Several earlier exercise had considered Japan a likely enemy, but with World War II already underway in Europe and tensions with Tokyo rising, Japan was clearly in the sights of U.S. Navy leaders for Fleet Problem XXI.

@davidelliott5843

Ай бұрын

US top brass considered the Japanese to be fundamentally inferior. They quickly discovered that Japan was a powerful adversary.

"Geezers of Water" [Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy]

The Mediterranean was referred to as cunningham’s pond in ww2

There's nothing forgotten about this this is the key thing that told Roosevelt that Churchill was definitely in it for the Long Haul

A similar one (although it happened on land and there's still debate about who were the attackers) was the bombing of Kassa (then in Hungary). "The bombing of Kassa took place on 26 June 1941, when still unidentified aircraft conducted an airstrike on the city of Kassa, then part of Hungary, today Košice in Slovakia. This attack became the pretext for the government of Hungary to declare war on the Soviet Union the next day, 27 June." (Wikipedia)

Attaching bits of wire to the torpedoes sounds a very British Bodge Job , but did the business

@declansalisbury5698

Ай бұрын

It's not a bodge if it works, brits had to think outside of the box.

Hardly forgotten

Relatively unknown today maybe, but not when I was a kid growing up in Britain in the 1960's, especially if you had the Airfix model aircraft kit of the Swordfish! Sadly it didn't always end well for the Swordfish, the attack on the German pocket battleships Scharnhorst, Geniesenau and heavy battle cruiser Prinz Eugen being less than successful during the infamous channel dash as were aerial attacks by aircraft of the RAF made that day.

The same Andrea Doria that collided with the Stockholm?

As an American I can tell you it probably went something like this. "We are smarter than the Italians so it cannot happen here." Obviously a few argued that it was the exact same situation and would indeed work. In the US military these people would be ignored. You are dealing with the very same people that started a bombing campaign against German cities to break their will shortly after Germany tried bombing British cities to break their will. If I might borrow from a past US Supreme Court judge, they were not higher rank because they were correct, they were correct because they had higher rank.

Stock footage of us navy not royal navy btw

Simon: I’ve always felt like this attack would be less “blueprint”, and more “confirmation” for the Japanese. I say that in view of the 1904 Japanese surprise attack on the Russian Pacific Squadron at Port Arthur. Obviously no aircraft involved, but it was still formative, in terms of Japanese strategy.

your thumb nail picture is by the late artist Robert Taylor . l do have a copy of the print

I used to know a guy that flew one of these i the Pacific theatre....

5:59 Seinfeld reference 🚢, George!

You should make a video that explains why Japan, Germany, France and Great Britain all had extremely reliable aerial and ship launched Torpedoes before 1939, but the USA had torpedoes, aerial and ship, that were utterly worthless, and had a 85% failure rate right up until 1944.

"Kings and Generals" channel made a video about this too, not too long ago.

Got a video covering the booming of Darwin Australia???

It's Sir Lumley St George lyster not sir Arthur lyster. Think you got confused with sir arthur Dowding

Let's be fair Simon. Taranto is reasonably well known amongst the nations that were actually fighting the Axis in 1940. When you say it isn't well known, I think we need to whisper at the end 'by Americans'.

The Royal Navy was the only one with a carrier night fighting ability. I think that's the reason they achieved so much with one carrier. Without that ability, they'd have needed fighter cover/more carriers. Japan had 6? at Pearl Harbour

It's a shame that if only the Americans had studied the British reports about Taranto, it was clear that the Italian barrage balloons were a serious hindrance and if there had been more, the raid could have been foiled. Barrage balloons at Pearl Harbor could have been a major problem for the Japanese dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

At least the Brits were already at war with Italy for a few months when this happened. Not quite as much of an effect as a surprise attack without a declaration of war to prep from. (Or a poorly declared war depending on what lens you look through)

Ber-wick and not Berrick? Simon you have failed! And Eye Tees not I-Ties !

What about the Royal Navy attack on the French fleet at Mers el Kebir?

Lol. Geezers of water.

They could used a radio

Anchorage? Where is this? The place names are confusing me

@BigDave0908

Ай бұрын

The fleet's anchorage was in Taranto.

@StevenMcclaren

Ай бұрын

​@@BigDave0908thank you I was confused as well

@BigDave0908

Ай бұрын

👍🏻 Cheers.

@megansfo

Ай бұрын

At first I thought he meant Anchorage Alaska! For about 90 seconds. Then, I realized it was AN anchorage.

Simon this was a great story but why was most of the footage used of Americian personel ships and aircraft? I understand that footage of the action is imposable but stock footage is out there the Americians where not in the war at the time so again why?

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

Ай бұрын

These channels are lazy. The overall premise is weak at best. The Japanese had already decided to attack Pearl Harbor. They used relatively few torpedoes. Much of the ordinance was level bombers carrying modified 16" Naval shells.

@peterscrafton5212

21 күн бұрын

I agree that this was another excellent video from Whistler & Co, and I agree that the animations were very useful but perhaps not given enough credit. Where I do raid my eyebrows is the inclusion of US forces in a scrap in which they played no part. I know that these videos are prepared initially for American consumption; but I see no reason other than habit for the inclusion of film of US forces. Such actions reinforce the widespread assumption that America won everything, without any help from anyone else. My late (American) wife, a university graduate and MENSA member whose father was a highly-decorated B17 pilot, had no idea until she came to UK, that London was heavily bombed in the Blitz, and was quite convinced that there were only two D-Day beaches, ignoring the two British and the Canadian efforts on the same day. Giving credit where it is due is not jingoism, but education of the ignorant

Read To War in Stringbag, first hand account of the attack and many other stories including being captured and brutal treatment by Vichy French in North Africa.

You mean "more" than 23m deep.

Haven't watched yet, but it has to be the raid on Toronto.

Simon is British isn't he? I was just wondering why he pronounced the name of HMS Berwick wrongly? 🤔

@ABrit-bt6ce

Ай бұрын

He gets an awful lot of English wrong. It's almost like he's never heard of the things and places in the scripts he reads.

You tube is strange. Dies me so much crap like infographics but did not show me this video?!

Wasn't Japan's 1904 surprise attack on the Russian far east fleet the blueprint for Pearl Harbor?

@orwellboy1958

Ай бұрын

Hardly, how many aircraft were involved in 1904?

@johnkesich8696

Ай бұрын

@@orwellboy1958 The specific weapons involved do not undermine the underlying similarities in strategy - a decisive surprise attack before the enemy can react to a declaration of war.

Glad Simone is back for this channel, the other guys was terrible, the owner should be ashamed of that.

Geezer water 😂😂😂

I'm still convinced the generals wanted to get into the WW, and the only way that could happen was if the Japanese had a mostly successful attack on us. It was more successful than they ever thought it would be.

@Cailus3542

Ай бұрын

Not quite. Roosevelt wanted to join in the fight in Europe, not have a new war in the Pacific. The Japanese attack was a nightmare in that regard, as the public would demand retribution against Japan. That left no political room for the US to fight Germany too. The British and Soviets would have to handle things on their own in Europe. Fortunately, Hitler was an idiot. He declared war on the US almost immediately, as did Italy. Roosevelt was actually relieved when that happened.

@highlanderknight

Ай бұрын

​@@Cailus3542Agreed. Roosevelt was hoping the oil embargo would reign in the Japanese and somehow the USA would be able to enter and support the European allies.

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

Ай бұрын

The powers that be had a cultural blindspot with accepting the Japanese as at least equals. This caused everyone to not believe that the Japanese could sail from Japan to Hawaii undetected and launch a surprise attack. Short was shortsighted about radar and didn't use it to any effect. He also didn't have any aircraft up making patrols nor had anyone on the ground ready to go. Nor were the AA batteries that effective at first. It was expected that the Japanese would attack the Philippines first, not second in a nearly simultaneous assault for which MacArthur should really have been court martialled for. Kimmel was only somewhat less culpable than Short.

"Forgotten" No, not really.

Not terrible, but the US Army had a healthy share of the responsibility for the security of Pearl Harbor and Hawaii. Most importantly the US Army Air Corps was responsible for the air defenses.

There are arial photos of Pearl Harbor before the attack and the planes were positioned in circles noses pointing in like targets

52 gallon drop tank, what ever tanks were measured in, it wasn't liters, we lost that war later

Today I Found Out, my arse! I've known about Taranto for 50 years. Like millions of others. Forgotten? BS.

None of the attacking aircraft in either raid was multi-engined. Where did you get the footage "The History Channel" ? They used German He 111s on their Pearl Harbor fiction.

The irony is that the British failed to take the lesson that aircraft could easily sink warships to heart. This would lead to the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse to Japanese aircraft on 10 December 1941......

@highlanderknight

Ай бұрын

Yes, but originally there was to be a carrier with them (cancelled earlier for a reason I cannot recall) or nearby and they were to have support from shore based aircraft (which never materialized). Just think though if there was a squadron or two of fighters to support them, the air attacks could have been disrupted. I remember this every year since their sinkings occurred on my birthday.

@RMSTitanicWSL

Ай бұрын

@@highlanderknight Yes, I'm aware of that, but they still should have stopped and waited for another carrier or land-based air cover. As it is, they decided that the Japanese still wouldn't be able to hurt them, despite Britain's success here, and the Japanese success at Pearl Harbor, which they knew about by that point. It was a stunning blunder by the British High Command.

@highlanderknight

Ай бұрын

@@RMSTitanicWSL In hindsight I agree, but I think they were dead set on intercepting the invasion fleet and really thought they had a chance. Unfortunately the British navy rarely ever backed away from a fight, even outnumbered. I think they were still counting on covering aircraft, but of course aircraft didn't show up until after they were sunk.

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

Ай бұрын

@@highlanderknight Churchill's interference with the navy that he so loved rarely went well for the navy. He didn't learn in WWI that he should let the professional sailors make the decisions on what ships to send where.

Did the Japanese planes have holders inside for their swords? Does anybody know?

@jaybee9269

Ай бұрын

Some did have swords. Don’t know how they stowed them, sorry!

@itarry4

Ай бұрын

Only officers carried swords who were required to but it was a much shorter sword so I doubt many people if any had special holders to carry them.

@Philip271828

Ай бұрын

There's a legend of a tanto (dagger) being mounted to kill the pilots of Kamikaze planes, but that sounds a bit redundant.

Now that Facts Boi has covered one of the Royal Navy greatest triumphant during WWII, now cover one of it's most despicable acts; the 'battle' of Mers El Kebir.

@FallenPhoenix86

Ай бұрын

Unfortunate but not despicable and in fact completely justified. If the French Admiral hadn't been such a pompous arrogant a** then it wouldn't have been necessary.

@Cailus3542

Ай бұрын

@@FallenPhoenix86 The British fleet attacked their allies in cold blood. It was a stab in the back that only made things much worse for both Britain and France in subsequent years.

@FallenPhoenix86

Ай бұрын

@@Cailus3542 No, they didn't attack in cold blood. The British went to great lengths to get the French to either join them, sail to a neutral port in the west Indies or US, or scuttle their fleet. They also told the French they would attack to prevent the fleet falling into German hands. France ignored the ultimatum. That's 4 options the British gave the French, and the French chose to be attacked. The moron (Adm. Gensoul) in charge of the French fleet refused to even talk to the British officer sent to negotiate because he deemed him to be too low in rank to be worthy of his attention. Maybey if Gensoul had cooperated, or just checked his ego, he wouldn't be personally responsible for the bloodbath that ensued. Exactly what did the french think was going to happen after the German's arrived? The "assurances" that the fleet would remain in French hands after occupation were utterly worthless.

@normanboyes4983

Ай бұрын

That was entirely the responsibility of an arrogant and not very wise French admiral.

@highlanderknight

Ай бұрын

The whole thing was unfortunate, unfortunate because the French could have listened to the British but they did not and they had to know the ultimate outcome of refusing.

Rule britania 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧

So, the British are responsible for Pearl Harbor. They gave the Japanese the idea.... 😂

@charlesunderwood6334

Ай бұрын

The British also sank the last functioning ship from Pearl Harbor, sinking the renamed General Belgrano off the Falklands.

Ah, the foibles of human administration and bureaucracy...

))

204th

Its not forgotten for petes 😂😂😂sake.

I've heard this story passed around, is it true that the Japanese targeted American ships because of an old feud with Roosevelt parking the US fleet in their waters?

@VoteBidentoSaveDemocracy

Ай бұрын

T. Roosevelt's use of ships during the early 20th century probably didn't help.

@Cailus3542

Ай бұрын

No, it's not true. The Japanese attacked the US, British and Dutch for strategic reasons, to gain access to valuable resources. Since the US had the largest Allied fleet in the Pacific, the Japanese attacked them first.

@Iamthestig42069

Ай бұрын

Japan has no natural resources. We cut off their supply of steel for their war machine so they disabled the US navy long enough to expand in the pacific.

@ldjackaboy

Ай бұрын

@@Cailus3542 But specifically the ships, nothing else. I'm also thinking it's not true as it seems a bit far-fetched, but it seems to have just enough merit for me to explore it further

@Cailus3542

Ай бұрын

@@ldjackaboy The Japanese were planning on a short war, hence the focus on the battleships and carriers (which weren't there). In a short war, there was no point in attacking shore installations rather than the capital ships.