To Taranto, or not to Taranto

As always, there are two sides to the coin.

Whitshadw makes some great points, and shows the other side (not to raid the Italians home fleet UIK1). I have also seen what Faramir describes what I assume is the UK Med fleet flees to the Red Sea, merges with the Indian fleet, then returns (this gives the axis too much leeway though IMO). Preserving the UK Med fleet, but keeping it in the Med so the Italians can’t get the Med NO’s will still cause damage to the Italians (economically). Egypt and Gibraltar are safe (for now), the axis still need to deal with the French ships, and if the Italians make an early play away from their home port it could leave their ships vulnerable (no air cover).

I have seen what Whitshadw describes when there is a real Sea Lion threat, so why not as an over all strat for the UK? It keeps the Royal Navy in tact, at a very good position, and if nothing else is a distraction for the Axis (could actually abort Sea Lion). Most would agree that in the first few rounds as the UK you just need to survive, preserve what units you can, fortify your most strategic territories and wait for help. You should go offensive when you have a clear advantage, but be watchful of possible traps and counter attacks. Taranto could be viewed as one of those traps.

We all know that a Taranto Raid (UK1) will cripple the Italian navy at the expense of the UK Med navy (axis counter attack). IMO the UK can recover a bit easier then Italy, because they can bring over the Indian navy as a replacement, maybe adding to it from S Africa. This gives the Italians a couple turns to rebound though, and the axis should be able to clear the Med of allied ships and keep it that way for a couple tuns (Italy’s NO).

On a side note, just wondering if they do Taranto…… as the axis do you lift 3 planes in defense of the Italian fleet (assuming you have at least 1 German ftr there), or do you bluff the possibility of scramble to force them to overload the attack so you can trap the UK Med fleet for the counter attack (which also removes some London defense)?  Both ways can create havoc for either side. Sending up the scramble probably won’t save the Italian BB, and will cost the Axis some ftrs, but could weaken the RAF and trap a weaker UK Med fleet for the counter attack (they will have some choices to make). Sending up the planes will also cost the axis some very valuable air units, but if they don’t scramble the UK Med fleet left in SZ97 could be too much for Italy to handle on Ita1, forcing the Germans to hit it taking a toll on the Luftwaffe, not to mention the UK will be able to convoy the Italians if not taken out on their turn.

As the axis I would scramble at least 2 ftrs (probably all 3). There is a slim chance the UK rolls bad, and you save the Italian BB. It also makes the counter attack easier (although you have fewer units to do so).

Sending up some but not all fighters is the worst of both worlds imo. You could make the argument for why Italy should or should not scramble. There are plenty of good reasons for doing either and I feel that it’s very much dependant on the whole strategic situation. But scrambling some usually won’t change the tactical situation all that much on G2 and severely hurts Italy as now they’ve lost not only their fleet but likely at least 1 fighter (depending on how many and what nationality you scramble)

@WILD:

(…)
On a side note, just wondering if they do Taranto… as the axis do you lift 3 planes in defense of the Italian fleet (assuming you have at least 1 German ftr there), or do you bluff the possibility of scramble to force them to overload the attack so you can trap the UK Med fleet for the counter attack (which also removes some London defense)?  Both ways can create havoc for either side. Sending up the scramble probably won’t save the Italian BB, and will cost the Axis some ftrs, but could weaken the RAF and trap a weaker UK Med fleet for the counter attack (they will have some choices to make). Sending up the planes will also cost the axis some very valuable air units, but if they don’t scramble the UK Med fleet left in SZ97 could be too much for Italy to handle on Ita1, forcing the Germans to hit it taking a toll on the Luftwaffe, not to mention the UK will be able to convoy the Italians if not taken out on their turn. (…)

Good question WB!
I’ve done and undergone UK1 Taranto many times and as the Axis I have no intentions to loose the (as good as entire) Italian Navy AND Regia Aeronautica AND 2 German Messerschmidts!
So if I have anything to say about it, the scramblers are there purely to enfore an allied overload. Let them ‘fly from London’ to get it done. If I can scramble and have my planes survive… I’d do it without a second thought so the Uk would be wise to ‘overload’ if they want to do it. If the UK goes in with maximum force I prefer to let them have the battle without scrambling. Then, IT1 I will counterattack using the Italian ships as cannon fodder. See how the UK takes its hits (even 1 hit on the CV will destroy all aircraft on it), possibly just strafing to let Germany finish the job GE2 with much less danger for its invaluable Luftwaffe. I’d loose the Italian fleet over large portions of the Luftwaffe. Anytime.

That’s how I see it too, and I always send at least 1 German ftr to Rome (force them to go all in). If they go full tilt, I would hold back the air scramble, take the hit and hope I get 2 hits (lol) to make my counter attack better odds.

If they go light (maybe the 91 cruiser is dead and they have to use air in sz96, or they keep a ftr back to protect London) then ……

Sink the ships UK1.

Comparatively, Italy loses more based on comparative income to the UK by losing the core of her navy on I1.  Its going to cost Italy multiple turns to build a smaller navy going forward compared to what the UK can build in Canada, S.Africa and later in London.

If that is not enough of a compelling reason to trade hardware, I do not know what is.

Never leave the Italian navy intact, as if they build on it the allies will need to invest further throughout the game to address the threat of a 1-2 punch of Italian navy with a German SS / Aircraft to mop up the survivors.

If you can trade starting hardware and only need to build 3 CV and 1-2 BB to support an initial landing vs needing 4 CV and 4 BB to survive a 1-2 punch… which would you choose?  I’d rather have the flexibility of spending later knowing the Italians are on their “island” for the remainder of the game and the german naval defense is a token defense, not a legitimate threat.

Sink the ships, take the card out of the Axis hand.  Its economic strategy.

Do you use your Mediterranean units during UK1 to destroy the Italian fleet in sea zone #97?

The true answer to this is simply: it depends!

IF German player looses a lot of the Luftwaffe, then you may skip Taranto, destroy the Italian DD plus tranny and meet in sz 92 if you’re still in possesion of vital ships like the Cruiser sz 91,one or two DD’s from sz 106 and/or sz 109 and are able to hold and reinforce Gibraltar.
To hold as long as possible Gibraltar and wait for US Forces is the key in this scenario and shutting down the Italian fleet in the Meds untill US forces arrive so Allied players are able to crush them (how you will proceed is up to you).

BUT:

If German player has still the majority of the Luftwaffe, then go and try for Taranto.
Ignoring the German Luftwaffe will cause, that they simply fly over the sz92 meeting (Teaparty) and sink all UK ships within a few minutes!

A Taranto is only good for if you planning on taking out Italian Fleet quick, but you will need lots of Airpower from London.

The Teaparty is only good for to keep Italys economy and Seaunits in Check untill the US arrives.

I learned it the hard way!

I hear you aequitas!
I’d like to add that ‘Taranto’ depends on if the UK can hold on to Gibraltar untill the USA arrives… This is a very difficult situation but in short it boils down to:

• Italy must NOT be able to take Gibraltar, because Germany can then fly in and sail its fleet into the med.

• Italy must not be able to take Gibraltar…

I think as long as the UK can prevent Italy from taking Gibraltar, virtually anything they do (Taranto or not), will be OK. But Gibraltar must not fall in Italian hands!
I learned that the hard way as well. Not 100% sure about this but I now see loosing Gibraltar and not being able to retake it as a game looser, worse than loosing Egypt for a while. Perhaps the allies can threaten invasions via Iceland (UK NB?) or SZ 108, but with Gibraltar firmly in Axis hands (imagine where Italy and Germany can go from there), I’m not so sure that can work. On the other hand I never tried it as well so maybe it works a lot better than I anticipate atm. Personally I’d love to get  feedback on this by some1 with experience on this, but it may be something for a different thread.

Germany taking Gibraltar is OK if the USA can destroy them there (GER still on the wrong side of the Rock and no air can fly in before the USA attacks).
Did I already mention that Italy must not be able to take Gibraltar ;-)?

So I think any Uk action in the med depends on whether they can hold Italy out of the Rock for as long as the USA is out of the war. And it becomes very complicated and hard to do if the USA is held out of the war until US4. But that may be for another thread as well.

ItIsILeClerc - Yep I have been advocating that Italy must take Gib as well.  Its what got me started on attacking the neutrals with Germany/Italy on Turn 2.  Although I don’t believe that strategy can always work based upon your opponent.  Create a new thread and we can discuss it in detail.

Ahoy Cyanight!

Sound plan. I’ll create one right away  8-).

For me it depends on several things. I will almost always hit sz97 (especially with a sub bid) and it takes a lot for me not to go after it. Factors I consider:

• Did the Germans take air losses on G1?
• Did the RAF take losses on G1?
• Did Germany buy ground units and/or DOW Russia?
• How much of the Kriegsmarine is still afloat on UK1 and did Germany buy more ships?
• Did Germany send air to SITA?
• Did I or do I plan on spending big in the Atlantic with US in the first couple rounds?
• What round does it look like Japan’s going to DOW in the Pac?
• What do I know about my opponent? Is he a strong player? Does he favor SL? etc

@Whitshadw

Nice idea, but you will lose this navy to the Luftwaffe who can wipe it out on G2. Our german player always takes S-France on G1, thus having a landing space for his planes.(fighter and Tac bomb from south italy he places their on G1 and he buys a carrier on G2 so he can land the german fighters in SZ93. Isn’t it better to buy an airbase on gibralter on UK1 so you can scramble your fighters?

Kudos to @Whitshadw, I have not liked Taranto, but never find better options for the UK fleet. Gibastion never really worked for me…

Since the plan does not detail the UK1 buy, an airbase for Gibraltar is a possible supplement to this strategy, but in general it is not necessary.

It would only be necessary, if as @Cornwallis mentioned S. France is taken G1.
Without S. France or Algeria, there is no place to land before the UK fleet can escape to the Atlantic if necessary–i.e. full Luftwaffe deployment to Med+ whatever German subs work south.

The key for this to me was the DD blocker, with the French it keeps the UK fleet safe from direct attack by the Italians. Although the Italians won’t win, they can’t soften up the fleet for the Luftwaffe coup de grace–specifically hurting the CV. It also ensures the amphib assault fails, because now there is no shore bombard attack.

All this is great, BUT there is the downside that Italy can move all units in Africa to Egypt since there will be no air units to support a counter attack. They can only land UK2 in Egypt to defend.
Assuming UK turtles in Egypt, and Italy moves all-in. Then with the 2 transports, Italy could bring enough units to win Egypt on I2. Sure the UK fleet can move back to SZ98 to block, but now you’re losing the fleet again to a lesser navy and Egypt is endangered.

You gained nothing for your positioning except probably lost a DD blocker. Depending on how the Italians are spread out after attacking the French fleet (if necessary due to Vichy rules if active), you might try Taranto 2.0, but that is not as good as the original attack, if the Italian are in SZ97 with 1 BB, 2 CA, 1DD and 3 ftrs to scramble.

So I’ve saved my fleet but lost Egypt, not sure that is a good thing.

@surfer @Cornwallis

You have to taranto…

But the loss of just 2 fighters makes Sea-Lion a certain thing. Germany can take London if it wants post-Taranto. Even if all the fighters stay home, its still pretty close odds OOB. And if you don’t stop Italy you’re spending all your $$ and units for several turns, pinned down and stuck in the UK.

If you don’t break Italy, it can just pile onto the sea-lion.

@taamvan Yes it’s the least bad of two options so you have to do it. I have tried all other options and sooner or later i find myself confronted with a Taranto 2.0

I’m not convinced…Taranto always seems to lead to an Italian occupation of Egypt from my experience…which consumes all the UK expenditure to eject them.
Even if taranto goes well, every ship and plane in sz 97 will be sunk by the combined Italian/german counterstrike…Uk might have a bomber, tac, and 2 fighters sitting in Malta at the best. Italy then buys another tt, surrounds Cairo with its African army and overwhelms the UK garrison I2
With Gibastion (which always needs an AB bought) all available planes and ships are concentrated. The AB allows all planes to fly to Cairo if needed…two tts are there as well to reinforce either London or Cairo. The whole fleet and all fighters can relocate to the channel if needed to block any sealion attempt. If the luftwaffe want to mass airstrike the fleet, then yes it will be sunk but so will nearly all the German air guaranteeing Russian survival. The Italian fleet is too weak even when concentrated to move far from the protection of sz97 or sz95.
Killing it will be harder later on but when the US join in the Italian fleets days are numbered…US/Uk subs and air will soon finish it off.

Thats my two pennorth of thought anyway!

@wizmark i agree with you and very often aply that tactic. But almost every time i do this i have to do Taranto 2.0 sooner or later and have to overinvest in the Med with UK. Italy with two tpt can be unpredictable,especially with a german fleet buy or luftwaffe support.

@wizmark If a ship survives taranto, and the 91 cruiser or another ship survives the other battle (dd+tt) the italians are screened out and cannot amphib the surviving bomber, tac and fighter(s) that are on Syria.

Gibbastion is a great alternative, but the Italians + Germans are compelled to attack that.

@taamvan Well, for the Italian attack to have any hope Germany has to take S France. Otherwise it is a sub, dd, 2 cruisers, a bb and bomber against dd, 2 cruisers, 1 carrier, 4 fighters and a tac. 18 strength against 29. if the dd from 109 joins strength is 31 Even with the fighters it is 24 against 29/31. Uk will do more damage to Italy overall than taranto, killing all the Italian fleet as well as the Italian air whilst not losing any more units than from the counter into 97 and 96 from the axis. And to be honest if germany takes S France then i am leaving a dd in sz 94 to block. And again if G sends the whole luftwaffe to deal with the UK fleet then that is an allied strategic win.

I agree that I1 Italy cannot take egypt after Taranto…but by I2 the north african army and the ethiopians can hit cairo…all the air can hit as they can land in alex and if Italy has bough another tt that is another 4 units to amphib in. UK cant get enough troops and air to stop this and there is no fleet left to block. Land a few german air to stiffen the garrison, ferry a G inf across and axis is making an extra 12 ipcs a round from egypt. Very hard for Uk on 28 ipc to counter this.

@wizmark If you taranto, they just take London. I’ve posed the gibstack as a solution to that dynamic and will continue to try and make it work (by including your details)