Jump to content


We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!


Photo
- - - - -

The Italian Navy during World War II


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#26 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 16,573 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 03 November 2008 - 02:15 PM

Please, stop to confuse conveniently the allies forces with the real british forces that were just a small part of them. It is only a mere propaganda.


Does it matter so much that you bring it up in each and every post?

I would suggest strongly that you find another drum to beat and stop denigrating the important work of the British Allies.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#27 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 02:23 PM

Does it matter so much that you bring it up in each and every post?

I would suggest strongly that you find another drum to beat and stop denigrating the important work of the British Allies.


I don't deny the british support, but they were a small part of all the allies forces, who can deny it? It's not fair to forget the indians, the south africans, the new zealanders, the australians, the french and over melting everything under the name british led from Montgomery.

Edited by THE_TRUTH_HURTS, 05 November 2008 - 11:55 AM.


#28 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 16,573 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 03 November 2008 - 03:30 PM

You have attacked me and I have sent you the proper answer. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't deny the british support, but they were a small part of all the allies forces, who can deny it? It's not fair to forget the indians, the south africans, the new zealanders, the australians, the french and over melting everything under the name british led from Montgomery.


Attacked you? You've not seen an attack, but you may.

There is not a soul in this forum who has ever stated that British Army was made up entirely of Britons. That has been long understood.

My concern is your harping on the subject.

You have been asked, now I am telling you. Do not bring it up again.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#29 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 03:37 PM

Attacked you? You've not seen an attack, but you may.

There is not a soul in this forum who has ever stated that British Army was made up entirely of Britons. That has been long understood.

My concern is your harping on the subject.

You have been asked, now I am telling you. Do not bring it up again.


Ok, so let's call them currectly "allies", not british army, to avoid misunderstandings and to give honour to all the countries that fought in the WW2.

#30 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 16,573 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 03 November 2008 - 03:46 PM

Ok, so let's call them currectly "allies", not british army, to avoid misunderstandings and to give honour to all the countries that fought in the WW2.


I'll call them what I dang well please and the membership is welcomed to do the same.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#31 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 03:52 PM

I'll call them what I dang well please and the membership is welcomed to do the same.


Ok, you can do it but don't be surprised if somebody won't understand what you say. The history is not an opinion, it is real and precise facts.

#32 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 16,573 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 03 November 2008 - 03:54 PM

Ok, you can do it but don't be surprised if somebody won't understand what you say. The history is not an opinion, it was real facts.


I'll take the chance.

Let's move on, shall we?

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#33 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 04:17 PM

It's ok, after all the forums are made to discuss.

#34 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 03 November 2008 - 04:41 PM

You have attacked me and I have sent you the proper answer.


I don't really know what is in your mind, but making false accusations to a respected (they all are) Moderator of this forum is usually not the wisest course, but you'll know what's best for you. Have you noticed that little red flame on your screen?

Forums are made to discuss, yes, but we appreciate hard facts, not airy opinions or phantasies. I'm logging out of this thread, it appears not much of use will come of it anyway.

Thank you for your time, no need to reply because I won't be reading it.

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#35 JCFalkenbergIII

JCFalkenbergIII

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,479 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 04:54 PM

In order to keep this thread open I suggest we just ignore him. I don't want it closed because of someone with an agenda.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

#36 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 05:50 PM

I don't really know what is in your mind, but making false accusations to a respected (they all are) Moderator of this forum is usually not the wisest course, but you'll know what's best for you. Have you noticed that little red flame on your screen?

Forums are made to discuss, yes, but we appreciate hard facts, not airy opinions or phantasies. I'm logging out of this thread, it appears not much of use will come of it anyway.

Thank you for your time, no need to reply because I won't be reading it.


Sorry, maybe I haven't understood the rules of this forum. Why have I a red flame? Why having a discussion with a moderator is a fault? What are my fantasies? Answer me, so I can learn how to do.

#37 mikebatzel

mikebatzel

    Dreadnaught

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,185 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 05:55 PM

Since this thread is called the Italian Navy during WWII we shall stick with naval information. That is quite in impressive list you supplied about British ships sunk in the Med but let us focus on fleet engagements as opposed to mainly single ship actions (mostly between Italian destroyers and British subs, which of course I would bet on a destroyer any day).
Battle of Calabria
the first naval engagement between Italy and Britain. Britain suffers 1 light cruiser and two destroyers severly damaged to Italy’s 1 battleship, 1 heavy cruiser, and 1 destroyer heavily damaged. The battle is generally considered a draw, though it is worthy to note that Italy did hold numerical superiority. Here is some further reading on the subject.
Action off Calabria

Battle of Taranto
A raid on the Italian Navy in port, the British launched a raid which would heavily influence the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor. While in port the Italians suffered one battleships sunk, Two more damaged, and a light cruiser damaged
Battle of Taranto - Raid on Taranto - Italian Navy at Taranto - British Attack on Taranto - World War II - WWII Raid on Taranto

Battle of Cape Matapan
Here Italy suffered a devistating defeat. Lossing three cruisers and two destroyer. In addition the battleship Vittorio Veneto was heavily damaged. The italian fleet was only able to lightly damage a few british cruisers.
Cape Matapan : Battles : History : Royal Navy

EDIT: Sorry JC, just noticed your post. Hadn't refreshed in a while.
  • Za Rodinu likes this
Please give the Combined Fleet the chance to bloom as flowers of death. This is the navy’s earnest request. RADM Tasuku Nakazawa prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf
It is the function of the Navy to carry the war to the enemy so that it will not be fought on U.S. soil. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

#38 JCFalkenbergIII

JCFalkenbergIII

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,479 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 06:00 PM

Sorry JC, just noticed your post. Hadn't refreshed in a while.


No prob there Mike. And thanks for the info related to the original subject :) .
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

#39 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 06:25 PM

Since this thread is called the Italian Navy during WWII we shall stick with naval information. That is quite in impressive list you supplied about British ships sunk in the Med but let us focus on fleet engagements as opposed to mainly single ship actions (mostly between Italian destroyers and British subs, which of course I would bet on a destroyer any day).
Battle of Calabria
the first naval engagement between Italy and Britain. Britain suffers 1 light cruiser and two destroyers severly damaged to Italy’s 1 battleship, 1 heavy cruiser, and 1 destroyer heavily damaged. The battle is generally considered a draw, though it is worthy to note that Italy did hold numerical superiority. Here is some further reading on the subject.
Action off Calabria

Battle of Taranto
A raid on the Italian Navy in port, the British launched a raid which would heavily influence the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor. While in port the Italians suffered one battleships sunk, Two more damaged, and a light cruiser damaged
Battle of Taranto - Raid on Taranto - Italian Navy at Taranto - British Attack on Taranto - World War II - WWII Raid on Taranto

Battle of Cape Matapan
Here Italy suffered a devistating defeat. Lossing three cruisers and two destroyer. In addition the battleship Vittorio Veneto was heavily damaged. The italian fleet was only able to lightly damage a few british cruisers.
Cape Matapan : Battles : History : Royal Navy

EDIT: Sorry JC, just noticed your post. Hadn't refreshed in a while.


Granted that the italian navy hadn't the radar, problem that caused disasters like Taranto when the battleships didn't see the british airforce, granted that in Italy there were the anti fascists who transmitted to Alexandria and to London the informations that permitted to the british to intercept the italian fleets, granted that the italians had lacks of supplies like the fuel differently from the british who were supported in every possible way from the allies, I can list the italian winning battles (excluding the single ones one to one previously listed), fought in the Mediterranean sea:

- FIRST BATTLE OF SIRTE
- SECOND BATTLE OF SIRTE
- MID JUNE
- MID AUGUST

#40 mikebatzel

mikebatzel

    Dreadnaught

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,185 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 07:02 PM

The first Battle of Sirte was inconclusive. A superior Italian fleet disengaged and fled after an hour, failing to sink anything.

The second Battle of Sirte is considered by all except Italians (due to propaganda of the time?) to have been a tactical success for the British.

By mid-August are you referring to Operation Pedestal? Again, this is a naval thread. Land based air attack does not count. There was no major fleet action. though I will admit the MTB's preformed well in the early morning hours of the 13th.

I have no Idea what you mean by mid-June
Please give the Combined Fleet the chance to bloom as flowers of death. This is the navy’s earnest request. RADM Tasuku Nakazawa prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf
It is the function of the Navy to carry the war to the enemy so that it will not be fought on U.S. soil. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

#41 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 07:14 PM

The first Battle of Sirte was inconclusive. A superior Italian fleet disengaged and fled after an hour, failing to sink anything.

The second Battle of Sirte is considered by all except Italians (due to propaganda of the time?) to have been a tactical success for the British.

By mid-August are you referring to Operation Pedestal? Again, this is a naval thread. Land based air attack does not count. There was no major fleet action. though I will admit the MTB's preformed well in the early morning hours of the 13th.

I have no Idea what you mean by mid-June



Those were all italian victories classifiable like naval battles (so excluding the tens of single successful attacks previously listed). The mid june was the operation Vigorous.

Edited by THE_TRUTH_HURTS, 05 November 2008 - 11:56 AM.


#42 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 03 November 2008 - 07:49 PM

One of the rules of the forum is to leave out personal allusions, to avoid other words. Do yourself a favour and avoid those "Please if you want to re write the history to belittle everything that wasn't british,..." and provide facts to back up your arguments. In Americanese that is the equivalent of "having a chip on your shoulder". Maybe that would help your position.

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#43 mikebatzel

mikebatzel

    Dreadnaught

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,185 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 08:09 PM

Please if you want to re write the history to belittle everything that wasn't british, we can't discuss. Those were all italian victories classifiable like naval battles (so excluding the tens of single successful attacks previously listed). The mid june was the operation Vigorous.

I didn't claim that the First battle of Sirte was a British victory. nor did I claim that Operation Pedestal was a Italian loss. What I said was

The first Battle of Sirte was inconclusive. A superior Italian fleet disengaged and fled after an hour, failing to sink anything.

The second Battle of Sirte is considered by all except Italians (due to propaganda of the time?) to have been a tactical success for the British.

By mid-August are you referring to Operation Pedestal? Again, this is a naval thread. Land based air attack does not count. There was no major fleet action. though I will admit the MTB's preformed well in the early morning hours of the 13th.


I have never tried to rewrite history, nor will I. I have not made any claims which cannot be backed by fact, and have even provided links to information. your previous statement is laughable.

What I write is so real that wouldn't have the need of supports.

You are correct in that there is no more need to discuss this topic with you. I am interested in the navies of all countries during the war, and will revert to discussing historical occurences with those who share my interest. Untill you read a book or two, goodbye
Please give the Combined Fleet the chance to bloom as flowers of death. This is the navy’s earnest request. RADM Tasuku Nakazawa prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf
It is the function of the Navy to carry the war to the enemy so that it will not be fought on U.S. soil. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

#44 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 08:30 PM

One of the rules of the forum is to leave out personal allusions, to avoid other words. Do yourself a favour and avoid those "Please if you want to re write the history to belittle everything that wasn't british,..." and provide facts to back up your arguments. In Americanese that is the equivalent of "having a chip on your shoulder". Maybe that would help your position.


Ok, so I understand that at the same time if people tell me something similar, they will have also the red flame.

Edited by THE_TRUTH_HURTS, 03 November 2008 - 08:37 PM.


#45 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 08:34 PM

I didn't claim that the First battle of Sirte was a British victory. nor did I claim that Operation Pedestal was a Italian loss. What I said was


I have never tried to rewrite history, nor will I. I have not made any claims which cannot be backed by fact, and have even provided links to information. your previous statement is laughable.

You are correct in that there is no more need to discuss this topic with you. I am interested in the navies of all countries during the war, and will revert to discussing historical occurences with those who share my interest. Untill you read a book or two, goodbye


These are the links:

www.comandosupremo.com

www.regiamarina.net (if you understand the italian, then go to storia/battaglie navali)

Good bye

#46 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 16,573 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 03 November 2008 - 08:54 PM

Ok, so I understand that at the same time if people tell me something similar, they will have also the red flame.


No, but if they persist in making baseless claims such as the Matilda being a US product as you did, then they will.;)

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#47 mikebatzel

mikebatzel

    Dreadnaught

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,185 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 08:59 PM

From your source of information www.comandosupremo.com

December 17 - First battle of Sirte ends indecisively.






SECOND BATTLE OF SIRTE
March 22 - Admiral Iachino sets sail in his flagship, the Vittorio Veneto, along with 2 heavy cruisers, the Gorizia and Trento, light cruiser Bande Nere and four destroyers to intercept a convoy. The convoy were protected by 3 fast frigates, along with the Clan Campbell, the Pampas the Norwegian Talabot, the Breconshire , the Carlisle and 6 destroyers were then joined by the Penelope and the destroyer Legion.
At 9:30 A.M., Italian torpedo bombers began the attack on the convoy and it's escorts, causing no damage. The Luftwaffe then appeared and again no damage to the convoy. At 1:30 P.M., most of the Italian and Allied ships made sight of each other. The Allied fleet immediately began making smoke to prevent accurate range finding by the Italian vessels. The Italian heavy cruisers opened fire and began to turn away once the Carlisle and a destroyer began to fire back. The British assumed they were retreating. It was, however, a trick to attempt to get the Allied ships within range of the still unseen Battleship Littorio's 15" guns. The Allies did not fall for it.
At 4:30 P.M., the opposing fleets again made sight of each other. The Euryalus and the Cleopatra were both peppered by Italian shells. The winds began to increase to gail force strength and coupled with the smoke screen, it became difficult for the Italian ships to get into position to fire. Once the Vittorio Veneto found a clearing, it badly damaged two Allied destroyers (one had reduced speed, the other temporary crippled in the water). With the worsening of conditions, and slight damage to the Vittorio Veneto, Admiral Iachino disengaged the attack. The Lanciere and Scirocco sink from the gail off Sicily

Why is the second battle of Sirte considered a Tactical victory for Britain? they successfully protected the convoy from utter destruction. Strategically Italy turned back the convoy, but the battle goes to Britain. And you say I rewrite History. You have manipulated the information to support an agenda. As I said before Goodbye. I will not discuss this with you any further
  • Slipdigit likes this
Please give the Combined Fleet the chance to bloom as flowers of death. This is the navy’s earnest request. RADM Tasuku Nakazawa prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf
It is the function of the Navy to carry the war to the enemy so that it will not be fought on U.S. soil. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

#48 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 09:23 PM

From your source of information www.comandosupremo.com





Why is the second battle of Sirte considered a Tactical victory for Britain? they successfully protected the convoy from utter destruction. Strategically Italy turned back the convoy, but the battle goes to Britain. And you say I rewrite History. You have manipulated the information to support an agenda. As I said before Goodbye. I will not discuss this with you any further


The british battleships were damaged and retreated, it is an italian victory even if not a triumph. Read also the site of Regia Marina.

#49 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 09:29 PM

No, but if they persist in making baseless claims such as the Matilda being a US product as you did, then they will.;)


The only difference is that I have had the red flame and some "suggestion" because I am not british minded. ;)

#50 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 16,573 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 03 November 2008 - 09:59 PM

The only difference is that I have had the red flame and some "suggestion" because I am not british minded. ;)

I gave you that red flame and for the reason I stated. I don't need to be told under what conditions I gave it.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users