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

#51 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,945 posts
  • LocationPhoenix Arizona

Posted 04 November 2008 - 12:38 AM

Second Sirte was a victory for the British. Their intention was to resupply Malta by convoy. Their forces consisted of the three available light cruisers of the Dido class (and these are very light cruisers) along with ten destroyers. The convoy itself consisted of just four freighers.

The Italian navy intercepted this convoy with the battleship Littorio, two heavy and one light cruiser along with eight destroyers; a far superior force. The Italians, for whatever reason, decided to engage the British with long range gunnery. The British responded by laying smoke frustrating this plan.

The British then made an aggressive torpedo attack against the Italian fleet forcing them onto the defensive. The three British cruisers present used their gunfire to support the attack from a range of about 13,000 yards.

The Italians scored several hits on the destroyers including three 15" (one each) on three of them. The British launched an ineffective torpedo attack following which the Italians withdrew. The only British cruiser hit was Cleopatra. She suffered a single 6" hit from Littorio's secondary battery. This shell hit the compass platform about two feet above the deck causing very minor damage.

The Luftwaffe attacked the convoy on several occasions thereafter sinking two of the merchant ships. The other two made Malta where they were subsequently sunk in harbor by air attack after partially unloading.

The unaggressive and lethargic performance of such an overwhelming Italian naval force cannot be glossed over. The Italians in daylight had sufficent forces and firepower present that they should have easily overcome the British forces present. But, the British acted far more aggressively and won the day even if the damage to both sides was relatively minimal.

#52 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 04 November 2008 - 07:06 PM

Considering that the italian navy hadn't the radar, problem that caused disasters like Taranto when the battleships didn't see the british airforce in time, considering also 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, considering 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 (Operation Vigorous)
- MID AUGUST

Sources:

www.regiamarina.net

www.comandosupremo.com

Anyway , everyone can believe what he wants..

Edited by THE_TRUTH_HURTS, 04 November 2008 - 08:30 PM.


#53 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 04 November 2008 - 11:44 PM

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


This is ridiculous, you have already reached the stage of repeating yourself.

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#54 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 12:10 AM

This is ridiculous, you have already reached the stage of repeating yourself.


Repeated posts for repeated deluded, it's not my fault.

#55 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,945 posts
  • LocationPhoenix Arizona

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:38 AM

At Second Sirte radar made absolutely no difference. First, most of the British ships had not been fitted with sets yet and those that did have radar, like the three light cruisers only had basic air and surface warning / search sets that were completely unsuited to fire control applications. The most typical set was either a Type 79 or 279. All were in the metric wavelength and so inaccurate that they could not be even used for ranging.

Also, one should note that the Italians did develop and deploy radar of their own. The set deployed operationally was the EC 3 Gufo radar. It worked on a 70cm wavelenght and was roughly comparable in accuracy to the earlier German Seetakt radar. The Littorio was fitted with one such set using seperate transmit and receive horns by late 1941 so actually had radar on board at Second Sirte and, had a set equal to or better than any British ones present.
Now, whether the Italians actually made use of this equipment or not cannot be determined by me but, it was present.
  • Slipdigit likes this

#56 mikebatzel

mikebatzel

    Dreadnaught

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,185 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 11:41 AM

Considering that the italian navy hadn't the radar, problem that caused disasters like Taranto when the battleships didn't see the british airforce in time, considering also 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, considering 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 (Operation Vigorous)
- MID AUGUST

Sources:

www.regiamarina.net

www.comandosupremo.com

Anyway , everyone can believe what he wants..

No. You are believing what you want. Now that I have had time to read through both sites you have provided, niether of them make claims that Italy won either battle of Sirte. Try reading a book on the subject. Maybe then you might actually learn something.
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

#57 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 11:58 AM

No. You are believing what you want. Now that I have had time to read through both sites you have provided, niether of them make claims that Italy won either battle of Sirte. Try reading a book on the subject. Maybe then you might actually learn something.


They were italian victories, even if they weren't disasters for the british.

Read the sites I have posted.

#58 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 05 November 2008 - 12:09 PM

Posted Image

Posted Image


Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#59 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:09 PM

Posted Image






Posted Image


Is this the respect? Mah..

Edited by THE_TRUTH_HURTS, 05 November 2008 - 01:19 PM.


#60 Otto

Otto

    No More Half Measures

  • Administrators
  • 8,216 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

3   

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:26 PM

Repeated posts for repeated deluded, it's not my fault.


Is this respect? Mah..


It seems you are quite selective with the term respect. It only applies when people direct comment to you?

Listen, you honestly need to calm down. If you have nothing to add to a discussion, rehashing the same old stuff is useless. And don't put it down to a "western" view, perche Io sono Italiano. I know that the Italians got a bad reputation in WWII, and a some of it is exaggeration, but be objective.

Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at ottomail.png
Twitter_logo_blue_16.png twitter


#61 mikebatzel

mikebatzel

    Dreadnaught

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,185 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:26 PM

They were italian victories, even if they weren't disasters for the british.

Read the sites I have posted.

For the third time, I have read the sites provided by you and they state nothing along the line of what you said.
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

#62 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:32 PM

This is ridiculous, you have already reached the stage of repeating yourself.


Ridicolous or thick are not compliments, instead deluded is just an adjective that means that somebody could be simply misinformed.

I think always more that it is not possible to have global free discussions on this site.

#63 Otto

Otto

    No More Half Measures

  • Administrators
  • 8,216 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

3   

Posted 05 November 2008 - 03:06 PM

Ridicolous or thick are not compliments, instead deluded is just an adjective that means that somebody could be simply misinformed.

Well then you are deluded about this subject. :D

I think always more that it is not possible to have global free discussions on this site.

We've been having free discussion for eight years, and now you show up and say different? Like I said, deluded.

Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at ottomail.png
Twitter_logo_blue_16.png twitter


#64 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 03:18 PM

Well then you are deluded about this subject. :D

We've been having free discussion for eight years, and now you show up and say different? Like I said, deluded.


I have doubts that we have the same idea of freedom.

#65 Otto

Otto

    No More Half Measures

  • Administrators
  • 8,216 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

3   

Posted 05 November 2008 - 03:27 PM

I have doubts that we have the same idea of freedom.

Ugh. Now we are throwing around "freedom"?

So let me see, I disagree with you and now we have a different "idea of freedom"? Typically if someone posts a certain view, one then posts a counter-argument, which is usually on the topic of discussion. A counter argument doesn't involve those issues typically means you have no support for your argument.

Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at ottomail.png
Twitter_logo_blue_16.png twitter


#66 THE_TRUTH_HURTS

THE_TRUTH_HURTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 05:07 PM

Ugh. Now we are throwing around "freedom"?

So let me see, I disagree with you and now we have a different "idea of freedom"? Typically if someone posts a certain view, one then posts a counter-argument, which is usually on the topic of discussion. A counter argument doesn't involve those issues typically means you have no support for your argument.


You can think what you want, you can deny, like others, also the WW2 italian naval winning battles if you desire. It's not my problem, I know the truth, and the sites posted say it very clearly.

I have been persecuted because I have expressed different views about the history, this is the lack of freedom. You don't concern anything in this question, no faults.

Edited by THE_TRUTH_HURTS, 05 November 2008 - 06:25 PM.


#67 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 05 November 2008 - 05:46 PM

Now he managed to raise the Deep the ghost of Otto the Forum Owner!

Congrats, you win the t-shirt for the Stubborn of the Month :D

Posted Image


Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#68 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 16,633 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 05 November 2008 - 05:57 PM

Now he managed to raise the Deep the ghost of Otto the Forum Owner!


And, got him speaking Italian, too.

I'd be careful, GröFaz has less tolerance than I do.


Edit:
I just noticed this

THE_TRUTH_HURTS
You are not in the question.

I can see that this is probably not going to end well.

Edited by SlipdigitBK, 05 November 2008 - 06:03 PM.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#69 mikebatzel

mikebatzel

    Dreadnaught

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,185 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:57 PM

I will attempt to get this thread back on track, however vain it currently appears

Posted Image
Never completed, but man she looked close to it.

A brief analysis of the Italian Navy
during World War II



In the Mediterranean, the situation of military power, in terms of quantity, appeared to be balanced. The Italian Fleet, of some importance for the number of surface and submarine forces, could have withstood the heavy weight of the opposing French and English forces. After Italy's entry into the war, June 10 1940, this apparently balanced situation was gradually compromised by several factors, including
  • The stronger British power in naval aviation.
  • Italian lack of instruments of detection (radar) and fuel.
  • British ability to easily resort to naval and industrial power from other sectors of operation to replace losses in the Mediterranean.
Despite these adversities, the Italian Navy, in more than three years of hard engagement, was able to reach the peace table with all of its battleships.

Italian naval forces fought on all seas. The men from the special forces, submariners, naval aviators, crew from small and large ships and marines from the regiment San Marco, clearly distinguished themselves for their perseverance and valor in obeying the law which states that "when the Motherland is at war, everyone must obey up to the ultimate sacrifice".

Posted Image

July 9th, 1940. Cruisers of the 2nd Squadron on route to Calabria
(Photo USMM)

Between 1940 and 1943, along with the Merchant Marine, the Italian Navy , despite the bitter opposition from British naval and aerial forces, was able to deliver to North Africa 86% of all war material and 92% of all troops shipped.

Some data eloquently summarizes the Italian effort in the war at sea: 3 million hours of operations for a total of 37 million miles sailed, equal to 2000 trips around the equator. 126,000 hours of aerial observation with 31,107 missions.

The naval routes with Albania, Greece and North Africa were always operational, averaging four concurrent convoys at sea. Transportation between the areas of operation was never interrupted. Such a result must be considered admirable especially considering the limited forces in place and the presence and location of the British military base of Malta. British traff on the prescribed routes toward Africa could have easily been considered an absurdity.

Nevertheless, the Mercantile Navy completed its assignment at the incredibly high price of 2,513 ships sunk between June 10,1940 and September 8, 1943.
The "Medaglia d'Oro al Valor Militare" awarded to the flag of the Italian Navy, to the Special Forces, the cruiser San Giorgio, and the submarine Scire along with 158 "Medaglie d'Oro al Valore" and the 4 "al Valore di Marina", clearly represent the highest possible measurement of the sacrifice and the devotion to the Motherland shown by the Italian Navy between 1940 and 1945.
http://regiamarina.net/ref/analysis/analysis_us.htm
In white for now to see if TTH calls me a liar again
  • 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

#70 JCFalkenbergIII

JCFalkenbergIII

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,479 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:22 PM

Seeing the pic of the "Aquila" reminded me of this.

Posted Image


"Prior to World War II, the Italian high command saw no reason to build aircraft carriers as they already had an unsinkable one, their own country, sitting smack dab in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. The daring strikes undertaken by the British aircraft carriers soon proved them wrong. It certainly didn’t help that the Italian Air Force was not especially good at over water navigation and they seemed to bomb Italian ships as often as British ones! On mature consideration, it might be nice to have an aircraft carrier that can accompany the other ships and have airmen who can tell the difference between British and Italian ships. \ Taken in hand for conversion from the civilian liner Roma during 1941, Aquila, which means “Eagle”, was never commissioned as an aircraft carrier. She nearing the completion of her conversion in 1943 when Italy surrendered to the Allies. The Germans captured the hull, but before they could act on her, the Allies initiated air and human torpedo attacks that kept her immobilized. Plans for the ship’s airgroup were to use modified Re 2001 fighter aircraft. Initially they would consist of aircraft with non-folding wings, though plans were made to create a folding-wing version that would have allowed more aircraft to be carried. Various ordnance loads were contemplated for the Re 2001s including a torpedo option, the Re 2001G. Scuttled by the Germans, Aquila was raised and broken up in 1951-52."

Aquila, Ships of Battlegroup
[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.

#71 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:55 PM

The Allies would be better off leaving the Aquila alone and let the Germans make a mess of it :D

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#72 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:17 PM

Nevertheless, the Mercantile Navy completed its assignment at the incredibly high price of 2,513 ships sunk between June 10,1940 and September 8, 1943.

That figure looks high to me, are you sure it's not "ships lost" and so includes the ships that were lost because cought outside the Med at the time of the decalaration of war.

Some sources I have (as usual I can't find the one I'm really looking for which is the one from Ufficio Storico Della Marina) :mad::
"Le battaglie navali del mediterraneo" [A. Petacco]
Merchants lost in the Med.
672 ships for 2.916.000 tonns.
"Match pari fra due grandi flotte" [V. di Sambuy}
Ships lost because "out of the med" on 10/6/40
212 ships for 1.213.637
Ships available on 10/6/40 excluding above
574 ships for 2.101.492
Losses 1940-1943 about 2.000.000 tonns

While I found the whole tread up to your intervention painful, some of the points he made are not totally devoid of truth. You said "with all it's battleships", some other members quoted Cavour sunk at Taranto, does this look "sunk"?
[ATTACH]4004[/ATTACH]

BTW I think you failed to mention the biggest handicap the Regia laboured under, they routinely comunicated the ships movemets to the Germans (to avoid accidental bombing by the Luftwaffe) and the Germans used ULTRA so the allies where aware of practically all Italian ship movements. This generated a lot of controversy in Italy after the war and traitors in high places were suspected after analizing the way the British always managed to catch the Italian convoys and usually sortied within minutes of the Italian fleet leaving harbour. It's impossible to wage a successful naval war if your opponent has perfect intelligence of your movements and you have to guess theirs.

Attached Files


Edited by TiredOldSoldier, 06 November 2008 - 07:28 AM.
Did not pay attention to a line in mike's thread


#73 Otto

Otto

    No More Half Measures

  • Administrators
  • 8,216 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

3   

Posted 06 November 2008 - 05:09 AM

You can think what you want, you can deny, like others, also the WW2 italian naval winning battles if you desire. It's not my problem, I know the truth, and the sites posted say it very clearly.

I never denied any victories or losses, I never even discussed Italy actually. All you've actually said is that your truth is better than our truth.

I have been persecuted because I have expressed different views about the history, this is the lack of freedom. You don't concern anything in this question, no faults.

Ahh, but I do concern everything in this question. You know why? I happen to know the guy that runs this place. He told me that everyone here feels persecuted by a single overbearing member. This overbearing members actually thinks the concept of freedom extends to posts they make on someone else's website. He then told me he sent this guy to the Cooler for 10 days.
  • JCFalkenbergIII and Slipdigit like this

Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at ottomail.png
Twitter_logo_blue_16.png twitter


#74 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 06 November 2008 - 08:34 AM

Here and here a nice chronology of the Italian naval campaigns that I found in an interesting site.

Quite pretty ships, here's the Caio Duilio!
Posted Image

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#75 JCFalkenbergIII

JCFalkenbergIII

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,479 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 06:25 PM

The Allies would be better off leaving the Aquila alone and let the Germans make a mess of it :D


Well in the total scheme of things one carrier would not have made much difference either way. Especially with the huge amount of carriers and ships that the Aliies were able to produce even at that time of the war.
[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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users