Italian Navy

Do you know about the huge and modern fascist navy?

If it would have been well leadered they would have ruled the Mediterranean. Because the Italian fleet was as big as the Brittish Mediterranean fleet and much more modern. The Italians had amazing ships, like the 45.000 tons litorio class battleships:
Litorio
Roma
Vitorio Veneto
The 40.000 tons Andrea Doria class:
Adrea Doria
Caio Duilio
The 43.000 tons Giulio Cesare Class:
Giulio cesare
Conde di cavour

Etcetera.

The ships were more modern than the Brittish antiques like the famous Hood, the Royal Oak and the King George V ( of course they were not from the Mediterranean fleet ).

Any comments?
I have pictures of all those ships and more. cantact me in FriedrichH984794@aol.com

 

Actually the King George V was more modern than any of the ships you mention, being completed later than either the Littorio or the Vittorio Veneto. The Andrea Doria and Caio Duilio were built in 1913 and displaced 24300 tons. The Conte Di Cavour, Giulio Cesare and Leonardo Da Vinci were built in 1911 and displaced ca. 24000 tons. Who has the antiques here?

And if I were you, I'd change my signature very very quickly.

 

I do not agree.
have you ever seen pictures of the ships? They are bloody incredible and modern. Obviously, they were not built before WWI. They were built under Mussolini's government. If all of them were built before WWi then why was England so worry about the Italian fleet? They could have destroyed the whole fleet in a conventional battleships-battle like many comanders should have wanted. Then why did they do something so modern and risky like the strike in Taranto Harbour?

 

And I will not change my signature, I like it! That was what he said, and he was one of Germany's best commanders.

Obviously, UK had wonderful ships like the Repulse or the Prince of Wales, very modern. But they were hunt and killed like dogs by Japanesse aeroplanes.

But who cares who had the most modern fleet? Perhaps Japan, perhaps germany, maybe the USA, maybe Britain, maybe Italy... Great Britain ruled the sea!

I just posted this item because people forget a navy, bigger than Germany's and a very important one! People thinks that Italians were all as lazy as those in Captain Corelli's mandoline, with filthy weaponry. ( Ground weaponry was actually a filth, I agree ). But they forget about marvelous aeroplanes and ships!

Visit the page: comandosupremo.com

 

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Friedrich H:
I do not agree.
have you ever seen pictures of the ships? They are bloody incredible and modern. Obviously, they were not built before WWI.<hr></blockquote>
Well truth is (according to my Jane's ships of WW2) they WERE built before WW1. All of Italy's battleships were older or as old as the Royal Navy ships you mentioned except for the 3 under the Italia class. (Although you mentioned King George the V class which was more modern than the Italia class by a few years)
Also the look of a ship has nothing to do with performance. The only thing that matters is speed,armament, and defense. The look is purely cosmetic and really means nothing.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>They were built under Mussolini's government. If all of them were built before WWi then why was England so worry about the Italian fleet? They could have destroyed the whole fleet in a conventional battleships-battle like many comanders should have wanted.<hr></blockquote>
That is easy to answer...The Italian fleet never confronted the British, except for the battle of Cape Matapan. In that battle One of Italy's best ships confronted the older british force...and was defeated thanks to an aircraft carrier and better leadership/tactics.
The British were concerned about the Italian navy because although it was not very active...in good hands could be a handful...which required a strong force to counter it in case it did force it's way to sea.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Then why did they do something so modern and risky like the strike in Taranto Harbour?<hr></blockquote>
Why have Aircraft Carriers and not use them? The British had the means of conducting a very efficient attack. A small squadren of Swordfish bi-planes are alot cheaper to risk than battleships and cruisers...plus the destruction of the enemy with planes like that is very how you say, economical and smart! So smart that it paved the way for the aircraft carrier in becoming the ship of the future.


The Italian Navy in combined strength really was stronger and more modern than the British Mediteranean fleet...BUT it was all the Italians had...and any losses surely could not be replaced...and that meant that any losses would REALLY make their situation precarious.
So even though the British were over stretched they could still afford more losses than the
Italians and probably would trade those ships in order to completely wipe out the power of the Italian Navy.
After the battle of Cape Matapan the Italians realized that they really would have a tough time defeating the British unless they risked the "meat" of their Navy. And that just wouldn't be smart for losses surely would be expected...and in a few months the British would have replaced their's...while the Italians would be made more and more weaker.
So i think in the end the reason the Italians pretty much under-utilized their navy was simply because They figured that as long as they had capitol ships in the area the british would be weary of them. If they engaged the British and suffered losses...they would easily loose TOTAL control to the british.
So in the end, the answer simply for the Italians was that caution was better than risk and a potentially dangerous navy was better than a destroyed/depleated Navy.

[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: Ron ]</p>

 

Well said Ron.

 

Good post Ron.

A ship built before WW1, no matter how modern it looks, will have inferior weaponry, totally inferior protection (because it is built to face a totally different threat) and totally inferior machinery. Performance doubled and trebled again and again for ship engines, so that ships built in the late 20s were already a lot slower than ones built in the late 30s. A ship built before WW1 had no chance of outmanoeuvering anyone any more.

Not to mention radio and radar or fire control equipment.

 

Excellent Ron...most excellent...

 

Siedel

You are right except in one respect.

The Mk1 15" Gun that equipped the Queen Elizabeths and the R's was evaluated postwar by the USN along with a host of others. They reckoned that when you took into account barrel wear and rate of fire it was the best battleship gun of the war. So in that sense old tech could still win out in a balanced assessment.

I'm not getting drawn into the Italian navy here, Ron's reply was excellent, and I vented my spleen at this silly post in the Mediterranean section.

Jumbo

 

Well, thanks for digging up and make alive again my most stupid post...