Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "10th Light Flotilla - Italian Underwater Operations at Malta and Alexandria" video.

  1. 1
  2.  Carmine Paola  Oh, you wish to talk about 15 June? Oh well. We could start with the sinking of the cruiser Trento, I suppose. Crippled at 0610, and finished off by HMS Umbra at 1106. Vian had been ordered by Harwood to delay any action until an attack by British & American bombers had taken place, which was at around 0900, when Littorio was hit. At 1115 Harwood, believing the exaggerated claims of the aircrews, ordered Vian to turn again for Malta, after which, at 1215, Harwood gave Vian permission to act as he thought fit. At dawn, of course, you are probably aware that in a separate action, a force of RN destroyers with the Harpoon convoy had engaged an Italian cruiser squadron, until the Italian squadron broke off at 1000, although it did briefly reengage later. Vian's force, and his convoy, had been under (German) air attack since 1150, with a stronger attack by 36 Ju87s taking place at 1520. At around the same time, when Iachino's force was around 100 nm from the convoy, he turned away to the North-West, receiving instructions, after the event, from Supermarina to turn away if Vian's force hadn't been encountered by 1600. Vian turned his force and the convoy back towards Malta at 1625, but came under heavy air attack from German aircraft soon afterwards and, with only 1/3rd of his AA ammunition left, and Iachino's force far away, at 2053 Harwood ordered Vian and the convoy to return to Alexandria. Further German air attacks took place on the night of 15/16 June and on 16 June. Put simply, a victory of German air power over British sea power, with a powerful Italian battle fleet observing proceeding from a distance. You should read 'Malta Convoys, 1949-1943' by Richard Woodman, should you be interested in the facts, although it is fairly clear that you aren't.
    1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12.  Carmine Paola  One final comment. The nearest thing I can find to a fully detailed academic review of Bragadin's work is in an American naval magazine, as part of a larger study on the relative merits of the various types of naval artillery used in WW2. The author makes brief comments on each of the sources he used, and he actually refers to Bragadin, who seems to have been a Commander in naval intelligence rather than a seagoing sailor, by the way. The review is as follows :- 'Marc Antonio Bragadin's The Italian Navy in World War II (Bragadin 1997) is bewildering. Their ‘greatest’ victory was Pantellaria, in which a British destroyer and several transports were sunk. But given the correlation of the forces involved, they should have exterminated the entire convoy to the last vessel! And the ‘super fast’ Italian ships could never catch the much slower British vessels; Bartilomeo Colleoni, supposedly capable of 40 kts, was savaged by HMAS Sydney, which on her best day made only 32 kts. How could it be that with the larger fleet, magnificent artillery and well trained crews the Italian Fleet suffered one shattering defeat after another?' Richard Woodman (Malta Convoys) doesn't use him as a source at all by the way, and the only other mention I can find are the views of American readers of his work, as follows :- 'While I did find the book useful and interesting there was too much of a pro-Italian bias for me to really enjoy or trust it. The author tends to distort generally accepted facts in ways to forward as positive an impression on the Italian war effort and on the Italian Navy in particular. It is understandable as the author did serve in the Italian Navy during this time period.' 'The author's service in the Italian Navy during the war gives him insights into the thinking of the naval leadership. Unfortunately, his service also reveals itself in more partisanship than should exist in what is intended as an objective history. Too many Italian actions are "superhuman.' As you seem to rely so much on such a source, this probably explains your lack of accurate knowledge on the subject, as well as your determination to distort, and even invent 'facts.' Goodbye.
    1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1