Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "10th Light Flotilla - Italian Underwater Operations at Malta and Alexandria" video.
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carmine Paola As you ask, I do have a degree in modern history. A First actually, and my particular specialism was, and is, naval aspects of WW2. The commander of the naval forces for Operation Husky, by the way, was Sir Andrew Cunningham.
You think Rommel was 'successful?' What a novel idea. Doesn't it occur to you that losing so many ships rather suggests that the Italian navy was not really very effective at transporting supplies to North Africa, despite your moving conviction that the British & Germans conspired to slander Italian efforts.
Husky, by the way, involved 1365 Allied warships. The US contingent consisted of 5 cruisers, 48 destroyers, 94 troopships, 98 other warships and 190 landing craft. The RN contingent consisted of 6 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 10 cruisers, 80 destroyers, 26 submarines, 250 other warships, 237 troopships, and 319 landing craft.
Despite my research, I have not been able to find out much about the efforts the Italian surface fleet made to defend Sicily, although doubtless you will claim that they were significant & successful.
1
-
Carmine Paola Ike commanded the land forces. Cunningham commanded the naval forces which put them ashore in the first place.
First Sirte? You mean when 5 RN light cruisers and 14 destroyers held off an Italian force of 4 battleships, 7 cruisers, and 13 destroyers, and delivered the supply convoy they were protecting to Malta? Perhaps you are referring to M41 & M42, the supply convoy to North Africa? Originally 8 merchantmen, but reduced to 4, after HMS Upright sank two, and two more collided and returned to port. M42, as it was renumbered, had an escort of 4 battleships, 5 cruisers, & 21 destroyers. The supplies were indeed delivered to Tripoli and Benghazi, although those in Benghazi were lost when the British captured the town five days later.
Oh, and Gazala didn't happen until late May, 1942.
You haven't supplied any of the sources you claimed, and for which I asked, by the way. I wonder why that might be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carmine Paola I did, for what it was worth. Wikipedia actually says of him :-
'Besides dealing with specialist topics, in 1949 he wrote the educational work Che ha fatto la Marina? 1940–45 (What did the Navy do? 1940–45) to make the navy's actions during World War II better known – they were then little known due to censorship. He had planned it in 1942 whilst serving in the Supermarina.
He was also the advisor, screenwriter, production manager, consultant and assistant director on four 1950s Italian war films – three directed by Duilio Coletti (I sette dell'Orsa maggiore, Divisione Folgore and La grande speranza) and one by Antonio Leonviola (Siluri umani, 1954).
No references at all to his naval career or to his academic qualifications, if any.
You really do appear to be floundering around increasingly incoherently old chap. It was amusing correcting your idiocies at first, as I had already done on a number of previous occasions, but I am finding that your evasiveness and lack of knowledge is becoming increasingly tedious, and won't waste any further time on you.
1
-
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
-
1
-
Carmine Paola There are 11 reviews on the Amazon UK site. 83% are five stars, 17% four stars. On Amazon US there are 78% five stars, 16% four stars, and 6% 3 stars. You have taken your comment from the single 3 star review. The reviewer in that case should have read the bibliography, which includes a number of German & Italian authors.
The difference here is that I have the book, one of over thirty on the campaign on the Mediterranean, in my library, whereas you clearly don't. It happened to be the one I recommended in the hope that it might educate you; I could have recommended a host of others.
Do you really believe that it in any way supports your arguments when instead of attempting to defend Bragadin, you erroneously seek to attack another book on the subject, in the odd belief that this justifies his prejudices? Especially when there are a large number of others which support my assessments, and disagree with yours?
I would offer to give you a list of these books, but doubtless if I did you would claim conspiracy. As, indeed, you already have.
Anyway, definitely no more. I am sure anyone who reads these posts can make his or her mind up who has the more valid and historically accurate argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1