Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "The SS REX: The Ocean Liner That Changed Naval Combat Forever!" video.

  1. On Axis side is a far stretch. Not only the Rex had never been used for military purposes, but had been moved from Genoa to Trieste (and was further moving to Pola when it was sunk) expressly to avoid the Germans to use it to block the arbors. Ironically, had it used to block the arbors (so scuttled in shallow water) it could have been likely refloated post-war (like the Conte di Savoia had been).
    3
  2. The Rex and the Conte di Savoia had been built at the same time (but in different shipyards, the Rex at Genoa, the Conte di Savoia at Trieste) for two competing companies, the Italia Flotte Riunite (Rex) and Lloyd Triestino (Conte di Savoia). While the Italia flotte Riunite wanted a classic style for the Rex, similar to a bigger version of the previous Roma and Augustus, Lloyd triestino wanted the Conte di Savoia to be very modern, outside and inside, and infact it's interiors, designed by the architect Melchiorre Bega, were very modern in their disposition, and pure art decò in style, with one exception, the "Colonna" saloon, that was furnished in baroque style, fearing an excessive modernism could displease some passenger.
    2
  3. Not only the Rex had never been used for military purposes, but had been moved from Genoa to Trieste (and was further moving to Pola when it was sunk) expressly to avoid the Germans to use it to block the arbors. Ironically, had it used to block the arbors (so scuttled in shallow water) it could have been likely refloated post-war (like the Conte di Savoia had been). However, its powerplant of 4 sets of geared steam turbines producing 120,000 hp would have been considered highly inefficient by then.
    2
  4. If he was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found. IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal. For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships. Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance. Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
    2
  5. Yeah. While Mitchell was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found. IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal. For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships. Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance. Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
    1
  6. If he was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found. IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal. For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships. Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance. Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
    1
  7. The Rex had a counter stern, and the Conte di Savoia hadn't. It was not by chance. The Italia flotte Riunite, owner of the Rex, wanted a classic style for it, similar to a bigger version of the previous Roma and Augustus, Lloyd triestino wanted the Conte di Savoia to be very modern instead. The Normandie stern was not that different though.
    1