Italian navy would they of made a difference [Archive]

Stealth

03-02-2007, 05:54 PM

I know that the Italian's ships were well built but was the crew any good and if they were used would they of made a difference in the Med or the N.Alantic?

Dugger;)

The ships were pretty well designed but the Pugiliese system of torpedo protection failed miserably. Italian ships were thus very suceptible to underwater damage. The problem with the Italian fleet was that its commanders (both captains and high command) acted in a very hesitant fashion and often ran at the first sign of trouble.

After the fall of France the Italians should have dominated the Med. But rather the British, acting in a very bold fashion continued to hary the Italian fleet until they basically sat in harbor accomplishing little. Had they used their surafce fleet in conjunction with their excellent air force and MTBs they could have turned the Med in a backyard lake. Malta would have fallen, Gibraltar threatened, and a continuous supply source established to the Afrika Korp, which in turn would have threatened Egypt and the mideast oil fields.

swarbs

03-03-2007, 02:03 PM

I think the Italians also faced the problem of feul shortage. However, Stealth is correct, they may not have won the war for the axis, but they could have done a lot more.

Legbiter

03-03-2007, 02:32 PM

As I understand it, Italy's main problem was their air force. Technically it was excellent [aero-engine supplies weren't always of the best for the first two years of the war] and training was good. Pilots were brave, man-for-man probably better than the Germans. BUT they rotated in and out of the line on a squadron basis, whereas every other air force rotated individual PILOTS in and out of the line. This meant that every squadron had to learn again, from scratch, when it went back into the line, since even if it was previously experienced, our side would have learnt on the job and/or got better machines since the Italians' last stint. Naturally, this led to hesitant tactics, which in turn led the Axis to lose control of the Mediterranean airspace, and thus the Mediterranean war.

Commissar

03-03-2007, 02:57 PM

The fact is, naval battles were won by air power in WWII. You can see this easily in the Pacific, e.g. Midway, Philippine Sea, Leyte, Ten-Go, etc. A similarly lopsided engagement was the Battle of Cape Matapan in early '41. Giant sluggish gunships are just a bigger target for the flyboys.

Given the eventual Allied air supremacy in the MTO, I don't think an Italian navy would make that much difference. Maybe they could have caused some trouble for the Allies in Africa, but sooner or later the British or the Americans were going to sink all of those ships with air attacks.

dracos42

03-03-2007, 07:21 PM

After the Italian surrender, several Italian light cruisers were stationed in Dakar to help hunt down the last of the German raiders. Also, there was a US proposal to refit Littorio and V.V. for duty in the Pacific. Nothing came of that proposal though.

The Italian fleet could have done more. In fact, they did a lot. The Allies didn't win every naval engagement with Italy. Better command and control of available air assets would have helped a lot. Dedicated fighter squadrons to cover the fleet would have also helped. Even carriers, though better land based air support would probably have had more of an impact.

There was also the fuel problem. All the Axis navies suffered from a lack of fuel. The German fleet didn't have enough fuel for all its needs, and then they needed to send some of their own inadequate fuel resources to the Italian navy, which had an even bigger fuel problem. Even if the Euroaxis navies wanted to sortie in a big way, they couldn't always do it. Some of Germany's biggest oil suppliers were in the Western Hemisphere, including the USA.

Maybe Germany and Italy should have sent a lot more support to North Africa in 1941 and 1942...

Mike L.

Texas_Archer

03-03-2007, 11:12 PM

The Italian MTB's were some of the most dangerous ships in the mediterranean. Many British captains hated to fight against these guys due to there heroic nature of charging a 50 foot ship against an entire English fleet. These guys fought on water like the Japanese on land, but better.

dictator_wanna_be

03-03-2007, 11:27 PM

[QUOTE=Commissar;236295]The fact is, naval battles were won by air power in WWII. You can see this easily in the Pacific, e.g. Midway, Philippine Sea, Leyte, Ten-Go, etc. A similarly lopsided engagement was the Battle of Cape Matapan in early '41. Giant sluggish gunships are just a bigger target for the flyboys.
/QUOTE]

This is why i hope the carrier/aircraft machanic of War at Sea is good... ;)

XAos

03-04-2007, 05:32 AM

The fact is, naval battles were won by air power in WWII.
I agree, if one fleet had air-superiority the other was at the very least blind to all enemy movements an naked to surprise attack. While in theory italy was "an unsinkable aircarft carrier" in practice the co-ordination between their navy & airforce was (a lot) less than perfect.

Commissar

03-04-2007, 09:46 AM

This is why i hope the carrier/aircraft machanic of War at Sea is good... ;)

Me too. I'm still undecided between this game and Victory at Sea by Mongoose... normally I'd jump at the non-collectible game but VaS evidently has some kind of battlecruiser fetish going and they "nerfed" airpower (i.e. reduced its power from historical levels).

I understand the appeal of gunships duking it out to the finish. But every WWII naval battle can't be Guadalcanal.

Joisey

03-04-2007, 10:17 AM

dictator_wanna_be

03-04-2007, 10:58 AM

I understand the appeal of gunships duking it out to the finish. But every WWII naval battle can't be Guadalcanal.

I completely agree ;)

Count_Ciano

03-05-2007, 01:22 AM

Lack of fuel is the most common excuse by apologists for the Italians. But the lack of fuel was really just another symptom of the true cause of Italian ineffectualness: Poor leadership and even worse planning. This started at the top with Il Douche himself.

Agreed. As much as I am one of those "Italian apologists", I would concur that "Il Douche" dragged his country into a war that they were far from ready for. It seemed to take a while for Italian High Command to realize that full scale European warfare was something very different from the Colonial warfare they had been fighting up to that point.

Count_Ciano

03-05-2007, 04:01 AM

Oh, and while I"m thinking about it, here is an excellent article on the Italian battleships and the quirky anti-torpedo system.

http://forums.filefront.com/showthread.php?t=94026

Enjoy! :D

Richter von Manthofen

03-05-2007, 04:55 AM

I agree, if one fleet had air-superiority the other was at the very least blind to all enemy movements an naked to surprise attack. While in theory italy was "an unsinkable aircarft carrier" in practice the co-ordination between their navy & airforce was (a lot) less than perfect.

Less than perfect is funny.

The regia marina was not allowed to have an "air" branch of its own as the Italian Airforce considered that a monopol. Coordination did not exist between the two.

Also Italian ships were hampered by lack of radar.

And even if they were a bit more active the Royal navie could have easily brought a few more units into the MED to improve the odds.

I believe that the Regia MArina fought a lossing battle in any case, so the correct decision was to bkeep them in harbour and use the supplys (oil for exanple) for the land forces. You can power many vehicles with the fuel you need for ships...

swarbs

03-05-2007, 06:11 AM

And even if they were a bit more active the Royal navie could have easily brought a few more units into the MED to improve the odds.

I agree with all of Richter's comments. It must be remembered, however, that the Royal Navy bringing a few more units into the MED would have been a victory resulting in correspondingly poorer coverage against German sub and surface raiders. Far from a downside, forcing costly and extensive Royal Navy operations in the Med would have been a huge boon for the axis cause. The probability for an Italian major victory was close to nil for this reason, but it could have certainly done a bit more to help the cause.

Joisey

03-05-2007, 06:41 AM

Count_Ciano

03-06-2007, 02:28 AM

Facinating read in the link. Thnx!
No prob, man! :)

Italy's fragmented command structure has already been pointed out as one of the biggest roadblocks to any major successes by their Navy. And, even if the Italians got their "act together", and defeated the Royal Navy and gained dominance of the Mediterranean, I still doubt that their surface ships could have made much of a contribution in the Atlantic. The design philosophy was centered around Mussolini's "Mare Nostrum" objective, so their ships tended to be powerful, but very short ranged and "high maintenence". These qualities were fine for operations that were close to freindly bases in a small theatre, but would have proved to be much more troublesome in a theatre such as the North Atlantic.

Autarch

03-06-2007, 08:01 AM

I wonder how those Model 1934 guns are going to be represented in this game.

MarcusAurelius

03-06-2007, 11:34 AM

Oh, and while I"m thinking about it, here is an excellent article on the Italian battleships and the quirky anti-torpedo system.

http://forums.filefront.com/showthread.php?t=94026

Enjoy! :D

That is a great article. I had previously read about the superior range of the Vittorio Veneto class, but there were a lot of interesting details here that I haven't seen elsewhere.

Another point worth noting is rate of fire. From the information I've seen, this is definitely a strength of the U.S. battleships. The 9 16-inch guns of the Iowa, North Carolina and South Dakota classes could unleash two full 24,300-pound broadsides per minute. That's 180 shells totalling 486,000 pounds raining down in a span of 10 minutes.

Only the Yamato class can even come close to matching that level of firepower — launching up to 135 shells weighing in at 434,565 pounds in the same amount of time.

The range advantage of the Vittorio Veneto over the Yamato class was less than 1,000 yards. Even with better HE shells, I don't think that's enough to overcome a smaller broadside (9 15" shells totalling 17,559 pounds) and a slower rate of fire (1.3 shots per minute).

Count_Ciano

03-12-2007, 12:39 AM

Hey guys! Sorry to dig up this old thread again but I found another interesting link for some proposed Italian battlecruisers, including their very own "pocket battleship":

http://www.bobhenneman.info/ItalyHome.htm

Makes one wonder why they even bothered with the rebuilds!:rolleyes:

Major Adler

03-12-2007, 08:53 AM

Hellcat

03-12-2007, 11:06 AM

Spain came into the war on the Axis side...Gibralter fell...Fallschrimjagers take Malta...

a huge naval battle off the coast off the southern UK...a massed British fleet engages a combinde Italian / German fleet...the second battle of britain...game on...

Now that sounds like an interesting scenario. Though I doubt the Italians would have left their little lake for the dangers of the Atlantic. Plus by the time something like this could have been pulled off all of germanys captial ships would have been in home ports or up in Norway. Even if they could have pulled it together do you really think a group like that could have worked effectively together?

dracos42

03-12-2007, 05:49 PM

I know all will be playing the Germans...so I am going to explore the use of an Italian fleet...I hope they will make a difference when I play...

Spain came into the war on the Axis side...Gibralter fell...Fallschrimjagers take Malta...

a huge naval battle off the coast off the southern UK...a massed British fleet engages a combinde Italian / German fleet...the second battle of britain...game on...

Do you have a time period selected for this yet?

I want to bring along the Ranger, some Boises, and some Tennessees (to represent the New Mexicos). They'll show up as a relief force for the RN. :)

Mike L.