warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hotschi
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hotschi
...and have just started Struggle for the Middle Sea by Vincent P. O'Hara.
warspite1
I enjoyed this book - it provides a look at the main naval engagements in the Mediterranean Sea in WWII, and the OOB for each, in a concise one-volume work.
However, I fundamentally disagree with O'Hara's view on the performance of the Regia Marina in WWII. One his arguments to support his view is that, unlike the German or Japanese navies, the RM ended the war largely intact..... a) not sure why that is a good measure for a country that lost the war. b) the RM fought the Royal Navy's reputation and not the RN as it existed, stretched to the limits, in WWII. Had they been more aggressive, they could, and should, have hurt the RN more.
Finished that one, good book. Regarding your points, I don't think that losing the war invalidates saying that a fleet stayed largely intact - which is true for the Regia Marina. For example, at the armistice, all its battleships bar the one sunk at Tarento were still in service. I would also say that the RM's mission was not to fight a "reputation" of an enemy fleet, in this case the RN, but to carry out a defined mission - which was to keep open the sea lanes between Italy and it's African colonies/conquests. The Regia Marina was hampered by lack of fuel - the war against Russia has cut it off from its main fuel source and henceforth Italy was completely dependant on Germany for fuel. The coordination between Italian navy and Air Force was abysmal, the RM had no radar, it's ships were of short range. Despite all this, the RM actually did carry out its assigned mission, no matter how hysterically that over-rated "desert-fox" Rommel complained to his superiors.
Remember, O'Hara says the RM "stayed largely intact", he does not say the RM was "victorious". And maybe the Royal Navy should have done better :D
Anyway, this book makes me want to read more, especially about all ;) the numerous French Fleets (Free and Vichy, as well as actions after Vichy's downfall) and about the Italian fleets actions as Allied co-belligerent.
Now reading Edward Young's One of our Submarines - Young was the first R.N.V.R. officer who got his own submarine command, HM submarine "Storm". It's his autobiography of his wartime service. Information about the RN's submarine operations is rare as far as I can tell. I'd wish it receives more coverage in books.
And I think I should dig deeper into the Royal Navy stuff. Any recommendations?
warspite1
I think you have misunderstood my point. I did not say O'Hara was wrong to say the RM was largely intact at the end of the war. But O'Hara treats that position as a good thing; something the Kriegsmarine or IJN could not say. So what? Why is that good? The point I made is that I do not think that is a plus for the RM - quite the reverse. The RN was ridiculously stretched at times in the Mediterranean - the RM did not take advantage because Supermarina forbade Campioni and his successor from being aggressive. I did not say O'Hara thought the RM "victorious", but that he thought they did what they were asked to do. The overriding point is - they were not asked to do, nor showed any inclination in doing, what could win them Mare Nostrum.
The oil position is well known, but Mussolini expected a short war and the oil situation did not stop the fleet charging all over the place (to no good effect because they would not engage) in that first year of the war.
Ditto radar and the air/sea co-operation. The point is Cunningham, Somerville and the RN had plenty of disadvantages - no 8-inchers (they had a couple, but briefly) to counter the Italian Pola and Trento classes, the aircraft carriers were old, slow and what aircraft they had were few and were antiques from a bygone age, the battleships were old and slow too (HMS Warspite aside) - Cunningham's frustration at Calabria can only be imagined as Malaya and Royal Sovereign could not keep up. Somerville had the same problem with Ramillies at Spartivento. Interesting you say the RN should have done better - despite the drawbacks above. It's difficult fighting a fleet engagement when your enemy does not want to fight and 2/3rds of your battleship force and your carrier cannot keep up with the retreating enemy.
As I say, imo the RM had too much respect for RN's reputation. Of course the RM had issues, but they had generally newer, faster ships and generally with longer range. They had a battlefield advantage, internal lines of communication (whereas the RN was split either end of the Med).
It's not an argument that can be decisively won. If Supermarina had followed my advice and been slaughtered at Calabria they would have been right. If they had used their speed and range advantage and smacked Warspite and the 6-inch cruisers around, I would have been right. We will never know.
Further recommendations - a few, what theatre most interests you?
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/2/2015 9:58:51 PM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805  |
Printable Version
RE: What Book Are You Reading at the moment? - 
[/URL][/image] 
[/URL][/image] 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread