My memory is a bit hazy on this but, I don't think they did take out an entire convoy during the war?The German wolfpacks could take out an entire convoy,
Regards
Andy H
The Mediterranean does not lend itself well to wolfpack tactics. The British and the Germans did not use pack tactics either. Mediterranean convoys were much smaller than Atlantic convoys, and so were the distances they covered. There would be no time for jockeying a wolfpack together before the target convoy had reached its destination.Xª Mas wrote:As said before, I believe that the reason for the lack of success with Italian subs, is the fact that they didn't travel in Wolfpacks like the germans. The Italians did a hit and run maneuver and take out 1 ship at a time. The German wolfpacks could take out an entire convoy, which is much more effective than the Italian "solo" attempts.
Is this info you got from a single book? Because everything you posted is new to me. Am not sure what 'poorly trained" means to you but an Italian sub could hit a target as well as a British one. They weren't as daringly commanded as German U boats and seldom tried to penetrate a destroyer screen. Perhaps this is what you're referring to?James A Pratt III wrote:Here is what I have read about Italian submarines and there problems. Commanders and crews were poorly trained.
Virtually all Italy's ocean going subs were pre-war. I am not familiar with them receiving major refits to serve in the Atlantic.Ocean going submarines were found unfit for service in the Atlantic and all pre-war ones required major refits to make them so.
Never heard of this one either. Most Italian boats were of similiar design and suffered from the same bow problems but were rebuilt before the war.Many other subs were unfit for WW II service do to design or age.
The Italian sub fleet did sink few ships in 1940 and extended refit times would explain this. However, their unwillingness to penetrate British DD screens would also explain it as well as the fact that the British did not present that many targets.All subs made after 1934 suffered from the fact Italy lacked the proper materials to build them. Hence they required much more repair work between patrols than other countries subs. Result the Italian sub fleet sank few ships in 1940 and was never as effective as it should have been. These problems came to light during the Spainish Civil War but, nothing was done about them.
I have not found evidence of this. Checked again today. I don't think anyone disputes they weren't daringly commanded and often claimed torpedo hits when none occurred, but they seem to have performed as well as their British counterparts.James A Pratt III wrote:Here is what I have read about Italian submarines and there problems. Commanders and crews were poorly trained.
Atlantic problems were identified (in comparison with the German submarines) with excessively large superstructures (conning towers) which made them easy to spot, low maneuverability due to their size, low speed in immersion, insufficient rapidity of diving (aircraft attack) and generally too much displacement.Ocean going submarines were found unfit for service in the Atlantic and all pre-war ones required major refits to make them so.
Everything I found says exactly the opposite...the "600 ton class", the most common, were of "very good quality" and "probably the most successful class ever built" according to readily available sources. Although I was not very impressed with their designed diving depths (80 meters for some.).Many other subs were unfit for WW II service do to design or age.
While certainly possible, I can't find this showing up in the actual submarines.All subs made after 1934 suffered from the fact Italy lacked the proper materials to build them.
This may be a possible misconception. The average Italian submarine performed only 10 missions in the war and then for an average of only 14 days. Thus, in a 39 month war (1,200 days) the average sub spent only 140 days at sea - suggesting it was in port 88% of the time. Certainly this statistic supports the above argument. However, this presumes that submarines at the start of the war were still afloat at the end of the war - And some 85 (or 50%) were not. They spent that time on the bottom (5 of them in the first few days of the war.).Hence they required much more repair work between patrols than other countries subs.
Bad training I can't find. "Deficient torpedoes" probably refers to the fact that they ran on compressed air and left a trail of bubbles. The operators also lacked a mechanized station for the calculation of the elements of torpedo launch, and in particular for multiple launch. Still, they sank 87% of their targets. "Poor submarine design" could refer to the ocean subs, the lack of snorkels, and their lack of sonar.Here are my sources: "Memoirs" Karl Donitz, "Submarines of World War Two" Ermino Bagnasco, and from the "Journal of Military History" Oct 1995 artical "Fascist Italy's Military Involvement in the Spainish Civil War" Brian R Sullivan.
They all are good ones in my opinon. Some quotes from Sullivan P715 "...Dismal record..." "Bad training, deficient torpedos, poor submarine design..." all ignored by Italian Naval leadership.
For images and description of italian Submarine, go to http://italie1935-45.forumactif.net/forum.htm Regia Marina section.Pips wrote:It's probably safe to say that the Detroyers, Destroyer escorts and minesweepers were the most active of all the vessels in the Regia Marina. And performed outstandingly well. Even the larger vessels eg Cruiser and battleships, did well given the limits imposed by lack of fuel, radar and especially poor air reconn support.
But the submarines for some reason which I haven't been able to determine failed badly. It certainly wasn't due to lack of numbers, with more than 70 operational in the Med at the start of the War in 1940. And it wasn't to do with skill and courage, that old chestnut has long been proved no more than propaganda. So what was it? Tactics? Strategy? Planning? Lack of skill at implementing a submarine campaign? Poor intelligence?
The British and Germans achieved far more with much less numbers. And it wasn't due to not employing the 'wolf pack' concept - no Submarine force of any nationality utilised that tactic in the Mediterranean. So what were the factors that affected submarine performance?
I think this was probably the result of the fact that, early in the war, the Italians respected French neutrality and did not operate submarines in, or lay mines in, French coastal waters. British convoies from Gibralter took adavantage of this by passing by Sicily at night in French territorial waters.Dili wrote: It is also curious that they could get some success in 42 and 43 in Med.