Italian Submarines

Discussions on all aspects of Italy under Fascism from the March on Rome to the end of the war.
User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#16

Post by Andy H » 02 Dec 2006, 00:26

The German wolfpacks could take out an entire convoy,
My memory is a bit hazy on this but, I don't think they did take out an entire convoy during the war?

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
Xª Mas
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 24 Jul 2006, 09:31
Location: Illinois, USA
Contact:

#17

Post by Xª Mas » 02 Dec 2006, 01:26

Sorry, what I meant was that it was possible to take out most of a convoy. I over exaggerated a bit, but my point is that the wolfpacks were more effective.


Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#18

Post by Jon G. » 10 Dec 2006, 11:51

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.
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.

Further to the numbers posted by Andy, above, the 32 Italian submarines operating in the Atlantic sank an average of about 17,750 tons of shipping each, a slightly better average than the German boats operating in the Atlantic.The top scoring Italian boat in the Atlantic was the Da Vinci, which sank 116,686 GRT worth of merchant ships. In addition, Italian submarines sank 74,000 tons of merchant shipping in the Indian Ocean.

Numbers from Sadkovich.

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#19

Post by Christian W. » 01 Jul 2007, 10:28

Speaking of Italian submarines, here is some German footage about one, although I have no idea what the narrator is talking about the American battleships Maryland and Mississippi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRO4SJ7 ... ed&search=

User avatar
JeffreyF
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 03:52
Location: Texas, USA

#20

Post by JeffreyF » 02 Jul 2007, 15:44

Well it is a bit of an embarrassing episode in the Regia Marina.

http://regiamarina.net/subs/submarines/ ... igo_us.htm

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#21

Post by Christian W. » 02 Jul 2007, 17:04

Well it is a bit of an embarrassing episode in the Regia Marina.
Similiar thing could happen to any other submarine too on either side. Besides, it was good for the morale.

James A Pratt III
Member
Posts: 897
Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 01:08
Location: Texas

#22

Post by James A Pratt III » 29 Aug 2007, 04:56

Here is what I have read about Italian submarines and there problems. Commanders and crews were poorly trained. Ocean going submarines were found unfit for service in the Atlantic and all pre-war ones required major refits to make them so. Many other subs were unfit for WW II service do to design or age. 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.

Wargames
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 21:11
Location: USA

#23

Post by Wargames » 29 Aug 2007, 19:58

James A Pratt III wrote:Here is what I have read about Italian submarines and there problems. Commanders and crews were poorly trained.
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?
Ocean going submarines were found unfit for service in the Atlantic and all pre-war ones required major refits to make them so.
Virtually all Italy's ocean going subs were pre-war. I am not familiar with them receiving major refits to serve in the Atlantic.

Many other subs were unfit for WW II service do to design or age.
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.

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.
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.

Am interested in the opinions of others on the subject of "extended refit times"?

James A Pratt III
Member
Posts: 897
Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 01:08
Location: Texas

#24

Post by James A Pratt III » 07 Sep 2007, 22:52

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.

Wargames
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 21:11
Location: USA

#25

Post by Wargames » 08 Sep 2007, 06:34

James A Pratt III wrote:Here is what I have read about Italian submarines and there problems. Commanders and crews were poorly trained.
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.


Ocean going submarines were found unfit for service in the Atlantic and all pre-war ones required major refits to make them so.
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.

Their greater displacement, however, made them useful for long range patrols outside the mid-Atlantic, where they performed well.

These design imperfections would not be noticed until late in 1940. The adaptations necessary to operate in the Atlantic Ocean required about 8 months in a shipyard and many were never fully finished.

Also, Italy never added snorkels to their submarines.

Many other subs were unfit for WW II service do to design or age.
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.).

Of the 117 subs Italy started the war with, only 7 could be categorized as obsolete...
All subs made after 1934 suffered from the fact Italy lacked the proper materials to build them.
While certainly possible, I can't find this showing up in the actual submarines.

Hence they required much more repair work between patrols than other countries subs.
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.).

I checked the logs on a few Italian submarines to determine their refit times. Two ocean subs logged two months at sea followed by one month of refit, which is the same refit time per day at sea as a German U-boat. The Italian 600 ton class had very, very low refit times - measured in terms of days. They seemed to be good for about 8-9 missions (25,000 miles) before requiring a complete (three month) overhaul.
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.
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.

I'm not claiming expertise on Italian submarines. I'll leave that to someone else. I did, however, wargame out the effectiveness of an Italian submarine on station and they performed identically to British submarines. They were both of inferior attack performance to their German counterparts. Thus, any German naval officer would deem them inferior - And that appears to be one of your sources.

There are other considerations that should not be ignored in evaluating the below par ("dismal") performance of Italian submarines. The first is that a number of them were stationed in the western Meditteranean on patrol for Gibralter to Malta/Alexandria convoys and these seldom came - leaving them with nothing to shoot at. In the eastern Meditteranean life was too dangerous for Italian submarines which, without snorkels, were within range of British aircraft and were also the object of anti-submarine sweeps by British DD squadrons which put to sea for no other reason but to hunt Italian subs. If you were an Italian sub commander in the eastern Meditteranean, your life expectancy was not long (And you may never spot a convoy.). There really wasn't any both safe and useful place to put them like the Germans had.

Again, when you see average submarine missions of only "14 days" you know what they're doing. They're running supplies to North Africa. These aren't combat missions.

Finally, Italian subs were not as daringly commanded as German U boats. The Italians did not like penetrating a British destroyer screen. They had two very good reasons for this. First, the British DD's were actively out to sink them as the effective anti-submarine sweeps demonstrated. So one learned to avoid them. Second, the Meditteranean was too shallow for avoiding depth charge attacks. If you're only in 150 feet of water, the British DD's choice of setting depth charges is greatly simplified. This, BTW, worked both ways. If you wanted a short life in the British Navy, volunteer for submarine duty in the Meditteranean. Italian DD's, DE's, and MAS had no problem setting their depth charges for you either...

User avatar
fredl109
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 23 Nov 2009, 16:50

Re: Italian Submarines

#26

Post by fredl109 » 18 Mar 2010, 16:25

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?
For images and description of italian Submarine, go to http://italie1935-45.forumactif.net/forum.htm Regia Marina section.

Dili
Member
Posts: 2201
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Italian Submarines

#27

Post by Dili » 21 Mar 2010, 15:30

Italian Submarines can be considered a failure for investment size and Wargames lists most of problems.
There wasn't a unique culprit but several problems.

Should not also be overplayed Italian Submarines results in Atlantic compared to Germans. They were sent to less risky areas.

It is also curious that they could get some success in 42 and 43 in Med.

Wargames
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 21:11
Location: USA

Re: Italian Submarines

#28

Post by Wargames » 21 Mar 2010, 22:18

Dili wrote: It is also curious that they could get some success in 42 and 43 in Med.
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.

This certainly hampered Italian submarine operations to have to leave a "safe" shipping lane open so close to Sicily when, in fact, it would have been very easy and fuel cost effective to patrol this area.

Against the British Navy, Italian submarines had the same problem as Japanese submarines had in seeking the US Navy. It was one thing to be in the "right area" but it was another to be within 6,000 yards of the target. Since a submerged 4 knot submarine could not close the distance on a 30 knot warship, the submarine crew ineviteably watched the target sail by without a torpedo being fired.

Another contributor to the lack of Italian submarine success was the submarines were being used as the "eyes and ears" of Italian surface ships and aircraft. Although Italy did have spies at Gibralter to tell them of aproaching convoys they did not rely upon them and, instead, posted ten submarines in the western Mediteranean as "pickets" to spot convoys (They did not actually attack them. They reported them instead.). While ten submarines may seem like a reasonable number, it probably required a force of twenty submarines to maintain this picket line, the extra ten submarines either being on their way to relieve the existing ten on patrol or on their way back from that patrol for refit. Assigning twenty submarines to duty where they had no targets of opportunity and to do so for three years would have certainly impacted the submarine fleets overall effectiveness (although they did provide valuable convoy information.).

A similar screen of picket subs was placed on the Eastern Mediteranean but of even more submarines (There being no Italian spies in Alexandria.). When you get this many submarines on picket duty, it leaves very few Italian submarines left to vector in towards the enemy task forces the pickets spotted.

BTW, the reason Italian picket submarines spotted but did not attack is because they only had about a 3 mile attack range but a 25 mile radius spotting range (daytime). They could spot about 70 times as much as they could attack. To place those same ten submarines facing Gibrater all six miles apart in a combat line would create a combat line only 66 miles wide, a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the Mediterranean and low chance of interception. However, spreading them 50 miles apart in a picket line allowed them to patrol a 550 mile wide stretch of sea and a high chance of spotting.

Another point about Italian submarines of interest, although possibly not very relevant to this discussion, was their heavy losses to British submarines. It is amazing how many Italian submarines were torpedoed by British submarines during the war. Because traveling submerged was far too slow, Italian submarines traveled on the surface to reach their combat stations. British submarines were positioned along the routes used by Italian submarines leaving or returning to their bases. The submerged British submarine then torpedoed the unsuspecting surfaced Italian submarine. Again, the number of Italian submarines sunk this way was quite high.

It does not appear that Italian submarines tried to lay the same traps in reverse for British submarines leaving/returning from their bases on patrol, possibly out of concern for British aircraft interdiction. Had Italian submarines used more care in reaching/returning from their assigned patrol stations or, if they had done the same thing to British submarines, their submarine losses would have been lowered and British submarine losses (already high) raised. Overall, this would have made for more Italian subs available over the long term and fewer British. This result could only have been in Italy's favor. But whether either of these were possible or not is not known to me. I do know that a number of German U boats were transferred to the Mediteranean (witness the sinking of the Barham) and they do NOT appear to have been sunk by British subs on their way to station. However, they do not appear to have sunk any British subs either.

I would say the Italians produced good (but not great) submarines and their potential at the start of the war seemed high (As did their BB's, BC's, CA's, and some CL's and DD's) but too few British convoys presented a lack of targets whereas the constant Italian convoies to North Africa provided the British with targets in excess. The irony is that the Italian ships of the apparent least potential (DE's and MTB's) contributted the most to the war. :roll:

Felix C
Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 17:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: Italian Submarines

#29

Post by Felix C » 24 Jan 2011, 02:22

Pardon for reviving an old post but I think it is appropriate for this thread rather than start a new one...

What torpedo fire control was used by Italian submarines? pencil/paper/sliderule as with the British Navy or some other method?

Post Reply

Return to “Italy under Fascism 1922-1945”