italian submarines

Discussions on all aspects of Italy under Fascism from the March on Rome to the end of the war.
Wargames
Member
Posts: 374
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 20:11
Location: USA

Re: italian submarines

Post by Wargames » 22 Aug 2017 03:02

Start here:

http://www.xmasgrupsom.com/Intro.html

Make sure you translate to English before entering.
Then scroll down to:

Submarines II World War

Click on the words, not the picture. You will get all the sub info and history.

To find their bases look for an internet site that offers the location of the Italian Navy on the first day of the war. There are usually 1-2 such sites. Everyplace they list a submarine is a submarine base. The size of a base varied but they all held a minimum of four subs.

To add to my previous post some submarines ("Bragadin" class) could lay mines or carry "manned torpedoes" (chariots) the latter of which carried out successful attacks on both Alexandria and Gibraltar. The basic coastal sub was the 650 ton "type 600 Squalo”)" of which 59 were built. They were designed to treaty specifications much like the American cruiser "Chicago" class. This was the boat that was repeated with the expectation of correcting the faults of the original class but with virtually really no success at all. The last boats built were really no better than the first. That's not to say it wasn't a good boat. It just really wasn't improved upon and they had some consistent problems.

"Personal stories" will be hard to find. Most times when an Italian submarine went down it went down with all hands and, hence, their stories with them. Most times Italy only learned they were on the bottom when failed to "check in". And, when it didn't go down, it usually didn't sink anything while on recon duty either. Even when a recon sub made a sighting the target was well out of range (torpedoes had very short ranges then). In general, you needed four Italian submarines in sight of the target for just one to get a shot (Italian submarines moved slower underwater than their targets.). A Type 600 sub could easily see action only once or twice in the entire war. Life was pretty mundane 99% of the time and then absolutely terrifying the other 1%.

Ask if you want to know more.

LColombo
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 02 Feb 2014 00:17
Location: Somewhere in Lombardy

Re: italian submarines

Post by LColombo » 22 Aug 2017 10:02

There are quite a number of incorrections in Wargame's explanation, I would like to point them out:
Basically there were two classes, large ocean going submarines intended for the Atlantic and small coastal submarines for the Mediterranean.


These were not classes, they were, so to speak, type/categories of submarines. There were far more classes: ten classes of ocean going submarines (Balilla, Archimede, Fieramosca, Glauco, Calvi, Marcello, Marconi, Brin, Liuzzi, Cagni), seven classes of medium sized submarines (Mameli, Pisani, Squalo, Bandiera, Settembrini, Argo, Tritone), five classes of Mediterranean/coastal submarines (Argonauta, Perla, Sirena, Adua, Acciaio), three classes of minelaying submarines (Micca, Foca, Bragadin) and one class of transport submarines (R), in addition to a few antiquated classes of WWI submarine (Holland class and X-class) and the midget submarines (CA, CB classes). The five classes of Mediterranean/coastal submarines, all belonging to the '600' (tons) type, were very similar to each other, whereas the ocean going and medium sized ones (built between the late 1920s and WWII) showed a lot of differences.
The Italian Navy resorted to using them [ocean going submarines] as transports in 1943 and the result was ugly.
This is not correct, the Italian Navy only used for transports some of the oldest ocean going or medium sized submarines (Balilla class, Squalo class, Bandiera class, because their old age made them unfit for 'first line' use, so to speak), the Cagni-class (the most modern ones, because they were the largest and could thus carry more cargo) and, for the most part, the minelaying ones (Micca, Foca, Bragadin classes) due to the mine compartments that could be used to house cargo. The result wasn't 'ugly', these submarines successfully carried out a total of 158 transport missions and lost six boat out of overall 29 that were used for such missions. Their contribution wasn't very important because they carried little quantities of cargo - they could only carry between 70-80 and 200 tons of cargo, depending on the type, whereas a small merchant ship could easily carry 2000 tons or more in a single voyage. Overall, they delivered little more than 10,000 tons of cargo with these 158 mission, that is what could have been delivered with three or four medium sized merchant ships that each made a single voyage. The Navy was well aware of this, transport submarines were mostly used under pressure from Italian Army and German commands who seemed to think submarines could do miracles in this capacity.
Each class of coastal subs was intended to correct the design flaws of the previous class (bow problems) but did so with very little success.


The submarines with bow problems were not the coastal ones, but some of the early medium sized classes; namely, Squalo, Pisani and Bandiera classes, as well as the Bragadin minelaying submarines, that all needed bow modifications and were overall mediocre boats. This problem was solved with subsequent classes (Mameli onwards). The coastal submarines (600 type) were technically adequate submarines, without any major flaws.
This was mostly owing to less aggressive commanders than German submarines (A German U-boat was far more likely to attempt to penetrate a convoy whereas Italian commanders were more inclined to hope the target came closer on its own.).


Not quite. It was not a matter of aggressiveness, but of doctrine; namely, the stationary patrol positions mentioned immediately below were not a very successful tactic. No 'wolfpack' tactics were used until Operation Pedestal in 1942, when the Italian submarines did so and scored quite a number of successes against that convoy. Italian submarine commanders were also more used to try 'precision attacks' by only launching one or two torpedoes at a target (which often missed), whereas British submarines often fired spreads of four-six torpedoes, with greater torpedo expenditure but higher chances of scoring at least one hit.
The primary purpose of the Italian coastal submarine was recon. They were the only way the Italian Navy had of knowing if the British fleet was at sea. It was for this reason Italy had so many submarines.


I wouldn't carry recon the primary purpose of those submarines, nor the reason for Italy building 100+ submarines.
The British at Alexandria aggressively targeted eastern Mediterranean Italian submarines, mostly with aircraft but the most effective was the "anti-submarine sweeps" of four DD's. When four British DD's found one Italian submarine, it was pretty much over for the submarine. The Italian Navy tried to counter this with the De Barbiano class light cruisers designed to catch and sink DD's (At which they were complete failures).
The Da Barbiano class was built in 1930 with the aim of countering the large French contre-torpilleurs, this had nothing to do with submarine employment in WW2. (And the Da Barbiano class was never actually used to catch destroyers in WW2, as ten years had passed, they had become older and many things had changed since the time they had been designed, not to mention that the French Navy was not a factor after July 1940).
Italian ocean subs achieved little in the Atlantic.
Again, that's not correct. Italian submarines were way more successful in the Atlantic than in the Mediterranean; in the Atlantic, they sank 109 ships for 593,864 GRT. Initial Atlantic missions in 1940 and early 1941 obtained little success because both crews and boats were completely unprepared to the Atlantic conditions; but once the crews were properly trained (a submarine school was created in Gotenhafen with the co-operation of the Kriegsmarine) and gained experience, and the submarine underwent some modifications (especially downsizing of the overly large conning towers), they obtained significant success. The tonnage sunk for submarine lost was 32,672 GRT in 1940 for the Italians (opposed to 188,423 GRT for German submarines) and 20,432 GRT in 1941 (70,871 GRT for Germans submarines), but in 1942 it became 136,674 GRT (68,801 GRT for German submarines) and 13,498 GRT in 1943 (11,391 GRT for German submarines). Of course, the shipping sunk in the Atlantic by Italian submarines was much less than that sunk by the U-Boats, but the reason is simply because the German submarine fleet operating in the Atlantic was much larger than the Italian one. In the period of BETASOM's activity, average enemy tonnage sunk for every Italian submarine lost was 34,512 tons, not much different from the 40,591 tons that were sunk (average) for every German submarine lost.
The boats were good but it was a rare thing for an Italian submarine commander to ever see the US coastline.
Italian submarine commanders never saw the US coastline for one reason, they were never meant to. It was German submarines that operated in Northern Atlantic; Italian submarines operated in the Central and Southern Atlantic, they were never sent anywhere near the United States. They operated a lot off the Caribbean and South American coasts in 1942; one third of the shipping sunk during Operation Neuland in 1942 was sunk by Italian submarines.
They wanted to operate beyond the range of US aircraft which also put them out of range of the very shipping they targeted.
Again, not true. There was no such limitation linked to the range of US aircraft, and indeed Italian submarines had a lot of skirmishes against Allied aircraft during their missions in the Atlantic. Sometimes they damaged or shot down the planes, sometimes they were sunk or damaged, sometimes neither opponent suffered damage.
To add to my previous post some submarines ("Bragadin" class) could lay mines or carry "manned torpedoes" (chariots) the latter of which carried out successful attacks on both Alexandria and Gibraltar.
Bragadin class only carried mines (along with Foca and Micca classes), they did not carry manned torpedoes. The submarines that carried manned torpedoes, after specific modification works (basically consisting of building a cylindric manned torpedo container on the deck) were Scirè (600 type, Adua class), Gondar (same), Iride (600 type, Perla class) and Ambra (same).
The basic coastal sub was the 650 ton "type 600 Squalo”)" of which 59 were built.
Squalo was a class of four medium sized submarines, they had nothing to do with the type 600 coastal submarines.
This was the boat that was repeated with the expectation of correcting the faults of the original class but with virtually really no success at all. The last boats built were really no better than the first.
As I said above, you are mistaking the 600 type for the Pisani/Squalo/Bandiera classes, that had several issues and were repeated with unsuccessful attempts to solve them. The 600 type was repeated just because it was seen as a good design, so all coastal/Mediterranean submarine classes were built on that design.
In general, you needed four Italian submarines in sight of the target for just one to get a shot (Italian submarines moved slower underwater than their targets.)
May I ask where does this stat come from? Also, in WWII all submarines (except maybe the German XXI type) usually moved underwater far slower than any surface ship.
A Type 600 sub could easily see action only once or twice in the entire war.
I'd say that a type 600 could easily see successful action only once or twice in the entire war; attacks on enemy shipping (also including the unsuccessful ones), submarine hunts, duels with aircraft were not that rare.

LColombo
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 02 Feb 2014 00:17
Location: Somewhere in Lombardy

Re: italian submarines

Post by LColombo » 22 Aug 2017 10:23

As for books, I am afraid that there are not English books that specifically deal with Italian submarines (though I could be mistaken). A good book that I have read and I would recommend is Uomini sul fondo by Giorgio Giorgerini, but of course, it's in Italian.

There are some books written postwar by Italian submarine commanders or crew members about their experiences; some of the most famous are Un sommergibile non è tornato alla base by Antonio Maronari (crew member of Tazzoli, the second most successful Italian submarine), Sangue di marinai/Il sommergibile Malaspina è rientrato a Betasom by Mario Leoni (commanding officer of the submarine Malaspina in its first Atlantic missions; later in command of the destroyer Malocello) and Missione non attaccare by Mario Rossetto (commanding officer of the submarine Finzi). But I don't think any of these has ever been translated.

An exception may be Submarines Attacking, by Aldo Cocchia, that has been translated into English. Cocchia had a very active career; he was in command of the submarine Torelli during its first Atlantic mission, then Chief of Staff of the BETASOM base (later repatriated, he commanded a small convoy that brought Italian renforcements during the German invasion of Crete, then he became military commander of the island of Leros, and finally commanding officer of the destroyer Da Recco, where he was seriously wounded in the battle of Skerki Bank in 1942). However I have never read this book.

The site "Regia Marina" as an English version that includes the detailed stories of many (not all) Italian submarines in WWII: you can find it here: http://www.regiamarina.net/detail_text_ ... d=1&cid=53

User avatar
jwsleser
Member
Posts: 1026
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 14:02
Location: Leavenworth, KS

Re: italian submarines

Post by jwsleser » 22 Aug 2017 12:45

Excellent recount LColombo

Cocchia's book was published in the US as The Hunters and the Hunted (US Naval Institute Press). The UK title is Submarines Attacking. The book is basically a telling a mix of stories. Part 1 is Ocean-Going Submarines (BETASOM and the Torelli); Part 2 is Adventures in Uniform (Crete, the raid on Rommel, and a few other stories) which combines his own experiences and stories about others; Part 3 is Convoys (again a combination of his and others stories); and Part 4 is Four Brave Men telling about the various Human Torpedo operations.

An enjoyable book to read and easily found in the US. Not a complete history of any aspect of the Italian Navy but a collection of many stories. Worth reading.

Pista! Jeff
battaglione Alpini sciatori Monte Cervino (Reenacted)
5th Greek Regiment
9th reggimento bersaglieri

Wargames
Member
Posts: 374
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 20:11
Location: USA

Re: italian submarines

Post by Wargames » 22 Aug 2017 20:06

There are some incorrections in Colombo's explanation, I would like to point them out:
Basically there were two classes, large ocean going submarines intended for the Atlantic and small coastal submarines for the Mediterranean.


These were not classes, they were, so to speak, type/categories of submarines. There were far more classes: ten classes of ocean going submarines (Balilla, Archimede, Fieramosca, Glauco, Calvi, Marcello, Marconi, Brin, Liuzzi, Cagni), seven classes of medium sized submarines (Mameli, Pisani, Squalo, Bandiera, Settembrini, Argo, Tritone), five classes of Mediterranean/coastal submarines (Argonauta, Perla, Sirena, Adua, Acciaio), three classes of minelaying submarines (Micca, Foca, Bragadin) and one class of transport submarines (R), in addition to a few antiquated classes of WWI submarine (Holland class and X-class) and the midget submarines (CA, CB classes). The five classes of Mediterranean/coastal submarines, all belonging to the '600' (tons) type, were very similar to each other, whereas the ocean going and medium sized ones (built between the late 1920s and WWII) showed a lot of differences.
I should have stated "There were basically two types..." and saved you a lot of typing.

The Italian Navy resorted to using them [ocean going submarines] as transports in 1943 and the result was ugly.
This is not correct, the Italian Navy only used for transports some of the oldest ocean going or medium sized submarines (Balilla class, Squalo class, Bandiera class, because their old age made them unfit for 'first line' use, so to speak), the Cagni-class (the most modern ones, because they were the largest and could thus carry more cargo) and, for the most part, the minelaying ones (Micca, Foca, Bragadin classes) due to the mine compartments that could be used to house cargo. The result wasn't 'ugly', these submarines successfully carried out a total of 158 transport missions and lost six boat out of overall 29 that were used for such missions. Their contribution wasn't very important because they carried little quantities of cargo - they could only carry between 70-80 and 200 tons of cargo, depending on the type, whereas a small merchant ship could easily carry 2000 tons or more in a single voyage. Overall, they delivered little more than 10,000 tons of cargo with these 158 mission, that is what could have been delivered with three or four medium sized merchant ships that each made a single voyage. The Navy was well aware of this, transport submarines were mostly used under pressure from Italian Army and German commands who seemed to think submarines could do miracles in this capacity.
The result was ugly and and I correctly stated ocean submarines were used. The tonnage delivery was totally inconsequential to what was needed as I'm sure you're aware. To say it wasn't ugly wold be to call Japanese submarine supply operations in the Pacific a "success".


This was mostly owing to less aggressive commanders than German submarines (A German U-boat was far more likely to attempt to penetrate a convoy whereas Italian commanders were more inclined to hope the target came closer on its own.).


Not quite. It was not a matter of aggressiveness, but of doctrine; namely, the stationary patrol positions mentioned immediately below were not a very successful tactic. No 'wolfpack' tactics were used until Operation Pedestal in 1942, when the Italian submarines did so and scored quite a number of successes against that convoy. Italian submarine commanders were also more used to try 'precision attacks' by only launching one or two torpedoes at a target (which often missed), whereas British submarines often fired spreads of four-six torpedoes, with greater torpedo expenditure but higher chances of scoring at least one hit.
[/quote]

Italian submarines attacked as effectively as both American and British submarines but not their German counterparts. While I agree that a full spread is better on paper than not, Italian aim was good enough to keep them on par with both US and British effectiveness. Meanwhile, Germany was way higher than all three.



The primary purpose of the Italian coastal submarine was recon. They were the only way the Italian Navy had of knowing if the British fleet was at sea. It was for this reason Italy had so many submarines.


I wouldn't carry recon the primary purpose of those submarines, nor the reason for Italy building 100+ submarines.
Then why are they sitting in one spot?


The British at Alexandria aggressively targeted eastern Mediterranean Italian submarines, mostly with aircraft but the most effective was the "anti-submarine sweeps" of four DD's. When four British DD's found one Italian submarine, it was pretty much over for the submarine. The Italian Navy tried to counter this with the De Barbiano class light cruisers designed to catch and sink DD's (At which they were complete failures).
The Da Barbiano class was built in 1930 with the aim of countering the large French contre-torpilleurs, this had nothing to do with submarine employment in WW2. (And the Da Barbiano class was never actually used to catch destroyers in WW2, as ten years had passed, they had become older and many things had changed since the time they had been designed, not to mention that the French Navy was not a factor after July 1940).
I'm sure you're aware that British destroyers were still in the war after July, 1940. The Bartolomeo Colleoni and Giovanni dalle Bande Nere when bound for Leros in the Aegean, intercepted four British DD"s on "anti-submarine sweep" exactly as I stated the British did. The two Italian ships gave chase to Hyperion, Hasty, Hero and Ilex north exactly as I stated and it was unsuccessful exactly as I stated. Both ships were of the Da Barbiano class design type.




Italian ocean subs achieved little in the Atlantic.
Again, that's not correct. Italian submarines were way more successful in the Atlantic than in the Mediterranean; in the Atlantic, they sank 109 ships for 593,864 GRT. Initial Atlantic missions in 1940 and early 1941 obtained little success because both crews and boats were completely unprepared to the Atlantic conditions; but once the crews were properly trained (a submarine school was created in Gotenhafen with the co-operation of the Kriegsmarine) and gained experience, and the submarine underwent some modifications (especially downsizing of the overly large conning towers), they obtained significant success. The tonnage sunk for submarine lost was 32,672 GRT in 1940 for the Italians (opposed to 188,423 GRT for German submarines) and 20,432 GRT in 1941 (70,871 GRT for Germans submarines), but in 1942 it became 136,674 GRT (68,801 GRT for German submarines) and 13,498 GRT in 1943 (11,391 GRT for German submarines). Of course, the shipping sunk in the Atlantic by Italian submarines was much less than that sunk by the U-Boats, but the reason is simply because the German submarine fleet operating in the Atlantic was much larger than the Italian one. In the period of BETASOM's activity, average enemy tonnage sunk for every Italian submarine lost was 34,512 tons, not much different from the 40,591 tons that were sunk (average) for every German submarine lost.
Interesting argument. Of course you know the Germans wouldn't allow Italian submarines to join their wolf packs and why? They were instead left to operate in solo patrols which was considered by the Germans to be the least successful. Look, at say, the Morosini's patrol record.


The boats were good but it was a rare thing for an Italian submarine commander to ever see the US coastline.
Italian submarine commanders never saw the US coastline for one reason, they were never meant to. It was German submarines that operated in Northern Atlantic; Italian submarines operated in the Central and Southern Atlantic, they were never sent anywhere near the United States. They operated a lot off the Caribbean and South American coasts in 1942; one third of the shipping sunk during Operation Neuland in 1942 was sunk by Italian submarines.
So I was right.

They wanted to operate beyond the range of US aircraft which also put them out of range of the very shipping they targeted.
Again, not true. There was no such limitation linked to the range of US aircraft, and indeed Italian submarines had a lot of skirmishes against Allied aircraft during their missions in the Atlantic. Sometimes they damaged or shot down the planes, sometimes they were sunk or damaged, sometimes neither opponent suffered damage.
What Italian submarines made a sinking in the Gulf of Mexico?


In general, you needed four Italian submarines in sight of the target for just one to get a shot (Italian submarines moved slower underwater than their targets.)
May I ask where does this stat come from? Also, in WWII all submarines (except maybe the German XXI type) usually moved underwater far slower than any surface ship.
That was the problem. Place four subs around a ship moving faster than they are, one north, south, east, and west. Now try and intercept without surfacing. You'll only get one there.

I'll use the example of the sinking of the Barham. Six submarines were present (three German and three Italian) yet only one was able to attack (and it was German). One in six, not even one in four.




I'd say that a type 600 could easily see successful action only once or twice in the entire war; attacks on enemy shipping (also including the unsuccessful ones), submarine hunts, duels with aircraft were not that rare.
I will grant you the aircraft attacks.

LColombo
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 02 Feb 2014 00:17
Location: Somewhere in Lombardy

Re: italian submarines

Post by LColombo » 22 Aug 2017 22:26

...what is this animosity?
The result was ugly and and I correctly stated ocean submarines were used. The tonnage delivery was totally inconsequential to what was needed as I'm sure you're aware. To say it wasn't ugly wold be to call Japanese submarine supply operations in the Pacific a "success".
I did point out that the tonnage delivery was only a minimal fraction of what was carried by normal merchant ships. Yet, the transport submarines did their job and 99 % of the transport missions were successfully accomplished, therefore, to say that the result of such employment was ugly is incorrect to me. It was the idea that transport submarines could have a significant impact on the supply situation that was entirely mistaken, but this is a problem lying with the high commands that took this decision, not with the submarines.
Then why are they sitting in one spot?
Because outdated doctrine. Submarines were built in large numbers because in the event of war a British-French alliance was expected, which would massively outclass the Italian Navy in the Mediterranean, and it was hoped that an effective use of large numbers of submarines (for attack purposes) could compensate for the inferiority in surface ships. Reconnaissance was mainly the task of the Air Force, although co-operation between the Regia Marina (that lacked a naval aviation) and the Regia Aeronautica was notoriously poor, especially in 1940-1941. Of course the submarines were also tasked with reconnaissance, but to say that this was their primary task and the reason they were built, is misleading.
I'm sure you're aware that British destroyers were still in the war after July, 1940.


Yes, I am aware of that. Are you aware that ten years had passed since the Da Barbiano class had been built, the initial concept had been abandoned, and Italian cruisers were never used to intercept enemy destroyers?
The Bartolomeo Colleoni and Giovanni dalle Bande Nere when bound for Leros in the Aegean, intercepted four British DD"s on "anti-submarine sweep" exactly as I stated the British did. The two Italian ships gave chase to Hyperion, Hasty, Hero and Ilex north exactly as I stated and it was unsuccessful exactly as I stated. Both ships were of the Da Barbiano class design type.
Bande Nere and Colleoni were not sent there to attack the destroyers on anti-submarine sweep. They were on passage to the Dodecanese, and merely ran into the destroyers by chance. You omitted the presence of a fifth destroyer, Havock, and most importantly of one light cruiser, Sydney, which was the main reason for the Italian defeat at Cape Spada. In shorts: contrarily to what you said, Italian light cruisers were never purposefully used to intercept british DD's on anti-submarine sweeps.
Interesting argument. Of course you know the Germans wouldn't allow Italian submarines to join their wolf packs and why? They were instead left to operate in solo patrols which was considered by the Germans to be the least successful. Look, at say, the Morosini's patrol record.
The Betasom submarines were larger and more easily detectable, less suitable for attacks on convoys; and since they had entered the Atlantic with no previous training for that kind of theatre and warfare, the initial results, as I pointed out, were scarce, thus they were tasked with solitary 'commerce raiding' instead of wolfpacks. In this type of mission, their results weren't bad. Morosini sank six ships totalling 40,933 GRT: not an ace's score, but I wouldn't call it unsuccessful. Then there is Da Vinci, the non-German submarine that sank the most tonnage.
So I was right.
No. You were saying that the Italian submarines never saw the US coast because "they wanted to operate beyond the range of US aircraft which also put them out of range of the very shipping they targeted". Which is not true: they never saw the US coast simply because they operated farther south, off the Caribbean and Brazil.
What Italian submarines made a sinking in the Gulf of Mexico?
Who did ever mention the Gulf of Mexico?

User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1121
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 08:44
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia

Re: italian submarines

Post by Pips » 23 Aug 2017 01:14

Thank you both for the links. :)

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8016
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: italian submarines

Post by tigre » 07 Sep 2017 22:46

Hello to all :D; a brief contribution on the subject ..................................

The smg "Reginaldo Giuliani" in the Baltic 1941 (later UIT 23).

Seeing that the activity of Italian submarines in the Atlantic provided very poor results, on December 17, 1940, the BdU (Commander of the German submarine fleet), Admiral Karl Dönitz proposed sending two or three Italian submarines to the tactical school of U-Boote in Gotenhafen (German name of the city of Gdynia, Poland), to train the Italian commanders (as well as the crew) in the war against the traffic in the Atlantic, very different from the operations carried out in the Mediterranean, and German attack tactics.

Admiral Angelo Parona, Commander of Betasom, sends the proposal to the Chief of Staff of the Navy, Admiral Arturo Riccardi, who in early January 1941 gave his approval; an Italian section is formed in the the Gotenhafen tactical school, called 'Marigammasom'.

On January 14, the smg Giuliani - because in the early Atlantic missions showed serious deficiencies in behavior at sea, which discourage further use in offensive missions - was chosen to be the "school vessel" to be used in the training in Gotenhafen. Initially the Marigammasom submarines had to be two, Giuliani and Bagnolini, but the latter remained in Bordeaux to continue the offensive missions.

The Giuliani underwent a period of repairing to better adapt it to the war in the Atlantic: the most important changes were the reduction of the bulky conning tower and the shells of the periscopes, and in the modification of the aspiration ducts of the engines.

On March 16, 1941, the Giuliani, under the command of Capitano di corvetta Vittore Raccanelli (who replaced D'Elia before sailing, but only for the transfer), sailed from Bordeaux, arriving at Gotenhafen on April 6, 1941. Here around 20/21 of April the Capitano di corvetta Adalberto Giovannini took over, chosen by his experience and knowledge.

Sources: http://conlapelleappesaaunchiodo.blogsp ... liani.html
http://www.1lo.home.pl/multidomeny/muze ... Itemid=118

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8016
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: italian submarines

Post by tigre » 16 Sep 2017 16:11

Hello to all :D; more ..................................

The smg "Reginaldo Giuliani" in the Baltic 1941 (later UIT 23).

April 20, 1941.

Start of the training activity, consisting of training courses of varying duration, between two and five weeks, with navigation in the Baltic Sea for 10-20 days. The Kriegsmarine makes available to Marigammasom several units: the submarine support vessel Isar and the target ship Amerland to simulate an attack convoy, as well as two escort ships (torpedo boats and / or gunboats) and four aircraft sent from the bases of Memel or Copenhagen to simulate anti-submarine reconnaissance or direct air support of the convoy. The 27th German Tactical Flotilla also provides unlimited support for any additional needs.

The German tactical guidelines are studied and a Memorandum for Commanders on the use of submarines in the war against ocean traffic is elaborated.

April 21 to May 10, 1941.

First cycle of formation for Marigammasom: the tenente di vascello Mario Paolo Pollina was trained.

20-31 May 1941.

Second cycle of formation: the trainee was the tenente di vascello Walter Auconi (whom smg Giuliani will find again in Singapore during the fateful days of the armistice), along with an officer and five sailors of the smg Dandolo.

2-16 June, 1941.

Third cycle of formation: capitano di corvetta Emilio Olivieri and another officer were trained.

June 18, 1941.

Pause in the training until September, first for the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, and then for maintenance tasks.

Sources: http://conlapelleappesaaunchiodo.blogsp ... liani.html
http://www.1lo.home.pl/multidomeny/muze ... Itemid=118

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Felix C
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 04 Jul 2007 16:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: italian submarines

Post by Felix C » 16 Sep 2017 22:15

Med. hard theater for Axis submarines once Greece secured in 1941. Not much traffic except coastal and near defended ports or military ships with heavy escort. Much as uboats avoided working close to the English shore also should subs not be working close to Gib, Alex, Beirut, Haifa etc To easy to be trapped inshore by defenders. Italy had many more submarines than needed. Well that was with hindsight since there was no French Navy involved and the RN driven out except for enclaves.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8016
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: italian submarines

Post by tigre » 23 Sep 2017 12:55

Hello to all :D; more ..................................

The smg "Reginaldo Giuliani" in the Baltic 1941 (later UIT 23).

September 1941.

Resumption of the training activity.

October 1 to 10, 1941.

Fourth cycle of formation, for the benefit of the capitano di corvetta Enzo Grossi, 4 officers and 7 sailors of the smg barbarigo.

October 13 to 31, 1941.

Fifth tcycle of formation, in which capitano di corvetta Luigi Longanesi Cattani, two officers and nine sailors of the smg Leonardo Da Vinci were trained.

November 03 to 15, 1941.

Sixth cycle of formation for capitano di corvetta Ugo Giudice, two officers and nine sailors of smg Giuseppe Finzi.

November 16 to December 4, 1941.

Seventh cycle of formation, took part the tenente di vascello Mario Tei (future commander of the Giuliani), an officer and seven sailors of smg Bagnolini.

December 09 to 20, 1941.

Eighth cycle of formation, one officer and six sailors (no commander was trained).

Sources: http://conlapelleappesaaunchiodo.blogsp ... liani.html
http://www.1lo.home.pl/multidomeny/muze ... Itemid=118

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8016
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: italian submarines

Post by tigre » 30 Sep 2017 15:17

Hello to all :D; more ..................................

The smg "Reginaldo Giuliani" in the Baltic 1941 (later UIT 23).

December 20, 1941.

End of training: The Baltic Sea is starting to freeze, preventing any activity. Meanwhile the Giuliani has completed seven training cycles (an eighth was canceled due to bad weather), a total of 7 commanders, 12 officers and 48 sailors (the bridge crew of seven U boats) were trained during the course of a total of 84 days at sea (8,902 nautical miles).

March 1942.

Since training in Gotenhafen proved to be highly profitable, training courses are expected to resume intensively in March; Commander Giovannini made preparations for the resumption of the activity, and on March 10, gave Admiral Antonio Legnani, commander of the Italian Submarine Forces, a report on the preparations made and in progress. Legnani shows great appreciation for the work of Giovannini and the men of Gotenhafen, and certifies some of the positive results of the continuation of the formation; a few days later, however, because it is necessary to have all the submarines available in Bordeaux to attend the great offensive against the Allied ships on the coasts of America, Marigammasom was closed and Giuliani is ordered to return to France as soon as may be possible.

April 21, 1942.

Commander Giovannini is replaced by the capitano di fregata Giovanni Bruno; the Giuliani sailed from Gotenhafen to Bordeaux.

May 23, 1942.

Arrival in Bordeaux.

Sources: http://conlapelleappesaaunchiodo.blogsp ... liani.html
http://www.1lo.home.pl/multidomeny/muze ... Itemid=118

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8016
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: italian submarines

Post by tigre » 26 Oct 2017 00:27

Hello to all :D; a photo I found alongside others about the U 453 (despite eBay's saying U 653) ...............................

U boats in the Adriatic.

Sources: http://www.ebay.de/itm/2-WK-4-Foto-U-Bo ... 2111459802

Any idea of the type? Which U Flotilla operated from Pola? TIA. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8016
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: italian submarines

Post by tigre » 12 Nov 2017 20:13

ello to all :D; more ...............................

Italian U boats at port.

Sources: http://www.ebay.de/itm/Foto-Soldat-KM-M ... 2065776565
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Foto-Soldat-KM-M ... 1752373151

Any idea of the type and port? TIA. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8016
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: italian submarines

Post by tigre » 17 Dec 2017 18:55

Hello to all :D; more ...............................

U boats in the Adriatic.

Sources: http://www.ebay.de/itm/2-WK-2x-Foto-U-B ... 7675.l2557

Any idea about the U Flotilla deployed in Pola? TIA. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

Feliz Navidad - Feliz Natal - Frohe Weihnachten - Joyeux Noël - Merry Christmas - Wesołych Świąt!. :wink:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Italy under Fascism 1922-1945”