Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Discussions on all aspects of Italy under Fascism from the March on Rome to the end of the war.
User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1208
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 08:44
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by Pips » 20 Apr 2021 10:44

Also well worth trying to get your hands on J.J. Sadkovich's excellent "The Italian Navy In World War II". Address in detail development of strategy and development during the inter-war period, and it's impact on operations in WWII.

Best search for a second hand copy, as new are ridiculous prices.

User avatar
DrG
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 21 Oct 2003 22:23
Location: Italia

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by DrG » 20 Apr 2021 14:22

daveshoup2MD wrote:
20 Apr 2021 04:18
Ships follow schedules; a ship trading from Genoa to New York that leaves Genoa on Day One is going to be on her way back on Day 20 (or whatever); if the ships that "would" have left Genoa at some point are, instead, kept at home, guess what? They are not at risk.

Likewise, the ships that are at sea when the war planning gets underway will, if given the time, get back "home" on schedule, absent any "masses" of ships have to run Scylla and Charybdis (figuratively). It's really not that challenging.

The Japanese and the Americans both managed to get the vast majority of their merchant fleets "home" before their respective balloons went up; this is basic planning and program management; it is not theoretical physics. Only the Germans and Italians were apparently unable to handle basic routing and shipping control tasks.

Please provide examples of Italian shipping that was interned in the Western Hemisphere where the crews' efforts made any difference in terms of these same ships being placed in Allied service.
daveshoup2MD, my patience has a limit. You are just the 1000th member of this forum who likes to hijack threads, wasting other members' time with your "hey, look at me: I am a genious! I know nothing at all but I would have won the war all alone!". If the management of this forum were a bit more effective (yes, I am writing also to you, moderators, who I hope will read this message - and I am going to report it; by the way, if instead you moderators will wish to ban me you will do me a favour, so I won't feel the need, from time to time, to write here, ending again and again in situations like this one; moreover, if the number of Italians writing here, except those interested in very specific topics, is close to zero probably it's because this forum is full of retards whose hobby is to spit on Italy), you and the other members like you would have been banned long time ago. Now you even dare to talk about Japanese and US ships when I have already told you (and you should have known it long time before) that US-Japanese trade was unexisting in Dec. 1941 and it was this closure of trade one of the primary causes of Pearl Harbor. Open "Bankrupting the Enemy" and try to read it, then even to understand it, and then maybe you will stop writing nonsense. The sabotage of Italian merchantmen is a known fact since, well, 80 years ago (there were even some interesting trials in US courts!). Read and try to learn something before pretending to be a great strategist. And now I won't waste a single minute more with a moron like you.
Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8847
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 20 Apr 2021 18:09

Pips wrote:
20 Apr 2021 10:44
Also well worth trying to get your hands on J.J. Sadkovich's excellent "The Italian Navy In World War II".
Thanks again for this.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by daveshoup2MD » 21 Apr 2021 03:48

DrG wrote:
20 Apr 2021 14:22
daveshoup2MD wrote:
20 Apr 2021 04:18
Ships follow schedules; a ship trading from Genoa to New York that leaves Genoa on Day One is going to be on her way back on Day 20 (or whatever); if the ships that "would" have left Genoa at some point are, instead, kept at home, guess what? They are not at risk.

Likewise, the ships that are at sea when the war planning gets underway will, if given the time, get back "home" on schedule, absent any "masses" of ships have to run Scylla and Charybdis (figuratively). It's really not that challenging.

The Japanese and the Americans both managed to get the vast majority of their merchant fleets "home" before their respective balloons went up; this is basic planning and program management; it is not theoretical physics. Only the Germans and Italians were apparently unable to handle basic routing and shipping control tasks.

Please provide examples of Italian shipping that was interned in the Western Hemisphere where the crews' efforts made any difference in terms of these same ships being placed in Allied service.
daveshoup2MD, my patience has a limit. You are just the 1000th member of this forum who likes to hijack threads, wasting other members' time with your "hey, look at me: I am a genious! I know nothing at all but I would have won the war all alone!". If the management of this forum were a bit more effective (yes, I am writing also to you, moderators, who I hope will read this message - and I am going to report it; by the way, if instead you moderators will wish to ban me you will do me a favour, so I won't feel the need, from time to time, to write here, ending again and again in situations like this one; moreover, if the number of Italians writing here, except those interested in very specific topics, is close to zero probably it's because this forum is full of retards whose hobby is to spit on Italy), you and the other members like you would have been banned long time ago. Now you even dare to talk about Japanese and US ships when I have already told you (and you should have known it long time before) that US-Japanese trade was unexisting in Dec. 1941 and it was this closure of trade one of the primary causes of Pearl Harbor. Open "Bankrupting the Enemy" and try to read it, then even to understand it, and then maybe you will stop writing nonsense. The sabotage of Italian merchantmen is a known fact since, well, 80 years ago (there were even some interesting trials in US courts!). Read and try to learn something before pretending to be a great strategist. And now I won't waste a single minute more with a moron like you.
Lighten up, Francis.

The reference to US and Japanese ships was to US-flag and Japanese-flag merchantmen that were at risk of seizure from (respectively) the Allies or the Axis in 1941 or 1939-40, respectively, as hostilities began - hence the point about SS Washington and her sister ship Manhattan being on the New York-Hamburg route until December, 1939, and then were on the New York-Naples-Genoa route until June of 1940.

Interesting contrast to the Italian-flag ships SS Conte Biancamano (interned in Panama in 1940) and SS Conte Grande (interned in Brazil in 1940). Both were in commission as US Navy troopships by the time of TORCH, and were employed in moving US soldiers to North Africa. Presumably Messe et al would have rather not had that happen, correct?

Again, doesn't really take tremendous foresight to get ships home safely, especially if the country involved is the aggressor.

Dili
Member
Posts: 2200
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 22:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by Dili » 21 Apr 2021 12:52

Again, doesn't really take tremendous foresight to get ships home safely, especially if the country involved is the aggressor.
Yes it does have. It gives a warning to the enemy. Those ship were not essential. When war in NA was already lost then even came the French merchants which were surplus to needs.

User avatar
DrG
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 21 Oct 2003 22:23
Location: Italia

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by DrG » 22 Apr 2021 00:51

I asked the moderators to take an action about these constant hijackings of threads, or at least of this one (what Italian merchantmen stranded outside the Med in June 1940 have to do with this topic is still a mystery for me), but none was taken. Therefore, I formally request my ban from this forum, so as to avoid to post here again (I know myself enough to know that, even after months or years, I would return anyway). I have just opened a new profile, with this same nickname, on Comando Supremo, even though it's a forum too devoted to technical and tactical matters for my liking. I have always thought that writing in a secluded environment such as forums focused on a single country is not a good choice, but here there is too much noise, at least in some sub-forums, caused by members who cannot understand when it's the time to stop writing about their brilliant strategies.

Farewell to all and thank you to those members who have let me learn new and useful things. Their list would be too long, but Carl Schwamberger, Sid Guttridge, Dili, Loïc, Steve and, last but not least, Michael Mills are the ones which I wish to thank the most. There are also a lot of other members with whom I have never interacted, or even I have argued, but I have read with keen interest their great contributions: thank you! I will read you also after my ban, of course, and probably I will enjoy it more, without feeling the need of writing something which would turn into a useless quarrell after a few messages.

And now, before going away forever, a brief explanation of my very recent signature. The study of history is primarily aimed at understanding, and understading cannot be reached without taking into account the information available at a precise moment (and very often unavailable to us, also because they have been lost or suppressed - Mussolini's diaries and personal documents, King Victor Emanuel III's diary and memoirs, the House of Savoy's papers for the XX century, etc. - or altered - the forgeries in Ciano's diary, in general every authorized edition of diaries or biographies, etc. - or ignored by historians), the material constraints, in a complex socio-economic environment, and the cultural formation which affected the men who made history. This requires much more humility and charity than is usually employed by readers and even historians and than I used to employ too. Once you really try to follow this way of thinking, it is much easier to understand why some choices were made and thus to justify those men who took them. And finally tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner takes its full meaning: it does not mean that those men were all good or right (even though, 99% of times, when a historian blames somebody for his idiocy, the true idiot is the historian himself), but that they were doing their best with what they were endowed by life, nature and time. Parce sepultis.
Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by daveshoup2MD » 22 Apr 2021 04:39

Dili wrote:
21 Apr 2021 12:52
Again, doesn't really take tremendous foresight to get ships home safely, especially if the country involved is the aggressor.
Yes it does have. It gives a warning to the enemy. Those ship were not essential. When war in NA was already lost then even came the French merchants which were surplus to needs.
Were the British and French unaware of the potential threat from the Italians in May or June, 1940? Really?

Considering the ability of the French to stop the Italian offensive on the Mediterranean Coast dead, even while the Germans were running rampant in northern and central France, apparently not... same for the British, of course.

In a maritime campaign, every ship is essential, as is every trained mariner; all one has to do is read the history of any proposed amphibious operation or trans-oceanic deployment, to this day.

Equally important? Denying the enemy expensive resources. There's a reason "scorched earth tactics" is a thing.

Dili
Member
Posts: 2200
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 22:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by Dili » 22 Apr 2021 15:42

Are you aware that Mussolini only entered the war to get a seat at a supposed peace conference after French collapse?

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by daveshoup2MD » 25 Apr 2021 03:39

Dili wrote:
22 Apr 2021 15:42
Are you aware that Mussolini only entered the war to get a seat at a supposed peace conference after French collapse?
And was that possibility somehow a mystery to the British and French? There was a previous statement in this thread that somehow the Italians being capable enough to not strand valuable merchant shipping outside of the Med before they went to war would have - somehow - alerted the British and French to the coming Italian onslaught...

Dili
Member
Posts: 2200
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 22:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by Dili » 26 Apr 2021 17:05

You know what confluence of factors mean?

Other things for you to study:
Relative importance, ie: not all factors have same weight. That is a very difficult concept for binary thinkers.
Pros and cons of an idea and the fact that a decision goes one way does not mean the a contrary item was dismissed as non valid just that its weight is not enough to change direction against other antagonistic factors.

Optimization
Holistic
Critical Mass

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by daveshoup2MD » 28 Apr 2021 04:58

Dili wrote:
26 Apr 2021 17:05
You know what confluence of factors mean?

Other things for you to study:
Relative importance, ie: not all factors have same weight. That is a very difficult concept for binary thinkers.
Pros and cons of an idea and the fact that a decision goes one way does not mean the a contrary item was dismissed as non valid just that its weight is not enough to change direction against other antagonistic factors.

Optimization
Holistic
Critical Mass
You know what wasting vital assets in wartime means?

Defeat.

Dili
Member
Posts: 2200
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 22:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by Dili » 28 Apr 2021 14:42

They were not vital.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2673
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 28 Apr 2021 17:56

daveshoup2MD wrote:
21 Apr 2021 03:48
The reference to US and Japanese ships was to US-flag and Japanese-flag merchantmen that were at risk of seizure from (respectively) the Allies or the Axis in 1941 or 1939-40, respectively, as hostilities began - hence the point about SS Washington and her sister ship Manhattan being on the New York-Hamburg route until December, 1939, and then were on the New York-Naples-Genoa route until June of 1940.
Now I’m confused. Are you saying that the fact that the US stopped trading with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the last few months of 1941 was some sort of brilliant foresight that war was just about to break out? Really? :lol:

Regards

Tom

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by daveshoup2MD » 28 Apr 2021 23:14

Dili wrote:
28 Apr 2021 14:42
They were not vital.
Fast transatlantic liners and "any" ocean-going cargo shipping were, indeed, vital; just ask the survivors of Messe's Italian 1st Army in May, 1943...

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Naval Doctrine/Stratgey Development 1920>

Post by daveshoup2MD » 28 Apr 2021 23:19

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
28 Apr 2021 17:56
daveshoup2MD wrote:
21 Apr 2021 03:48
The reference to US and Japanese ships was to US-flag and Japanese-flag merchantmen that were at risk of seizure from (respectively) the Allies or the Axis in 1941 or 1939-40, respectively, as hostilities began - hence the point about SS Washington and her sister ship Manhattan being on the New York-Hamburg route until December, 1939, and then were on the New York-Naples-Genoa route until June of 1940.
Now I’m confused. Are you saying that the fact that the US stopped trading with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the last few months of 1941 was some sort of brilliant foresight that war was just about to break out? Really? :lol:

Regards

Tom
War had broken out; the US had invoked the Neutrality Act (and then the embargo against Japan); and US-flag shipping was withdrawn from active war zones in 1939-41. The Japanese, for their part, weren't sending their merchantmen into US or British-controlled waters in the fall of 1941, either, although presumably there remained "some" commercial opportunities for cargo traffic to neutral ports in the Indian Ocean and Atlantic.

The Italians, who were the ones who decided to go to war in the summer of 1940, were unable to do the same. Are you saying the Italians were surprised by their own declaration of war against Britain and France in the summer of 1940?
Last edited by daveshoup2MD on 28 Apr 2021 23:20, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Italy under Fascism 1922-1945”