Italy court confirms jail term for Berlusconi

[Liep]

How low can they go?

[Neil]

I'm by no means a naval history buff, but I have to agree.  I remember first reading about the Italian Navy in WWII and seeing a bunch of pictures of their ships.  Then seeing how horribly the Navy performed.  What a waste.

They had no defenses at all to air attack.  A couple tiny air raids on Ontranto and it was pretty much curtains for a navy that had soaked up a huge percentage of Italy's military budget.

Not at all.  Granted, Italian AA wasn't as effective as even the RN's, but surprise attacking ships in harbour was one of the few ways that carrier aircraft could be really effective against battleships.  The Italians at Taranto deserve no more castigation than the Americans at Pearl Harbour.  Well, maybe a little more, as better torpedo netting might have helped a bit.  The Taranto attack did reduce Italy's battleship force significantly, as the three damaged battleships might have really been useful at Matapan, where three RN battleships destroyed three of the four Zara-class cruisers in a night action.  Only one Italian battleship was at the battle, which is why they ran.

Still, two of the three damaged battleships at Taranto returned to action within six months, and shortly after they returned the sinking of the Barham and the frogman attack on Valiant and Queen Elizabeth put the British in a battleship bind of their own.  The problem with the Italians was the timidity of their commanders and their inability to cope with technology.  Radar is what got the Zaras killed at Matapan, and Italian commanders had a tendency to run from an even fight.  Sure, that's not bad strategy if you absolutely have to keep your fleet alive, but it also means that you're not getting anywhere.  Setting traps to try and lure RN cruisers under battleship guns wasn't going to win the war or even freedom of action in the Med.

[grumbler]

You know what I like best about Italy?  Their heavy cruiser designs.  The big, treaty-violating designs.  Sure the twin turrets weren't the best move, but they were just nice ships that really had some interesting possibilities in the waters of the Med.

The Zara was pretty.

The Zaras were pretty, but full of goofy design choices.  The catapults on the forecastle were unusable in any kind of weather or when the ship was in action, and the hanger there took up incredibly valuable real estate for a distinctly secondary purpose.  The gun turrets were known to have mutual interference problems between the too-close-together guns (since the design had been in service since 1928) and were used unchanged anyway.  The range of these ships was really crappy for a cruiser, as well.

I don't think anyone can complain about the ships' armor design and execution, though.  It didn't stop 15" shells fired from 4,000 yards away, but then no cruiser could be built with Warspite-proof armor.  These ships were much better armored than the later German Hipper class cruisers.

[grumbler]

Not at all.  Granted, Italian AA wasn't as effective as even the RN's, but surprise attacking ships in harbour was one of the few ways that carrier aircraft could be really effective against battleships.  The Italians at Taranto deserve no more castigation than the Americans at Pearl Harbour.  Well, maybe a little more, as better torpedo netting might have helped a bit.  The Taranto attack did reduce Italy's battleship force significantly, as the three damaged battleships might have really been useful at Matapan, where three RN battleships destroyed three of the four Zara-class cruisers in a night action.  Only one Italian battleship was at the battle, which is why they ran.

The Italians focused attention on AA long before the Brits did, and actually had heavy AA batteries for their time.  As you say, they hadn't really thought out the implications of air attacks on harbors, and got burned for it.

Still, two of the three damaged battleships at Taranto returned to action within six months, and shortly after they returned the sinking of the Barham and the frogman attack on Valiant and Queen Elizabeth put the British in a battleship bind of their own.  The problem with the Italians was the timidity of their commanders and their inability to cope with technology.  Radar is what got the Zaras killed at Matapan, and Italian commanders had a tendency to run from an even fight.  Sure, that's not bad strategy if you absolutely have to keep your fleet alive, but it also means that you're not getting anywhere.  Setting traps to try and lure RN cruisers under battleship guns wasn't going to win the war or even freedom of action in the Med.

The Italian senior naval officer corps was so politicized and riddled with jealousy and backbiting that admirals at sea remained more concerned with their Italian enemies than their British ones.  No one wanted to take risks for fear that they would lose their commands.  Only the Japanese came close to matching Italian naval efforts to defeat themselves.

[Neil]

The Italians focused attention on AA long before the Brits did, and actually had heavy AA batteries for their time.  As you say, they hadn't really thought out the implications of air attacks on harbors, and got burned for it.

But how was their fire control?  Also, their heavy AA was pretty faulty.  Great guns, but the mountings were faulty.  I will give them credit for making better use of light AA than the British did at first.

The Italian senior naval officer corps was so politicized and riddled with jealousy and backbiting that admirals at sea remained more concerned with their Italian enemies than their British ones.  No one wanted to take risks for fear that they would lose their commands.  Only the Japanese came close to matching Italian naval efforts to defeat themselves.

Yeah, too true.  The Italians spent so many years trying to develop a real world class professional navy, but fascism sort of broke that down.

[Neil]

The Zaras were pretty, but full of goofy design choices.  The catapults on the forecastle were unusable in any kind of weather or when the ship was in action, and the hanger there took up incredibly valuable real estate for a distinctly secondary purpose.  The gun turrets were known to have mutual interference problems between the too-close-together guns (since the design had been in service since 1928) and were used unchanged anyway.  The range of these ships was really crappy for a cruiser, as well.

I don't think anyone can complain about the ships' armor design and execution, though.  It didn't stop 15" shells fired from 4,000 yards away, but then no cruiser could be built with Warspite-proof armor.  These ships were much better armored than the later German Hipper class cruisers.

They were better armoured than pretty much any cruisers built before the USN started building monsters in the 40s.  Pretty impressive.  The gun issue is funny, given that pretty much every cruiser they built at the time were suffering from that to some degree or another.

I don't think that range was a big concern for the Italians, given that they weren't really built with the idea of operating far from base.  They were more concerned with running down the French than reaching out into the Atlantic.  I don't really hold it against them.

[grumbler]

I don't think that range was a big concern for the Italians, given that they weren't really built with the idea of operating far from base.  They were more concerned with running down the French than reaching out into the Atlantic.  I don't really hold it against them.

They traded range and (to some extent) firepower for protection.  You are probably correct that that was the better choice, for them.

[Neil]

I don't think that range was a big concern for the Italians, given that they weren't really built with the idea of operating far from base.  They were more concerned with running down the French than reaching out into the Atlantic.  I don't really hold it against them.

They traded range and (to some extent) firepower for protection.  You are probably correct that that was the better choice, for them.

As opposed to the smaller Italian cruisers, which traded range, protection and seaworthiness for blazing speed.

[fhdz]

I love that a Berlusconi thread here on Languish turns into a naval discussion.

[Neil]

Honestly, I'm thinking about doing this to every thread.

[garbon]

That's a great way to wind the party down.

[Threviel]

You know what I like best about Italy?  Their heavy cruiser designs.  The big, treaty-violating designs.  Sure the twin turrets weren't the best move, but they were just nice ships that really had some interesting possibilities in the waters of the Med.

The Zara was pretty.

The Zaras were pretty, but full of goofy design choices.  The catapults on the forecastle were unusable in any kind of weather or when the ship was in action, and the hanger there took up incredibly valuable real estate for a distinctly secondary purpose.  The gun turrets were known to have mutual interference problems between the too-close-together guns (since the design had been in service since 1928) and were used unchanged anyway.  The range of these ships was really crappy for a cruiser, as well.

I don't think anyone can complain about the ships' armor design and execution, though.  It didn't stop 15" shells fired from 4,000 yards away, but then no cruiser could be built with Warspite-proof armor.  These ships were much better armored than the later German Hipper class cruisers.

I don't want to be rude or anything, but I see this all the time and not being a native English speaker I get unsure. Is it Hangar or Hanger or both? Or is there some difference?

[Neil]

Hangar.  That said, it's a fairly common misspell, because of the war that 'hangar' is pronounced.

[Ed Anger]

And hanger is the object used that Joan Crawford would beat her daughter with.

[grumbler]

Hangar.  That said, it's a fairly common misspell, because of the war that 'hangar' is pronounced.

You know, I never ever caught that, despite all that time in the navy (including underway time on 6 different carriers)! 

I didn't even see the difference when threviel asked his question, until I looked a second or third time.