I never thought he'd ever have a conviction confirmed :cry:
QuoteItaly court confirms jail term for Berlusconi
Court upholds tax fraud sentence of four years in prison of which three years are covered by an amnesty.
Last Modified: 01 Aug 2013 23:31
Italy's top court has confirmed a prison sentence for former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi.
Thursday's verdict is the first ever definitive conviction in a tumultuous career for the billionaire tycoon.
The court upheld a tax fraud sentence of four years in prison of which three years are covered by an amnesty, even though Berlusconi is certain to be granted community service or house arrest instead.
Speaking after the verdict, Giorgio Napolitano, the Italian president, urged the country to maintain its calm.
"The country needs to rediscover serenity and cohesion on vitally important institutional matters which have for too long seen it divided and unable to enact reforms," he said in a statement.
He said there had so far been a more "respectful and calm" climate than there had been in previous trials involving Berlusconi and added: "I think this is positive for everyone."
Dozens of police officers blocked off the road in front of Berlusconi's Rome residence ahead of the landmark ruling.
Supporters and opponents of the media baron staged small demonstrations in different parts of Rome.
"Hands off Berlusconi" read a placard held up by one of around 60 activists near the ageing playboy's luxurious home in the centre of the Italian capital.
"We want to say that whatever happens, we will be with him," said Simone Furlan, leader of a group calling itself "Silvio's Army" which organised the rally.
Protesters
Outside the courtroom in a different part of the city centre, a group of anti-Berlusconi activists gathered - holding up a banner reading: "The law is equal for everyone".
Court sources had quoted by the Italian news agency ANSA said there was a possibility that if there was no ruling by 1900 GMT, the verdict could be delayed until Friday.
Even if Berlusconi's conviction is upheld, the sentence cannot be implemented until the Senate votes to lift his parliamentary immunity - a process that could take weeks or even months.
The case revolves around Berlusconi's business empire Mediaset - the starting point for his first foray into politics in the early 1990s.
His tumultuous career has been constantly dogged by legal troubles which he says are politically motivated attacks by left-wing prosecutors.
Final appeal
The current trial is Berlusconi's second and final appeal in the case, which first went to trial in 2006.
The verdict is the first definitive conviction since all past rulings against him have either been overturned on appeal or the charges have expired due to Italy's slow justice system.
He is also appealing convictions in other cases for having sex with an underage prostitute, abusing his prime ministerial powers and leaking a police wiretap to damage a political rival.
Prosecutors have also filed charges alleging he bribed a senator to join his ranks in a move that helped bring down the government in 2008.
"I haven't slept for a month. I wake up at night and stare at the ceiling, thinking about what they've done to me," the media magnate said in an interview with Libero newspaper on Sunday.
"I will not go into exile. Nor will I accept being entrusted to social services, like a criminal who has to be reeducated," he said.
There's a lot of community service that would be well suited for Berlusconi's talents. He seems interested in troubled teenage girls, for instance. :bowler:
So, the twenty year appeals process begins? Again?
FREE SILVIO
NO BUNGA BUNGA PARTIES NO PEACE
I'm no fan of Silvio's by any stretch of the imagination, but isn't everybody in Italy guilty of tax fraud?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2013, 08:40:14 PM
FREE SILVIO
NO BUNGA BUNGA PARTIES NO PEACE
NO! SLEEP! TIL BUNGA!
Quote
"The law is equal for everyone"
Not for Amanda Knox.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 09:10:48 PM
Quote
"The law is equal for everyone"
Not for Amanda Knox.
True dat, yo.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 09:10:48 PM
Quote
"The law is equal for everyone"
Not for Amanda Knox.
Not for anyone in Italy. It's a screwy country, the shame of Western Europe.
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.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 10:42:40 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 08:20:09 PM
So, the twenty year appeals process begins? Again?
Nowhere left to appeal, this was the Supreme Court.
He's still appealing the 5 year ban on political activity and I think the underage prostitute cases are still working through the courts.
I'm surprised he didn't do a Craxi.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2013, 06:43:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 10:42:40 PM
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.
Yeah. The Italians made some really attractive ships. It's a shame they were so poorly fought.
Quote from: Neil on August 02, 2013, 10:55:13 AM
Yeah. The Italians made some really attractive ships. It's a shame they were so poorly fought.
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.
Conversely, when I first read up on Italian tanks, I was amazed their armored units were able to perform as well as they did.
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
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.
The ministers and members of parliament of Berlusconi's party have threatened to step down if the president doesn't grant amnesty to Silvio.
Which would plunge Italy deeper into crisis.
How low can they go?
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2013, 06:43:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 10:42:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 09:44:44 AM
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.
QuoteStill, 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.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 02:51:23 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 02:44:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2013, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
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.
I love that a Berlusconi thread here on Languish turns into a naval discussion. :lol:
Honestly, I'm thinking about doing this to every thread.
That's a great way to wind the party down.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2013, 02:44:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2013, 06:43:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 10:42:40 PM
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?
Hangar. That said, it's a fairly common misspell, because of the war that 'hangar' is pronounced.
And hanger is the object used that Joan Crawford would beat her daughter with.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 08:17:24 AM
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)! :lol:
I didn't even see the difference when threviel asked his question, until I looked a second or third time. :ph34r:
Quote from: fhdz on August 04, 2013, 09:20:18 PM
I love that a Berlusconi thread here on Languish turns into a naval discussion. :lol:
Had Languish existed during WWII, the thread on the Battle of Taranto would have turned into a discussion of some obscure topic from the Franco Prussian War.
Quote from: Neil on August 04, 2013, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2013, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
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.
Blazing speed "during trials when overloading the engines" you surely mean (as wartime experience showed) - except for the Capitani Romani class that sadly entered service too late to do much good.
I'm not a big fan of this derailment. Berlusconi is probably the greatest guy in history. :mad:
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 04, 2013, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2013, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
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.
Blazing speed "during trials when overloading the engines" you surely mean (as wartime experience showed) - except for the Capitani Romani class that sadly entered service too late to do much good.
To be fair, it's not like it was common to make your trial speed in combat situations. But they were fast enough to flee from the British at every turn.
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2013, 06:55:22 PM
I'm not a big fan of this derailment. Berlusconi is probably the greatest guy in history. :mad:
So you could say he is the modern politician equivalent of a Zara class cruiser prewar? :hmm:
He's more of an Admiral Scheer :wub:
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 07:33:07 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 04, 2013, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2013, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
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.
Blazing speed "during trials when overloading the engines" you surely mean (as wartime experience showed) - except for the Capitani Romani class that sadly entered service too late to do much good.
To be fair, it's not like it was common to make your trial speed in combat situations. But they were fast enough to flee from the British at every turn.
The first batch of the Condotierris, the ones with the fastest trial speeds, certainly weren't fast enough to "flee from the British at every turn."
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2013, 07:43:19 PM
He's more of an Admiral Scheer :wub:
I had a model of the Graf Spee. First model my Dad bought me. :)
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 07:33:07 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 04, 2013, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2013, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
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.
Blazing speed "during trials when overloading the engines" you surely mean (as wartime experience showed) - except for the Capitani Romani class that sadly entered service too late to do much good.
To be fair, it's not like it was common to make your trial speed in combat situations. But they were fast enough to flee from the British at every turn.
The first batch of the Condotierris, the ones with the fastest trial speeds, certainly weren't fast enough to "flee from the British at every turn."
Speed one way or the other doesn't make much of a difference in battles like Cape Bon. For one thing, they were fighting destroyers, which should have a speed advantage against anything. For another, it's difficult to control the engagement in a night action when your enemy has radar and you don't. The Italians were good at running from British forces they knew about. When a flotilla of destroyers snuck up behind them and torpedoed them from point blank range, before pouring gunfire into them, they had a harder time. Actually, that's almost the exact situation that got the Zaras destroyed, except the 4th Cruiser Squadron had no reason to expect a sudden destroyer attack, whereas the Zaras knew the enemy was near and searching for them.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2013, 07:43:19 PM
He's more of an Admiral Scheer :wub:
I had a model of the Graf Spee. First model my Dad bought me. :)
My first was Hood, but shortly thereafter I got a 1/700 waterline Matchbox Graf Spee.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 07:33:07 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 04, 2013, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2013, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
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.
Blazing speed "during trials when overloading the engines" you surely mean (as wartime experience showed) - except for the Capitani Romani class that sadly entered service too late to do much good.
To be fair, it's not like it was common to make your trial speed in combat situations. But they were fast enough to flee from the British at every turn.
The first batch of the Condotierris, the ones with the fastest trial speeds, certainly weren't fast enough to "flee from the British at every turn."
Speed one way or the other doesn't make much of a difference in battles like Cape Bon. For one thing, they were fighting destroyers, which should have a speed advantage against anything. For another, it's difficult to control the engagement in a night action when your enemy has radar and you don't. The Italians were good at running from British forces they knew about. When a flotilla of destroyers snuck up behind them and torpedoed them from point blank range, before pouring gunfire into them, they had a harder time. Actually, that's almost the exact situation that got the Zaras destroyed, except the 4th Cruiser Squadron had no reason to expect a sudden destroyer attack, whereas the Zaras knew the enemy was near and searching for them.
I was actually thinking of Spada, not Bon. And even at Bon the "official" speeds of the cruisers in question were supposedly faster than those of the Destroyers that snuck up on them.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 11:14:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2013, 07:43:19 PM
He's more of an Admiral Scheer :wub:
I had a model of the Graf Spee. First model my Dad bought me. :)
My first was Hood, but shortly thereafter I got a 1/700 waterline Matchbox Graf Spee.
I graduated to the South Dakota. Never could get those mast things right on the superstructure.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 06, 2013, 06:52:17 AM
I graduated to the South Dakota. Never could get those mast things right on the superstructure.
That's why I stuck with aircraft carriers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 06, 2013, 06:52:17 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 11:14:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2013, 07:43:19 PM
He's more of an Admiral Scheer :wub:
I had a model of the Graf Spee. First model my Dad bought me. :)
My first was Hood, but shortly thereafter I got a 1/700 waterline Matchbox Graf Spee.
I graduated to the South Dakota. Never could get those mast things right on the superstructure.
I followed up Graf Spee with Iowa, and then Gneisenau.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 06, 2013, 06:45:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 07:33:07 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 05, 2013, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 04, 2013, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2013, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
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.
Blazing speed "during trials when overloading the engines" you surely mean (as wartime experience showed) - except for the Capitani Romani class that sadly entered service too late to do much good.
To be fair, it's not like it was common to make your trial speed in combat situations. But they were fast enough to flee from the British at every turn.
The first batch of the Condotierris, the ones with the fastest trial speeds, certainly weren't fast enough to "flee from the British at every turn."
Speed one way or the other doesn't make much of a difference in battles like Cape Bon. For one thing, they were fighting destroyers, which should have a speed advantage against anything. For another, it's difficult to control the engagement in a night action when your enemy has radar and you don't. The Italians were good at running from British forces they knew about. When a flotilla of destroyers snuck up behind them and torpedoed them from point blank range, before pouring gunfire into them, they had a harder time. Actually, that's almost the exact situation that got the Zaras destroyed, except the 4th Cruiser Squadron had no reason to expect a sudden destroyer attack, whereas the Zaras knew the enemy was near and searching for them.
I was actually thinking of Spada, not Bon. And even at Bon the "official" speeds of the cruisers in question were supposedly faster than those of the Destroyers that snuck up on them.
I had a lengthier post that seems to have been eaten in the forum switchover.
At any rate, there was no reason to expect the cruisers at Cape Bon to be steaming at anything more than cruising speed. And as for Spada, that's a good example of how the Italians couldn't make ultra-high speeds, even if the ships were mishandled in their maneuvering to avoid Crete.
Since this is the naval thread, what do you guys all think of Japan's new "it's a self-defence ship with a flight deck but it's not a carrier"? How do you rate it, how does it change the dynamic in the area?
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23594519 (the BBC calls it a "Battleship" :) )
Quote from: Jacob on August 06, 2013, 03:29:54 PM
Since this is the naval thread, what do you guys all think of Japan's new "it's a self-defence ship with a flight deck but it's not a carrier"? How do you rate it, how does it change the dynamic in the area?
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23594519 (the BBC calls it a "Battleship" :) )
Other than its use for popping Chinese subs, I don't think it's that big of a deal.
It wouldn't carry many f-35's.
If I was a Chinese admiral, I'd worry more about the 7th fleet coming in and assraping me for fucking with Japan.
Quote from: Jacob on August 06, 2013, 03:29:54 PM
Since this is the naval thread, what do you guys all think of Japan's new "it's a self-defence ship with a flight deck but it's not a carrier"? How do you rate it, how does it change the dynamic in the area?
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23594519 (the BBC calls it a "Battleship" :) )
It doesn't really change the dynamic; like Ed says, it's simply another step in the evolution of Japan's overall ASW strategy and that's nothing new to the Japanese, who are simply countering the Chinese developments in increasing their submarine capabilities. I think more importantly, it offers a nice platform for increased international participation in humanitarian disaster response, which is something the last several governments have wanted to see develop.
Good for the JMSDF. Little baddasses.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 06, 2013, 04:43:40 PM
If I was a Chinese admiral, I'd worry more about the 7th fleet coming in and assraping me for fucking with Japan.
Interesting analysis in FP this week on the continued development of the AirSeaBattle doctrine, and how it could increase the potential for war with China.
After all, with its emphasis on the traditional US philosophy of forward power projection and the Joint Operational Access Concept designed to roll back an opponent's multiple layers of sea lane anti-access/anti-denial in depth, it's specifically designed for the little bastards.
While I don't think it increases the potential for war on the US' part--I place that burden of responsibility solely on the Chinese--the one thing about that strategy that needs to be taken into consideration is that it could very well necessitate strikes on Chinese soil to degrade those assets, and that elevates any potential conflict scenario to a whole new ballgame in a much bigger fucking ballpark.
I approve of the new Japanese helicopter carrier. It's pretty comparable in size to the Japanese fleet carriers of WWII. There's a lot of need by the Japanese for ASW capacity, what with the high potential for armed conflict with China.