Italian Navy problem was that they were not able to cooperate with Air Forces to fight on the sea. Aircraft carriers were not built because of Aviation's opposition and lack of decision by Italian Royal Navy; they didn't decide if carriers should be useful or not. Unfortunately, final decision was taken by Mussolini, a perfect incompetent person regarding Navy. The war told that without an efficient air force (and aircraft carriers), you could not win. And that's was happened.
The Problem was, that the Italian Navy was not able to fight right an they had to much fear of losses. only the little ships did their job the rest was top afraid to do anything. The same Problem was in the Army and with the aircraft.
@clama79 You got the point.Italian Shipyard produced excellent ships,but the number of ships was much lower of British and Americans.This explain the creation of X° MAS and Gruppo Gamma.In the army the problem was different,good soldier bad officers,as Rommel Said too.And in Air Force,with the Macchi Veltro,Fiat G-55,probably the best aircraft in WWII,with german engines D-B,the problem was that came too late, the factories had already been bombed, and the few just could not make the difference.
@clama79 also, of course, the main problem for the navy was the lack of aircraft carriers for the initial conflicts between RM and RA, and the lack of radar because of the navy chiefs of staff, who did not see the radar (at least initially, it will be developed much later) with a potential vantage.Something similar in the army with without MBT and more.
@banmadabon Ah, I see. Originally I used "La Donna e mobile" sung by Pavarotti but I had to exchange it with audio swap due to copy right claims. Luckily they had "La donna e mobile" but not by Pavarotti.
very interesting! I didn't know Italy was building a Carrier.
I'd say the problem with RM was more the lack of desire to combat than lack of good ships. Fleet command was in the hands of Aristocracy, they considered fascists no better than animals
@vaxiawval I think that is a bit too harsh. We shouldn't forget that the Axis in general had troubles to supply their big ships with enough fuel. Furthermore the RM main task was to hold ties to their North African colony Libya which they established more or less for two years.
You certainly have a point with Fleet Command being aristocratic and their aversion against the Fascists.
i'm italian and i do understand what you care the royal italian navy, we italians do video mostrari warsprite battleship or the battleship arizona? and at the aircraft aquila has never been completated
@91diabolik I don't get it. Don't you understand why I made a video about RN Aquila? Or do you question in general the validity of videos about Regia Marina done by none Italians?
Of all Battleship Building Navies Italy seems to be the only one to NOT have any follow up designs after the Littorio Class.
The US - Montana Class
UK - Lion Class
France - Alsace Class
Germany - H39 Battleships
Japan - Design A-150 Super Yamatos
Russia - Sovietski Soyuz (based on Ansaldo's UP41 design).
Italy - NONE!?!
Somebody speculated that Italy would have built in response to France's 50K ton Alsace class an enlarged Littorio with 12 x 15 Inch Guns arranged in 4 triple turrets.
@tamenga88 Perhaps there were designs but they weren't published after the war. Or perhaps they spared a new design for the day they finished battleship Impero.
Having seen this video and that of Graf Zeppelin, I think both ships were of similar capability, if they had ever been used. But the lack of urgency with both ships shows the "regional" naval power debate: both Germany and Italy could easily "project naval power" with handsome, capable surface ships, with Germany's naval strategy also involving subs...The full potential of CVs was hinted at by the IJN (outstanding in '41), and fully developed by the US Navy. RMarina overall disappointing.
I think your verdict on Regia Marina is too harsh. Although they lost every battle on open sea, they were very successful in raiding harbours like Alexandria and Souda Bay. Furthermore their main task was to hold the ties between Lybia and Italy which they could achieve more or less for two years.
@ralsterV Sorry to correct you, but the "full potential of CVs" was first hinted at by the British not the Japanese and then US navy. In 1940, we carried out the attack that gave the Japanese the idea for Pearl Harbor. The Attack on the Italina fleet at Taranto was the proof of what carrier aircraft could do.
I'm not familiar with that but it makes sense. Graf Zeppelin was laid up in February 43. Mussolini was overthrown in September 43 which caught Hitler on surprise. It's possible that Germany supported Italy in completing their carrier as long as Italy was part of the Axis.
@GOODFELLAS74 Sorry to correct you but the carreir was not 100% Italian. Visits to Germany in 1941 and 42 were to get advice on the developmet. There is no shame in this. It is a logical thing to have done. The Germans certainly did for their carrier Graf Zeppelin. (They visited Akagi in Japan and Furious in the UK).
Germany provided the Itlains with Catapult equipment, arrestor gear and landing lights from the Graf Zeppelin's scrapped sister ship.
@guasc0 Shall I really bother to explain myself for a comment I wrote around a year ago? At least I started it with the words "I'm not familiar with that...". That should be sufficient, shouldn't it?
Italian Navy problem was that they were not able to cooperate with Air Forces to fight on the sea. Aircraft carriers were not built because of Aviation's opposition and lack of decision by Italian Royal Navy; they didn't decide if carriers should be useful or not. Unfortunately, final decision was taken by Mussolini, a perfect incompetent person regarding Navy. The war told that without an efficient air force (and aircraft carriers), you could not win. And that's was happened.
Herzogluca 4 months ago
The Problem was, that the Italian Navy was not able to fight right an they had to much fear of losses. only the little ships did their job the rest was top afraid to do anything. The same Problem was in the Army and with the aircraft.
clama79 6 months ago
@clama79 You got the point.Italian Shipyard produced excellent ships,but the number of ships was much lower of British and Americans.This explain the creation of X° MAS and Gruppo Gamma.In the army the problem was different,good soldier bad officers,as Rommel Said too.And in Air Force,with the Macchi Veltro,Fiat G-55,probably the best aircraft in WWII,with german engines D-B,the problem was that came too late, the factories had already been bombed, and the few just could not make the difference.
RyoSaeba90 5 months ago
@clama79 also, of course, the main problem for the navy was the lack of aircraft carriers for the initial conflicts between RM and RA, and the lack of radar because of the navy chiefs of staff, who did not see the radar (at least initially, it will be developed much later) with a potential vantage.Something similar in the army with without MBT and more.
RyoSaeba90 5 months ago
Se questo è Pavarotti io son Bruce Lee
banmadabon 7 months ago
@banmadabon Bruce Lee does opera?
DrGull1888 7 months ago
@DrGull1888
The singer in the soundtrack of the video I commented obviously it's not Pavarotti so i told if this is Pavarotti I'm Bruce Lee
banmadabon 6 months ago
@banmadabon Ah, I see. Originally I used "La Donna e mobile" sung by Pavarotti but I had to exchange it with audio swap due to copy right claims. Luckily they had "La donna e mobile" but not by Pavarotti.
DrGull1888 6 months ago
chiacchiere... legnate ne avete prese e tante
fornaci77 7 months ago
Too bad it wasn't available in June of 1940. Italy currently has 2 aircraft carriers. Viva la Marina Miltare Italiana!!!
jdewitt77 1 year ago
nice!
USBportHub 1 year ago
very interesting! I didn't know Italy was building a Carrier.
I'd say the problem with RM was more the lack of desire to combat than lack of good ships. Fleet command was in the hands of Aristocracy, they considered fascists no better than animals
vaxiawval 1 year ago
@vaxiawval I think that is a bit too harsh. We shouldn't forget that the Axis in general had troubles to supply their big ships with enough fuel. Furthermore the RM main task was to hold ties to their North African colony Libya which they established more or less for two years.
You certainly have a point with Fleet Command being aristocratic and their aversion against the Fascists.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
i'm italian and i do understand what you care the royal italian navy, we italians do video mostrari warsprite battleship or the battleship arizona? and at the aircraft aquila has never been completated
91diabolik 1 year ago
@91diabolik I don't get it. Don't you understand why I made a video about RN Aquila? Or do you question in general the validity of videos about Regia Marina done by none Italians?
DrGull1888 1 year ago
Of all Battleship Building Navies Italy seems to be the only one to NOT have any follow up designs after the Littorio Class.
The US - Montana Class
UK - Lion Class
France - Alsace Class
Germany - H39 Battleships
Japan - Design A-150 Super Yamatos
Russia - Sovietski Soyuz (based on Ansaldo's UP41 design).
Italy - NONE!?!
Somebody speculated that Italy would have built in response to France's 50K ton Alsace class an enlarged Littorio with 12 x 15 Inch Guns arranged in 4 triple turrets.
tamenga88 1 year ago
@tamenga88 Perhaps there were designs but they weren't published after the war. Or perhaps they spared a new design for the day they finished battleship Impero.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
Having seen this video and that of Graf Zeppelin, I think both ships were of similar capability, if they had ever been used. But the lack of urgency with both ships shows the "regional" naval power debate: both Germany and Italy could easily "project naval power" with handsome, capable surface ships, with Germany's naval strategy also involving subs...The full potential of CVs was hinted at by the IJN (outstanding in '41), and fully developed by the US Navy. RMarina overall disappointing.
ralsterV 2 years ago
I think your verdict on Regia Marina is too harsh. Although they lost every battle on open sea, they were very successful in raiding harbours like Alexandria and Souda Bay. Furthermore their main task was to hold the ties between Lybia and Italy which they could achieve more or less for two years.
DrGull1888 2 years ago
@DrGull1888 "they lost every battle on open sea" ?!?!? What?? Like, just for example, Operation Harpoon? Like the two batles of Sirte? :-P
gbude 1 year ago
@gbude My apologies for my generalisation. It wasn't malice but just lack of knowledge
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@ralsterV Sorry to correct you, but the "full potential of CVs" was first hinted at by the British not the Japanese and then US navy. In 1940, we carried out the attack that gave the Japanese the idea for Pearl Harbor. The Attack on the Italina fleet at Taranto was the proof of what carrier aircraft could do.
jakemachon 1 year ago
I'm not familiar with that but it makes sense. Graf Zeppelin was laid up in February 43. Mussolini was overthrown in September 43 which caught Hitler on surprise. It's possible that Germany supported Italy in completing their carrier as long as Italy was part of the Axis.
DrGull1888 2 years ago
the carrier was 100% Italian,like it's Battle ship fleet,Germany never helped in the building of it.
GOODFELLAS74 2 years ago
@GOODFELLAS74 Sorry to correct you but the carreir was not 100% Italian. Visits to Germany in 1941 and 42 were to get advice on the developmet. There is no shame in this. It is a logical thing to have done. The Germans certainly did for their carrier Graf Zeppelin. (They visited Akagi in Japan and Furious in the UK).
Germany provided the Itlains with Catapult equipment, arrestor gear and landing lights from the Graf Zeppelin's scrapped sister ship.
jakemachon 1 year ago
@DrGull1888
"It's possible that Germany supported Italy in completing their carrier ........"
WHAT???........?????.....OMG!!!
guasc0 1 year ago
@guasc0 Shall I really bother to explain myself for a comment I wrote around a year ago? At least I started it with the words "I'm not familiar with that...". That should be sufficient, shouldn't it?
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@DrGull1888
OK, it's right! :-)
guasc0 1 year ago