Why bring kriegmarine?

[Gatt]

 

 

read some (even small, you can do it)

 

Yeah sorry i wont even bother to reply in a proper manner, as you sure didnt try to even give a YT link let alone anything else, while boasting about superior intellect ..... go suck on your moms tit while trying to build up on your ego ....

 

 

 

 

 

Well, actually you did replay in *your* proper manner. To each his own. What you did not do is replaying with facts.

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

Not really.

Atlantic Ocean was dominated by RN, and any opinions that "state" the RN was tragic, arogant etc. are just silly. Their ships overrated? Colony class cruisers being one of the absolute best - protection, durability, radar tech, seaworthines, firepower - hard to match. Vanguard being top notch BB, much better then Iowa in many regards (shame on the guns though). Tribal class DD? Damn elite. And german navy? Bismarck - biggest BB in the whole world at that time? Sunk. Admiral Graff Spee? 280 mm guns? Sunk. Basically, every vessel the RN tracked down was sunk sooner or later, or confined to it's port with minimal impact on war itself. There was talk how RN engaged Bismarc despite having "inferior" ships. Well, that is called duty and understanding what you have to do. Demise of HMS Hood is more an tragic accident, then sure outcome of battle. Now, casualties were indeed high. But RN did what it should - dominated the Atlantic Ocean and made sure that Mediterrean Sea was still under more or less control of the allies. And it is no small feat, bearing in mind the vast space that RN had to secure - including the Pacific Ocean. They did their job, that's what matters at war. You can't just belittle RN and go on with arguments that "lulz but they only fought Italians" - this alone makes any discussion hard. 

 

Pacific Ocean was a vastly different theater of war. First few months of the war were dominated by IJN because of the Pearl Harbour attack. But very soon the USN were back in the fight, which is also an success that is often overlooked. But more or less, from night fighting around Guadalcanal the IJN supremacy is over. There are of course battles that shows the capability of IJN tactics (Tassafaronga), but it doesn't change the fact, that after night fighting around Savo island IJN couldn't show cobat prowess they did shortly after Pearl Harbour - their enemy had tools to fight them this time. 1943 is USN finishing tactics and replenishing fleet, 1944 is just a cleanup. Fun fact - did you know that Japanese tried to get oil from potatoes cause of the fuel shortage in 1944? 

 

All in all, it's easy to get biased or subjective in your opinion, and fanboyism is a common thing - everybody is a fanboy though. Key is to look at the facts.

 

 

2 vs 2 Bismarck and PE vs HOOD and PoW  what were the results.....yes we can say that Hood shot was truly a miracle (so was the torpedo strike on the Bismarck, which saved the face of RN).  Even if we discount the HOODs sudden demise German crews in that battle still scored more hits on the enemy than vice versa.

 

Norway, despite everything, losses were similar on sea, both sides scoring local victories...

The biggest single loss of KMarine was the result of Norway coastal guns, not RN. At the end, Germany secured new positions and ports in the north....in front of the noses of GB. Speaking of in front of noses the Channel Dash, anyone...

 

RN just showed way too many cracks when facing smaller and less glorified navies.  They had the quantity and tradition...but supremacy in crew/ship quality,  compared to its rivals...not so much, if at all, at least not in the 20th century.

 

Lets return to Norway, the loss of KMarine DDs certainly was grevious...but did it had some truly long term effects on the KM performance which was 90 % uboat war...i dont think so....the KMarine was just too small when entering the war and any kind of long term exposure of any of their surface ships would spell doom. On the other hand RN was bigger and could sustain losses in DDs and other ships far easier, which is a way trying to sqeeze at least some kind of victory in Norway, when it was a clear RN loss....

 

Under pressure from Uboats they soon  lacked in DD numbers turning to the US....so neither side really had the ships to loose.

 

 

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

Well, actually you did replay in *your* proper manner. To each his own. What you did not do is replaying with facts.

 

And you did reply with what..... exactly ?

 

You come here attack me in the most primitive manner without writing one sentence about the topic, and now you act repulsed ?

 

Its amusing how people react when you give them some of their own medicine.....not sure if trolling or just plain stupid with your Titanic sized ego.

 

 

 

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

So, your idea of giving sources for your claims is giving YouTube links?

 

 

The ignorance... the ignorance...

 

Also, the insulting behavior. But that's a cliché, when one cannot reply in a serious manner.

 

Strawman galore........so where did i claim i base my knowledge on the documentary, or that this is a 100 % accurate link...in fact i stated the reason why i linked it....so i can spare myself of the idiots stating it as my sources...i guess i was wrong.

 

So which and how many sources did you give, together with Gatt....let me help you....ZERO.

[Gatt]

 

And you did reply with what..... exactly ?

 

You come here attack me in the most primitive manner without writing one sentence about the topic, and now you act repulsed ?

 

Its amusing how people react when you give them some of their own medicine.....not sure if trolling or just plain stupid with your Titanic sized ego.

 

 

 

 

And were your gross remarks about italian navy on topic? Backed by a YT video? Again, read some good books and you'll learn how and why the mediterranean naval war between the RN and the RM went as it did.

[Historynerd]

 

Strawman galore........so where did i claim i base my knowledge on the documentary, or that this is a 100 % accurate link...in fact i stated the reason why i linked it....so i can spare myself of the idiots stating it as my sources...i guess i was wrong.

 

So which and how many sources did you give, together with Gatt....let me help you....ZERO.

 

I am not wasting my time on you anymore; go and say what you want. I know what impression you gave to the other forum users, and I know what impression I give. Your accusations don't bother me in the least. And since you have resorted to personal attacks, I will ignore you, as trying to discuss with you is pointless and a waste of time that I can use more fruitfully.

 

Enjoy your ignorance.

 

Oh; and, although that Gatt did in fact give you some sources, let me give you some of mine:

 

Giorgio Giorgerini, La guerra italiana sul mare

Vincent O'Hara, Struggle for the middle sea

Erminio Bagnasco, In guerra sul mare. Navi e marinai italiani nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale

Alberto Da Zara, Pelle d'Ammiraglio

[Cosseria]

Gatt cited the books from Sadkovich (The Italian Navy in World War 2) and Massignani and Green (The naval war in the Mediterranean 1940 - 1943). I'd also add Mussolini's Navy from Maurizio Brescia. 

[Historynerd]

Gatt cited the books from Sadkovich (The Italian Navy in World War 2) and Massignani and Green (The naval war in the Mediterranean 1940 - 1943). I'd also add Mussolini's Navy from Maurizio Brescia. 

 

To be completely honest, I think that Sadkovich's book, while very interesting and worth to be read, in a sense "tries too much" to go against the common wisdom of the hapless Italians, and therefore is not exactly as balanced as it could be.

 

"Mussolini's Navy" is a good work.

[Gatt]

There is another, less known, book by Sadkovich regarding a reassesment of all the major navies (axis and allies) performance.

 

Sure, all books must be read with a grain of salt, Sadkovich' ones too. I cited only english written books, dont know if Bagnasco and Giorgerini have been translated.

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

Gatt cited the books from Sadkovich (The Italian Navy in World War 2) and Massignani and Green (The naval war in the Mediterranean 1940 - 1943). I'd also add Mussolini's Navy from Maurizio Brescia. 

 

 

I am looking now the whole topic now and all i can find is a line of GATTs insulting and arrogance filled ad hominem remarks, which post is that,  because he sure didnt dare to write anything worth reading when he turned his guns on me.

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

I am not wasting my time on you anymore; go and say what you want. I know what impression you gave to the other forum users, and I know what impression I give. Your accusations don't bother me in the least. And since you have resorted to personal attacks, I will ignore you, as trying to discuss with you is pointless and a waste of time that I can use more fruitfully.

 

Enjoy your ignorance.

 

Oh; and, although that Gatt did in fact give you some sources, let me give you some of mine:

 

Giorgio Giorgerini, La guerra italiana sul mare

Vincent O'Hara, Struggle for the middle sea

Erminio Bagnasco, In guerra sul mare. Navi e marinai italiani nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale

Alberto Da Zara, Pelle d'Ammiraglio

 

Lets cut the snide remarks and talk directly.

 

Whats your assessment  of Italian navy performance in ww2 ? Because imo they were a catastrophe, unable to guard their own ports loosign 80 % of their supply shipping, poor performance during night and general reluctance to press on and make the decisive blow. 

 

There is a reason Germany had to intervene. We are talking GENERAL performance before you start showing individual battles and skirmishes.

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

 

2 vs 2 Bismarck and PE vs HOOD and PoW  what were the results.....yes we can say that Hood shot was truly a miracle (so was the torpedo strike on the Bismarck, which saved the face of RN).  Even if we discount the HOODs sudden demise German crews in that battle still scored more hits on the enemy than vice versa.

Yes, what were the results? The threat was nullified. Bismarck was sunk and RN could proceed with business as usuall. Also, if you bring the biggest BB on earth on its maiden cruise and get it sunk shortly after it leaves base, with in fact an exchange 1 for 1 - that's not the result you want to get as a Kriegsmarine sailor. Merit of german sailors is their own, they don't need biased comments how their enemy was inept at everything, except sunking their vessel.

 

The biggest single loss of KMarine was the result of Norway coastal guns, not RN. At the end, Germany secured new positions and ports in the north....in front of the noses of GB. Speaking of in front of noses the Channel Dash, anyone...

I would say losing whole flotilla of modern destroyers, displacing 2000 tons and more is a rather big loss. Channel Dash is in fact a dramatic event. First of all, the necessity of changing your ports is saying much about dominance of the seas, second of all, they made it to Norway, but only just. Severe damage was inflicted on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Third, Channel Dash again, didn't change anything about the dominance of RN on the Atlantic. You could move Scharnorst and Gneisenau along the whole coast of Europe and call it a success - but it's only a success cause they didn't do much apart it. 

 

 RN just showed way too many cracks when facing smaller and less glorified navies.  They had the quantity and tradition...but supremacy in crew/ship quality,  compared to its rivals...not so much, if at all, at least not in the 20th century.

That is true. RN wasn't as good as it was at WW I, and already it was the biggest, but not so sure about the best navy. But, it doesn't change the fact that they did their job and did it splendidly. And their fleet had one of the best classes on the world. Saying otherwise is just ridiculous. 

 

Lets return to Norway, the loss of KMarine DDs certainly was grevious...but did it had some truly long term effects on the KM performance which was 90 % uboat war...i dont think so....the KMarine was just too small when entering the war and any kind of long term exposure of any of their surface ships would spell doom. On the other hand RN was bigger and could sustain losses in DDs and other ships far easier, which is a way trying to sqeeze at least some kind of victory in Norway, when it was a clear RN loss....

The problem is - Norway campaign wasn't the RN campaign. RN was there to provide support and secure the transports - which they did. It was a RN decisive victory, but a UK loss. The size of the Kriegsmarine is irrelevant. You think UK would not secure political alliance with US meaning they could focus on European theater? We can't use this kind of arguments - yes, the Kriegsmarine was small. But UK wouldn't enter Washington Treaty if Kriegsmarine was a threat to it's supremacy on EU waters. 

 

Under pressure from Uboats they soon  lacked in DD numbers turning to the US....so neither side really had the ships to loose.

They had enough DD. They didn't have enough corvettes and frigates. 

 

 

 

[Gatt]

 

Lets cut the snide remarks and talk directly.

 

Whats your assessment  of Italian navy performance in ww2 ? Because imo they were a catastrophe, unable to guard their own ports loosign 80 % of their supply shipping, poor performance during night and general reluctance to press on and make the decisive blow. 

 

There is a reason Germany had to intervene. We are talking GENERAL performance before you start showing individual battles and skirmishes.

 

Actually 80%+ of supplies shipped to Libia reached the destination. Otherwise Rommel would not have ever reached the Egyptian border. Is yours a typo or worst? Which sources are you using?

[Historynerd]

 

Lets cut the snide remarks and talk directly.

 

Whats your assessment  of Italian navy performance in ww2 ? Because imo they were a catastrophe, unable to guard their own ports loosign 80 % of their supply shipping, poor performance during night and general reluctance to press on and make the decisive blow. 

 

There is a reason Germany had to intervene. We are talking GENERAL performance before you start showing individual battles and skirmishes.

 

I will answer to this, then I won't say anything anymore.

 

My assessment of the Regia Marina's performance is more or less the same of Vincent O'Hara, which I will cite here:

 The Regia Marina survived as an effective force, unlike the other Axis navies. That the Kingdom of Italy sought an armistice instead of fighting to the bitter end helped, but the fact remains that after thirthy-nine months of war Italy still possessed a significant fleet capable of intervention, and that fleet was still running convoys to the islands and along the coasts. When the Ligurian-based battle squadron received the unexpected news of an armistice on 8 September, boilers had been fired and the fleet was prepared to expend itself in a do-or-die strike against the Salerno landings.

The Regia Marina not only survived, but largely accomplished its missions. Up until May 1943 it closed the direct passage through the Mediterranean to all but eight freighters in three massively protected convoys [...]. [...] With regards to Italy's mercantile war, the chart [omissis] demonstrates that over the course of its war, 98 percent of the men and 90 percent of the material that set forth from Italian ports to Lybia, Tunisia or the Balkans arrived safely.

The nature of its operations and the priorities set by the navy's political leadership required the Regia Marina to operate in a defensive posture defending these convoys in an environment where air support, doctrine, technology and intelligence favored the Allies. Italy's navy certainly had its failures and suffered its defeats. But these should not obscure its victories. Overall, it performed the jobs it was tasked to do. It was a successful service, considering its lack of oil or of an integral air component and the caliber of the opposition it faced.

 

There.

Oh, and if your 80% value refers to the ships destroyed, it may be true, since Italy's merchant marine was decimated by the war. But if it was referred to the percentage of men, supplied and fuel sent from Italy and arrived in North Africa, it's completely and utterly wrong. One could say that what was sent in the first place was not enough to win the war, and it would be true, that the convoy organization and execution was not perfect, and it would be right, but in no way that the majority of what was sent overseas failed to arrive.

And what do you mean about guarding ports? Taranto? To a degree, it's ok. The bombardment of Genoa? Yes, a blow to morale, but hardly significant militarly. How about a positive example, Operation Agreement, in which Italian and some German units (which it was claimed that did all the work, but this has since been debunked) repelled a British raid on Tobruk?

As for night performance, reluctance to press on and attack, nothing to say. Those were evident and undeniable flaws.

 

This is it. After this, we can close this OT and return to the topic. And I personally apologize for my contribution to the hijacking of the thread!

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

Yes, what were the results? The threat was nullified. Bismarck was sunk and RN could proceed with business as usuall. Also, if you bring the biggest BB on earth on its maiden cruise and get it sunk shortly after it leaves base, with in fact an exchange 1 for 1 - that's not the result you want to get as a Kriegsmarine sailor. Merit of german sailors is their own, they don't need biased comments how their enemy was inept at everything, except sunking their vessel.

 

 

The threat was erased at the cost of one of the capital RN ships and second damaged..... they thought the British pair would make a quick work of them both....they did not ....if the Germans were lucky on the Hood the RN was twice as lucky with the torpedo attack.

 

So where is that quality supremacy everyone claims, the RN was saved from disgrace by pilots in biplanes, not capital ship action they like to boast so much?

 

This is the most symetric ship on ship encounter of the war and the Brits didnt fare well...kinda deja vu ww1...

 

The KM was in no way able to defeat the RN in the traditional fleet surface ship action, no one sane would have claimed that.... the ship number disparity is just way too big.

 

The whole myth of British all around naval supremacy kind falls short when you fail vs an enemy in a local engagement without numbers advantage....and then claim the enemy has inferior ships....while sending your best to the bottom in a 2 on 2 fight.

 

 

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

 

The threat was erased at the cost of one of the capital RN ships and second damaged..... they thought the British pair would make a quick work of them both....they did not ....if the Germans were lucky on the Hood the RN was twice as lucky with the torpedo attack.

 

So where is that quality supremacy everyone claims, the RN was saved from disgrace by pilots in biplanes, not capital ship action they like to boast so much?

 

This is the most symetric ship on ship encounter of the war and the Brits didnt fare well...kinda deja vu ww1...

 

The KM was in no way able to defeat the RN in the traditional fleet surface ship action, no one sane would have claimed that.... the ship number disparity is just way too big.

 

The whole myth of British all around naval supremacy kind falls short when you fail vs an enemy in a local engagement without numbers advantage....and then claim the enemy has inferior ships....while sending your best to the bottom in a 2 on 2 fight.

Where did anybody claimed that it would be easy victory? Any source about that opinion? And again, they sunk the biggest BB in the world at that time. Losing 1 fairly outdated BC. I think the USN would happily trade New Mexico for Yamato anytime.

 

You fail to grasp the most important thing at naval warfare. Winning. And RN won the war at Atlantic and Mediterrean. They maintained control, maintained convoys, sunk what could be sunk. That's a victory and purpose of naval warfare. Same what they did at WW I.

 

And symetric deja vu? I hope you're not talking about Jutland. 

 

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

Actually 80%+ of supplies shipped to Libia reached the destination. Otherwise Rommel would not have ever reached the Egyptian border. Is yours a typo or worst? Which sources are you using?

 

 

Merchant marine was more less obliterated till the Italian capitulation, its one of those hints showing how badly the Italian marine fared (i wont mention the air force).........and Rommel did suffer (as we all now) from critical supply issues, while the allies started to bolster their forces..This led to 3rd battle of El Alamein and allied victory.  The general numbers kinda lie ...you have to look month by month supply rates. Just look at the dramatic situation change between the time frames, with and without German air and sea aid+ the losses of the RN.

[Historynerd]

Merchant marine was more less obliterated till the Italian capitulation, its one of those hints showing how badly the Italian marine fared (i wont mention the air force).........and Rommel did suffer (as we all now) from critical supply issues, while the allies started to bolster their forces..This led to 3rd battle of El Alamein and allied victory.  The general numbers kinda lie ...you have to look month by month supply rates. Just look at the dramatic situation change between the time frames, with and without German air and sea aid+ the losses of the RN.

 

What sources do you have about the month-by-month supply situation? We (thanks to Giorgerini and O'Hara) have them, and oh, look, the only month in which the percentage slipped below 50% or arrived supplied was November 1941 (because of the Force K).

And Rommel always complained, but he never listened. He was told that, with all of its best efforts, the Regia Marina could not guarantee supplies if he invaded Egypt. He did nonetheless, laughing it off, but when trouble started to come around did he admit he overlooked this details? No, he blamed Italians who couldn't do anything and spies. He is not a reliable source for this.

 

Please stop it. You just don't know what you're talking about. Read a bit; O'Hara provides the data you want, and it gives the opposite picture.

 

And if you want to keep talking about this, make another thread, so let's not clutter this one with off topic.

[Gatt]

Awwww, I give up. He shoots random numbers. Actually RM, given the lack of radar, lack of fuel, lack of night fighting ability, lack of air cover, not cooperating german ally .... won the Med convoys war. The percentages shown by historynerd are right, are history. Oh well, apologies for being OT too. 

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

Where did anybody claimed that it would be easy victory? Any source about that opinion? And again, they sunk the biggest BB in the world at that time. Losing 1 fairly outdated BC. I think the USN would happily trade New Mexico for Yamato anytime.

 

The Bismarck was lost to a lucky torpedo hit and not RN surface ship actions, and thats the crux of the issue...

 

The trouble is in the RN perception of their enemies..... and they got a rude awakening. It was not the first, or last time.....or are you suggesting that the Brits sacrificed Hood knowing it would loose, or perform not good enough....

 

The overall shock and reaction of the British at that time begs to differ, both from population, and especially the command.

 

In any way for such a glorified navy, its poor performance for no real reason....hell the Bismarck almost ran way and would have, if the biplane pilots didnt press on.... and had huge chunk of luck.

 

So i am really not impressed....

 

Norway a victory for RN......in which way.... losses ship on ship, hell no. Overall percentage yes, but thats really a sad excuse for a navy of such prestige....the Germans fought a superior sea enemy at their doorsteps and won. The next 4 years the U boats and Tirpitz made the RN obsessed and paranoid by the threat of Norway.

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

well. I'm done.

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

Gatt, on 17 November 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

Awwww, I give up. He shoots random numbers. Actually RM, given the lack of radar, lack of fuel, lack of night fighting ability, lack of air cover, not cooperating german ally .... won the Med convoys war. The percentages shown by historynerd are right, are history. Oh well, apologies for being OT too. 

 

Lol sarcasm meltdown...  Yep they won alright..... by switching sides

 

SO by your own admission they had a ton of issues aka THEY sucked.

 

The Brits kicked them so hard and some battles were onesided..... period...whats the problem...... ...i just dont get it....... are you Italian maybe. 

 

And now you even blame the Germans.

Yeah, because they were the ones wanting to wage war in the Mediteranean sea....they were FORCED to come and aid the Italians.... lets stop and think about that simple fact.......

 

Yes there were always exceptional men in every nation and every military, but they wont change the odds or the overall performance if the general organisation, training, command, logistics, and equipment were lacking..... and the Italian disaster started almost from day one....i mean Greece ffs.

 

Dropsiq, on 17 November 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

well. I'm done.

 

So RN blunders are not blunders because they were able to defeat a single nation isolated from its ally Japan, while having USA and SU on their side .....you know that is a deeply flawed logic,.

 

 

Historynerd, on 17 November 2015 - 11:38 AM, said:

 

What sources do you have about the month-by-month supply situation? We (thanks to Giorgerini and O'Hara) have them, and oh, look, the only month in which the percentage slipped below 50% or arrived supplied was November 1941 (because of the Force K).

And Rommel always complained, but he never listened. He was told that, with all of its best efforts, the Regia Marina could not guarantee supplies if he invaded Egypt. He did nonetheless, laughing it off, but when trouble started to come around did he admit he overlooked this details? No, he blamed Italians who couldn't do anything and spies. He is not a reliable source for this.

 

Please stop it. You just don't know what you're talking about. Read a bit; O'Hara provides the data you want, and it gives the opposite picture.

 

And if you want to keep talking about this, make another thread, so let's not clutter this one with off topic.

 

 

 

Rommel was for sure not without his sins, as he always ignored the logistic issues + lets remember he fought the italians in ww1+ the general Italian performance before Rommel arrived.

 

But lets turn the other side of the coin shall we ...the Italian army had no apparent issues trying to do the same before him....so i would take the Italian claims with a grain of salt, due to the Italian German antipathy.

 

The main issue was Malta and the inept Italian navy, army and air force,  to finish what they started.

 

And then we have Tarranto and Battle of Cape Matapan.........

 

They were unable to guard their harbours let alone face the RN in a fleet action.

 

And these were the guys which wanted a new Roman Empire....

 

[Gatt]

 

Lol sarcasm meltdown...  Yep they won alright..... by switching sides

 

 

Well, sarcasm against your ignorance and offensiveness.

 

SO by your own admission they had a ton of issues aka THEY sucked.

 

This is the measure of your ignorance and tunnel vision. Just one. Bye, bye troll.

 

[GrumpyWorm]

Please do try to calm down and avoid poking and provoking others. 

 

If you dont agree, you dont have to fight.

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

I will answer to this, then I won't say anything anymore.