5 Destroyers ambush Italian Cruisers: Battle of Cape Spada, 1940 (Documentary)

In the vast expanse of the Aegean Sea (nearby Greece), an Allied squadron patrolling the waters encountered two Italian cruisers making a transfer from Tripoli to Leros, an Italian colony in the Dodecanese Islands. Led by the seasoned Australian Captain John Collins aboard HMAS Sydney, the Allied squadron, comprising British destroyers, found themselves thrust into a high-stakes encounter with the Italian 2nd Cruiser Division, commanded by Vice Admiral Ferdinando Casardi.
Consider supporting HoH:
►Patreon: / houseofhistory
►Become a channel member:
/ @hoh
►Leave a tip: www.paypal.me/HouseofHistory
Socials:
►Join our Discord: / discord
►My Twitter: / oscar_hoh
Like the charts in the background? Visit usefulcharts.com/?aff=22 and use the code "HOUSEOFHISTORY" for 10% off!
🧾 Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
📚 Sources:
Written by House of History
🎵 Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
🎶 My referral link: share.epidemicsound.com/njr7j0
🖼 Photos, paintings and imagery: Public Domain, Wikicommons
🧾Machinima: Total War, Creative Assembly
#HouseofHistory #History

[@HoH]

📜This video is not sponsored. If you enjoy my videos and want early access to my content, consider supporting House of History at www.patreon.com/HouseofHistory!

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love your content! You always make My day!😊😊😊😊❤❤❤

[@Cannon530YTOO]

Love the content and your interaction with your fellow history enjoyers! If I had one question about your content, it would be: "Where do you source your information for a video? (Again, thank you for your response about subtitles...)

[@HoH]

Great question. And honestly, it really depends on the topic. For example, Italian naval warfare during WW2 has some fantastic works from the '60s-'80s. They are pretty outdated, but I ordered about 4 books nonetheless, and then tried to crossreference them with a relatively new book (O'Hara, Vincent. Struggle for the Middle Sea: The Great Navies at War in the Mediterranean Theater, 1940-1945. Naval Institute Press, 2009.) @@Cannon530YTOO Roman history obviously has much more written about it. Sometimes, for example about Japanese navies, I have to search the internet's periphery and obscure Japanese websites to learn about certain details I want to know for my videos. So it really depends on the topic. I'm also working on Japan's invasion of the Dutch East Indies, and the Netherlands has a lot of information accessible online. Old books and records. So I use Dutch archives for that specific topic.

[@Cannon530YTOO]

@@HoH Thank you. (Also, I have watched the video a second time as promised!)

[@pinogiuseppe8535]

My father was on board the Colleoni as a gunner and participated in this battle. Now he is no longer among us but I remember that he never liked to talk about that clash but only about being in the water for many hours before being rescued by the English. He then spent the rest of the war as a prisoner in India before finally returning to Italy in 1946.

[@mikebrase5161]

When Italy switched side in 1943 why was your father not repatriated then? Was his allegiance to Mussolini's government the reason? Or was it the fact he was shipped off to India as a POW and resources were not available until the war ended? I'm curious as an American as there aren't many books on available here about post '43 Italian troops and sailors.

[@pinogiuseppe8535]

@@mikebrase5161 True... the doubt is legitimate. After 8 September 1943 my father, as a member of the Navy - notoriously monarchist rather than fascist - followed the instructions of the Southern Italian government and began his collaboration with the Allies. The delay in the repatriation was due precisely to the shortage of means of transport and the great distance. P.S. After September 8, the international Red Cross took photos in the internment camp - in groups of 10 people - to send to Italy to reassure the families. I have a couple of these photos in which my father appears, wearing an English summer uniform, already more serene and in good physical condition.

[@GravesRWFiA]

yeah I'd like to know too, i was unaware of european prisoners being held in india, i guess it makes sense but wow, what a trip

[@peterlattimore6013]

Did your father immigrate to Australia in the 50s or have you? The Italians amaze me with their 20 speed tanks and Political mish-mash. Would like to know what happened to the Vatican during the War, as Paris too got sparred from conflict.

[@FairyWeatherMan]

​@@mikebrase5161On 8 September 1943, six hundred thousand Italian soldiers found themselves locked up in English and American prison camps. «Who are you with, the Duce or the King?» was the dilemma they faced. Of this enormous mass of young people - the average age was 23-24 years - a conspicuous minority chose not to "betray": thousands of kilometers away from their homeland, they went, either out of ideological loyalty to fascism, or out of pride or , more simply, for coherent military dignity, to a future full of unknowns and risks.

[@joycebuck7324]

Thank you for turning attention to the Mediterranean war, it is given so little attention! My Grandfather was a First Battalion Army Ranger USA in North Africa and then Sicily, and Italy. Thanks

[@Xingmey]

noone gives a damn what your grandfather was or did.

[@tamkin007]

Mine 44th Reconnaissance corps 56th Division 8th army

[@aldovillani8372]

My late grandfather was on the bandanere I can't believe there is a video on this 😮😮

[@michaelfrost4584]

As a ex Australian Navy Veteran its great to see my country recognised as Australian and not British 😊 great videos mate👍

[@allenjones5525]

I was about to make a similar comment and saw yours Good call.

[@AwakenedAvocado]

It's even worse because Australians are simply just the offsprings of the Britain prison colony

[@AwakenedAvocado]

It's even worse because Australians are simply just the offsprings of the Britain prison colony

[@alexlyster3459]

Speaking as a Brit is usually annoys me too. It's frustrating seeing all those contributions by the Australians, Kiwis, Indians and other commonwealth forces just lumped in as British.

[@zlatanclovecic1944]

And as a Czech, I appreciate "Czechoslovakia" label on the map, although it was occupied by Germany at that time and called "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" (Slovakia dissolved and became a Germany's vassal state for the war period). Personally, I really dislike when historical videos show the large black taint over Europe with the label "Germany". I'm sure all occupied nations strongly disagree as well.

[@robertoamorico2151]

The Colleoni light cruisers class was nicknamed "the paper cruisers" ships built to counter the super destroyers above 2000 tons of French Navy, very fast with 6 inch guns but with very light armour. All the cruiser were lost in WW 2.

[@dupplinmuir113]

The 'H' and 'I' class destroyers only carried 4 x 4.7" guns, not 6, except for Grenville and Inglefield (the flotilla leaders) who had 5.

[@edwardhuggins84]

HMS Grenville was a G-class destroyer the Flotilla leader for the H-class was HMS Hardy

[@Will_CH1]

The J,K,L,M and N class carried 6 guns.

[@donquixote3927]

Thanks. Thought that was odd @dupplinmuir113

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Your videos are among the very best! Suggestion: The battle of Ecnomus of the first Punic war!

[@Boatswain_Tam]

Two comments: you need to change the 2D silhouette of the Syndey to a WW2 cruiser instead of a WW1 one. Also, HMS Havoc was a destroyer, not a light cruiser as you had it in the vid Other than that, excellent vid! The naval battles of the Med generally aren't covered. You are brining attention to a long underrated theater of WW2!

[@HoH]

Thank you, you're right. I completely overlooked it 🤦‍♂️

[@andygiles2213]

You beat me to the punch Boatswain

[@HarupertBeagleton-dz5gw]

Pull it together slacker, this isn't the history channel lol

[@HarupertBeagleton-dz5gw]

Pull it together slacker, this isn't the history channel lol

[@isilder]

and Sydney is labelled a "light" but we had a lot of talk about what it is.A light cruiser. Yeah Havoc doesn't hit as hard as HMAS Sydney...

[@catsnads01]

I love these vids about ww2 naval battles in the Med, and I've not seen anything comparable elsewhere. Thank you!

[@alanmountain5804]

Beautifully produced video. Many thanks

[@grahamdominy8309]

Very interesting, thanks for the background to the Italian strategy.

[@anonnemo2504]

Many thanks for an excellent description of a WWII Mediterranean naval battle I was hitherto unaware of.

[@Ubique2927]

With most parts of the med reachable by air from land I’m amazed that air power was not used more in WW2.

[@I-md6mq]

Co-ordination is more difficult than range, particularly with inclement weather.

[@alganhar1]

What the hell do you mean? It was, a huge proportion of both sides Naval battle in the Med during WWII was through air power. Its why Malta was so important, as an airbase and Submarine Base it controlled the central Mediterranean.

[@evanneal4936]

It happened very often actually, they just added air power as part of their naval power as well. This was actually done more often in ww2 than any other war.

[@Peorhum]

Air power was very much used in Mediterranean, with a large part of the Eastern Mediterranean being lost to air attacks. Look up the battle of Crete and the Royal navy's losses as they evacuated the army from Crete... another Churchill screw up.

[@awf6554]

Have a look at Operation Pedestal, with the tanker Ohio limping into Malta with the remains of a Stuka plastered across her.

[@KHK001]

Amazing video as always!

[@michaelcarney6280]

Great channel more people should be subbed

[@thefogboundfan8314]

At 11:30 it describes HMAS Sydney as British, I think some may suggest otherwise.

[@isilder]

yeah its it comes from saying its Britain vs Italy .. But really with Collins the senior in the squadron , it would be best to consider the squadron Australian ? Although it just fell together due to events.

[@notthefbi7932]

Malta seemed to be key of the Mediterranean for many countries through many conflicts and Italy realized it to late

[@ADB_UWIM_2807]

Wait so the Italian commander though he was facing heavily armoured opponents so he attacked instead of retreating? 9:32

[@kmmediafactory]

Yeah I don’t understand that either, I would appreciate if someone could explain that

[@johnmarshall9604]

I'm no expert, but I'll try to reason it through. If 4 heavily armoured enemy ships are retreating from your 2 light cruisers, it's likely that they are low enough on ammunition that they fear they cannot defeat you. In this case, it is sensible to pursue and destroy the valuable enemy war assets before they can return to port and rearm. If, on the other hand, 4 destroyers are retreating from your 2 light cruisers, that is to be expected; you have them terribly outgunned. Destroyers are, however, generally much faster than cruisers. So, if the enemy destroyers are fleeing slowly enough that your cruisers can maintain range, they are probably not attempting to disengage, but to draw you onto their reinforcements. In which case you should withdraw to avoid being decisively engaged.

[@kmmediafactory]

@@johnmarshall9604 ok, that makes sense. Depending on your situation the tactics have to be adapted, so I guess things won’t go exactly how we may expect in other situations

[@isilder]

Well if they were battleships, or heavy cruisers, they would actually be faster and there would be no escape ? Or capital ships might have a large escort some of which will break off and engage ? But also the "heavily armored" ship is less maneuverable, so the cruisers had a chance to score hits while steering harshly enough to avoid being hit, maybe. Also that the heavily armored ships may prefer to split up in this situation, as too valuable to risk for just a few cruisers.. improving the Italians odds. and also earning brownie points for disturbing the capital ships activities, causing them to flee to avoid being Bismarck'ed... Or getting into a Bismarck or Scharnhorst situation, slightly damaged in material terms, but in tactical terms, very vulnerable...

[@isilder]

@@johnmarshall9604 I know, its only hypothetical, but thats an odd location to be in , if in fact short of ammunition ?? No, he wouldn't think that. Its like he went on a suicidal charge at a very valuable target, rather than showing fear to a superior ship, and trying to flee, in which case they probably decide to chase you with at least one capital ship, which is faster than some cheap shoddy cruiser.... As it happens, they could only be chased by a light cruiser...they shouldn't have gone kamikaze with the maximum value target being only a light cruiser ? There would be no brownie points for disturbing their planned activities either...

[@scottdewey03]

This, too, was well done, and well narrated.

[@HoH]

Thank you, Scott!

[@Ewen6177]

Great content. Have you ever thought of James Graham, !st Marquis of Montrose. And the King's Captain General of Scotland during the war of the 3 Kingdoms.

[@daveweiss5647]

The Italians not seuzing Malta (possibly even Gibraltar) as their first acts of the war is one of the most befuddling mistakes of the war. It would have cut the Med in half and essentially won that theater for them. The Brits could have never reinforced egypt or Greece, etc... what a lost opportunity for the Axis....

[@novarravon2449]

Actually Italy wanted but Hitler and Rommel fked up.

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

Also, the Suez Canal would have fallen to Rommel, along with the whole of the Middle East and Iranian oil. Turkey would likely have abandoned neutrality in favour of being on the winning side. The Black Sea would be an easy supply route to conquering Russia from the south. Plus, through the Suez Canal, Japan would have turned the Med into an Axis safespace.

[@gar6446]

Malta was a far more important objective than Crete. Thankfully, the importance and possibilities of the med was never appreciated by Germany, and Italy simply wasnt up to the task.

[@awf6554]

@gar6446 Italy didn't have enough fuel to fight a naval war, something Mussolini was well aware of. Rommel ignored the Axis supply problems while gallivanting around the desert, blaming the Italians for his lack of fuel.

[@daveweiss5647]

​@@awf6554 if only Italy had discovered Libyas oil fields before the war history may have been very different...

[@user-rc2yo1dt5v]

Interesting video.

[@jagreb]

Informative and interesting video. Thanks for posting. HMS Havock was a Destroyer, rather thana Cruiser, btw.

[@dgoodey]

Yes, my father was on her at the time (Stoker).

[@dgoodey]

He said the Italian bombs were exploding aongside as Havock was at full speed with the decks littered with Italians. The shrapnel swept the decks killing many. Havock was holed and ran alone for Alexandria with a 20 gout of water blasting up the side. HMAS Sydney bravely came back to escort her. See my book 'Destroyer at War'.

[@VirgoShelter]

Would be neat to see a video covering the start of the Aleutian campaign

[@rayofhope1114]

Good stuff - but your pic of the Sydney is a WW1 shape and not the WW2 model

[@thhseeking]

Probably Glossop's Sydney :P

[@user-kr9jq7yz5o]

Fantastic job! Suggestion. The Spanish American War.

[@NCMA29]

An interesting video with good graphics. I was especially interested in learning about this little-known action. However, there were a few errors that if corrected would have made this a much better documentary: - HMS HAVOCK was a destroyer, not a light cruiser. - The profile image you use for HMAS SYDNEY and later for the Italian convoy (and even one of the British destroyers) is in fact of a WWI cruiser, possibly a Chatham-class light cruiser like the SYDNEY of WWI, but quite wrong for anything in WWII. - Royal Navy H and I class destroyers had four 4.7 inch guns, not six (except the leaders which had five guns).

[@z.o.m.b.i.e.]

Maybe make videos on voyages by great discoverers like Vasco de Gama / Christopher Columbus.

[@Greenfist007]

Battle of the Feigidus River , an in depth look at the Pagonisms last roll of the dice

[@scaeronnezaneestiaga1943]

Reminds me of BazBattles ❤

[@shanesimpson3455]

HMS Havoc was not a light cruiser but a H class destroyer.

[@tamkin007]

Rest in peace to the lost sailors

[@johnpauljones4190]

Hi! Do you remember me? I really like your videoes. How dpu you make theese videoes? In which app? The battle maps, the political maps and so on. Please answer me. Thanks.

[@HoH]

Hey, I use the entire Adobe Suite (illustrator, photoshop, after effects, premiere, audition).

[@NurkePL]

Have you covered HMS Hunter at Narvik? One of my great uncles went down on her, Able Seaman Alfred Hooley who was just 20 years old

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

Havock was there too, right?

[@NurkePL]

@@sjonnieplayfull5859 indeed it was

[@MegaBloggs1]

your silhouette of the sydney is wrong-only two funnels!

[@marcinsawicki889]

During battle phase (at about 10 minutes) - Havock is tagged as a Light Cruiser (seems like a copy-paste error).

[@awf6554]

Why haven't you given the Sydney her correct name - HMAS Sydney (His Majesties' AUSTRALIAN Ship)? The other British ships are given their correct HMS prefix (5:14).

[@HoH]

At 6:51 it definitely says HMAS Sydney, and its captain is from the Royal Australian Navy. The clip from 5:14 is from a video I did before - I fitted HMS on the name card there but received comments that it looked sloppy because it overlapped with the flag, so I decided to remove it for this video entirely (other ships don't have the HMS prefix either).

[@awf6554]

It doesn't say HMAS there at all, just that Collins belonged to the RAN. It might seem picky, but relatively minor powers get frustrated at being left out of the WW2 narrative. It's like when the British contribution is ignored in favour of the US.

[@HoH]

I get your point, but I am pretty sure it says HMAS at 6:51, underneath the flag card (since none of the ships received their prefix this video). @@awf6554 However, point taken - I wrote an entire paragraph about HMAS Sydney and how it was part of the RAN, sailing from Australia to Europe. I decided to leave it out since I wasn't sure if viewers would be interested in that information - however clearly they are. I'll make sure to add it in future videos.

[@awf6554]

@HoH I see this was dealt with elsewhere in the comments, and apologise for raising it again. The Sydney was probably the best known RAN ship of the war, probably due to her ultimate fate which was contentious for a long time.

[@HoH]

All these comments have definitely made me want to cover its fate. And admittedly, I learn a lot from comments - I love history and I enjoy research and writing about it, but it'd be pretentious to pretend I know everything. Often times there is information that is new to me as well. The comments on here taught me how important it is to explicitly mention certain things.

[@douglasclerk2764]

Sailors' footfalls would not have echoed from the bulkheads - they would have echoed off the decks.

[@newobanproductions999]

At 6:45, I do have to say this but the use of the RAN White Ensign for Captain John Collins in the flag card is incorrect for WWII. The White Ensign seen on RAN ships today was first flown in 1967 during the Vietnam War replacing the previous one used from 1913 until 1967, which was literally just the Royal Navy's White Ensign.

[@HoH]

Thank you! I wasn't aware of that - I tried to properly distinguish the HMAS Sydney from other ships because Australians tend to... really make it known a ship was RAN rather than British. So you're saying there's no way to graphically distinguish them besides just mentioning they're HMAS or part of the RAN?

[@newobanproductions999]

@@HoH Mostly none as RAN ships were British designs which included five "transferred" destroyers known as the "Scrap Iron Flotilla". There are reports that RAN ships did fly the Australian flag from their main masts or jackstaff to distinguish them from Royal Navy vessels, as seen in pre-WWII photos of RAN ships. It became easier with Sydney's (D48) sisters as the modified Leander-class had two funnels as opposed to one, which Amphion and Apollo were transferred to the RAN, renamed Perth (D29) and Hobart (D63).

[@stevemclachlan4039]

Have a look at Corporal Horton McLachlan battle of Bulimba around El Amein Africa. Supposedly cleared three machine gun post and killed 11-13 enemy single handed.

[@sundoga4961]

Sydney was an Australian Light Cruiser, not British.

[@alganhar1]

She was both. She was originally ordered by the Royal Navy as HMS Phaeton, a Leander Class Cruiser. Before she was launched the Australians desperate for some cruisers approached the British Government and one of the ships under construction sold to Australia was Phaeton. She was slightly modified for Australian service and her name changed just before she was launched in 1934. She may have had a (mostly) Australian crew, but she was designed, built, and originally ordered for the British Royal Navy.....

[@gar6446]

The 'British' forces were an imperial force. At this stage there was no difference really. Add to this the volunteers from occupied nations and exiled govt forces.

[@sundoga4961]

@@gar6446 If you were talking WWI, I'd agree. But by World War Two the navies were distinct and there were differences in operational doctrines.

[@sundoga4961]

@@alganhar1 Who made her doesn't matter. It's who commanded and crewed her. The General Belgrano was not a US ship.

[@gar6446]

@@sundoga4961 I would tend to agree with you, but this is a youtube comment simplified for brevity.

[@PaulMcCartGuitarTracks]

How the captain of the Sydney, after being so capable here, could be so negligent in the South Pacific is unbelievable. I’m referring to the sinking of the Sydney by the German raider Cormorant.

[@jacklang3314]

It was a different captain and a newly trained crew on Sydney from what I remember. Collins was assigned to Singapore and later ABDACOM before becoming the Senior Naval Officer in Freemantle in WA until 1943, where he became the commander of HMAS Shropshire. By 1944 he was in charge of the Australian Naval Squadron before getting injured by a Kamikaze strike on HMAS Australia.

[@PaulMcCartGuitarTracks]

@@jacklang3314 thank you for straightening me out on this.

[@jacklang3314]

@@PaulMcCartGuitarTracks no problem mate.

[@jarrettbobbett5230]

Can you do a video on 1814 august 24th. What do we know about the 4500 British regulars under the command of Robert Ross? Were they all born on the island of Britain or were some born in the provinces of upper & lower Canada? someone told me Canadines burnt down the white house. I do think the British kept records of where their regulars where born.

[@Acridblue999]

It was British regulars and marines who were the ones who burnt the White house. These were not based in Canada but were a separate new UK invasion force sent after the defeat of Napoleon in Europe under Robert Ross"s command.

[@caniconcananas7687]

Portugal went on vacations in 1940, I suppose. 😅

[@HoH]

I drew the border but unselected in the final render apparently 🥴

[@sugarnads]

'Allied' destroyers... Hmm. Usa still a no show. Russia not in it yet. Who were these allies? Oh. The only ppl still in the fight. The commonwealth...

[@isilder]

plus Free French, Polish, etc but not present here.. but yes, the allies as they were at the time...

[@geoffreylee5199]

I like all the spelling errors.

[@lilboy3102]

Can you make videos on the British Pacific Fleet and the East Indies Fleet ? Battles in the Bay of Bengal, British bombing of Sumatra, Okinawa, Oil refineries.....all these battles... And also Carrier operations under Admiral Somerville in the Indian Ocean Britain's war against Japan is not covered by any youtube channel in detail. The British comeback against Japanese was great . It is not known ! Please ❤

[@HoH]

Hi! I have some videos in the works about Japan's invasion of the east indies and ABDAs resistance. It does feature the Brits. Any specific battles in the Pacific you had in mind?

[@lilboy3102]

@@HoH I will surely tell you in a couple of days. I will post it in this comment section only ? Is that okay to you ?

[@HoH]

@@lilboy3102 Sure thing

[@UthurRytan]

@@HoH Maybe the Indian Ocean Raid?

[@gelbesobst422]

Why do you show Austria as separate from Germany on your map?

[@davidvincent980]

you could hear the shells slam into the cruisers, WAP WAP WAP...

[@ellisseawell7]

I appreciate the effort to bring things to life, but the overlaid antiquing of the still photos with continual simulated reel damage is very distracting, and overused. Otherwise, well done, indeed. Thank you for your work. I pledge a small Patreon gift.

[@HoH]

Thank you for the feedback, I haven't used the effect in recent videos because of that exact criticism.

[@grahamlait1969]

In July 1940 there were no 'allies'. There was just the British Empire (specifically the Australians in this case) and the Royal Navy. At that time, Australians would have considered themselves to be Australian first and British second, just like most Scots and Welsh do now. Indeed, at that time, most Australians called the UK 'home' as a matter of course. Many Australians still feel the same. We were, and still are, closer than mere allies.

[@spikenomoon]

That diagram is extremely confusing

[@razter6678]

8:20 if you want to see the actual content that relates to the title.

[@PortmanRd]

Was it the same ill fated Sydney?

[@thhseeking]

Yes, that one sunk by the Kormoran later in the war.

[@GravesRWFiA]

Just to add to it HMS Havoc was another H class destroyer, not a light cruiser, and i have no idea what the ship is you show at 3:57 saying it's HMAAS sydney but that ship looks more like a town class cruiser as it's sporting 4 triple turrets. not only is it not the Syndey, it's not even a leander class cruiser. but you push it out there. The picture at 7:50 might well be the Batolomeo Colleoni but it is without comment and even a casual observer will notice the boat seems to be missing it's bow. but there is no comment on this. Itialian shipwrights had issues but that is not one of them these sort of very obvious mistakes weakens the whole piece because it becomes harder and harder to trust other things you present when the easy ones are flubbed.

[@janlindtner305]

👍👍👍

[@Alessioalessio-qv1ff]

An uncle never returned from greece. His ship was bombed by the british after armistice while returning home to italy

[@Ras_al_Gore]

What’s with the map showing Austria as separate from Germany and Italy controlling Montenegro?

[@marshallbowen8693]

It was once said that after WWII you viewed the Italian navy through a glass bottomed boat.

[@officialboomtish214]

Battle of Ushant (1944) when?

[@Stallion-EC]

Hey, you, feed the machine, comment and like, the algorithms gotta eat

[@HoH]

✨ Thank you!

[@Cannon530YTOO]

A fellow enjoyer of culture I see?

[@GaldirEonai]

Map's a bit weird. Shows Austria as its own country which it very much wasn't at the time, as well as holding some territory it'd lost after WW1.

[@ethanpf449]

When will you start the Franco-Prussian war series?

[@epickzalpha8273]

Maybe add a polish and others resistance against USSR and Germany during ww2?

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Italian naval forces and Italian armies showed weaknesses in sea and landscape during WW2 started...thank you 🙏( house of history ) channel

[@johnpower8356]

Why does the new Italian navy have glass bottom ships? So they can see their old navy

[@sergueiothonucci1638]

[@miro1586]

Can someone say shortly; what is the difference between Destroyer/Light Cruiser/Auxiliary? For example is Destroyer more heavy than Light Cruiser and have better fire power but slower?

[@caporosso7478]

A destroyer is a smaller but nimbler ship, designated to hunt and destroy smaller vessels that could still pose a threat to bigger and more important ships. As a complement to their main weaponry, usually not bigger than 5 inch guns (127 mm) - albeit there are exceptions - there were anti aircraft guns, torpedoes and depth charges. These types of guns were excellent to hunt down motor torpedo boats, motor gun boats and submarines alike. They were lightly armored, because the type of targets they were designed to destroy weren’t generally armed with bigger calibre guns. They could also use torpedoes to threaten and even sink bigger vessels, so they could also be used in groups with a “hit and run” tactic to force big war convoys into changing course, potentially disrupting enemy ships’ effectiveness and accuracy. An Auxiliary cruiser is a ship not originally designed as a warship, but later converted as a one: nevertheless, as its “profile” wasn’t designed for war, this type of ship couldn’t be fitted with large amounts of guns and armour, so it wasn’t really suited to fight other warships. This being said, auxiliary cruisers were perfect to destroy enemy merchant ships, as those were equally lacking armour and guns. Remarkably and apparently , one of these ships, the Kormoran, using a deception, managed to sink a light cruiser, the Australian HMAS Sydney, but later sank for the extensive damage received. A light cruiser is a proper warship, faster than a capital ship, but with guns and armour important enough to threaten other warships and destroyers. Conventionally, in the years before WW2, a light cruiser could be called properly so if it wasn’t equipped with main guns bigger than 6-inch (155mm). Heavy cruisers, on the contrary, were other similar ships with guns no bigger than 8-inch (203mm). So, the difference between light and heavy cruisers referred mainly to the size of the guns, not armour or displacement. No matter the designation, though, they could not exceed 10.000 tons (as per the Washington Naval Treaty and, later, the London treaty).

[@alganhar1]

The lines between a small cruiser and a large Destroyer in that period could be blurred. Contrary to what some say both Destroyers and Light Cruisers were built to Naval Standards... In short though, a Destroyer is an escort and fleet screen ship. Typically WWII Destroyers ranged from 1500 tone displacement for earlier Classes to just shy of 3000 tons for some of the later Classes. There were some larger Destroyers around but they were the exception. Armament was typically torpedo's, 3 - 8 (depending on the Class) light Naval artillery (usually between 4 - 5 inch) in single or twin mounts. most Destroyers tended to fit between 4 - 6 main guns, 8 as the Tribals had in their original configuration was unusual. That was rounded off by their anti air armament and in most cases ASW equipment. These ships escorted other larger warships, and acted as the Fleet Screen to stop enemy Destroyers and small ships attacking the fleet.... There were Destroyers designed specifically for escorting Convoys which upped the ASW (anti submarine warfare) weaponry and reduced their gun armament significantly but those are a different topic. A Light Cruiser could be anywhere between 4 - 10,000 tons under Treaty, though after the Treaty was abandoned some displaced up to 13 - 14,000 tons. Typically they were slower than destroyers but faster than most of the larger ships. Cruisers despite the previous comment were classed as Capital ships, if small capital ships. Generally they were armed with 6 inch guns, usually somewhere between 8 and 12 (though some had more or fewer, the Brooklyn's had 15 if I recall). Most Nations other than the US also gave Light Cruisers Torpedo's, though usually fewer than were carried by the Destroyers. Their role was again escort and fleet screen, but they were also large enough for independent operations, and had a much better range than destroyers. Auxiliary ships, some were purpose built, some were conversions, and they filled a huge number of roles, from Fleet Oilers to tenders to specialist Landing ships (all were classed as Auxiliaries), repair ships and the list goes on, and on, and on. You could literally write a series of books discussing all the Auxiliary ships as they were (and still are) so varied, and often very specialised. The term Auxiliary does not refer to just armed merchant ships, indeed the very point of them was that they were NOT warships. What the other commentator was referring to sounds very much like the armed Merchant Cruisers, which are basically Civilian ships armed with a bunch of 4 - 6 inch guns from stores and used to try to either defend or attack convoys....

[@gar6446]

A Destroyer was smaller and had lighter guns and torpedoes were a significant weapon. Cruisers had 6" guns minimum and cruisers were larger designed for cruising with longer range. But as war progressed and requirements changed it became a bit blurred. Plus nations had different ideas on requirements. A ship designed for a dash out of port to engage an enemy might seem 'overgunned', a ship expected to fight at extended range anywhere from the arctic to the med or atlantic might look lightly armed but with better seakeeping. US ships were larger had good range and well armed because of the pacific. A pre war design was very different to those being built in 43-44.

[@ennui9745]

In ascending order of size it goes Destroyer -> Light Cruiser -> Heavy Cruiser and so on, though as someone mentioned the lines between a large destroyer and a small light cruiser could be blurred. My mom once commented that she thought it was odd that the smallest main ship class of WW2 was called "destroyer" - the reason for that is that "destroyer" is a shortened form of this ship class's original full name, which was "torpedo boat destroyer." Destroyers were originally designed to sink torpedo boats and corvettes, even smaller ships (so small that games like Hearts of Iron 4 don't represent them). Later on their duties were expanded to sinking submarines and providing AA fire, general escort duties for the larger capital ships.

[@SennaAugustus]

Overall, the differences are their roles. Each type of ship has specific roles, such as counters to specific enemies. A destroyer is a torpedo boat destroyer (you can see more clearly from the French name contre-torpilleur and the Italian name cacciatorpediniere). Their job is to kill torpedo boats, so they had some small guns. They later evolved to hunt larger ships such as light cruisers. They are small, fast, cheap, and numerous. Some large destroyers with a gun focus called destroyer leaders are designed to kill regular destroyers. Later, some destroyers are so large they were reclassified as cruisers, although the distinction is arbitrary. A cruiser is a scout. They operate more independently ahead of the battle fleet or in closer support of capital ships or as leaders of destroyers. They also operate independently entirely as commerce raiders. They are larger, with bigger guns, and are still quite fast. They can be lightly or heavily armoured. They developed a niche for anti-air support, with some ships becoming dedicated AA cruisers. The largest of these are battlecruisers, which are half battleships and half cruisers - effectively large cruisers with battleship calibre guns. Heavy cruisers are the halfway of light and battle cruisers, to be more mass produced than battlecruisers but more powerful than light cruisers. Auxiliary ships are support ships that normally don't see combat. Tankers, repair ships, tenders for example. "Auxiliary cruiser" is a misnomer, and they're more accurately armed merchant cruisers, which are merchant ships with guns as you can infer from the name too. They're just cheap mass-produced ersatz warships to protect their fellow merchant ships in convoys.

[@patrickmiano7901]

Defeat is one thing; disgrace is another. Did the Italians ever win one single battle, on land or sea, during World War Two?

[@davidbirt4643]

Australia ❤

[@user-jv5cu4hz3q]

War history is a sorry thing to study. War is horrible

[@keithmcwilliams7424]

He forgot to mention sydney was an australian cruiser.!!!

[@oddito8080]

Dovresti fare più video sugli italiani

[@dandaly7305]

The content is interesting. Constructive criticism- the visual effect you use to make stills look video-ish is disturbing. This is the third video of yours (the two Narvicks as well). I probably won't watch more if that effect is used in them.

[@JjackVideo]

For none-Amerimuts: 19.000 yards = 17,3736 kilometers

[@Booze_Rooster]

whats with the artificial as hell aging effect on the newsreel footage? Looks cheesy.

[@valeriangelov5592]

Italy the nation that did one big nothing in the war.

[@peterbrown6494]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Alexandria_(1941)

[@boratunc9700]

Redo Türkiye map.

[@kpd3308]

The fake movie effects are distracting and irritating. Otherwise good video.

[@osirismpg7393]

How so Italians never hit anyone? :D

[@michaelshore2300]

Funny how these become Allied !!! Destroyers

[@kimbaldunsmore4633]

Sydney is inaccurately described as a British ship in this piece. She was wholly and fully part of the Royal Australian Navy. Bit insulting really; the producers should have done their homework better. Australian/Kiwi cuz

[@TBobLove]

Since WW2 Italy hasn't produced anything good in the way of military anything. No tanks No artillery and No good warships.

[@nathanappleby5342]

Clearly shows the Italians did not have one of Europe's best militaries. Such poor marksmanship and those poor lives lost.

[@13stalag13]

I do not like you showing old photo's with fake flickering to pretend you're showing a film clip! Outrageous!

[@hander9929]

why use yard bro use meter pls

[@PaulA-bv1rt]

Why . Imperial measure was used back then.

[@PaulinAsia_]

Well. not once did you mention, apart from in the descrption, that the H.M.A.S. Sydney was an Australian ship, in fact, you called it a British cruiser. How terribly British of you 😉

[@alganhar1]

Ordered originally as HMS Phaeton, a Leander Class Cruiser for the Royal Navy. She was purchased before completion by the Australian Government, slightly modified, and launched under her new name of HMAS Sidney in 1934... To all intents and purposes she was a Leander Class like those operated by the Royal Navy with some modifications to allow for the Australian climate.... So she was actually a British ship.... . Her crew was not British, but she was. She was designed in Britain, originally ordered for Britain, and built in Britain...

[@ronhall9039]

I'm sure that that was an Aussie Ensign associated with Her on the video.

[@chrisrabbitt]

​@@alganhar1built by the Brits doesn't make her a British ship. In all in the name see HMAS not HMS. The king approved the A for a reason, Australia isn't the UK. Pretty simple really. Jesus even the yanks can get this right.

[@thhseeking]

It does say that the Captain was in the RAN on the graphic.

[@HoH]

I wrote a full paragraph about the HMAS Sydney, how it was sold to Australia and sailed from there to the Mediterranean. I decided to take it out of the script because I wasn't sure if viewers would be interested in that information... guess I know now!

[@Russia-bullies]

Wrong.The Sydney was not British.

[@ULTRA_2112]

HMS Havock is an H-Class Destroyer, not a Light Cruiser. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Havock_(H43)

[@Will_CH1]

That narrative has a number of errors. Firstly, the A to I classes of destroyers only carried 4 x 4.7 inch guns and these were hopelessly outranged by the Italian 6 inch guns. The Giussano class cruisers were specifically designed to counter destroyers. They were faster than destroyers in most sea states and much more heavily armed. Their belt armour could also keep put destroyer caliber shells. A single Giussano was capable of staying out of range of four destroyers and picking them off one by one. Two such cruisers against 4 destroyers is a one sided fight against which the destroyers had no hope. The Italian force knew that they were dealing with only 4 destroyers at the start of the fight. It was another hour before Sydney could close the range and assist. While the Italian cruisers were capable of steaming at 36 knots, Sydney was slower at 32 knots but was able to remain undetected and close to extreme gun range. The first indications for the Italians that a cruiser was near by was when salvos of shell splashes started straddling them. because the destroyers could not hit them at that range. The long range gunnery duel started between Sydney and the 2 Italian cruisers until Sydney knocked out the engine rooms of the Colleoni. It was only then that the destroyers closed and blew her bow off with a torpedo. The Sydney continued to chase the Band Nere and continued to fire until there were only 10 shells left in the forward magazine. She then broke off the chase. Prior to the Colleoni being knocked out, the odds were on the Italian side because the destroyers were not capable of hitting the Italian cruisers. If Sydney had not entered the fight, knocking off the 4 destroyers would have been a turkey shoot for the Italians. In Summary, The destroyers did not ambush the Italian cruisers. The cruisers closed in to sink the destroyers in a role they were specifically designed for. It was the presence of Sydney that saved the destroyers from destruction. It was Sydney that surprised the Italians.

[@fiegenfiegen]

1:14.... Where the heck is Portugal!!?? Please put the country back on the map (yes, Portugal existed well before WWII!).

[@user-ss6bm3vx7v]

Again...italies, done nothing in ww2, oh yes , dropped rifles once, never fired.

[@michimatsch5862]

Why are you adding those fake fragments to pictures you are showing? It gives me a migraines, unironically. I'd appreciate it if it was possible to not have those in future videos.

[@HobbitHobbit]

Not one of the better ones. Far too much history and ship technical details not necessary to the story. You could cut the first 8 minutes and tell the same story.

[@HoH]

You don't like the additional information?

[@harrygriffiths-iy5gb]

Why do you call Australians ‘British’ 🤦‍♂️

[@Chesirecat111]

Halfway through, and still nothing about Cape Spada. I hate when videos are misleadingly titled like this. Makes me stop watching.

[@HoH]

It is important to provide historical context. The battle didn't just fall out of thin air.

[@Chesirecat111]

@@HoH Historical context is good, and important, but when the contextualization equals, or exceeds the material about the battle, it’s either excessive, or misleadingly titled.

[@ut561]

good backgrd info and pictures but too much detail

[@HoH]

Noted

[@dwayneklien5308]

A lot of these documentary films about the Italian Military, during WW2, proves they were idiots.

[@frankodo3251]

Critical supplies for the „Italian invasion of Egypt“? 😂😂😂 As if the Italian cowards ever had something like a remote chance of attacking the darn British in Egypt. The Germans failed at that later, after chasing the British twice thru the Cyrenaica. Italian dreams of military prowess in ww2 is just ridiculous. Applies to the navy as much as to the armies 😂😂