Italy's First Battleship Engagement of WW2: The Battle of Calabria, 1940 - Animated

[@HoH]

⚓ Download World of Warships: Legends and play for free on Xbox and PS - wowsl.co/3YV7Fo3

[@uesdtosignin1038]

Could you make a video of the battle of Dogger bank (1915) ?

[@ondrejdobrota7344]

12-inch gun is 305 mm! Its Italian battleship and gun.

[@ondrejdobrota7344]

611 feet = 186 m

[@musashilegend4477]

Where coral sea part 3?

[@HoH]

@@musashilegend4477 Soon!

[@sparkyinsertnamehere6673]

Italy gets a lot of stick about its WW2 performance, but I have to say, the more I hear about the Italian navy in that conflict, the more impressed I am. It had issues...what navy doesn't, but it doesn't match the stereotype I had been led to believe. Am British btw.

[@Frank-pc2rs]

I'm glad you recognized this. Allied propaganda is still working on some people 80 years later. It's crazy.

[@attackmaster519]

@@Frank-pc2rs It's depressing that you think the Italians required the Allies to utilize propaganda in order to make people believe those stereotypes. I don't stand for Italian slander like this, so I'll have you know that the Italians were perfectly capable of being fuck-ups on their own, no allies necessary.

[@unclepear]

In reality both navy and especially air Force, was pretty decent. Navy because over founded by the governement, air Force simply cause apparently they designed pretty nice airplane, if im not mistaken the were even tryed by Germans that compared them with German airplane and spotted aspects that made the italians one better or worse, so in some aspect italians had better plane (in a very fewer number) than the German one. The problem was the nonsense of the army. Apart from Giovanni messe, Amedeo guillet and very few others, italians had commander with lower iq than a newborn blowfish. The only thing they had were courage, especially in tobruk and in mai la d defending from both nazi's and allies

[@iffracem]

Like a lot said about the French as well... The "rank and file" were on par with any military in the world, the leadership was the problem, esp the higher ranks. Senior staff in the Italian forces got their "commission" by who they knew, which family they were born into, or who they paid for the position. Every military had (still has!) this problem, but it was especially so in pre-war Italy

[@Italian_Military_Archives]

Very nice depiction on this overlooked battle. I have to point that you have used the Flag of the postwar Italian Navy (Marina Militare) and not that one of the Regia Marina.

[@HoH]

The correct flag would be the one with the Savoyan (?) Cross in the middle? Thanks for pointing it out, nobody noticed it before. I'll make sure to change it in the future.

[@Italian_Military_Archives]

@HoH correct, the red shield with a white cross inside then a crown above the shield.

[@IredOfficial712]

Ciao Italian Military Archives, non pensavo di vederti qua

[@Italian_Military_Archives]

@@IredOfficial712 beh l'algoritmo mi propone molte cose a tema navale!

[@franz490]

“Lo stemma proposto dall'Ammiraglio Cavagnari viene concesso con Regio Decreto durante la guerra, nell'aprile '41. I problemi di applicabilità del decreto derivanti dal conflitto prima e dall'armistizio del '43 poi, fanno dimenticare la questione che viene riaperta solo alla fine del '47 dal Presidente Enrico De Nicola che istituisce la "Bandiera navale" della Marina Militare della Repubblica Italiana epurandola dal blasone sabaudo e dai due fasci littori a seguito del Referendum del 1946.” (Dal sito della Marina Militare)

[@exharkhun5605]

The Italian escort is bigger than the entire Kriegsmarine surface fleet at that moment in time isn't it?

[@anelstarcevic696]

Germany's 22 (shitty) Destroyers to Italy's 16 (decent) destroyers Germany's 6 Light cruisers (They don't like to be in the water) to Italy's 8 (ranging between good and state of the art) Germany's 5 Heavy cruisers (3 Deutschlands are decent + 2 Hippers) to 6 Italian (Zaras are what Hippers want to be) Germany's 2 (light) Battleships to Italy's 2 (light) Battleships The only Points Germany Gets are for the Scharnhorst Class which is much faster, has better armor, and better armament.

[@exharkhun5605]

@@anelstarcevic696 Thank you. That's the mental picture I had (minus the actual numbers that I was too lazy to look up 😁). I've been weighing the slightly larger guns and the probably better experienced crews of the Italian battleships against the Scharnhorsts in my head all day but I also lean towards the Germans there. I've always had a weak spot for the Scharnhorst anyway. It says something about the viewers of this channel that my original post has a smattering of likes, and a thoughtful reply like yours instead of the firestorm of wehraboos that I have to confess, I somewhat expected. ♥

[@anelstarcevic696]

@@exharkhun5605 It would be intreasting match, mainly because of Deutschlands which could harm Cavours and are about as fast. But then Italy has advantage in number of cruisers and has speed advantage, Tranto and Bolzano can make 36 knots same goes for most of the light cruisers. Whilst Zaras are just good Hippers and make about 32 knots. I too would give it to Germans, but I don't think most of their screen would survive.

[@exharkhun5605]

​@@anelstarcevic696 I meant I'd only give the advantage in battleships to Germany. The overall advantage I'd give to the Italians. Mainly due to their superiority in destroyers and the fact they can easily protect them with their cruisers. I've just read and watched a whole lot about the naval fighting between the Japanese and Americans, from the Solomon Islands to Leyte gulf. Close range knife fights with torpedo boats, destroyers and cruisers with the occasional second tier battleships. The geography is completely different of course, more open water (if we take the Mediterranean as the battlespace). Like in those fights between the Japs and Yanks the destroyers will play a key role, if the Italian commander is an aggressive one (like Campioni here clearly is) he has a big advantage. * We may have to give the Germans some Schnellboote, which is probably the only really impressive arm of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet, although I don't know how good they were in 1940. * German radar counts for nothing, every German battleship blew off their own antennas with their first salvo's as far as I'm aware. Those on the cruisers may keep working a bit longer, but it's still only 1940 radar.

[@toothedacorn4724]

@@anelstarcevic696 Italy's battleships here were less "light" they were just old

[@13stalag13]

Guilio Cesare had 2 triple and 2 double main gun turrets, NOT 3 triple turrets! It was the Littorio class that had 3 triple turrets.

[@spacedeer4133]

Before its refit in 1933 Giulio Cesare had 3 triple turrets as well as 2 dual turrets, the 3rd triple was amidship. During the refit the middle triple was removed and the remaining guns bored out to 320mm. Its 3 torpedo tubes were also removed.

[@grouchymax6451]

in ww2 yes, you are correct.

[@iffracem]

If you read the graphic on the screen as the commentator speaks of the stats (05:12), you'll see that the pre and post reconstruction gun load outs are all there, just as the commentator mentions. Prior.. three triples, after.. two triples (as the graphic shows). Your comment is rather redundant, maybe you were in too much haste to comment?

[@_Jfb]

Right at the same time as the historigraph warspite video! Perfect

[@danielseelye6005]

Considering they're both being sponsored by WoWS, it makes sense.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage of that naval forces clashed on the Mediterranean sea for naval dominants ...thank you house of history for sharing

[@davidfiorini6416]

Ahh.. la battaglia di Punta Stilo. E viene chiamata battaglia di Calabria, da loro.

[@alessandrogini5283]

Un occasione sbagliata

[@MilitarySummaryChannel2024]

*During the battle, the Mediterranean Sea sustained heavy damage, being hit hundreds of times by bombs, shells and torpedoes, but was able to recover quickly.*

[@shredder5749]

I think that is due to it being a water body. Could be wrong though

[@OdyG1821]

Very reckless of both parties to engage the Mediterranean Sea considering the consequences if it sustained permanent damage

[@JohnMcMahon.]

The Mediterraneans belt armour was seven miles thick in places, it was quite the unit. 😊

[@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204]

Didn't sink then

[@isaacsilvas2285]

And deck armor was about 3-1miles thick

[@liamc9998]

Been waiting for someone to make a dedicated video about this battle.

[@pjhoughton5049]

Love the vids man, learning so much more about the Med naval struggle and Italian involvement, the coloured arrows under the ships as you talk is a nice touch, keep up the great content 👍

[@HoH]

Glad you like them!

[@ericfg806]

Imagine if the Italians had some well-trained anti surface aviation units that was involved in this battle that was SO close to the Italian mainland...

[@KHK001]

Amazing video as always HOH!

[@HoH]

Thanks again!

[@brokenbridge6316]

The Mediterranean is such an overlooked theater of WWII. Axis supply convoys ambushed by British Submarines. Something the average person doesn't know about.

[@KC-nn5wc]

Lamest part of it... Britains overall WW2 performance was pathetic...

[@maxigenous]

It’s mind blowing how Italian airforce so close to Italy mainland couldn’t swarm and destroy British fleet.

[@alessandrogini5283]

The air force wasn't lead by good leaders

[@xmaniac99]

The Germans tried to fill that gap and endednup bombing the Italian Navy even more than the British Navy

[@Arkinight]

who dares wins

[@stefano_4593]

As the video tells the regia aeronautica did swarm for 2 days but they were high altitude bombers only, they did not train and developed neither Dive bombers nor torpedo bomber. And since they never trained with regiamarina they when confused own ships for British. Preparation is everything

[@alessandrogini5283]

@stefano_4593 gli aerosiluranti si potevano benissimo fare, ed erano molto efficaci anche.. chissà se avessimo avuto reparti di aerosiluranti

[@reaver1414]

World of warships needs a single player story mode and historical battle mode. PVP open battle is boring

[@matstick199]

World of warships is not at all historical or immersive anymore, right now the best navies in that game are the Russians and South Americans, renowned naval powers, unlike the US, Japan Britain

[@saltyvanilla3304]

​@@matstick199 russian tech tree stopped being the best in game long time ago, USN is still the best country in game Panamerican BBs are broken, but the cruisers are meh, so 50/50

[@zackarymurdock811]

Play ultimate admiral: dreadnoughts. It’s my go to ship game

[@renzjosephremo4143]

Damn i was thinking the same thing

[@timf2279]

WOW Blitz is completely lame.

[@Shubham-1999]

It's surprising to know that during ww2 even admirals led from front, can imagine it happening today.

[@dovif5313]

Most American capital ships were led by admirals in WWII. 2 admirals Scott and Callahan died in the first battle of Guadalcanal in one night

[@alsanchez5038]

Where is „the front" in modern naval warfare?

[@pissedoff-is1mt]

They should never have scrapped Warspite. Great vid of a battle rarely covered.

[@mbathroom1]

Crazy you uploaded this right after I watched Historigraph's video on the Warspite. Good stuff

[@Italianplayercvu]

I saw a bit of confusion on the cesare armament description. During the reconstruction. All 12 inch guns were rebored to 320mm, not just the triples.

[@acefra6116]

In Italy this Battle Is known as Battle of Punta Stilo

[@dayros2023]

Very interesting, warships at the time were very inaccurate it seems. Understandable considering the distance of the engagement.

[@Hyssar]

On the contrary, they were exceedingly accurate. At the distances they were shooting from, everything had to be controlled by mechanical (clockwork) computers! Even the guns were aimed by those computers. They had to take into account dozens of complicated inputs from the speed and bearing of both ships (in 3 dimensions, including the roll of the waves!), the wind, air density, even the Coriolis effect, and so much more. Those targeting computers are an absolute marvel of technology. A battleship is only 30 meters wide. They were shooting from 30,000 meters away! In this battle both sides were afraid to get within normal combat ranges. They stayed out of range and tried to "gage" each other's gunnery and technology. Just 5000 yards closer and it would have been a VERY different battle. Again at this range even a minuscule imbalance in a shell's weight or density would be amplified into a dozen yards of difference.

[@danielefabbro822]

​@@Hyssar the Littorio-class battleships had 381mm guns. Developed from the british 381 caliber almost a decades before. The maximum range of fire was 42km. The useful range was 32km, outside that range we had problems of dispersions. That means that the Littorio-class outranged Iowa class of 6km. And Yamato of 2km. Considering that the muzzle velocity of the shells was increased to obtain such flat angles and long distances, the shells obtained also the advantage of a superior, while slightly, penetration power than the 466mm of the Yamato class. Whoever thinks that we Italians are bad engineers have to rethink their ideas.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

With a longitudinal dispersion of 2% of the distance, that, at that time, was considered good by any navy, a battleship, provided it had correctly calculated distance and bearing, and the target was not manuvering to avoid being hit, had almost 100% chances to hit a battleship at 20km distance with at least one shell for every 8-9 guns salvo. At longer distances, it became very hard to hit something. Mind that tighter dispersions were not useful. If the salvo was too tight, since a certain error in calculating distance and bearing was inevitable, all the shells would have missed the target.

[@daniellucas1494]

Another wonderful posting! Always enjoyable - please keep them coming!

[@diademadiademoni202]

Just two points: the hit made probably by Trento to Warspite would be confimed by some splinters recovered and the damage, maybe a near miss or an hit over one radio cable. OTOH, the RM Bolzano was hit trice by Neptune and damaged quite seriously, with 2 guns hit and rudder blocked for some time, many wounded and killed as well. The Cesare, atlast, had about 120 dead and wounded, or 10% of their crew, by that single hit that neverthless, missed the opportunity to pierce the armoured deck and destroy the battleship, exploding before the right time.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love italy videos! Have you considered doing videos on the battles of the unitifaction? 🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹

[@HoH]

I have indeed, however unfortunately not anytime soon!

[@Viking88Power]

Never heard of this one, great video!

[@clockmaster_77]

The old wonderful game Great Naval Battles 4 from SSI covers a lot of battles in the WW2 Mediterranean theatre in gorgeous detail

[@tonystone1016]

At least Itally lasted about 4 years longer than France.

[@silverpleb2128]

Yeah, Italy ended by being invaded in 1943 by both allies and Germans just after losing both north african and east african campaign, and then got into a civil war. All of the main italians offensives also led to high casualties, minor gains and strategical defeats. Being only saved multiples times by the Germans. The battle of the Alpes, the greek campaign or the Lybian campaign are good exemples of the might Italians forces. But for sure, we can give credit to Italy to last longer than France in ww2. One side got some success yet lost the battle of France but still managed to win the war. The other side lasting longer but losing the war. I guess we could talk about geographical position and geopolitical situation of both France and Italy, to explain why one lasted longer than its counterpart but still managed to lose.

[@CuddlesEnjoyer]

​@@silverpleb2128 Frenchie Poland lasted more than France stop the cope

[@silverpleb2128]

@@CuddlesEnjoyer Poland lasted 35days, France lasted 1month and 15days. stop the cope.

[@CuddlesEnjoyer]

@silverpleb2128 2 weeks more against 2 major powers, Italy lasted in Montecassino 8 months alone, but ig the frenchie is mad cuz he lost so spectacularly that has to take his cope on a nation that did whatever it could with the industrial base they had.

[@silverpleb2128]

@CuddlesEnjoyer @CuddlesEnjoyer is it some kind of who got the biggest D you are doing here kiddo? France got 3 borders with 3 fascists nations in Europe and an empire in Africa America and asia, having to protect them at the same time, meaning not being able to send its whole army on a single front like Germany did. Poland had a majority of its troops facing the Germans, and only few left to protect its eastern border. There were in fact very few contacts between poles and soviets in 39, majority of polish troops already being encircled, rooted or destroyed. Aka the battle of Warsaw or Gdansk pocket. Germany was fighting at monte cassino, not the Italians. Germany established a defensive line with fortifications in advance, before the allies arrives. On a front large of only approximativly 100kl large. Also, the battle of monte cassino lasted 5months, and didn't consisted of 5months of fighting, but only a few phases of fights. The French participated in the last phase of the battles, replacing the British and USA troops which failed with the last phases. A new plan has been established by the general Juin, which used French troops alongside commonwealth and polish troops. The polish troops got succès full due to the plan and t'due to the French troops which attacked from the sides the Germans from impossible terrain, clearing hills and destroying German MG and artillery nests. Allowing the poles to advance. I live when some polish crying babies try to rewrite the events of ww2 to make their country so much glorious and successful by giving way more importance than what they really had, I live it coz you are literally g'using fakes informations with totally false timelines to prove a fake point lol. Typical polish crying baby nationalist! You are the only one who cope there. Trying to play that childish game of who got the biggest D while not even trying to be historicaly accurate. Do you have something to prove? Coz yet I like Poland, but people's like you are exécrable, and give a very bad image of your country. Rewriting history and acting like a dick head won't gonna make you smarter or give a better image of your country. Surely the Soviet era made people's like you try to get a better image and a better history for your country, trying to compensate some things. Please, continue kiddo.

[@jackn4853]

Fascinating and well presented. But it's not "17 o'clock" but 17 hundred hours. Same with the other times you quoted.

[@flankspeed]

Call that one a no-score draw.

[@bullettube9863]

This battle clearly showed that both navies needed to upgrade their fire control facilities!

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Let's say you are firing to one side. Since your ship is moving forward, your shells have a slight sideways momentum drift. Your ship is constantly rolling slightly, so the elevation of the guns only exactly matches the range to target for a split second. The target only presents at most a 100' range envelope in which your shells will hit, but radar to determine range that precisely won't exist for another couple decades so you have to rely on a man looking through optics. The target is moving, so you have to lead it and aim your shells where you expect it to be when they get there, but you can only estimate its speed, and it is most likely moving angle off instead of exactly parallel to you so the range is changing as the shells are in flight. When firing at long range, Coriolis force and the Earth's rotation have to be taken into account because the shells make take half a minute to get there. The target may turn in the time it takes the shells to get there. The target may change speed in the time it takes the shells to get there. You have no digital electronic fire control; microchips are far in the future. When firing at 10-20 miles range, relying on fire control based on lots of gears and dials, and someone's eyeballs, it is quite amazing any battleship ever hit anything except at point blank range during that war. They could not improve their fire control because that was the best that technology could offer at that time. If you think it was bad in 1940, take a look at the Spanish-American War or Russo-Japanese War, in which thousands of shells would be fired for only dozens of hits, and that was at much shorter ranges.

[@bullettube9863]

@@mikearmstrong8483 It was said that at the battle Of Manila Bay Dewy's ships had a 5% hit rate at 2000 yards. If the Spanish ships had had metal decks instead of wood most of them would have survived! As it was, none of the ships sank, they were all burned into ruin. At the Battle of Surigao Strait only the rebuilt BBs with "modern" radar scored hits, the other BBs that hadn't been modernized scored no hits. I, like many others, regard the hit by Warspite on the Italian cruiser to be a fantastic feat of shooting, despite the fact the hit did little damage. But still that old ship could still perform!

[@mikearmstrong8483]

@@bullettube9863 IIRC, the Spanish ships were just sitting at anchor, and the US still couldn't hit them any better than that.

[@williamestes629]

Surprising how one shell can affect one ship.

[@DaveSCameron]

Another belter, much appreciated folks. 🙏🇬🇧📚☘️🎚️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@scarletcrusade77]

Good work! You think you'll do the battle of the komadorski islands or Sagami bay soon? Don't think anyone on YT has covered the Sagami bay 45 battle before

[@HoH]

I can't promise a timeline, but I'll definitely end up covering them!

[@plantsngames4923]

@HoH what music did you use at 16:46? I think its cool to listen to while playing world of warships. Thanks in advance.

[@andrewwilkinson6575]

15 'o clock, 17 'o clock... come on. Brilliant video as per usual, but sometimes the little details matter

[@chickenfist1554]

Came here to say the same lol.

[@geordiedog1749]

“Engage the enemy more closely”

[@notthefbi7932]

Love these Mediterranean naval battles series, my first thought is always why Malta wasn't a priority for the Axis 🤔

[@Varthema]

Too hard a nut to crack. There's a video by Mr. Pogiaroni, Drach sparring partner, explaining what Axis could do and what not. It's in Italian, but with plenty of photos, some of them silly. Everything else is science - fiction.

[@FTN_Ale]

@@Varthema the british evacuated malta, expecting it to fall immediately

[@YoussefDaanBenAmor]

My very own grandfather from Tunisia was on an Italian warship during WW2.

[@numbersletters3886]

Radar 1st, Carriers 2nd made a massive difference for the Admiralty.

[@uesdtosignin1038]

Could you make a video of the battle of Dogger bank (1915) ?

[@numbersletters3886]

These are awesome, thank you, to everyone who adds the correction comments, please stay polite, a lot of effort goes into these, I rather enjoy them, yes hear errors now and then, WHO CARES! “ before you point out the spec in your brothers eye, worry about the wooden plank sticking out of your own”……

[@SamTheEnglishTeacher]

"spread the fumes dot"? 17:51

[@ChrisXu-jo4nw]

Nice video! By the way, could you please add the English subtitles? The auto-generated ones are a bit hard for me, thank you!

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Early video?! Thanks For this 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@geordiedog1749]

Very much a round one in a boxing match with both sides feeling how the opposition responses. Poor showing from the FAA and a lot of questions were asked about tactics following the attacks by swordfish coming to nowt. The conclusion was that more aircraft were needed to successfully attack fast ships by using attacks from different angles (hammer/anvil). Had the RN not been pishing its available carrier force away (Glorious and Courageous) ABC might have had more to fight with. That said, the plan had always been to have the French take a lead in the Mediterranean - first casualty of a battle is your plan etc etc.

[@tomo-gq2tq]

Would have been nice to see french fleets in the Mediterranean.

[@williamtolon6464]

Good video.

[@daikicipolloni3151]

4:20 if they’re coming from Taranto, the location of the 1st Fleet is wrong

[@Chriscers]

"EUrope's Soft Underbelly" - Churchill probably

[@franz490]

L’alto Adriatico (non solo l’Italia )

[@Rebellion1776]

I am surprised that the Italians did not use more aircraft from the mainland to attack the British ships while they had them engaged. I feel like that would of been a force multiple for them at the moment both naval forces were engaged.

[@dayros2023]

Italian planes strike the British after the battle, as the bombers could mistakenly attack their own ships during a battle.

[@ducadan81]

Italian navy and air force were constantly in contrast, all the planes were under the air force control and they were not specifically trained for naval battles. There wasn't even a real coordination of the 2 forces so the cooperation was almost impossible. Things changed during the war but definitely too late

[@Rebellion1776]

​@dayros2023 yeah I saw that in the video, but it is interesting that the British did launch Swordfish during the battle, and even though they didn't hit anything they definitely added another level of stress to the Italian fleet. I would of thought that the Italian Air Force could of communicated with the Italian fleet to avoid blue on blue type of accidents. They all had radios at the time.

[@ducadan81]

If I remember correctly it was after this battle that the Italian ships made the red/white strip on the deck, just to avoid friendly fire from the planes.

[@mauroperossini4785]

Gli italiani usarono circa 150 bombardieri d'alta quota, non bene addestrati e inadatti a colpire navi da guerra in rapida manovra.

[@gbagaskoro2]

It's November. Wondering if you might make video of the Battle of Surabaya

[@alexanderleach3365]

If the Italian battleships and the rest of their ships had radar, they would have the advantage over the British.

[@dovif5313]

If my mum has a penis she would be my dad

[@dovif5313]

If my mum was male. She would be my dad

[@George_M_]

But their fire control was spot on the entire time. The issue was dispersion due to their terrible quality shells.

[@xmaniac99]

@@dovif5313omg democrat detected

[@silverpleb2128]

if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike

[@sourwind7487]

Pls Battle of Kursk would appreciate it🙏

[@grouchymax6451]

Cavours had 3 triple and 2 double 12 inch guns in ww1 then it was updated with 2 triple and 2 double 12.5 inch guns.

[@stevejones6013]

Very under-whelming battle.

[@uesdtosignin1038]

Could you make a video of Battle of Dakar/Operation Menace ?

[@bigsarge2085]

Interesting!

[@richardstone5552]

Thanks

[@davidgaine4697]

Thank you to the production staff for this insightful video. I had not heard of this conflict between the two fleets. It’s interesting the Italians retreated. The higher ranks wanted to preserve their stocks and although the engagement was something of a stalemate the direct hit on the Gerano Ceasareno must have worried the Italian top brass. The Italians only half heartedly entered the war. They were not a fully militarized society like Germany and Japan and there was a lot of dissent even in their own government even if Mussolini claimed otherwise. The military lacked resources and infrastructure to maintain sustained campaigns. The supply routes to Benghazi were sporadic resulting in poorly maintained strongholds in Libya allowing Britain to dominate the Mediterranean. The 8th Army were in contrast ready to take the fight in Libya until Rommel intervened causing near capitulation by the British. It could have been very different if the Axis powers had access to the Suez Canal and the oil reserves of the Middle East.

[@alessandrogini5283]

Could be done if italo Balbo replaced Badoglio in 1935

[@zetectic7968]

Interesting but engagement at far range = inconclusive. Note, o'clock only for hours 1 to 12. 15:00 is 15 hundred hours, same for 13:00 to 23:00

[@HoH]

I was unsure about how to write it down - I'm not a native speaker. I remember 5 or 6 years ago I got absolutely pummeled for mispronouncing "reconnaissance". Upside is that I never made that mistake again - same goes for this, thanks for pointing it out!

[@wilfredogaringa3554]

Good video. But, please include metric measurements as well, not just imperial or US units. Thanks

[@RealKull]

It's Punta Stilo

[@takmong]

About 13:30... I heard you say 15 o'clock... Is that grammatical correct?

[@quinvos57]

Would you do the battles of middle June and Middle August next?

[@generic525]

Me in Hoi4 : Obsessed with trying to crack the British navy in the Mediterranean

[@craigkdillon]

I never understood why Italy did not take Malta. If they had had Malta, then Italian planes, by themselves, could have blockaded the Mediterranean. Logistics to Africa would have been safer and more reliable. Meanwhile, Alexandria and Egypt could have been severed from England. This is obvious to me, so there had to be some good reason why it was not done. I wonder what that reason was.

[@thecommentaryking]

A long array of reasons, from geographical, to logistics to overestimation of the enemy's defenses. In general it can be said that taking the island was difficult, and an invasion would have diverted a lot of troops, equipment and resources from North Africa, which neither the Italians and the Germans could spare

[@neutronalchemist3241]

The importance of Malta had been overrated. Until the end of 1942, there was no traffic between Gibraltar and Alexandria. The only British convoys in the Med. were those mauled trying to resupply Malta. Also, much of the Axis losses in supplying N. Africa, had been due to submarines, that were not based in Malta. Since many British subs had been instead repurposed to supply Malta, it's even possible that the necessity to keep Malta alive reduced the losses of the Axis.

[@BillMartin-h2g]

@craigkdillon The main reason being the risk of losing much of your navy in the attempt. Perhaps if the German airborne corps had tried for Malta instead of Crete, it may have succeeded. But that is speculation, and all the whataboutism of Crete remaining a British base during the war.

[@richardoutram6917]

The Italians actually had 10 light cruisers according to your order of battle table

[@Macca17]

My grandfather was Captain of HMS Decoy which was hit by fragments from a near miss from Giulio Cesare, apparently no one in the family knew he was even at this battle let alone shot at by a battleship!

[@Varthema]

It'impossible. Admiral Cunningham denied any damage.

[@flavioric]

​@@Varthema It was war propaganda

[@andreabianchi6156]

​​@@Varthemafor that matter he was so angry about this engagement, he didn't even bother to report it until nine months later when he had some better news to report. Don't believe all that Cunningham writes, he was biased and willing to overlook things that didn't suit his narrative just as every one on each side is.

[@avnrulz]

4:23 4 + 6 =10, not 8.

[@kino6395]

If your not sure why the Warspite was so much more effective than all her sister ships, look no further than Malaya. The Admiral is always on the best ship in a fleet, or newest might be a better way of putting it. For the ease of communication, usually had a good captain on then so the Admiral can see if there good enough to promote and no admiral wants an expensive ship lost while new due to incompetence. Warspite was modernised in the late 1930s the only one to really receive that extensive level of refit, which included higher elevation guns, so more range. The Admiral was aboard her and was focusing on the bigger picture instead of the effectiveness of all the battleships, as it's better to not lose a expensive battleship than sink one. The other British Battleships couldn't get closer due to the direct orders to hold range, where the Italian fire was less effective thus preserving the fleet. While the Admiral didn't know the lack of effectiveness of the others fire due to the technology of the time along with the ship he was on being able to engage and reporting effective range. While also being on the face of things the same ship with the same guns. When you combine these factors with the general accuracy of artillery and the inconsistence's in shell manufacturing you have a system that isn't designed to get the best out of older Battleships.

[@EK-gr9gd]

So early this week?

[@HRHooChicken]

i can't tell if you're an AI voice or not. at 13:30 you say " 15 o'clock". i mean surely a real person would notice that's not how we speak lol

[@aerow2965]

I've had suspicions with how robotic the voice sounds and odd phrasings, but 15:45 confirmed it. He says twice in a row that italian gunners adjusted their fire with the shell impacts. Another AI content mill channel to dismiss unfortunately.

[@domenicozagari2443]

The Italians could shoot 40 kilometers, after the English ships started getting hit they fled.

[@massimopozzoli8145]

The correct name should be 'OFF CALABRIA'

[@madazfella1]

Good video but your battle timestamps need to be in either normal time or military time not 17 o'clock which means nothing 😀

[@МихайлоСєльський]

4:20 4+6=8 16+20=23 nice to learn something new)

[@AltCtrlSpud]

this battle could've been an email

[@freefall9832]

Please lower the music. FOR THE LOVE OF......

[@fl4486]

*Flag note here The Regia Marina would use the italian national flag with the shield of Savoy in its center, the flag shown in the video was not used during WWII only after 1946

[@natheriver8910]

Awersome batle👏👏👏🔥🔥🔥🌊🌊🌊⛵️⛵️⛵️

[@KC-nn5wc]

Its crazy to think that of america japan and getmany were the axis. Theyd have easily conquered the workd

[@tswizard13]

16 o clock??!

[@deblaz1]

Where is the italian air force in all this??

[@robruss62]

If only Malaya had also been fully rebuilt with Warspite when they were both in dock from 1934-36/37... With greater speed and range she could have been engaged earlier, and likely Cunningham could have sunk Caesare or Cavour had the gunnery duel been even more favorable for the British. In any case, a clear British victory, despite revisionist interpretation

[@giulianoilfilosofo7927]

"Clear" british victory? Debatable to Say the least, considering they set out to destroy the Italian squad

[@neutronalchemist3241]

"clear" British victory on what basis? A slightly damaged ship? Mind that, despite the "not revisionist interpretation", the Italian squad, with the Giulio Cesare reduced to 19kn, couldn't flee. It had been Cunningham that broke contact, because he didn't think he could obtain anything better than he already had.

[@robruss62]

@neutronalchemist3241 seeing as how he closed to within 20 miles of the Italian coast and had a big round of air strikes (fruitlessly) descend on his fleet shortly after 4 pm, and the Italians made only a defensive use of their cruiser/destroyer advantage... By revisionist standards it seems that any battle that didn't end in the entire available Italian force being blown out of the water like Matapan or Cape Bon, or every convoy where every single British ship didn't get through, or where the British literally didn't steam all the way into Taranto after a retiring foe should be labeled "indecisive". And no the Italians were NOT cowards or idiots, their ships were generally very good, their gunnery was good, and they fought very well... Their entire strategic doctrine though of avoiding risk, while keeping their fleet in being, which admittedly was imposed on them by Mussolini's High command, is the main reason they ended up losing the war. The British missed some opportunities too, and even the great Cunningham made mistakes (as did Nimitz, Vian, Spruance, Halsey, Yamamoto, Somerville, Iachino, and every other great or good flag officer in the war), but fundamentally the fleet in being concept is flawed and has repeatedly cost its proponents in almost every instance it has been tried. Today, as then, Mahan is sometimes over-simplified that a fleet should only seek decisive battle to the exclusion of everything else (which more or less was a weakness of the IJN), but while command of the sea is important ultimately the best and surest way to do that is to sink or smash up the enemy's fleet. One reason Japan was strangled by submarine attrition while Britain wasn't was because the IJN suffered major defeats and attrition in battle, degrading it's surface forces to the point where it was unable to safely convoy shipping even if it's doctrine hadn't been flawed. Meanwhile, Britain's surface fleet, bolstered by lots of escort carriers, more or less held the line, so U boats were mostly unsupported in the battle of the Atlantic. Fleet in being is terrible grand strategy. The Italians might have lost more ships, but also have exploited more favorable situations with less risk aversion. Again, no slur on highly competent Italian sailors and officers, but more on the High Command which didn't use them to the utmost.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@robruss62 By any standard the Italians were outgunned with two 8 320mm guns battleship vs. three 8 381mm guns ones. Their only advantage was speed, and that had been voided by the Giulio Cesare reduced to 19kn. Yet Cunningham didn't obtain any victory and broke contact. By WWII British propaganda standards, it seems that any engagement where the entire British fleet had not been sunk had been a magnificent victory. But there's no victory here. The two squads retired in the same conditions they were before the clash. The use of Italian fleet in WWII had been dictated only by the available fuel and the need to supply N. Africa. Not by concepts of "fleet in being". IE the Italian fleet leaving port on 14 June 1942, that had been enough for the British to abort Operation Vigorous, had been possible only due to an extraordinary supply of fuel from Romania. the Italian battleships couldn't have left port one month before, they couldn't a month later.

[@chungus1219]

The Italian navy was Good, the problem was always the people who composed it.

[@janlindtner305]

👍👍👍

[@kimbaldunsmore4633]

This was not the decisive victory that Cunnigham needed. However a few days later, on 19 July1940 a single Australian light cruiser, HMAS Sydney, with a single destroyer escort, HMS Havock. confronted two modern Italian cruisers, Giovanni delle Bande Nere and Bartolomeo Colleoni, each one her equal or better, off Cape Spada in the Mediterranean. Sydney sank Colleoni and put Bande Nere to flight, rescuing a squadron of four British destroyers though brilliant tactics by the ship's Commanding Officer, Captain John Collins, and of course the skill, bravery and discipline of Sydney's sailors and officers. As an aside, one of my first memories as a Midshipman in the Royal Australian Navy was attending Sir John Collins' funeral in 1989. I marched in the funeral procession behind his gun carriage, hauled by the sailors he loved, up George Street in Sydney to Saint Andrews Cathedral. The footpaths on either side were lined all the way with sailors and officers turned out in their best ceremonial rigs, complete with medals, swords and cutlasses.

[@laszlojuhasz7458]

Sorry, but Giovanni delle Bande Nere and Bartolomeo Colleoni were not considered modern light cruisers at all in 1940, as their armor was very weak and their fire control was outdated. The light cruiser HMAS Sydney had much better armor and significantly better fire control, and overall had far more real combat value than either of the two Italian light cruisers in this battle.

[@mauroperossini4785]

Bande Nere e Colleoni (1930) had displacement of 6.500 tons, Sidney (1935) 9.000.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

It was two Italian light cruisers vs. one Australian Light cruiser and five destroyers. Also, it had not been the Sidney to sink the Colleoni (Sidney immobilized it, hitting the rudder and the engines), but three torpedoes from destroyers Ilex and Hyperion. After the sinking of the Colleoni the battle between the Sidney and Havock on one side and the Bande Nere on the other, went on, until Collins, being low on ammunitions, broke contact, at 9:26 AM. "put to flight" and similar, in naval battles, is almost always a propaganda statement. The goal of a navy is not to make the enemies run but to sink them. Having the ships more or less the same speed, none can really "flee" if the other wants to keep on fighting. When, in broad daylight, two squads break contact, is almost always for mutual decision. Then, on the newspaper, both will say that they put the enemy to flight.

[@dvrn86]

HMS Warspite💪

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

HMS WARSPITE!

[@sovietz3385]

Imagine your first battleship engagement being against HMS Warspite 😭😭🙏

[@memadmax69]

Please dont sling world of warships... Game is an insult to intelligent naval game players...

[@neutronalchemist3241]

It doesn't pretend to be realistic.

[@jtnelson8828]

We need a battle of cape matapan video!

[@davegreenwood1663]

There is one.

[@jamesscully7108]

👀👍🇮🇪⚓

[@thecommentaryking]

That's not the Italian flag

[@kennethwalker8402]

While the history was interesting, Two commercials in the show itself as well as long ones by You tube made the experience less than enjoyable.

[@zetectic7968]

Use an adblocker 🙄

[@spikespa5208]

2 WoW ads *and* *4* other ads. 😒

[@johnforrester9120]

I agree

[@Andy-gs1sm]

Why would you not move assets then declare war?

[@davidrobertson5700]

What is this 15 and 16 o'clock ? Only an AI would make that mistake no human would

[@sdstewart87]

Sounds so unprofessional when dates are said the American way....

[@emancipy]

Unlike the slugest in Iron Bottom Sound this was like Italian and British football hooligans taunting each other causing damge to the stadium.

[@futurenika]

Basically a bunch of ships shooting hundreds of shells into the sea.

[@RodolfoGaming]

It is all downhill from here for the reggia marina

[@andreabianchi6156]

Not true, the first and second battle of Sirte are still to come, aswell as operation Pedestal and the raid on Alexandria

[@neutronalchemist3241]

No. This battle had been fought on the view of the Italian coast. Gaudo / Cap Matapan, spring 1941, didn't go well for the Regia Marina, but it was fought in Greek waters. The Alexandria Raid was made in Alexandria because, after the invasion of Crete, the Bitish big guns were confined in port. Operation Vigorous, 1942, had been aborted by the mere news that the Vittorio Veneto was at sea. Only after the Battle of El Alamein, having gained air cover, thanks to new airfields on N. Africa, the Royal Navy regained the Med.