The Regia Marina in WWII (Italian Navy)

[@Worldconquer2018]

I love how you bring so much that most people have never even thought about I would like to see more of what Giulio has about it because he seam he could really bring some light on things that people from other countries could not get from normal research because where we are the information just don’t exist

[@WW2TV]

Yes I will have Giulio on again definitely

[@therealuncleowen2588]

That was brilliant! Drach's point at the end about honoring the memory of those who fought and died by remembering that the Italian navy was professional and fought well got my eyes a little dusty.

[@Outlier999]

How well could they have fought? They always lost.

[@therealuncleowen2588]

@@Outlier999 Fair point, I'll explain. Their single biggest problem was that their shells were not built with enough precision to provide consistent range when fired. Thus they didn't score as many hits as they might have otherwise. (Their is uncertainty and debate about why the shells were bad, but the fact is they were). That isn't the sailors fault nor the ship captains fault, similar to the USN's torpedo issues early in the Pacific War. Also, their leadership decided not to focus on night fighting tactics in their limited training time. They didn't have radar. They focused training elsewhere and intended to simply avoid night actions. That came back to really bite them during the night action at Cape Matipan, their most decisive defeat, a night action which they attempted to avoid but couldn't. The decision by their high command to simply avoid night actions was a poor one, but again, that doesn't mean their captains or sailors were poor or cowardly. The Italian Navy was a professional service that did everything it could to carry out the role Italy needed from it. Their were limitations in their industry and budget which hurt them badly when the fighting started. They might have had the worst luck of any major WW2 navy and their reputation suffered, understandably. However, that doesn't really tell the full story. Every navy has to set priorities and fight with the equipment they have. In the case of the Italian Navy, the equipment issue was extremely costly in every battle they fought and the training priority cost them dearly during their worst defeat. (Similar to the USN losing early night actions to Japan, having to learn how to fight at night by integrating radar, they had the opportunity to improve and win later battles).

[@deaks25]

I remember Bismark on Military Aviation History doing a video about a German evaluation of Italian fighters and found the G55 was as good or better than the current Bf 109 but wasn't superior enough to make the effort to switch production; re-skilling, re-tooling, production ramping etc worthwhile, which was surprising because although I knew the Italian's produced some good aircraft, I'd never realised *how* good. The Italian twin engine torpedo bomber was apparently one of the best of it's type period as well, and the more I learn, the more the perception of the Italian army in Africa and the naval shell issues are applied to everything Italian during WWII, often very unfairly.

[@TheAngelobarker]

No offense but what twin engine torpedo plane😂? Ik of the g55s and the re2002, re2001 o.r./g all carrying torpedos but I can't think of any twin engined aircraft except the breda88,ro.57, sm91/92, fc20bis, sm89, and Ghibli?

[@hazchemel]

Yes. And growing up in a strong minority Italian community in Australia, and studying history, it was pretty clear to me that there was an unknown "psychological" element that accounts for the astonishing mass surrenders and battlefield defeats. From what I could glean, it seems that, by and large, the people and armed forces just weren't interested in wars of conquest.

[@deaks25]

@@TheAngelobarker Apologies, it was actually the SM.79 I was thinking of, which is of course a three engined plane, and I'm basing my statement off the aircrafts performance record and that it's reputation vs it's actual combat record are a good example of this not necessarily fair "All Italian hardware was rubbish" narrative.

[@warmike]

I heard the Kriegsmarine couldn't get enough aircraft from the Luftwaffe, which was one of the reasons Graf Zeppelin was not finished. Then why didn't they ask the Italians?

[@xmaniac99]

German pilot: when Italian chassis? German bean counter: No

[@kavemanthewoodbutcher]

Star studded lineup, beats prime time tv with a rather big stick. Good job lads!

[@geoffwhite4530]

Great show tonight. Thank you Paul, Drach, Alex and Guilio. Would love to see more on Italian armed forces from WW2. Geoff

[@clementbruera]

Great video! I'd like to listen to others discussion on the Regia Marina with your guests! Maybe on some actions/battles. Or subs and captains. And on the other italian armed forces too!

[@WW2TV]

Thank you, I will definitely have them back. I have Battles at Sea week coming up at the end of June for example

[@HG_NL]

Fascinating show!! I must admit, the last years (since I watch this channel and listen to WehaveWays podcast) my view and attitude towards the Italian army and navy has changed completly. So keep up the good work.

[@jimwatts914]

Howdy folks! Just discovered this great show from 2 years ago that I somehow missed. Best naval panel in the world in the best channel on KZbin. Don’t miss it.

[@catsnchords]

Vincent O'Hara's *Struggle for the Middle Sea* is a great book that covers much of the action in the Mediterranean theatre.

[@1089maul]

Guys, Just finished watching this discussion which I found interesting and very informative! I am a member of Italian WW2 military forum which you may have heard of, Commando Supremo, and have place a thread in it to bring your discussion to their attention. I particularly liked the discussions around the Regia Marina,s gunnery issues which was also a discussion on Commando Supremo. Regards, Bob

[@WW2TV]

Thank you for the nice coment

[@danielefabbro822]

A non issue if you ask me. Reports, analysis and historical chronicles shows no problems in the weapons of the Regia Marina.

[@misterangel8486]

Got here through drachinifel recommendation. Very nice channel. You deserve more subs for sure. 😎👍

[@talktidy7523]

I think this was one of your more sucessful presentations. No matter to what degree a military history scholar guest may be acknowledged in their field, if their own presentation amounts to reading from a pre-prepared script/notes, it all feels a little flat and unengaging, whereas this particular format hit the target with all guns blazing. Besides Drachinifel always has quiet information to relay, the sort of information that tends to keep one thinking well after having tuned in.

[@WW2TV]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure how many of my shows you have seen, but apart from a few of my earliest ones they are all conversational. There are plenty of KZbin channels offering the narrated documentary type video, which is why I moved to doing this. My guest have topics in mind of course and we know in advance what we will cover, but the chats are always unscripted and we take on board what viewers are saying in the sidebar

[@idegobalfor8002]

My Narrative hasn't changed, I never thought people who fought The Royal Navy & won were bad.

[@WW2TV]

Maybe, but quite possibly you are better read on the subject than some. A lot of people do buy into the idea everything Italian was poor in WWII

[@mutolover3851]

Thank you for discussing this topic, it is such an interesting aspect of the, war in general, but also one of the most critical theaters of the war. Great video 👍

[@vincenzospezzano6912]

A very interesting contribution. Thank you very much.

[@philbosworth3789]

Another fantastic episode with very knowledgeable speakers in Giulio, Drach & Dr Clarke. Something that keeps cropping up is the effectiveness of the PK (Propagandakompien) / WPr (Wehrmachtpropaganda). Without sounding like a Wherboo is there any chance on an episode from WW2TV covering what I believe to be the most effective units of the Wehrmacht? To this day many peoples view of WWII history is coloured by what these units covered and filmed - The Fall of France, Dieppe, etc..

[@nolunchiseverfree]

Poor Giulio keeps getting cut off and talked over.

[@RubinoffPrague]

It's a problem when you are the only person speaking your second language in a group, and everyone is really excited.

[@zachknepper961]

Love Alex's channel, but he needs to allow others to speak without interrupting.

[@TheAngelobarker]

Great stream!

[@kemarisite]

The description of Malta makes it very clear that it was a massive fortress and the Italians responded in the proper way to a massive forces: they put it under seige.

[@milanoarte4562]

Fantastic video and commentary.We wanna more about Mediterranean theatre, from British and Italian perspective.

[@WW2TV]

More Mediterranean content coming next year

[@gregbiggs5674]

Two books gave me a much better understanding of the naval war in the Med and a great respect for the role of the Italian Navy. "The Naval War in the Mediterranean 1940-1943" by Jack Green and Alessandro Massignani and "Struggle for the Middle Sea: The Great Navies at War in the Mediterranean 1940-1945" by Vincent O'Hara. Great books to start your journey with.

[@MrFreakofstarwars]

Yay Drach!

[@adenkyramud5005]

I'm a simple man. I see drachinifel, I click.

[@rickvarsava2529]

Well done, I really enjoyed this.

[@jimwatts5192]

One of the best shows ever.

[@Philip271828]

Drach and Dr. Clarke in a chat? Subbed.

[@jimster255101]

Fantastic conversation. Regarding the crazy-wide manufacturing tolerances of Italian naval shells, would that only explain excessive dispersion distance-wise? In other words, if there was also a problem w side-to-side dispersion as well, that problem cannot be explained by too much/too little powder, right? Finally, I assume modern experts such as these may largely agree with Sadkovich’s thesis of the Italian navy being under-appreciated while not agreeing with his scholarship? Any comments appreciated! Thx, Jim

[@joey8062]

Should do a video on operation harpoon, a victory that is never talked about.

[@blainefrenette3520]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@rokassan]

Ive always been interested by the Italian military, even as a teen. Anytime we played any WW2 related board or tabletop game I played Italy. Drachinifel plays Victory at sea(saw that video), I think he needs to contact Warlord and have them sort out the national rules for the Regia Marina. Bad training for Italian sailors and the Zara class has bad armor…😉

[@fudbot]

The Axis really messed up by not invading Malta....if they had paused after taking Tobruk and taken Malta regardless of the risk and losses, they would have more than like been able to take the Suez Canal. They had paratroopers that could have taken an air field and then flown in reinforcements, followed up by an amphibious invasion. The Germans would have had to temporarily reinforce the Mediterranean with a several air groups from Russia of course to gain air superiority, then the Italian battleships could have pounded Malta to dust, then the airborne assault could have worked.

[@futuregenerationz]

This is great!

[@samuel5916]

This is very interesting! I’ll probably listen multiple times after I finish this first run through. I felt compelled to pause for a second and give a little constructive feedback though... Can we ask the panelists not to railroad each other mid-sentence next time? I mean no tea no shade but I’ve watched political debates where they interrupted each other less. 😬 Other than that everything is great and I look forward to more episodes!

[@WW2TV]

Thank you for the feedback. Yep, because Drach and Alex are such good mates and appear on shows together a lot they do get carried away, but their content is suoerb

[@samuel5916]

@@WW2TV Oh yes I’m a huge fan of Drach, I listen to him almost daily. I totally understand how easy it is to get carried away when your passionate about the subject. I used to interrupt people all the time until my Mom decided to beat that bad habit out of me. 😂

[@vincentlavallee2779]

I really don't think that it was Drach that spoke over on top of the others very much, if at all. He really comes across as a seasoned joint announcer. He has other videos with other people that join him, and this does not happen there, at least not on the ones I have seen, and I have seen a lot of them. But I agree, and it was great to see an Italian in there! I have a ballistics file which shows all the details about the WW II battleships, and the Italian ones (Littorio class) were the best of the European WW II battleships. This is very clear with their gun power, only below the US Iowa class and the Yamato class guns. This was far more than any other European battleship. Their speed (30 knts) was only a little below the Richelieu-class (32Knts) , and the Iowa class (33 knts). But all of the European battleships lacked range. This file is free to anyone who asks for it.

[@aaronholt8923]

Good stream thanks for putting it together. Not sure Alex is right about the Royal Navy being built around holding the Germans while fighting ‘a deterrence war’ with Japan in the Far East. The carriers were built specifically for the Med, they were armoured at the cost of aircraft capacity because they knew they would be subject to assault by land based aircraft - which a carrier wing will never outnumber, so they built them with greater survivability. Some of the cruisers are built specifically looking at the Japanese heavy cruisers. The KGV battleships have reasonable range, certainly greater than needed in the Med but really Britain builds no carriers designed for the Pacific until Indomitable, more specifically until the Malta-class which never came to be. I think honestly the atmosphere in Britain was Europe first, expecting conflict with Japan to come much later than it did. The Royal Navy really had no answer to the Imperial Japanese Navy. Their carrier born aircraft were diabolical in 1941 in contrast to the Japanese - Swordfish vs Zero?

[@DrAlexClarke]

Interesting questions... the Armoured Flights decks were justified for two reasons when they were procured, one fighting in the Mediterranea, two fighting in the far east... the RN thought in any conflict it would take damage, having wooden decks would increase attrition of carriers and the aircraft they carried, but most importantly it was long way home to be repaired - it's kind of copper bottoming all over again, in that the British industrial hub that can build new carrier or fix damaged ones, is in the UK, if every time they get the slightest knock they had to go all the way home or were the RN would soon run out of carriers. So you are right, but the Mediterranean was only one part of the consideration - furthermore the RN, untill the Abassiniya crisis were focused more on a far east war, than a european one, in all their design and operational planning documents... there are some great files in the National Archives, but also Andrew Field has written an excellent book on this. On the subject of Swordfish vs Zero you have to remember that Britian in 1939 has the Swordfish's successor, the Albacore entering service or near enough, and it's successor successor, the Baracuda starting development, the urgencies of war and the Battle of Britain led to the RN's single seat fighter getting cancelled and lots of other issues, because the war started in the European theatre where the RAF understandably got primacy... However, during the likes of Operation C the RN were still fairly confident against the IJN, because they planned to attack at night, when the IJN really weren't flying; that was also a reason why the British aircraft are like they are in their design, it was to deal with the issues of long range navigation and night flying. Ark Royal was the strike carrier for far east operations, Unicorn the supply carrier, Illustrious were the 'battle' carriers, i.e. the carriers supposed to be operating closely with the fleet, I've done a few videos on this and some day I hope to get my phd thesis turned into a book (strangely enough it's off shoot on Tribal, Battle & Daring class destroyers is going to come out first, later this year)... but the RN is forced by it's geostrategic position and the realities of a global empire to go a different route than the other major naval air arms. Hope that answers your questions... Ps. the reason the KGVs weren't sent to the mediterranean, was by the time they were in sufficient numbers to be a whole squadron, they didn't need a squadron there, needing the Far East Fleet and British Pacific Fleet to be reinforced instead... supporting three ships roughly similar in logistical need is easier than one and one and one or one and two

[@aaronholt8923]

@@DrAlexClarke Top notch reply, thanks for taking the time. If I’d thought a response might come they may have been framed more as questions than statements ;) It has been a while since I read into the subject so thanks for the clarification; I was under the impression the Med predicament had played a heavier roll in doctrinal decisions. If I recall correctly Unicorn was originally to be one of three auxiliary carriers. After narrowly getting Unicorn built under treaty limits the other two were sacked off, which was a shame. I think looking at what Illustrious survived in early ‘41 you really see the validation of their design despite its shortcomings - which Unicorn was there to offset in principal. It seems unlikely an American Yorktown or even an Essex could realistically have survived the punishment she took in the Med - but then Illustrious and Co. could not have produced Midway as I see it. On the KGVs in the Med, I had never considered this logistical perspective. It almost makes the Force Z deployment appear somehow more futile. Anyway, thanks again.

[@DrAlexClarke]

@@aaronholt8923 Always happy to reply and try to answer where I can On the subject of Unicorn, three were planned, but to be built about three or so years apart due to the supply of sutiable shipyards with suitable experience, as it was they were rolled into the Light Fleet Carrier program with Pioneer & Perseus being completed in that role. Which considering the Light Fleets were a modification of the Unicorn design it works... As said the RN doctrine was different, one of those areas was in the idea of persistent air defence and strike, this meant that the carrier would be operating closer to the battle group... so would be at higher risk and was expected to take damage; the armoured carriers were designed to keep operating, as it was felt having fewer aircraft, available for longer in operational terms was better than having a one shot gun, as it were. Yeah, Force Z becomes worse the more you look at it. On all these you can find more videos on my channel and Drach's, so if you have further questions please go there - or drach will be doing a live this evening, and I have Bruships tomorrow (like most sundays) where I review history books and answer questions. yours sincerely Alex

[@vincentlavallee2779]

​@@DrAlexClarke I have a really large rebuttal here on many aspects. The first is that is does not seem possible for the Brits to have designed their ships, both battleships and aircraft carriers, for battles in the Pacific. The Pacific theater war was at least 4 times the area of combining both the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic together. The Brit ships have just too many major shortcomings for the Pacific war. Their guns were way too small, in power and range, they had way too few anti aircraft batteries, they had way to short a range, and so on. In addition, Churchill's main goal in WW II was to retain the British Empire, and not really focused on defeating the Germans. Defeating Germany was a necessity to retain the Empire, and the first three years of the European war was all centered around that, much to the chagrin of the US. Hence, the Royal Navy's later capital ships appear to have been designed and geared towards the North Atlantic (and not the WHOLE Atlantic), and the Mediterranean ONLY. More proof is that none of the British capital ships were not sent to the Pacific until the end of 1941, and were very soon sunk. This includes the Prince of Wales, Repulse, and small ACC Hermes. The next British capital ships in the Pacific was at the Battle of Okinawa in April 1945. Furthermore, I do not see how the armored decks of the British carriers led to them carrying less than half the planes of the US carriers. Again, these were not designed or built for a battle with the Japanese, or any major aircraft carrier battle, and if they DID think there were, they were so far off from reality it was pathetic. While armored decks did indeed provide more survivability, but during the whole war in the Pacific the US lost (were sunk) 4 fleet carriers, and had two severely damage which were not brought back into the war in time. The British also lost 4 fleet carriers, although they were in the war 1 year longer than the us. Furthermore, "the RN were still fairly confident against the IJN' (It should be "the RN WAS still fairly confident against the IJN" - Brits just do not know what a plural is!) with the Swordfish versus the Zero is absolutely ludicrous, and more fantasy on the RN's part. The Zero was an amazing plane, and the Swordfish was 20 years out of date. Although it did play a major impact on the battle with the Bismark with hitting it in its achilles heel - the ruder. More so, the IJN was excellent at night fighting, and there are so many battles in the Pacific to prove this. And with more comments in this video by Alex is so very Brit oriented, it is on the realm of pure bias. The US did become the major power AND major naval power during WW II. This is the case in just about every aspect one could look at and count, especially navy wise. The US ended up with 100 carriers! Other than Pearl Harbor, not one US battleship was sunk or even severely damaged. If you are working on your PHD (or if even you finished it), go watch the KZbin series on Factory Production (a Brit made series which is pretty good and only very slightly Brit biased). This will enlighten your understanding of WW II greatly. And more comments from this video,by Alex is so very Brit oriented. It is on the realm of bias. The US did become the major power AND major naval power during WW II. This is the case in just about every aspect one could look at and count, especially navy wise. The US ended up with 100 carriers! Other than Pearl Harbor, not one US battleship was sunk or even severely damaged. If you are working on your PHD (or if even you finished it), go watch the KZbin series on Factory Production (a Brit made series which is pretty good and only very slightly Brit biased). And then you made two other comments in this video, one which is totally false about submarines in WW II (time ~1:53:33) , and the other is really out of context. According to my research. the British submarine production in WW II was 53 T-Class, and 70 U-Class (total 123), the US produced in just 3 years was 228 Gado class boats, the IJN had 213, and the Germans made over the entire at least 985. How is the British submarine fleet BIG??? And what did the British submarine force did in the War that was so significant? Then you talked about the British 'finally' realizing that they were no longer the premium naval power in the world in the 1950's, partly due to scrapping a lot of their WW II ships. Well, the US did exactly the same thing, and probably on a larger scale. so this is just more utter bias and BS. And if you think I am being overly harsh here, I am likewise with Drach, although his bias is significantly less. But I pop up and give him 'heck' when the data is not correct, or not reflected on properly. I am the one with the ballistics file, although I am not sure if Drach ever received it since I never got a response to my email after I sent it to him. One point I can make here that is germane to the topic about the Italian navy of WW II, is that their latest battleship line was quite good, and my ballistics file backs this up quite a bit. Also, I watch a lot of Drach's videos, and they are very good and very interesting. If you want this file, respond here, and I will tell you how to get it. It is created with MS Excel, but I release it as a PDF file.

[@oriontaylor]

@@vincentlavallee2779 Speaking as an American, your own anti-Brit bias is absurd, as well as much of what you state is either factually wrong or entirely lacking context.

[@preachyourstory3452]

Not a naval thing, but relevant to WW2 Italian fighting qualities...Craig Stockings wrote 'The Battle of Bardia' - with particular emphasis on the Australian forces. If I remember correctly, he argues that infantry alone struggled to break Italian lines, but when Matilda II tanks showed up, things suddenly changed. Stockings describes the shocking equipment and poor training in the Italian army - then the world's best protected tank (in 1940) shows up! Also, if Italian forces on land, sea and air lacked courage, doesn't that detract from the Allied performance against them?

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Yay Drach! Ship go BOOM!!

[@gvbrandolini]

Interessante.

[@TheAngelobarker]

Fun fact the Italians had more subs going into ww2

[@MrGouldilocks]

More subs than who or whom? More subs than my grandfather? More subs than Mongolia? More subs than Germany?

[@TheAngelobarker]

@@MrGouldilocks largest in the WORLD germany only had 56 italy had 116.

[@xmaniac99]

@@MrGouldilocks yes many more than mongolia smartypants

[@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020]

I don't agree that the littorio is better than the Bismarck.

[@falanglao01]

You could've used the mute button a few times for the doc,,, keeps interrupting all the time, like an annoying politician... but otherwise great

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Dr. Clark has an awful lot of opinions.

[@ThePRCommander]

I wish the italien historian would be allowed to speak more.

[@danielefabbro822]

We're never allowed to speak about our history.

[@ThePRCommander]

Why not?@@danielefabbro822

[@Outlier999]

Poor equipment and poor leadership were the main problems of the Italian armed forces in WW2. They had some good aircraft and ships, but other weapons systems and maintenance were often lacking. Their soldiers, sailors, and airmen were not cowards, but their generals and admirals were generally worthless, with only a few exceptions. Like Hitler, Mussolini thought he was a military genius, and that made things worse.

[@Thumpalumpacus]

Oil. Without oil RM was hamstrung.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

That too…

[@garretboyer458]

Good conversation but I feel like you guys overstated the efficacy of the Regia marina. Was protecting troop transports really their ultimate goal? I mean I am not an expert but were they not trying to gain control of the Mediterranean? In order to do that they needed to sink ships and let's be honest they didn't do that. The Germans sunk more ships in the Mediterranean then the Italians did. You guys bring up a lot of examples of individual actions or ships that were exceptional but that doesn't make a good navy.

[@WW2TV]

Point taken. The thing is to balance the old narrative of everything Italian being crap we need to swing things the other way

[@aldobadiani5760]

Was protecting troop transports really their ultimate goal? YES.

[@garretboyer458]

​@@aldobadiani5760mussolini called the Mediterranean "our sea". The Italians spent a lot of their limited resources on building capital ships. The French were knocked out early. The Italians would have known that they would eventually have to gain control or at least dominance in the Mediterranean in order to have a chance of holding onto any territory they took overseas. All of this points to the fact that they didn't have the limited goal of providing convoy escorts. The whole conversation was great but I think they should have focused more on individual aspects about the navy that were good (like the frogmen) instead of trying to argue that the italian navy was actually some elite force that rivaled the royal navy for the top naval power in the world.

[@aldobadiani5760]

@@garretboyer458 Indeed, you are not an expert (nor do I). The guys who debated the issue in this video are experts in the field though. You heard what they said. Until 1942 the RM did control the Central Mediterranean Sea to protect the convoys that were necessary to hold onto North Africa (and Albania, and Greece). You might also check other videos by Drachinifel about the Regia Marina, and in particular his conversation with Vincent O'Hara (kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKGaZJmNeKmhnMk). And read some of Vincent O'Hara's books: " In Passage Perilous: Malta and the Convoy Battles of June 1942", "Six Victories: North Africa, Malta, and the Mediterranean Convoy War, November 1941-March 1942", "On Seas Contested: The Seven Great Navies of the Second World War".

[@panzerknackerpaul2061]

Kapiere ich nicht. Thema italienischer Flugzeugträger. Für einen dieser Flugzeugträger könnte man 1000 Torpedobomber bauen. Das haben sie halt nicht getan, aber wenn, wäre das doch deutlich besser. Die Ressourcen müsste man beide Male von der Flottenrüstung abziehen. Das wäre also buchalterisch neutral.

[@Outlier999]

Hitler wanted one too.

[@danielefabbro822]

Problem is... We had no resources. Italy in ww2 went straight from 23 wars. And the help provided to Spain during the Civil War. We had finished every type of weapons and every ammunitions. We had no stocks of any resources to made a new arsenal. We still had to fight to get those resources because the main providers was the British Empire and the French Empire... Unless we didn't had to submit and ask to the Soviets... I mean, no one wanted to do that. Never. There was a serious fear about the USSR. And Mussolini tried multiple times to deal with the Allies but of course they always denied every chance to an alliance. So we was forced in war, with no great chances of victory, but the public was told the story of being a powerful nation that, I mean, it wasn't a lie, but we was weak at the time. Hitler was our main enemy even as allied since he pretended a lot and conceded anything.

[@panzerknackerpaul2061]

@@Outlier999 Germany fought in the Atlantic, Italy in the Mediterreanean. Sealor would call it bathtub.

[@xmaniac99]

And now the Italians built ships for the French and American navies, so they no longer have to copy or steal the designs (reference to the FREMM program).

[@danielefabbro822]

We never copied designs... At least, most of our designs was native. 🤔

[@newskenger3885]

The hectic voice of Alex Clarke, combined with choosing to be the clown guy who goes from joke to joke and partly completely obscure opinions (Taranto is a convoy battle? Hell it isn't.) makes this diskussion so hard to listen to. And this is sad as the other three are bringing in competent information in a respectful, serious and competent way.

[@WW2TV]

Everyone has a different style

[@newskenger3885]

@@WW2TV That is correct.

[@paddypleiner5518]

So much Copium by our British friends that Bismarck / Tirpitz have been horrible ships in a discussion about the RM, because they still can't get over it that Hood was sunk and Prince of Wales almost sunk and it took the entire available Royal Navy to force the Bismarck to scuttle...

[@kemarisite]

You're channeling your own copium. Prince of Wales scored the hit on Bismarck that forced it to abandon its mission and was in no danger of being sunk. Rodney and KGV shot Bismarck to pieces such that the German scuttling charges, if any were set (which was ordered, but no evidence it was actually done), were only a matter of the German crews getting their own licks in. Even if the Royal Navy left when it ran out of fuel and Bismarck did not set scuttling charges, Bismarck was never getting back to any port.

[@paddypleiner5518]

@@kemarisite Sure, but no... the main issue was that Lutjens wanted to carry on with the mission... Lindemann wanted to have PoW as 2nd breakfast and return to Norway but Lutjens, after Marschall was sacked for returning with Scharnhorst & Gneisenau in Operation Juno wanted to carry on... PoW needed a month of drydocking, was alone, most of the heavy guns disabled and exposed and would have been a sitting duck and a return to Norway would have given Bismarck air coverage the whole journey... Sure, the British historians know best what was happening on board Bismarck at the final battle, not Mullenheim-Rechberg or the fact that in 2002 no substantial damage to the hull was found in an extensive survey of the wreck...

[@kemarisite]

@@paddypleiner5518 Drachinifel has a video specifically addressing the 2002 James Cameron survey of the wreck, what it says, and some of the things people incorrectly claim that it says. One of the reasons that expedition found "no substantial damage to the hull" is that the wreck is buried in the mud up to the normal waterline so the portions of the hull where you would put holes to sink a ship are inaccessible.

[@paddypleiner5518]

@@kemarisite Well Drach has his own, very exclusive opinion and should not be cited as single source... That torpedoes (if not hitting the rudder mechanism) were not really a big threat to the armourment can be seen on the torpedo attack from Victorious on May 24th when one hit here square and did not more damage than killing a sailor, who was thrown onto a bulkhead by the air pressure... Drach is not the only Naval Historian out there has a large audience though but some of his conclusions, especially outside the RN are quite exclusive to him

[@kemarisite]

@@paddypleiner5518 the video I mentioned was (I just watched it again to confirm) almost entirely Drach reading from the report on the 2002 James Cameron expedition to survey Bismarck's wreck. The report specifically concludes that the claim the crew set scuttling charges is plausible, based on two survivors who claimed to have set those charges including engineering officer Junak, but that this merely hastened the inevitable sinking of Bismarck as a result of progressive flooding caused by shell and torpedo hits during the battle.

[@Pettynicolla-HD-N.Ayeshamedina]

U - bout

[@jotabe1984]

It must have taken a lot of education from the guy that runs "Italian Military Archives" to gallantly take that insane ammount of Anglosaxon Ethnocentrism. The "spaghetti vs baguette" joke was indeed the worst part of a very rude video to cohost.

[@WW2TV]

If that's your main take away i think you missed the point

[@oriontaylor]

You clearly ignored everything said in the discussion then.

[@aldobadiani5760]

I disagree. The Brits were quite fair. The joke was just bad and not PC, but not nasty.

[@RouGeZH]

Despite its large size, the italian surface fleet sank only 3 british surface ships during WW2: 3 destroyers, 0 battleship, 0 carrier, 0 cruiser. All others losses were caused by mines, sub, planes and special attack boats. The RN surface ships in Matapan alone did more damage than that. Nothing impressive really.

[@christiancaspillo8584]

If you research more. The Italian Navy sank more than that and damage more British destroyers.

[@RouGeZH]

@@christiancaspillo8584 Not the italian surface fleet.

[@christiancaspillo8584]

@@RouGeZH But they damage more

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Poor leadership, poor shell quality & lack of radar definitely hurt them.

[@christiancaspillo8584]

@@grahamstrouse1165 especially the lack of air support

[@shonny61]

Clarke can't keep his yap shut while others are talking. Can't finish listening. That's just me.

[@WW2TV]

Thanks for the comment anyway

[@shonny61]

You're right Paul, the comment is about me and not Clarke. I appreciate what you do, you have an awesome channel and provide me with a great deal of information and entertainment I can't get anywhere else so keep up the great work. It's very much appreciated, even by a whiny git like me.@@WW2TV

[@JesterEric]

The Royal Navy always deployed it's most modern and powerful battleships in the Home Fleet to fight any attempt by German heavy units to break out into the Atlantic or attack the Arctic convoys. The only exception was when Prince of Wales was sent to Singapore and later after the German heavy units were sunk

[@user-kk6yg7ds9z]

In the video they did mention about Royal Navy sending best ships and Admiral to the Mediterranean cos Regia Marina was more of a threat...

[@aldobadiani5760]

You should listen to the show again. And then listen to other videos by Drachinifel about the Regia Marina, and in particular his conversation with Vincent O'Hara (kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKGaZJmNeKmhnMk). And repeat.

[@geoffbarney5914]

11:35 but its TRUE, every major loss in the Med for the Royal Navy? inflicted by the Germans, not Italians, in ITALYS OWN THEATRE. Why dont people get this? The Italians were completely ineffective in almost every action, the Germans weren't, its that simple. Simply bemoaning "I DONT UNDERSTAND THEY BOTH LOST" shows how utterly clueless some people are

[@albertorepetto2909]

I'll give you a hint, so you can begin your own research, but let's just say this: most of the losses (more than 50%, even counting accidental losses) of British submarines were caused by Italians. It doesn't seem minor to me.

[@danielefabbro822]

Germans had manias of protagonism at the time. They wanted to being see as the best. And they too believed such propaganda. You know? The "aryan race"? So they looked down to everyone else. Who was the best in North Africa? The Aryan Rommel or the mixed blood Messe? Easy answer right? Who was better in the Mediterranean? The Aryan Kesserling or the mixed blood Iachino? What was sold to you was just the nazi racist ideology. Nothing more.

[@aldobadiani5760]

You should listen to the show again. And then listen to other videos by Drachinifel about the Regia Marina, and in particular his conversation with Vincent O'Hara (kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKGaZJmNeKmhnMk). And repeat. On a side note, the Germans took credit for everything went right for the Axis during WWII, and put the blame on the Italians for everything that went wrong. (Of course, I am extremely happy that things went wrong for the Axis, regardless of responsibilities). Finally, these 'people' are authoritative military historians with a stellar reputation.