Matapan

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Matapan

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

When I find which of these sources
Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO
was writing so-called "nonsense", I'll keep all informed.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Matapan

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
while I don't exclude that an Italian writer could have been wrong, please don't forget to check R.Chesneau and J.Rohwer too.... :lol:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Matapan

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

Read before laughing
BTW I've just checked the only English origin reference, Chesneau, in the English language Wikipedia article, and he makes no mention of Ambra's action against Bonaventure, so the origin is clearly one of the Italian authors, Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO.
And I've checked Rohwer and Hummelchen, Zippo there too, so we are forced to the conclusion it is one of the Italian authors who has written "nonsense" contradicting official records and primary sources. the Italian authors who has written "nonsense" contradicting official records and primary sources. Deja vue anyone?

Interestingly and returning to the intelligence source element of Matapan, Rohwer & H point out it was an inaccurate German intelligence assessment based on false claims from a Luftwaffe torpedo attack of 16th March, that suggested only one British battleship remained operational, and thus it was a good time for an Italian foray. This was the basis of the bullying message which forced Supermarina to send Iachino to sea and keep the enterprise going even when the northern force was spotted.

All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Matapan

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

then, apparently, the wikipedia author has picked up from a (largely fantasy) account available in the network or in other books.

I repeat (hopefully for the last time to this insistent forum member who MUST find an Italian author who invented something to vindicate the British authors who wrote about the Denmark Strait...) that I have both the operation orders sent to all the involved commands and the original mission report of Ambra.
Therefore the English version of wikipedia is wrong. Deja vue anyone? Full Stop.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Matapan

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,
I have both the operation orders sent to all the involved commands and the original mission report of Ambra
Do these orders relate to the original mission:
On March 5, 1941 she was deployed along with ten other submarines off Crete to search for British convoys on the route Alexandria to Piraeus. These convoys were a part of Operation "Lustre", an attempt by the British to bring in 58,000 men from Egypt to Greece in anticipation of the German invasion. Ambra failed to detect any enemy ships.
Which was the first occasion when the Mediterranean Fleet sailed through the trap, March 20-24th and returned to Alexandria, or the second return trip when interception also failed?
On March 22, 1941 Ambra together with Ascianghi and Dagabur was sent to patrol along Alexandria - Cape Krio line and arrived in her assigned area on March 24, 1941. The submarines deployed as a defensive screen for the Operation "Gaudo", an anticipated sortie by the Italian fleet into the Aegean which would end with a catastrophe in the Battle of Cape Matapan.
Of course, the submarines were sent out to support of the main operation, but the key (weak) point is that they were not aware of it.
It would indeed be criminally stupid not to inform the submarine trap that Italian surface vessels could have been operating south of Crete, pursuing a defeated British squadron, :wink: thus incurring the danger of a blue on blue incident.



Once again
The submarine suffered damage to a variety of her equipment, including both gyroscopic and magnetic compasses. Once the escorts moved away, Ambra surfaced and using Celestial Navigation made her way back to Augusta.
Who could have invented this level of detail? And why? No British source could know this, it surely can only have come from an Italian source
Does anyone have a copy of "Gaudo e Matapan by Admiral Iachino?

Once again the combative stance,
who MUST find an Italian author who invented something to vindicate the British authors who wrote about the Denmark Strait..
It's not really a MUST, but it would be simply hilarious. Doubly so if it were Bagnasco.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Matapan

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
once again, please read the official documents or stop this discussion that is becoming ridiculous and very embarrassing when using wrong sources....

The orders I speak about are related to the Ambra mission started on March 21 (not 22) (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8567&start=30#p84188)...

"incurring the danger of a blue on blue incident. "
....no comment...(any suitable comment would be surely redacted)
I have already posted the main operation orders map (download/file.php?id=3540), graphically showing that no incident could happen as the Italian battlefleet was not allowed to get so easterly as the submarines patrol areas.... Study it, please.
Of course the operative orders (of Supermarina to Iachino and the ones from Iachino to the involved Divisions) clearly specify this limitation; we speak about 150 sea miles or more....




Btw, the only fault of Bagnasco is to have been the former director (from 2015 just honorary president...) of a magazine that published Antonio's 2005 battlemap. A map that (ameliorated in 2017) annoys so much Mr.Wadinga... I suggest him to find another map less "annoying" in a new publication...
The only hilarious thing here is the impotent anger against Italian authors, after the British ones (e.g. Kennedy) were found so blatantly wrong....


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Matapan

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,
graphically showing that no incident could happen as the Italian battlefleet was not allowed to get so easterly as the submarines patrol areas.... Study it, please.
Moltke the Elder said
No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength
Just because Supermarina drew a turnback point on the assumption of no enemy contact doesn't mean the Commander "had to obey orders". Jellicoe didn't plan to end up off the German coast.

Of course I tend to forget the tendencies of some administrations to interfere with the initiative of commanders at sea. Telling Iachino exactly how far he was allowed to go, even in pursuit of a "flying enemy" going east would be one thing, and telling a submarine commander to remain rooted to his patrol area instead of aggressively chasing and continuously engaging a convoy, or fleet travelling to the west would be another.

I wonder why no comment can be made about the danger of a " blue on blue" incident and therefore the paramount need to keep commanders aware of the potential presence of friendly forces? All navies were just as likely to attack a mistakenly-identified force, especially at night. At Matapan Warspite fired at Havock.

Signor Bagnasco has been a co-author with Enrico Cernuschi of Le navi da guerra italiane 1940-1945.

There is no anger on my part, impotent or otherwise, against Italian authors, or Japanese or Moldavian ones provided they stick to facts and reasonable speculations and don't invent things based on their intuitions, otherwise known as prejudice.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Matapan

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
"Just because Supermarina drew a turnback point on the assumption of no enemy contact doesn't mean the Commander "had to obey orders". "
Sure, as well as Lutjens could have disobeyed orders following PoW after Hood demise....or he could have chosen to sail to the Indian ocean, instead of raiding in Atlantic.... A strange interpretation of "orders"....

Both Iachino and the submarines had their boundaries in terms of longitude and latitude, clearly written in very strict operative orders: no "incident" could have happened (150 or 200 sm are enough to ensure that).
I agree however that the interference of Supermarina was impacting the efficacy of any operation during WWII...


"Bagnasco has been a co-author with Enrico Cernuschi of Le navi da guerra italiane 1940-1945."
...and what is "blatantly wrong" in this book, according to this "expert" :?:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Matapan

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

I personally don't know what has been written in this book but I see what the highly respected Italian naval author Francesco Mattesini writes of Cernuschi's articles in Storia Militare:

n. 172 – gennaio 2008 Punta Stilo, nuovi elementi Parte 1a (E. Cernuschi)
n. 173 – febbraio 2008 Punta Stilo, nuovi elementi Parte 2a (E. Cernuschi)
n. 221 – Febbraio 2012 I cannoni di Punta Stilo (E. Cernuschi)
Enrico Cernuschi, con una ricostruzione fantasiosa, nell’articolo I cannoni di Punta Stilo pubblicato dal periodico Storia Militare, trasformatosi in tecnico di artiglierie navali, mentre io non l’ho mai fatto in prima persona facendo sempre parlare gli ammiragli e gli ufficiali esperti, ha scritto che un proietto da 203 del Trento, sparato alla seconda fiancata di otto colpi, secondo l’osservazione del Direttore del tiro dell’incrociatore avrebbe colpito a poppa la Warspite determinando “una fiammata rossastra ed una nuvoletta di fumo bleu”, tanto che la corazzata avrebbe poi continuato a sparare “soltanto con le torri di prora”.
and
I danni fantasiosi di Cernuschi, cui molti anche in Marina hanno creduto, erano stati causati alla Warspite dalle bombe degli aerei italiani cadute, in due occasioni, vicino allo scafo della corazzata (giorni 8 e 12 luglio), ma Cernuschi, per ovvi motivi, nega che ciò fosse accaduto.
Since my efforts with Bing translate are so crude I hope a native Italian speaker can help, but whilst fantasiosa tranlates as imaginative, I get the feeling Mattesini is being a little more critical than that, and anyway "imaginative" implies "lack of any evidence".

These observations come from the very interesting AIDMEN site
Associazione Italiana
Documentazione Marittima E Navale

Maybe we shall find out there where the "nonsense" information
On March 22, 1941 Ambra together with Ascianghi and Dagabur was sent to patrol along Alexandria - Cape Krio line and arrived in her assigned area on March 24, 1941. The submarines deployed as a defensive screen for the Operation "Gaudo", an anticipated sortie by the Italian fleet into the Aegean which would end with a catastrophe in the Battle of Cape Matapan.
The submarine suffered damage to a variety of her equipment, including both gyroscopic and magnetic compasses. Once the escorts moved away, Ambra surfaced and using Celestial Navigation made her way back to Augusta.
and the allegation about her broken hydrophones came from.

Another Aidmen contributor writes
Del resto Storia Militare ha pubblicato ben di peggio degli articoli di
Cernuschi, vedi l'articolo di Luraghi sul fronte russo e quell'incredibile
storiella dei paracadutisti italiani nel deserto nel 1941.
I wonder which other Storia Militare articles he considers are "much worse" than Cernuschi's? He gives one example but maybe there are later examples of 'incredibile storiella...…...

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Matapan

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

good luck to Mr.Wadinga for his relentless search of who said Ambra got damaged.

He accused Bragadin, Giorgerini and Bagnasco.... without being able to present any single proof.
Then he attacked Bagnasco for having written a splendid book with Cernuschi (a book written before Cernuschi started to write on his own leaving Bagnasco and Storia Militare).... Now he quotes Mattesini, speaking of completely different (and very debatable) Cernuschi's and Luraghi's articles re. Punta Stilo or the Russian front... the usual intentional mess... :shock:
I don't like what he is trying to do now here, just to cover his severe defeats about the Denmark Strait reconstruction (and aftermath) in the last years, and I'm not interested in his (messy) game anymore .

If interested in Matapan, we can discuss based on evidences (like the ones I have posted in original in this thread, where he has been able to post a wiki entry without reference only.....).
If interested in the Denmark Strait he can answer Mr.Rico's questions without running away for the fear of being obliged to admit that Antonio's reconstruction is the ONLY possible one, if the thread will be re-opened.
Else, once again: good luck to him!


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Matapan

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Thank you all for your input.
However, once again this topic seems to be going the way of many of the others before it, some of which have been locked.
My original question was about the ships and the battle, if it is going to get to the point where no one will agree and start arguing with one another to the point of rudeness, perhaps Mr Jurens should lock this one as well?
Over to you Bill.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Matapan

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

The point of a forum is surely discussion and possibly argument. Not to constantly lock threads to no purpose, simply because there is some dissension.
My original question was about the ships and the battle
and we are still discussing a ship, submarine Ambra and its part in the battle.
He accused Bragadin, Giorgerini and Bagnasco.... without being able to present any single proof
Accused of what exactly?

And BTW the sources are
Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO
They are quoted as sources without individual references in the English language Wikipedia article, whilst a different and partially contradictory account is apparently presented in the Italian language Wikipedia. We should be concerned about which is true. If we have Italian native language readers who are familiar with these works they should be able to tell us definitively and without invoking crude nationalistic arguments whether the highly detailed account in the English language article originates in any of these works.

At one stage we had some acceptance:
while I don't exclude that an Italian writer could have been wrong,
and of the intimate details of Ambra's damage and struggle to reach port:
I'm sure someone invented them, possibly, as Mr.Wadinga said, to make a more interesting story for Ambra by any of her sailor..
This is presumably meant to accept that an exaggerated "eye witness account" has been used by one of the sources used by the writer of the English language Wikipedia, and not Rohwer or Chesneau.

Previously we have agreed that there is a strong possibility that the "rememberings" of various Bletchley Park personnel is inaccurate in saying Cunningham had the complete enemy "order of battle" long before the engagement. This is valuable work. It shows some British writers have been wrong to accept these rememberings at face value.

Since the Italian cruisers were caught completely by surprise, at point blank range, the flat trajectories could not penetrate sub waterline magazines and there were no trains of combustible propellent leading down from the shattered gunhouses (ships at cruising stations) to those magazines as there would be in ships in action. So only bursting charges and no sympathetic explosions of the ships' own propellants. The ships were riddled, caught fire and completely incapacitated, but would only sink if uncontrolled fires reached the magazines. Hence the need for torpedoes.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Matapan

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Q.E.D.

not interested anymore to discuss with this guy.
When (I should say "if"...) he will have any evidence (other than his wiki entry) to present, things may change.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Matapan

Post by paul.mercer »

wadinga wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:21 pm Fellow Contributors,

The point of a forum is surely discussion and possibly argument. Not to constantly lock threads to no purpose, simply because there is some dissension.
My original question was about the ships and the battle
and we are still discussing a ship, submarine Ambra and its part in the battle.
He accused Bragadin, Giorgerini and Bagnasco.... without being able to present any single proof
Accused of what exactly?

And BTW the sources are
Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO
They are quoted as sources without individual references in the English language Wikipedia article, whilst a different and partially contradictory account is apparently presented in the Italian language Wikipedia. We should be concerned about which is true. If we have Italian native language readers who are familiar with these works they should be able to tell us definitively and without invoking crude nationalistic arguments whether the highly detailed account in the English language article originates in any of these works.

At one stage we had some acceptance:
while I don't exclude that an Italian writer could have been wrong,
and of the intimate details of Ambra's damage and struggle to reach port:
I'm sure someone invented them, possibly, as Mr.Wadinga said, to make a more interesting story for Ambra by any of her sailor..
This is presumably meant to accept that an exaggerated "eye witness account" has been used by one of the sources used by the writer of the English language Wikipedia, and not Rohwer or Chesneau.

Previously we have agreed that there is a strong possibility that the "rememberings" of various Bletchley Park personnel is inaccurate in saying Cunningham had the complete enemy "order of battle" long before the engagement. This is valuable work. It shows some British writers have been wrong to accept these rememberings at face value.

Since the Italian cruisers were caught completely by surprise, at point blank range, the flat trajectories could not penetrate sub waterline magazines and there were no trains of combustible propellent leading down from the shattered gunhouses (ships at cruising stations) to those magazines as there would be in ships in action. So only bursting charges and no sympathetic explosions of the ships' own propellants. The ships were riddled, caught fire and completely incapacitated, but would only sink if uncontrolled fires reached the magazines. Hence the need for torpedoes.

All the best

wadinga
Hi Wadinga,
Thanks for your reply and your valuable input regarding the battle (or should I say wipe out?) of the Italian cruisers by the RN battle fleet, 24 x15" guns at point blank range against three unprepared cruisers is always likely to be decisive!
I do take your point re locking threads and I would also agree with you say ' The point of a forum is surely discussion and possibly argument', but it seems that over the last few months any debates on almost any topic invariably degenerate into full blown arguments with some participants resorting to what borders on outright rudeness to one another, particularly when one reader states that they are not going to take part in any further discussion on the subject.
The only reason that i suggested that this thread be shut down or locked is because it shows every sign of going the same way as several others in the 'Bismarck General Discussion. i don't like seeing threads locked any more than you and no doubt all the other contributors, but my own personal view, which may or may not be shared with others is that this increasingly aggressive approach to those who disagree with someones views will eventually cause the whole site to be closed down as either the owner Mr Rico or the moderator Mr Jurens will get fed up of having to intervene in the squabbles taking place on this Forum.
Perhaps Mr Rico and/or Mr Jurens would like to comment?
Post Reply