Semi OT, Italy in the Med, a good book

[anarchyintheuk]

Thanks for the recommendations. Off to Amazon . . .

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I'm having a hard time coming up w/ 15 divs that in the Med that were there because of Italy's involvement in 40-41.

I would have no problem ascribing to Italy those lcus added to Gibraltar and Malta garrisons post Italy's dow, forces involved in Ethiopia/Greece/Crete, and the WDF/8th army. Re: the 8th, I think it's fair to say that a significant portion of their increased oob was due to the AK.

The remaining divs in theater I would classify them as pre-existing Imperial commitments having little, if anything, to do with Italy's actions.

Still pretty far from 15 divs. Still sounds like a book I should pickup. I don't have nearly enough on the Med.

warspite1

On Seas Contested
Torch
Struggle for the Middle Sea

Are other O'Hara books I have on the Med (or that include the Med - the first on the list is about all major navies in WWII). They are all worth reading.

I haven't read the latter 2.
O'Hara also wrote 'Dark Navy: The Italian Regia Marina and the Armistice of 8 September 1943', 'Black Phoenix: History and Operations of the Marina Repubblicana 1943-1945' and 'The Royal Navy's Revenge and Other Little-Known Encounters of the War At Sea', none of which I've read. [X(]

i did like his WWI book Clash of Fleets.

warspite1

Ah yes, I forgot about those - they were recommendations from someone on these forums. Also good books - although a little pricey given the page nos. in each.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

At 2nd Alamein I have 10 Divisions and 4 Bde Groups

1,7 & 10 Armoured
44(-), 50(-) & 51 British Infantry
9Aus, 2NZ, 1SA, 4Ind Infantry Bdes
1 & 2 FF Bdes, 1 Gk Bde
Army Tank Bde

The 15 Divs possibly includes 9th Army/PAIFORCE defending Palestine, Syria, Iraq & Persia.

I believe the book covers the early months of 1942??

The Allied numbers for Op Crusader was 1 Arm & 3 Inf Divs plus 2 Bdes in Egypt plus 1 Inf Div in the Tobruk Fortress
7 Armoured Div
2NZ, 4Ind, 1SA with 2SA in Army Reserve
22 Gds & 1 Army Tank Bdes
Tobruk Garrison was 70 Br Div and Polish Bde
These attacked an Axis force of 3 Armoured, 3 Motorised and 3 Infantry Divisions

9th & 10th Armies covered Syria, Palestine, Iraq & Persia, they included the 3 Australian Divisions, 2 of which soon returned to Australia and approximately 6 British & Indian Divisions (numbers went up & down)

[rustysi]

Wasn't Okinawa bigger than either?

Okinawa was in fact the single largest invasion ever made.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: JeffK

At 2nd Alamein I have 10 Divisions and 4 Bde Groups

1,7 & 10 Armoured
44(-), 50(-) & 51 British Infantry
9Aus, 2NZ, 1SA, 4Ind Infantry Bdes
1 & 2 FF Bdes, 1 Gk Bde
Army Tank Bde

The 15 Divs possibly includes 9th Army/PAIFORCE defending Palestine, Syria, Iraq & Persia.

I believe the book covers the early months of 1942??

The Allied numbers for Op Crusader was 1 Arm & 3 Inf Divs plus 2 Bdes in Egypt plus 1 Inf Div in the Tobruk Fortress
7 Armoured Div
2NZ, 4Ind, 1SA with 2SA in Army Reserve
22 Gds & 1 Army Tank Bdes
Tobruk Garrison was 70 Br Div and Polish Bde
These attacked an Axis force of 3 Armoured, 3 Motorised and 3 Infantry Divisions

9th & 10th Armies covered Syria, Palestine, Iraq & Persia, they included the 3 Australian Divisions, 2 of which soon returned to Australia and approximately 6 British & Indian Divisions (numbers went up & down)

warspite1

No, the book centres on the June 1942 Malta convoys (Harpoon and Vigorous) - although also has a chapter on the 'August convoy' (Pedestal).

Re-reading the conclusion the authors starts with "during those three years" and talks initially of averages (for the RN) but does not repeat this measure when talking about the air and land units. So who knows?

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
No, the book centres on the June 1942 Malta convoys (Harpoon and Vigorous) - although also has a chapter on the 'August convoy' (Pedestal).

What??? Do you mean this book is primarily about the mid '42 Malta convoys and not just a strategic analysis of who did best in the Mediterranean War?

For those who are interested in the book's narrative content-
Introduction (Strategic/Theatre Analysis)...................................................................10 pages
The Mediterranean War to Jun 1942 (Theatre/Operational Analysis, broken up into 6 month periods)............76 pages.
Vigorous/Harpoon/Pantelleria/Pedestal (Detailed Operational/General Tactical Analysis).....................113 pages.
Torch to the end of the War (Theatre/High-level Operational Analysis).......................................10 pages.
Conclusion (Touches on all above along with general analysis as to why Vigorous and Harpoon were defeated)...9 pages.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: warspite1
No, the book centres on the June 1942 Malta convoys (Harpoon and Vigorous) - although also has a chapter on the 'August convoy' (Pedestal).

What??? Do you mean this book is primarily about the mid '42 Malta convoys and not just a strategic analysis of who did best in the Mediterranean War?

warspite1

Sorry Buckrock I don't follow? Can you clarify please?

[Buckrock]

Since what you've spent most of your time discussing is really just part of the background material, I thought it worth pointing out where the central
focus of the book actually was so as to aid anyone considering a potential purchase.

You can now return to your regular program.[:)]

P.S. I assume you have the same issues with O'Hara's comparative analysis in "Struggle for the Middle Sea"?

[Alpha77]

Seems this O´Hara guy is somewhat controversial, like perhaps D.Glantz too. But this guy has HUGE knowledge and can write, one of the best book of the war in Europe:
https://www.amazon.com/Zhukovs-Greatest ... 0700614176
(ok, a bit OT [:)]) But his book about Kursk was compared to that pretty "dry" strange, as if written by 2 different guys...

2 more to recommend: Jentz, Spielberger.... those guys at least tell us details and not what everyone knows about tanks etc already [:D] ah and Osprey series. Ah and even Montgomery, he does not pat his back as often you would expect. Not so much his WW2 writing, but I enoyed his ancient and middle age battles writings.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Since what you've spent most of your time discussing is really just part of the background material, I thought it worth pointing out where the central
focus of the book actually was so as to aid anyone considering a potential purchase.

You can now return to your regular program.[:)]

P.S. I assume you have the same issues with O'Hara's comparative analysis in "Struggle for the Middle Sea"?

warspite1

Well there is a reason for that [:)]

The OP mentions this book yes. O'Hara is a believer in the idea that Italian (RM) performance was much better than many historians have suggested. This book says nothing new in that regard, but does expand on that theme. The OP, as he himself admits, is not previously an avid reader of the Mediterranean theatre and so, having read O'Hara's thoughts in this tome - which include the build up to events, the events of 1942, and a conclusion - he wanted to hear views on Italian performance (particularly naval and air force) during WWII. In order to be fair, the full picture needs to be understood, not just facts that suit one line of argument. So in answering the post I have tried to set out in some detail some of the areas I believe are important.

Very sensible to point out more about the book too [:)]

O'Hara's view is a constant recurring theme - and I admire his passion if not his judgement - so yes, the view given in this book is prevalent in all his works including Middle Sea. As I said earlier, O'Hara is no mindless shock jock and he is capable of praising and criticising both 'sides' (indeed he has proved very praising of RN performance overall in many of his books). But ultimately I personally believe that O'Hara's view of the RM is too rose tinted, and the arguments used to support many of his opinions are not always fairly analysed (as we all know there are lies, damn lies and statistics). As I also made clear at the outset, I am not interested in blindly rubbishing RM performance, I made the case that Italy's economic position needs to be taken into account when reviewing performance. I just wish O'Hara would be more understanding of the enemy's problems too.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Seems this O´Hara guy is somewhat controversial, like perhaps D.Glantz too. But this guy has HUGE knowledge and can write, one of the best book of the war in Europe:
https://www.amazon.com/Zhukovs-Greatest ... 0700614176
(ok, a bit OT [:)]) But his book about Kursk was compared to that pretty "dry" strange, as if written by 2 different guys...

2 more to recommend: Jentz, Spielberger.... those guys at least tell us details and not what everyone knows about tanks etc already [:D]

warspite1

I like Glantz as an author - When Titans Clashed is a very good book.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The OP mentions this book yes. O'Hara is a believer in the idea that Italian (RM) performance was much better than many historians have suggested. This book says nothing new in that regard, but does expand on that theme.

And maybe now you understand why I skipped over the background stuff in "Perilous".

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The OP mentions this book yes. O'Hara is a believer in the idea that Italian (RM) performance was much better than many historians have suggested. This book says nothing new in that regard, but does expand on that theme.

And maybe now you understand why I skipped over the background stuff in "Perilous".

warspite1

Yes, but that makes for a short read - and it was pretty expensive as it was!! [:)]

[MakeeLearn]

...Italy's economic position needs to be taken into account when reviewing performance

...and that they were going up against the British Royal Navy - a history, tradition, training and sense of duty that gave it a sharp edge in spite of any of its problems.
The rose tint of the Italian (RM) may be from the SHINE of who they were fighting.

[Alpha77]

One can find some good presentations by Glantz and others at youtube too btw.

... but some are questionable, yesterday I found an (now supposed by me) ex-Luftwaffe guy who was later in the US-navy. First off he read everything from papers and not much "free speaking" (ok he his older now), and secondly a guy in the comments pointed out 2 mistakes with the plane photos he showed. I also found it quite questionable he claimed to have fought Meteors in 45 with the Heinkel Volksjäger (or at least met one in the air). This must have been a huge coincidence, cause Meteors were mostly resctricted to fly over German territory. Only later allowed but only small sorties(y) as per Wiki. But perhaps the guys with the big coincidences always survive to tell their story ([;)]) EDIT: ALso I wonder he was at most 18 or so iirc, YUP Germans had pilot losses and needed everyone, but would they have let so young guys fly a new "jet plane" ? There were older more experienced guys still alive, right?

Also "funny" his father died in the east, after 26 days. He then said, average life expection at the eastern front was 26 days. Mh, then after some months no one would have been left there, how did the Germans come almost to Moscow and Stalingrad (guess only the horses survided and walked there)



Just a bit like books by Manstein and Guderian, I read both, in hindsight they seem to be pretty...uncritical (mostly of themselves [;)])

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Just a bit like books by Manstein and Guderian, I read both, in hindsight they seem to be pretty...uncritical (mostly of themselves [;)])

warspite1

Funny you should say that, when I answered dr.hal in post 48 it was Mantein's memoirs specifically that I was thinking of [:)]

[warspite1]

For anyone interested I am reading an excellent book at the moment The Royal Navy In Eastern Waters (Boyd). The reason I mention it here is that it deals with the discussions that took place between the wars (and during the early part of it) on just how the **** the RN were supposed to meet Germany, Italy and Japan.

Interestingly, given the topics covered here,the British plan originally was not to defend the Mediterranean (Home and Far East were the priorities) but that idea began to unravel after Abysinnia. Still early days in the book but hopefully there will be some detail applied to the thinking behind the Mediterranean strategy.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

For anyone interested I am reading an excellent book at the moment The Royal Navy In Eastern Waters (Boyd). The reason I mention it here is that it deals with the discussions that took place between the wars (and during the early part of it) on just how the **** the RN were supposed to meet Germany, Italy and Japan.

Interestingly, given the topics covered here,the British plan originally was not to defend the Mediterranean (Home and Far East were the priorities) but that idea began to unravel after Abysinnia. Still early days in the book but hopefully there will be some detail applied to the thinking behind the Mediterranean strategy.

What would be your top pick for a book that deals with the naval Mediterranean campaign? that covers all or most years (1940 to 43)?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: warspite1

For anyone interested I am reading an excellent book at the moment The Royal Navy In Eastern Waters (Boyd). The reason I mention it here is that it deals with the discussions that took place between the wars (and during the early part of it) on just how the **** the RN were supposed to meet Germany, Italy and Japan.

Interestingly, given the topics covered here,the British plan originally was not to defend the Mediterranean (Home and Far East were the priorities) but that idea began to unravel after Abysinnia. Still early days in the book but hopefully there will be some detail applied to the thinking behind the Mediterranean strategy.

What would be your top pick for a book that deals with the naval Mediterranean campaign? that covers all or most years (1940 to 43)?

warspite1

Sadly, if there is one I've never read it. I've built up my knowledge from a number of books over the years such as:

Somerville's Force H (Dannreuther)
Ark Royal (Rossiter)
War in the Mediterranean (Ireland)
The Littorio Class (Bagnasco and de Toro)*
Gamp VC (Izzard)
French Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers* (Jordan, Doumas and Moulin) - 3 books
Struggle for the Middle Sea (O'Hara)
Torch (O'Hara)
And supplemented with books on
Chronology of the War at Sea (Rohwer)
Very Special Ships (Nicholson)
The Lost Battle: Crete 1941 (MacDonald)
England's Last War Against France (Smith)
Purnell's Encyclopedia of World War II
The War at Sea (Roskill)
On Seas Contested (O'Hara)
Black Phoenix (O'Hara)
Dark Navy (O'Hara)
Hitler's U-boat war (Blair)
etc

*These are surprisingly useful as they have sections on the operations of the Regia Marina and the French Navy in the Mediterranean.

I would also recommend these two wonderfully informative sites:
- http://www.naval-history.net
- http://www.regiamarina.net

So its just been a case of building up knowledge over a variety of sources and piecing together what was going on.

If you ever come across a proper one volume (or multi volume) in depth look at the naval war I would love to know.

[BBfanboy]

Don't forget Adm. AB Cunningham's "A Sailor's Odyssey".