Semi OT, Italy in the Med, a good book

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

So it would appear!!! I take full responsibility Buckrock.... I'll try to be more careful in the future!

Dr. Hal-

Are there any threads of yours from, say, 2010 that you'd like to discuss again? [;)]

[dr.hal]

I'll have a look and get back to you!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I'll have a look and get back to you!

Did you participate in any discussions of Shattered Sword back in the day? Perhaps we should dust those off. [8D]

[dr.hal]

[/quote]

Did you participate in any discussions of Shattered Sword back in the day? Perhaps we should dust those off. [8D]
[/quote]
Actually IIRC I think I started a discussion on that book as well when it first came out (or I certainly participated in a discussion of it). It's a great book IMHO as it looks into aspects of that battle from very NON traditional angles and comes to some very interesting conclusions. It certainly doesn't rely upon the traditional/accepted Japanese viewpoints. I think its a must read, certainly far more interesting than Lord's book on the same battle (which is very dated, but still a good read as well).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

So it would appear!!! I take full responsibility Buckrock.... I'll try to be more careful in the future!

warspite1

Indeed. I re-read the initial pages and I think you got a little more than you bargained for!! I wonder if your view of the Regia Marina has changed as a result, although you appeared to step out of the debate pretty quickly.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So back to In Passage Perilous and there is another point raised in the book within the conclusion that is worthy of mention and posts 104 and 105 refer to this. O’Hara again makes the point that the Mediterranean was the British main effort and that while Italy used the majority of its navy, most of its air force and a small portion of its army, for Germany the numbers were: less than 2% of its army, circa 15% of its air force and a “small fraction” of its U-boat arm. He rounds off this analysis with this conclusion: Every day it could deflect its enemy’s main effort with tiny forces in Africa or anywhere along the Mediterranean shoreline was a successful day for the Reich [my italics].

Lebensraum was Hitler’s raison d’etre and it does not take the powers of hindsight to know that this war was where Germany would succeed or fail and the last thing he needed when warring with the USSR was his southern flank being exposed.

Indeed, after the losses suffered in the first 9 months, in order for Army Group South to launch Operation Blue, the Germans needed to raid the assets of the other two Army Groups, for most of their .....air assets.

Given such a situation, ANY German assets being expended anywhere but in the east was, far from being a success, actually helping Germany to lose the war. O’Hara likes to repeat the mantra that North Africa was Britain’s main focus (as though the Italians were holding off the entire weight of the British Empire forces) but in reality situation was very different.

Similarly given the colossal losses of Luftwaffe aircraft in the USSR during that period, ANY aircraft assets being utilised in the Mediterranean rather than in the east was nothing short of a disaster and 15% is not insignificant.

And all this ignores the fighter strength and AA units that were defending Germany from Bomber Command (and from 1942 the USAAF)

warspite1

I have recently read the very good Eagles Over The Sea - Luftwaffe Maritime Operations 1939-1942.

Reading the book brought to mind the discussion on the performance of the Regia Marina from a couple of years ago; and specifically O'Hara's rather disappointing quote from In Passage Perilous that 'Every day it could deflect its enemy’s main effort with tiny forces in Africa or anywhere along the Mediterranean shoreline was a successful day for the Reich'.

The description of the German air forces, allocated to naval war, being pulled from pillar to post - to western France, to the Baltic and the Black Sea, to the Mediterranean and to the Arctic just helps reinforce how faintly ridiculous this assertion was.

It reminded me of a scenario I read elsewhere too. In The Fast Carriers Reynolds vividly describes how the Japanese had to remove their carrier aircraft from their carriers in the defence of Rabaul so short were they of aircraft. I mentioned during the initial discussion how much the Germans needed aircraft in the Soviet Union - where the war was to be decided - but this was also true of the Atlantic (and Arctic at least until the Persian and Pacific routes opened up). The book makes clear just to what extent the need to bolster the Italians, far from being a successful day for the Reich as O'Hara so falsely states, was actually a disaster in terms of Germany's two main wars - The Eastern Front and the Battle of The Atlantic.

warspite1

Further to the above, I am coming to the end of Arctic Convoys 1941-1945 (Woodman)* and this book too highlights the folly of O'Hara's comment. Torpedo armed Ju-88 and He-111 were desperately needed in the Arctic but were withdrawn because of the situation in the Med.

Despite the Eastern Front being the vital front in Europe, Goring was loathe to move them back again (even when Hitler was persuaded by Donitz).

*Another recommended book.

I can't wait for Six Victories to arrive - who knows, there may be further resurrection of this thread!!

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: warspite

Indeed. I re-read the initial pages and I think you got a little more than you bargained for!! I wonder if your view of the Regia Marina has changed as a result, although you appeared to step out of the debate pretty quickly.

Yes it has indeed been illuminating. I did step away for about a year or so as I've had lots going on. As for changing my views, maybe marginally. I still think the Italian Navy and Air Force are not given an even hand by some authors despite the facts presented in this book and others. But then again, the services did start off rather poorly and sometimes first impressions stick with folks despite later performances...

[spence]

It certainly doesn't rely upon the traditional/accepted Japanese viewpoints.

I think the book makes clear that the Japanese account of the battle offered by Fuchida Mitsuo is both inaccurate and the reasons why it is inaccurate. The 1976 Midway movie is flawed by its total acceptance of that account of the battle which absolves Fuchida and pretty much all other Japanese naval officers of any responsibility for the Japanese disaster at Midway.

Nimitz's (H Fonda) final line in the 1976 film (something along the line of) "Were we better or just lucky?"

It should be noted that before the first Japanese bomber took off to attack the American CVs the Americans had put over 150 bomb/torpedo carrying a/c in the air to attack the Japanese CVs.
The fact is that the Japanese were very lucky in dealing with the American strikes for over 3 hours.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: warspite

Indeed. I re-read the initial pages and I think you got a little more than you bargained for!! I wonder if your view of the Regia Marina has changed as a result, although you appeared to step out of the debate pretty quickly.

Yes it has indeed been illuminating. I did step away for about a year or so as I've had lots going on. As for changing my views, maybe marginally. I still think the Italian Navy and Air Force are not given an even hand by some authors despite the facts presented in this book and others. But then again, the services did start off rather poorly and sometimes first impressions stick with folks despite later performances...

warspite1

Indeed, and as I said at the outset I agree with you. 'Standard' views were formed from initial histories and they have stuck - Italian tanks; five reverse gears and one forward, the French were cheese-eating surrender monkeys, and other such nonsense. O'Hara's 'problem' is simply that he's taken his analysis too far.

[John 3rd]

Nearly done with Scratch One Flattop. Pretty fair work in my opinion. Really does an excellent job of sowing together the OFFICIAL Japanese history, Lundstrom, and several of works (Black Shoe Admiral for instance) into a solid narrative. Have learned a few things and like the format as well as heavy citation work at the end of each chapter.

Looks like I need to order that Arctic Convoys book...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Nearly done with Scratch One Flattop. Pretty fair work in my opinion. Really does an excellent job of sowing together the OFFICIAL Japanese history, Lundstrom, and several of works (Black Shoe Admiral for instance) into a solid narrative. Have learned a few things and like the format as well as heavy citation work at the end of each chapter.

Looks like I need to order that Arctic Convoys book...

warspite1

Okay I will put Scratch One Flattop on the list. I have gone large parts of the year with nothing to scratch any itch and now, in the space of a few weeks, I seem to have a list as long as ever!!

Malta Convoys (just started)
Six Victories (expected sometime in December) and will have to follow Malta
Churchill and Australia (bought but relegated due to Eagles Over The Sea being so good which made me want to read Arctic Convoys which made me want to read Malta Convoys!!)

How War Came (started but suspended as a) I don't like the author's writing style and b) Eagles Over The Sea arrived etc [:D])

That leaves four on the list of to be purchased but haven't got the funds/time/brownie points with Mrs W yet!

Scratch One Flattop
The US Navy against the Axis
Case Red
Case White

As a wise man once said - Too many books, too little time....... I think he said books anyway [;)]

[warspite1]

Six Victories arrived. Hussah! [:)] As ever with O'Hara's books, the page count seems a little low for the price, but I guess that is the price to pay for someone who writes about a subject that receives relatively scant attention.

Given the period covered, its obvious where the author intends to go with this - and that is fine given what happened in that period - but it will be interesting to see if he has amended his thoughts on the German contribution.

[fcooke]

I found Malta Convoys to be pretty good. Other tomes would be Fortress Malta and Operation Pedestal.

Visiting Malta is on the bucket list. Dripping in history.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: fcooke
Visiting Malta is on the bucket list. Dripping in history.

It's a fascinating place. It was one of my "case studies" for my degree. I studied the Maltese Navy (yes they have one) and learned a LOT about the place including its plans for defense during the war (and now). As you say, it was dripping in history.