5 Destroyers ambush Italian Cruisers: Battle of Cape Spada, 1940 (Documentary) 

Love your content! You always make My day!😊😊😊😊❤❤❤

Love the content and your interaction with your fellow history enjoyers! If I had one question about your content, it would be: "Where do you source your information for a video? (Again, thank you for your response about subtitles...)

Great question. And honestly, it really depends on the topic. For example, Italian naval warfare during WW2 has some fantastic works from the '60s-'80s. They are pretty outdated, but I ordered about 4 books nonetheless, and then tried to crossreference them with a relatively new book (O'Hara, Vincent. Struggle for the Middle Sea: The Great Navies at War in the Mediterranean Theater, 1940-1945. Naval Institute Press, 2009.) @@Cannon530YTOO Roman history obviously has much more written about it. Sometimes, for example about Japanese navies, I have to search the internet's periphery and obscure Japanese websites to learn about certain details I want to know for my videos. So it really depends on the topic. I'm also working on Japan's invasion of the Dutch East Indies, and the Netherlands has a lot of information accessible online. Old books and records. So I use Dutch archives for that specific topic.

@@HoH Thank you. (Also, I have watched the video a second time as promised!)

@@HoHhi my father in law rip used to tell me about his wartime experiences in the Royal Navy, he was on what he called subchasers off the African coast, corvettes, sloops, Frigates and destroyers, he recalled the one time a submarine that they had depth charged, surfaced near to them and as the crew came out on deck to man the gun, the ship’s captain ordered all guns to open fire, ( there gun was bigger than ours) he said. One time they were cruising along slowly and a midshipman was instructing crew members on how to set and launch depth charges, he pulled the lever and accidentally launched a depth charge, the captain (who was watching) screamed “full speed ahead” as he realised that a charge was going to go off very close to his ship, my father in law said everyone on deck got soaked. He was telling me how (when he was on a destroyer) in rough seas the ship would climb up a wave that seemed almost vertical and then as it came down the other side, the propeller would come clear of the water and accelerate causing the ship to vibrate and the bows would dive into the water almost stopping her and suddenly the screw would become submerged and cause the ship to twist with the torque before climbing the next wave and doing it all again over and over.

When Italy switched side in 1943 why was your father not repatriated then? Was his allegiance to Mussolini's government the reason? Or was it the fact he was shipped off to India as a POW and resources were not available until the war ended? I'm curious as an American as there aren't many books on available here about post '43 Italian troops and sailors.

@@mikebrase5161 True... the doubt is legitimate. After 8 September 1943 my father, as a member of the Navy - notoriously monarchist rather than fascist - followed the instructions of the Southern Italian government and began his collaboration with the Allies. The delay in the repatriation was due precisely to the shortage of means of transport and the great distance. P.S. After September 8, the international Red Cross took photos in the internment camp - in groups of 10 people - to send to Italy to reassure the families. I have a couple of these photos in which my father appears, wearing an English summer uniform, already more serene and in good physical condition.

yeah I'd like to know too, i was unaware of european prisoners being held in india, i guess it makes sense but wow, what a trip

Did your father immigrate to Australia in the 50s or have you? The Italians amaze me with their 20 speed tanks and Political mish-mash. Would like to know what happened to the Vatican during the War, as Paris too got sparred from conflict.

​@@mikebrase5161On 8 September 1943, six hundred thousand Italian soldiers found themselves locked up in English and American prison camps. «Who are you with, the Duce or the King?» was the dilemma they faced. Of this enormous mass of young people - the average age was 23-24 years - a conspicuous minority chose not to "betray": thousands of kilometers away from their homeland, they went, either out of ideological loyalty to fascism, or out of pride or , more simply, for coherent military dignity, to a future full of unknowns and risks.

noone gives a damn what your grandfather was or did.

Mine 44th Reconnaissance corps 56th Division 8th army

HMS Grenville was a G-class destroyer the Flotilla leader for the H-class was HMS Hardy

The J,K,L,M and N class carried 6 guns.

Thanks. Thought that was odd @dupplinmuir113

I was about to make a similar comment and saw yours Good call.

It's even worse because Australians are simply just the offsprings of the Britain prison colony

It's even worse because Australians are simply just the offsprings of the Britain prison colony

Speaking as a Brit is usually annoys me too. It's frustrating seeing all those contributions by the Australians, Kiwis, Indians and other commonwealth forces just lumped in as British.

And as a Czech, I appreciate "Czechoslovakia" label on the map, although it was occupied by Germany at that time and called "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" (Slovakia dissolved and became a Germany's vassal state for the war period). Personally, I really dislike when historical videos show the large black taint over Europe with the label "Germany". I'm sure all occupied nations strongly disagree as well.

Thank you, you're right. I completely overlooked it 🤦‍♂️

You beat me to the punch Boatswain

Pull it together slacker, this isn't the history channel lol

Pull it together slacker, this isn't the history channel lol

and Sydney is labelled a "light" but we had a lot of talk about what it is.A light cruiser. Yeah Havoc doesn't hit as hard as HMAS Sydney...

Thank you, Scott!

yeah its it comes from saying its Britain vs Italy .. But really with Collins the senior in the squadron , it would be best to consider the squadron Australian ? Although it just fell together due to events.

Co-ordination is more difficult than range, particularly with inclement weather.

What the hell do you mean? It was, a huge proportion of both sides Naval battle in the Med during WWII was through air power. Its why Malta was so important, as an airbase and Submarine Base it controlled the central Mediterranean.

It happened very often actually, they just added air power as part of their naval power as well. This was actually done more often in ww2 than any other war.

Air power was very much used in Mediterranean, with a large part of the Eastern Mediterranean being lost to air attacks. Look up the battle of Crete and the Royal navy's losses as they evacuated the army from Crete... another Churchill screw up.

Have a look at Operation Pedestal, with the tanker Ohio limping into Malta with the remains of a Stuka plastered across her.

Yes, my father was on her at the time (Stoker).

He said the Italian bombs were exploding aongside as Havock was at full speed with the decks littered with Italians. The shrapnel swept the decks killing many. Havock was holed and ran alone for Alexandria with a 20 gout of water blasting up the side. HMAS Sydney bravely came back to escort her. See my book 'Destroyer at War'.

Actually Italy wanted but Hitler and Rommel fked up.

Also, the Suez Canal would have fallen to Rommel, along with the whole of the Middle East and Iranian oil. Turkey would likely have abandoned neutrality in favour of being on the winning side. The Black Sea would be an easy supply route to conquering Russia from the south. Plus, through the Suez Canal, Japan would have turned the Med into an Axis safespace.

Malta was a far more important objective than Crete. Thankfully, the importance and possibilities of the med was never appreciated by Germany, and Italy simply wasnt up to the task.

@gar6446 Italy didn't have enough fuel to fight a naval war, something Mussolini was well aware of. Rommel ignored the Axis supply problems while gallivanting around the desert, blaming the Italians for his lack of fuel.

​@@awf6554 if only Italy had discovered Libyas oil fields before the war history may have been very different...

Yeah I don’t understand that either, I would appreciate if someone could explain that

I'm no expert, but I'll try to reason it through. If 4 heavily armoured enemy ships are retreating from your 2 light cruisers, it's likely that they are low enough on ammunition that they fear they cannot defeat you. In this case, it is sensible to pursue and destroy the valuable enemy war assets before they can return to port and rearm. If, on the other hand, 4 destroyers are retreating from your 2 light cruisers, that is to be expected; you have them terribly outgunned. Destroyers are, however, generally much faster than cruisers. So, if the enemy destroyers are fleeing slowly enough that your cruisers can maintain range, they are probably not attempting to disengage, but to draw you onto their reinforcements. In which case you should withdraw to avoid being decisively engaged.

@@johnmarshall9604 ok, that makes sense. Depending on your situation the tactics have to be adapted, so I guess things won’t go exactly how we may expect in other situations

Well if they were battleships, or heavy cruisers, they would actually be faster and there would be no escape ? Or capital ships might have a large escort some of which will break off and engage ? But also the "heavily armored" ship is less maneuverable, so the cruisers had a chance to score hits while steering harshly enough to avoid being hit, maybe. Also that the heavily armored ships may prefer to split up in this situation, as too valuable to risk for just a few cruisers.. improving the Italians odds. and also earning brownie points for disturbing the capital ships activities, causing them to flee to avoid being Bismarck'ed... Or getting into a Bismarck or Scharnhorst situation, slightly damaged in material terms, but in tactical terms, very vulnerable...

@@johnmarshall9604 I know, its only hypothetical, but thats an odd location to be in , if in fact short of ammunition ?? No, he wouldn't think that. Its like he went on a suicidal charge at a very valuable target, rather than showing fear to a superior ship, and trying to flee, in which case they probably decide to chase you with at least one capital ship, which is faster than some cheap shoddy cruiser.... As it happens, they could only be chased by a light cruiser...they shouldn't have gone kamikaze with the maximum value target being only a light cruiser ? There would be no brownie points for disturbing their planned activities either...

Hey, I use the entire Adobe Suite (illustrator, photoshop, after effects, premiere, audition).

Probably Glossop's Sydney :P

Havock was there too, right?

@@sjonnieplayfull5859 indeed it was

plus Free French, Polish, etc but not present here.. but yes, the allies as they were at the time...

Thank you! I wasn't aware of that - I tried to properly distinguish the HMAS Sydney from other ships because Australians tend to... really make it known a ship was RAN rather than British. So you're saying there's no way to graphically distinguish them besides just mentioning they're HMAS or part of the RAN?

@@HoH Mostly none as RAN ships were British designs which included five "transferred" destroyers known as the "Scrap Iron Flotilla". There are reports that RAN ships did fly the Australian flag from their main masts or jackstaff to distinguish them from Royal Navy vessels, as seen in pre-WWII photos of RAN ships. It became easier with Sydney's (D48) sisters as the modified Leander-class had two funnels as opposed to one, which Amphion and Apollo were transferred to the RAN, renamed Perth (D29) and Hobart (D63).

It was British regulars and marines who were the ones who burnt the White house. These were not based in Canada but were a separate new UK invasion force sent after the defeat of Napoleon in Europe under Robert Ross"s command.

It was a different captain and a newly trained crew on Sydney from what I remember. Collins was assigned to Singapore and later ABDACOM before becoming the Senior Naval Officer in Freemantle in WA until 1943, where he became the commander of HMAS Shropshire. By 1944 he was in charge of the Australian Naval Squadron before getting injured by a Kamikaze strike on HMAS Australia.

@@jacklang3314 thank you for straightening me out on this.

@@PaulMcCartGuitarTracks no problem mate.

At 6:51 it definitely says HMAS Sydney, and its captain is from the Royal Australian Navy. The clip from 5:14 is from a video I did before - I fitted HMS on the name card there but received comments that it looked sloppy because it overlapped with the flag, so I decided to remove it for this video entirely (other ships don't have the HMS prefix either).

It doesn't say HMAS there at all, just that Collins belonged to the RAN. It might seem picky, but relatively minor powers get frustrated at being left out of the WW2 narrative. It's like when the British contribution is ignored in favour of the US.

I get your point, but I am pretty sure it says HMAS at 6:51, underneath the flag card (since none of the ships received their prefix this video). @@awf6554 However, point taken - I wrote an entire paragraph about HMAS Sydney and how it was part of the RAN, sailing from Australia to Europe. I decided to leave it out since I wasn't sure if viewers would be interested in that information - however clearly they are. I'll make sure to add it in future videos.

@HoH I see this was dealt with elsewhere in the comments, and apologise for raising it again. The Sydney was probably the best known RAN ship of the war, probably due to her ultimate fate which was contentious for a long time.

All these comments have definitely made me want to cover its fate. And admittedly, I learn a lot from comments - I love history and I enjoy research and writing about it, but it'd be pretentious to pretend I know everything. Often times there is information that is new to me as well. The comments on here taught me how important it is to explicitly mention certain things.

She was both. She was originally ordered by the Royal Navy as HMS Phaeton, a Leander Class Cruiser. Before she was launched the Australians desperate for some cruisers approached the British Government and one of the ships under construction sold to Australia was Phaeton. She was slightly modified for Australian service and her name changed just before she was launched in 1934. She may have had a (mostly) Australian crew, but she was designed, built, and originally ordered for the British Royal Navy.....

The 'British' forces were an imperial force. At this stage there was no difference really. Add to this the volunteers from occupied nations and exiled govt forces.

@@gar6446 If you were talking WWI, I'd agree. But by World War Two the navies were distinct and there were differences in operational doctrines.

@@alganhar1 Who made her doesn't matter. It's who commanded and crewed her. The General Belgrano was not a US ship.

@@sundoga4961 I would tend to agree with you, but this is a youtube comment simplified for brevity.

Yes, that one sunk by the Kormoran later in the war.

Hi! I have some videos in the works about Japan's invasion of the east indies and ABDAs resistance. It does feature the Brits. Any specific battles in the Pacific you had in mind?

@@HoH I will surely tell you in a couple of days. I will post it in this comment section only ? Is that okay to you ?

@@lilboy3102 Sure thing

@@HoH Maybe the Indian Ocean Raid?

I drew the border but unselected in the final render apparently 🥴

Thank you for the feedback, I haven't used the effect in recent videos because of that exact criticism.

A destroyer is a smaller but nimbler ship, designated to hunt and destroy smaller vessels that could still pose a threat to bigger and more important ships. As a complement to their main weaponry, usually not bigger than 5 inch guns (127 mm) - albeit there are exceptions - there were anti aircraft guns, torpedoes and depth charges. These types of guns were excellent to hunt down motor torpedo boats, motor gun boats and submarines alike. They were lightly armored, because the type of targets they were designed to destroy weren’t generally armed with bigger calibre guns. They could also use torpedoes to threaten and even sink bigger vessels, so they could also be used in groups with a “hit and run” tactic to force big war convoys into changing course, potentially disrupting enemy ships’ effectiveness and accuracy. An Auxiliary cruiser is a ship not originally designed as a warship, but later converted as a one: nevertheless, as its “profile” wasn’t designed for war, this type of ship couldn’t be fitted with large amounts of guns and armour, so it wasn’t really suited to fight other warships. This being said, auxiliary cruisers were perfect to destroy enemy merchant ships, as those were equally lacking armour and guns. Remarkably and apparently , one of these ships, the Kormoran, using a deception, managed to sink a light cruiser, the Australian HMAS Sydney, but later sank for the extensive damage received. A light cruiser is a proper warship, faster than a capital ship, but with guns and armour important enough to threaten other warships and destroyers. Conventionally, in the years before WW2, a light cruiser could be called properly so if it wasn’t equipped with main guns bigger than 6-inch (155mm). Heavy cruisers, on the contrary, were other similar ships with guns no bigger than 8-inch (203mm). So, the difference between light and heavy cruisers referred mainly to the size of the guns, not armour or displacement. No matter the designation, though, they could not exceed 10.000 tons (as per the Washington Naval Treaty and, later, the London treaty).

The lines between a small cruiser and a large Destroyer in that period could be blurred. Contrary to what some say both Destroyers and Light Cruisers were built to Naval Standards... In short though, a Destroyer is an escort and fleet screen ship. Typically WWII Destroyers ranged from 1500 tone displacement for earlier Classes to just shy of 3000 tons for some of the later Classes. There were some larger Destroyers around but they were the exception. Armament was typically torpedo's, 3 - 8 (depending on the Class) light Naval artillery (usually between 4 - 5 inch) in single or twin mounts. most Destroyers tended to fit between 4 - 6 main guns, 8 as the Tribals had in their original configuration was unusual. That was rounded off by their anti air armament and in most cases ASW equipment. These ships escorted other larger warships, and acted as the Fleet Screen to stop enemy Destroyers and small ships attacking the fleet.... There were Destroyers designed specifically for escorting Convoys which upped the ASW (anti submarine warfare) weaponry and reduced their gun armament significantly but those are a different topic. A Light Cruiser could be anywhere between 4 - 10,000 tons under Treaty, though after the Treaty was abandoned some displaced up to 13 - 14,000 tons. Typically they were slower than destroyers but faster than most of the larger ships. Cruisers despite the previous comment were classed as Capital ships, if small capital ships. Generally they were armed with 6 inch guns, usually somewhere between 8 and 12 (though some had more or fewer, the Brooklyn's had 15 if I recall). Most Nations other than the US also gave Light Cruisers Torpedo's, though usually fewer than were carried by the Destroyers. Their role was again escort and fleet screen, but they were also large enough for independent operations, and had a much better range than destroyers. Auxiliary ships, some were purpose built, some were conversions, and they filled a huge number of roles, from Fleet Oilers to tenders to specialist Landing ships (all were classed as Auxiliaries), repair ships and the list goes on, and on, and on. You could literally write a series of books discussing all the Auxiliary ships as they were (and still are) so varied, and often very specialised. The term Auxiliary does not refer to just armed merchant ships, indeed the very point of them was that they were NOT warships. What the other commentator was referring to sounds very much like the armed Merchant Cruisers, which are basically Civilian ships armed with a bunch of 4 - 6 inch guns from stores and used to try to either defend or attack convoys....

A Destroyer was smaller and had lighter guns and torpedoes were a significant weapon. Cruisers had 6" guns minimum and cruisers were larger designed for cruising with longer range. But as war progressed and requirements changed it became a bit blurred. Plus nations had different ideas on requirements. A ship designed for a dash out of port to engage an enemy might seem 'overgunned', a ship expected to fight at extended range anywhere from the arctic to the med or atlantic might look lightly armed but with better seakeeping. US ships were larger had good range and well armed because of the pacific. A pre war design was very different to those being built in 43-44.

In ascending order of size it goes Destroyer -> Light Cruiser -> Heavy Cruiser and so on, though as someone mentioned the lines between a large destroyer and a small light cruiser could be blurred. My mom once commented that she thought it was odd that the smallest main ship class of WW2 was called "destroyer" - the reason for that is that "destroyer" is a shortened form of this ship class's original full name, which was "torpedo boat destroyer." Destroyers were originally designed to sink torpedo boats and corvettes, even smaller ships (so small that games like Hearts of Iron 4 don't represent them). Later on their duties were expanded to sinking submarines and providing AA fire, general escort duties for the larger capital ships.

Overall, the differences are their roles. Each type of ship has specific roles, such as counters to specific enemies. A destroyer is a torpedo boat destroyer (you can see more clearly from the French name contre-torpilleur and the Italian name cacciatorpediniere). Their job is to kill torpedo boats, so they had some small guns. They later evolved to hunt larger ships such as light cruisers. They are small, fast, cheap, and numerous. Some large destroyers with a gun focus called destroyer leaders are designed to kill regular destroyers. Later, some destroyers are so large they were reclassified as cruisers, although the distinction is arbitrary. A cruiser is a scout. They operate more independently ahead of the battle fleet or in closer support of capital ships or as leaders of destroyers. They also operate independently entirely as commerce raiders. They are larger, with bigger guns, and are still quite fast. They can be lightly or heavily armoured. They developed a niche for anti-air support, with some ships becoming dedicated AA cruisers. The largest of these are battlecruisers, which are half battleships and half cruisers - effectively large cruisers with battleship calibre guns. Heavy cruisers are the halfway of light and battle cruisers, to be more mass produced than battlecruisers but more powerful than light cruisers. Auxiliary ships are support ships that normally don't see combat. Tankers, repair ships, tenders for example. "Auxiliary cruiser" is a misnomer, and they're more accurately armed merchant cruisers, which are merchant ships with guns as you can infer from the name too. They're just cheap mass-produced ersatz warships to protect their fellow merchant ships in convoys.

✨ Thank you!

A fellow enjoyer of culture I see?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Alexandria_(1941)

Ordered originally as HMS Phaeton, a Leander Class Cruiser for the Royal Navy. She was purchased before completion by the Australian Government, slightly modified, and launched under her new name of HMAS Sidney in 1934... To all intents and purposes she was a Leander Class like those operated by the Royal Navy with some modifications to allow for the Australian climate.... So she was actually a British ship.... . Her crew was not British, but she was. She was designed in Britain, originally ordered for Britain, and built in Britain...

I'm sure that that was an Aussie Ensign associated with Her on the video.

​@@alganhar1built by the Brits doesn't make her a British ship. In all in the name see HMAS not HMS. The king approved the A for a reason, Australia isn't the UK. Pretty simple really. Jesus even the yanks can get this right.

It does say that the Captain was in the RAN on the graphic.

I wrote a full paragraph about the HMAS Sydney, how it was sold to Australia and sailed from there to the Mediterranean. I decided to take it out of the script because I wasn't sure if viewers would be interested in that information... guess I know now!

Why . Imperial measure was used back then.

It is important to provide historical context. The battle didn't just fall out of thin air.

@@HoH Historical context is good, and important, but when the contextualization equals, or exceeds the material about the battle, it’s either excessive, or misleadingly titled.

You don't like the additional information?