Howdy everyone... pinned comment for questions... Some further reading www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1958/september/italian-strategy-mediterranean-1940-43
The Italians are seen as a secondary rate opponent. I do not believe this is the case but IMHO this is the case. It may have come from their poor performance in the battle of Britain
I think there was a massed conditioning after the war. The Germans were the main focus off attention, for understandable reasons. The Japanese were treated differently again. The Italians were treated as a secondary player. If you look at the culture of the times, popular movies for example, I well remember having a huge stack of war comics as a young boy in the 70's, it was presented in a very sanitised and unrealistic manner. That culture of omission and belittling has kind of been handed down I think over the generations. They were dismissed as second rate, and people moved on. Their performance in the ground war in North Africa has become a part of a general feeling that the average layperson has no idea of it's truth or not. It's a great shame. Italians are as brave and patriotic as any other. They had tremendous ability.
Low wing loading doesn’t keep you in one piece under high Gs. It *usually* means that you can generate more Gs at a given speed. It almost always means that you slow down less while pulling the same Gs for the same duration. Low wing loading also makes it easier for the aircraft to have a long range. Keep in mind that the Wellington IC had the same wing loading with a load of 10,000 pounds (fuel, ammo, bombs, etc.).
The SM 79 Sparviero was to the Regia Aeronautica what the Beaufort was to the RAF and the Swordfish to the Fleet Air Arm. Fine at the start of the war but getting very leggy a couple of years in. The difference with the Sparviero was the numbers available (against the Beaufort). The sheer bravery and professionalism of their crews is as legendary as the Swordfish crews. I personally find it hilarious that the replacements for both were not as effective as their predecessors - the same cannot be said for the Beauforts successor, the Beaufighter which in TFX mode was fabulous.
I don't think of the Italians as someone Britain had to beat. Because they were our friends all along. I may be biased by the barber near the shipyard. He had a big poster sized picture of himself in uniform with his rifle taller than him. In essence he said, 'Thats me. We got on side with you when we could. We changed onto the proper side just as we did the first time.' You can't think of beating that. They were on their way ahead of us and they didn't need to fight.
You've probably already selected your key aircraft, but in case you've any slots still open a few suggestions: Sunderland, Catalina - both very useful flying boars Wulrus, because the old Shagbat doesn't get much love! IJN Land based aircraft (a subject I admit my ignorence on, but which formed a key part of the IJN capability)
More or less the same comment could apply to all the axis air forces. The zero being the poster child- absolutely deadly when first encountered but started to fall behind and never had a more modern replacement due to logistics and infrastructure limitations. Also the 109. Yes it had a hell of a lot of models and upgrades but they just couldn't compete with the p-51d, the later versions of the spitfire etc.
@@daveharrison61 Also the A6M was updated regularly, however was due to be replaced in Late 1944 by the A7M, but the damage to the factories of Japan meant it was not in replace.
@@lesliemitchell4984 I know the zero was updated. Pretty much all of them were to a greater or lesser degree. But very few airframes could be upgraded enough to be as relevant at the end as at the start. Spitfire was possibly unique (even though I'd be surprised if even the flush rivets were common between the mk.I and the mk.24 it had evolved so much). Ultimately the most important factor for longevity seems to have been the airframe's aerodynamics and weight capacity. Everything else could be upgraded to a degree, often a huge degree. But the knowledge of aerodynamics wasn't sufficiently good to design a scalable airframe back then. I think we are in violent agreement with the broad principles, it's just the specific examples to prove our point that differ 🤣 Thought experiment for you: in the UK we had two (potentially) great aero engine manufacturers, rolls Royce and Bristol. Rolls Royce's great thing was it's supercharger designs, particularly the two-stage, two-speed ones that made the later model spitfires, Lancasters and p-51d such greats. Bristol had some of the most advanced metallurgy for engine design anywhere in the world, but was limited by business managers not really wanting to get behind Roy fedden. The Hercules didn't fly until I think early 1939 and didn't really reach worthwhile serial production until 1940. If Bristol's board was more looking to the future and Bristol and rolls Royce licenced their developments of metal alloys and superchargers, how much further could they have been ahead of the axis powers by saying, mid-41? And could it have been enough for the air ministry to loosen up and allow the FAA to spec decent single seat fighters for task group air defence?
@@lesliemitchell4984 it seems my second reply disappeared into the ether... Roughly, I stated we seem to be in violent agreement. The zero was continually upgraded, but was always hampered by having powerplants that were frankly a bit on the asthmatic end of the scale. By making the airframe very lightweight they could get excellent performance (and with it excellent manoeuvrability), but they were rather lacking in ruggedness and survivability. And were rather lacking in firepower by late-43. Now I'd make the case (probably poorly because I don't know all the statistics needed and the limits of my research potential is stuff I find on the internet via Google) that the two factors you need for a good and long-life aircraft are access to increasingly powerful engines, and having a core aerodynamic design that can be scaled slightly (including modifying the weight distribution when required). Probably the best example from the Second World War era is the Spitfire, which all had broadly the same aerodynamics across all models despite having radically different internal architecture to accommodate changes to engines (and the cooling requirements), radio fit, protection and armament. I'd be very surprised if the mk.I and the mk.24 even shared the same flush rivets there had been that many changes... Now to a thought experiment. The UK was blessed with two VERY good aero engine manufacturers in 1939- Rolls Royce and Bristol. Bristol were admittedly not wanting to shake things up much in the early to mid-30s on a corporate basis (although Roy Fedden their chief engineer in the engine department most definitely DID). The research he commissioned into metallurgy research would have given them a massive edge IF the board had been pushing for the twin-row Hercules and Centaurus designed a few years earlier. Likewise Rolls Royce had probably the best designs for superchargers during the whole war- their two-stage, two-speed supercharger on the Merlin was what made the P-51D and the Spitfire mk.IX onwards so formidable. So enough of the background, the thought experiment is this: if the air ministry had stated pushing just 12 months earlier, had "encouraged" Bristol to get working on more powerful engines (so the Hercules goes into series production in 1938 with the 1,400hp Hercules III), and Rolls Royce were producing Merlin XX analogues before war was even declared... And finally the air ministry encourages each company to licence the metallurgy/superchargers from the other for a nominal fee... How much better prepared could the RAF and the FAA have been?
Re the Greenhouse canopy on the Italian DB, when I first saw that canopy my mind immediately went "Skua" - interesting that both designs had a similatr looking canopy, a case of function driving the form, so effectively convergent designs?
@Knight6831 how did Japan's maritime bomber force do when its operational area was flooded with P-38s, Hellcats, and Corsairs flown by veteran pilots with war-tested doctrine?
-All torpedo bombers and dive bombers whether single engine or twin engines had poor prospects when intercepted by fighters if they lacked escorts. The Beaufighter possibly one of the more survivable because it could do 322mph with a torpedo at low altitude which not even an A6M Zero could do. Even Coastal Command Beaufighters were given Mustang III escorts -The Imperial Japanese Navy had a very good long range fighter in the A6-M but seems to have failed to develop a competitive replacement for the A6-M that could handle the American R-2800 powered fighters. -The Germans had good torpedo bombers in the Ju 88 and He 111 but they usually lacked escort fighters. Fw 200 were able to massacre Convoy Faith from an altitude of 15,000ft using their Lotfe 7B bomb sights because the convoy lacked an escort carrier and relied on corvettes and sloops for sir defense. -The Fritz-X guided bomb even when attacking from 22,000ft on a Do 217 or He 177 were defeated by allied escorting fighters. -The Luftwaffe as far as I know never put the resources into giving the German Navy the air cover it needed nor to escort its Ju 88 or He 111 naval bombers. For instance the Fw 190A fighter had an up armored ground attack variant the Fw 190F and a long range bomber variant the Fw 190G with twin drop tanks. I don't believe there was even a Fw 190A duel drop tank variant nor was the Fw 190F ever used as a long range naval fighter. The Fw 190 wing in theory could carry internal fuel in the wings but nothing was done till the powerful Fe 190D-12 EB needed it because of its thirsty powerful new engine.
Finally saw a bullfighter at the United States Air Force museum I was surprised at how big it was like it was a big machine I thought it would be a lot smaller
Re: the tendency to discount Italy's contribution to the Axis war effort I think there are a lot of legacies working against an accurate appreciation of the Italian war effort. 1. The legacy of the First World War. I think at least in the Anglphone world, most people remember the mountain of Italian casualties and little else and presume a preexisting incompetence. 2. The legacy of the dark glamour of that still clings to Hitlerite Germany to this day. Not just Wehraboos, but just the broad public conception of the Third Reich that is more reflective of the success of its political theater than the reality of its armed forces. 3. The legacy of 1940. The Norway debacle. The loss of HMS Courageous. Above all the fall of France and the rereat from the continent. I think there was a psychological need to explain all that by way of an almost superhuman German bogeyman that colored the wartime popular perception of Britain. That popular perception formed during the war years is hard to shake, and because the Mediterranean was the uniquely British theater of war, it particularly distorts the understanding of the war there. 4. The legacy of all the, "We woulds won if everyone got out of our way," excuse-making from German generals, and the credulousness with which that was received by a couple of generations of (especially popular) historians because those [redacted] were chummy withe the Liddell-Harts and Fullers of the world. 5. The legacy of (we'll be generous) quasi-racism that infected the output of a lot of popular historians in the immediate postwar decades. Not a WWII example, but think of the sort of attitudes encapsulated in the way Ernle Bradford wrote about some of the less essentially heroic escapades of Nelson while ashore in Sicily and Italy.
I think that the Italians themselves pushed the narrative post war because of the holocaust. They were like ‘ok we picked the wrong side but we didn’t really do any thing’. That said, there’s a lot of blatant Anglo-Saxon racist crap as well. It’s very nuanced. I read recently about the frankly ridiculous claims the RA would make were often made by the Italian pilots to make the officers think that they were trying really hard and not to make themselves look good.
I think the Italians not getting the attention dates back to wartime reporting and its focus on the bigger threats - Germany and Japan. Watching a 100th Anniversary of the RCAF video earlier which ignored RCAF squadrons in the Mediterranean and North Africa but mentioned Burma. The pop history consuming public seem to think Axis means Germany and Japan only which gets reinforced in TV, movies and games. Get Hanks and Spielberg to do a miniseries of the Abyssinia campaign or Malta defence and things might change - I'd watch either series.
Italian aircraft are certainly different looking. I happen to generally like their appearance without knowing much about their capabilities. I think they are partially hampered by not getting next generation of equipment everyone else did late war
Given their production capabilities the Italians were likely better served by relatively highly available and versatile 70% solutions than they would have they would have been by unreliable bespoke 100% solutions. After all, a military that can enter a war fully equipped with reliable equipment and maintain that level of equipment and readiness is better off than one that has the most cutting edge equipment but cannot produce or maintain it in sufficient numbers to be useful. They were well on their way to that capability, they just jumped the gun. There are several reasons the Italians in WWII are underestimated: German generals post-war books throwing them under the bus, limited Italian infrastructure preventing advanced designs being produced, Churchill's "soft underbelly" comments, and surrendering with 2 years left in the war. The first of these was purely to polish their own tarnished images. The second is a classic mistake of militarist dictatorships in general. The third is Churchill trying to do Gallipoli with different results. The fourth is the post-Mussolini government making the only logical choice for the country given the situation in 1943. Combined, these produce an image in the minds of many that the Italians were not as capable as other countries.
The SM.79 was well liked by Italian aviators for it's low speed, low altitude handling characteristics. Which made the aircraft ideal for anti shipping operations.
I don't think I suggested any books in this video by name, mostly because they're in boxes behind me so should probably have had changed that line from my notes... Italian Military Archives is a good channel to start with, reading wise this is an interesting place to start www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1958/september/italian-strategy-mediterranean-1940-43
How many people (including i suspect some of us that follow this channel) know that much about the contribution of the "lesser contributers" to WW2? Easily accessible history tends to concentrate on the "big 5" (Germany, Japan, UK, USA, USSR). Everyone else gets less coverage
Yeah, few people remember just how badly the British were hit by the double-whammy of Italy jumping into the war and France dropping out at effectively the same time. During that time, Italy was anything but a ‘minor power’. Shameless book plug - That was a major plot point of my third book, ‘Texas in the Med’. Dr. Clarke’s explanation of that situation was a big help for me when writing that one. An speaking of lesser combatants, one of the things I have been trying to do is to write my fictional Republic of Texas as a competent minor power, not as the overwhelming force that sometimes creeps into alternate history fiction.
I think the issue comes in part from the fact Italians vs. British has an image problem for Americans who want to hear about how great they were at fighting against the Germans. No Germans and no Americans; no interest.
I gues the Italians have a (selfreinforcing) image problem. Since they never been a top tier military power in recent history few people bother about them in the first place. Therefore the misconceptions about Italys military prowess rarely get adressed. And therefore people continue to not consider them a serious force. And therefore they just dont make interesting movie antagonists.
Why do people ignore Italy in WW2? Well, I have a theory for which, to be totally honest, I have no proof and it is this, based purely on my own reasons for doing so before I educated myself on the truth. Taronto and Matapan basically destroyed Italy's ability to fight at sea and this was one area they may have actually been useful to the war effort. In the desert the Italian Army was rubbish and was more famous for surrendering than anything else because obviously the Afrika Corp under Rommel did all the fighting. And lastly, as much as I loved the SM79's looks it's a bit like I loved the look of a Ferrari but it's a fragile flower and prone to breaking down. If you take all of that into account why would you even bother with anything Italian? Now, I do know that's a load of bollocks but I havent always done so. Germany on the other hand has, if anything, gone in the other direction as I have learned more about how it actually performed in WW2, but because they are seen as being the be all and end all of military forces in WW2 they get all the hype and attention at the expense of their allies. Just my two pennies worth.
Dr. Clarke's posed the question why do people ignore Italy's WW2 efforts? I think what he really means is how come we smart academics keep telling you how great Italy's WW2 performance was and you dummies don't listen? The reason is because academics are being silly, and your readers/viewers are too polite to point this out. For 50 years the Italian miliary performance was treated with complete contempt. Then a revisionist trend started, and attention was focused on things that Italy did well in WW2. This was a necessary revision, but in the nature of these things the pendulum has swung too far, and academics seem to have lost sight of the central fact of Italy's WW2 performance: It mostly sucked. Dr. Clarke's video seems to me to be a prime example of this. He is valorizing the sub-mediocre performance of the Regia Aeronautica. The SM-79s sank 4 destroyers in 3 years. Are these really good results? The Luftwaffe sank 7 British cruisers and 36 destroyers. The Japanese with Nells and Bettys with about the same range and bombload as the SM-79, but slower and with a nasty tendency to burst into flames, sank a battleship, a battlecruiser, a heavy cruiser and a destroyer in 1942. I say the RA underperformed. We need to bring analysis of Italy's WW2 back into balance. We need to bring back the suck.
Slightly annoyed that you posted exactly what I was about to post but i suppose I should be grateful! (As me mam says “great minds think alike and fools seldom differ”). I’d only add that the Italians were quite complicit post war with the “ok we picked the wrong side and they Nazis, it turned out, we’re very, very bad! But! But we totally sucked and just gave up so we didn’t do much harm, ok!” Italy and WW2 is very nuanced but the facts really that the Italians were generally very poor - for lots of reasons, of course. People like O’Hara can spin it as much as they like but it really fools no one (important). One thing I found interesting was about RA and their quite astonishingly mad over claiming of kills (eg shooting down 20 spitfires over Malta when there were none there). This was often to keep the COs off their backs and make it look like they were trying hard when they weren’t interested instead of trying to look good. It’s nuanced.
That web site is soo interesting. I found it when researching for my masters on Pedestal. I was looking for the record of a French passenger sea plane that the FAA shot down for broadcasting the composition and position of the convoy. In a bizarre twist of fate I happen to be acquainted to a four star USAAF general (his mrs and my mrs etc) so I’ll quiz him on it. I’ll let you know what he says. He’s actually very candid.
Italy had a problem producing engines powerful enough to make viable twin engine bombers in addition many of Italy's bomber designs came out of airliners designs and tri-motors were excellent for that from a safety point of view. In the case of an engine failure on a twin engine aircraft the pilots must immediately feather the propeller and apply opposite rudder within seconds or a crash will almost certainly result. It's a frequent occurrence. It's one reason why two crew and special licensing is often required. Many twin engine aircraft couldn't climb out or even maintain height with an engine failure The problem is nowhere as severe in a tri motor. You loose only 33.3% power not 50% and have less than half the of axis yaw to counter act. Modern advanced twins from a Beechcraft on up have sensors to detect engine failure and auto feather and apply rudder automatically. It's so good some pilots don't notice.
