Italian battleship rebuilds

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Italian battleship rebuilds

Post by 19kilo »

What are the opinions of the Italian Navy's rebuilding of 4 ww1 era BBs? Worthwhile? A waste of resources? Were these four ships effective units?
MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Italian battleship rebuilds

Post by MVictorP »

I think rebuilt two of them instead of four would have been enough.

The rebuilt in itself was excellent - these ships would have worked great in a place like the Java sea, or in the North Sea as muscular coastal battleships, but they were hardly what Italy needed. Italy needed long-legged, tough escort cruisers and destroyers, and an aircraft carrier (as well as a valid DP gun).

Well, it also happen that these ships counted against Italy's battleship allocation per the Washington treaty. Still, maybe I would have rebuilt two of them them myself - but I would have been contended with a 24knts speed, twelve 320mm guns and some ticker armour myself. Like that they should have been a threat. But as they were they were arguably the weakest dreadnoughts in existance at the time.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Italian battleship rebuilds

Post by RNfanDan »

MVictorP wrote:I think rebuilt two of them instead of four would have been enough.
I agree.
Italy needed long-legged, tough escort cruisers and destroyers
Why? She had few, if any, global and/or colonial interests; she therefore had no need of a far-reaching navy (unlike the Netherlands, UK, and France) to serve, defend, and maintain communications with.

Sure, Mussolini siezed Abyssinia, but that was more a political ploy to test the resolve of the League of Nations and challenge (mainly) Britain, but couldn't benefit Italy in the long run. Furthermore, her dominant central position in the Med, aided by the natural barrier presented by the Sicilian Channel, didn't predicate the need for a far-ranging "defensive" navy.

Because Mussolini had no "beyond the horizon" expansionist plans, at least not overseas, an attendant need for long range offensive operations against a foreign power (unlike the Japanese), couldn't justify having a "long legged" fleet of warships.

Am I missing something in any of this? Just curious,

Thanks for reading,

Dan
Image
MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Italian battleship rebuilds

Post by MVictorP »

RNfanDan wrote:[Italy needed long-legged, tough escort cruisers and destroyers] Why? She had few, if any, global and/or colonial interests; she therefore had no need of a far-reaching navy (unlike the Netherlands, UK, and France) to serve, defend, and maintain communications with.

Sure, Mussolini siezed Abyssinia, but that was more a political ploy to test the resolve of the League of Nations and challenge (mainly) Britain, but couldn't benefit Italy in the long run. Furthermore, her dominant central position in the Med, aided by the natural barrier presented by the Sicilian Channel, didn't predicate the need for a far-ranging "defensive" navy.

Because Mussolini had no "beyond the horizon" expansionist plans, at least not overseas, an attendant need for long range offensive operations against a foreign power (unlike the Japanese), couldn't justify having a "long legged" fleet of warships.

Am I missing something in any of this? Just curious,

Thanks for reading,

Dan
My pleasure.

The Italian navy had way too much of a short reach for it's importance. Of all (five) major naval powers before WWII, Italy easily was the more confined. That's because, largely, of a lack of cohesion, more than long legs actually, but it does add up. If Italy had some 10 000t + long-ranged raiders, like Germany had, they would have been able to tie-up naval assets from colonial empires like France and GB, by attacking their trade routes. Long-legged ships, surface or sub, would have given the RM some initiative, IMHO. Italy's geographical position is perfect for commerce war.

Well, okay, I do agree that long legs were less essential in the vicious Mediteranean than tough escorts... Althought the way I wrote it make it appear as I wished all qualities were present in every designs, I was actually thinking about distinct units.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Italian battleship rebuilds

Post by lwd »

Given the prewar geography Italian raiders would look to be one shot weapons.
An Italian carrier would have been a bomb magnet and likely unservicable at best for most of the war.
What Italy needed was somebody other than Il Duce as leader in 1940.
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Italian battleship rebuilds

Post by paulcadogan »

MVictorP wrote:Still, maybe I would have rebuilt two of them them myself - but I would have been contended with a 24knts speed, twelve 320mm guns and some ticker armour myself. Like that they should have been a threat. But as they were they were arguably the weakest dreadnoughts in existance at the time.
A quick thought: 24 knots speed in reality might have meant destruction at sea - inabilty to outrun more powerful British battleships. If Guilio Cesare only had 24 knots she might have been sunk at Calabria or even at Spartivento (unless Vittorio Veneto was allowed to defend her in the latter case).

I think the rebuilds served their purpose, and could have done more if called upon. On an aesthetic note, they became very good-looking ships!

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
MVictorP
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Re: Italian battleship rebuilds

Post by MVictorP »

paulcadogan wrote:A quick thought: 24 knots speed in reality might have meant destruction at sea - inabilty to outrun more powerful British battleships. If Guilio Cesare only had 24 knots she might have been sunk at Calabria or even at Spartivento (unless Vittorio Veneto was allowed to defend her in the latter case).

I think the rebuilds served their purpose, and could have done more if called upon. On an aesthetic note, they became very good-looking ships!

Paul
With all due respects, speed in battleships is over-rated, and serve a rather strategical purpose instead of a tactical one. Speed is good for a battlecruiser, a carrier or anything that should avoid battle-line combat, but in actual combat, speed is usually among the first victims as soon as there is damage. A three-knots difference may look good on a stat sheet, but the loads of guns, armor and actual stability that replaces it also look quite nice, IMO.

As they were, any UK battlecruiser could sink them quite easily. I'm not sure any Brit dreadnaught, bar maybe the Nelsons, would have a free meal going after these (now) very stout ships, that, anyway, shouldn't be used in a modern battle line, being after all second-grade, rebuilt, light battleships (even 27knts did not make battlecruisers out of them), but as coast defense (what their actual range limited them to be) and convoy escorts. Otherwise, they would be rough equivalents of a QE or a R, which is not so bad for hulls of that age.

And yeah, they were quite pleasantly drawned, the Dorias even more than the Cavours.
"That was all I had to say"
- Me
Post Reply