When I find which of these sources
was writing so-called "nonsense", I'll keep all informed.Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO
All the best
wadinga
was writing so-called "nonsense", I'll keep all informed.Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO
And I've checked Rohwer and Hummelchen, Zippo there too, so we are forced to the conclusion it is one of the Italian authors who has written "nonsense" contradicting official records and primary sources. the Italian authors who has written "nonsense" contradicting official records and primary sources. Deja vue anyone?BTW I've just checked the only English origin reference, Chesneau, in the English language Wikipedia article, and he makes no mention of Ambra's action against Bonaventure, so the origin is clearly one of the Italian authors, Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO.
Do these orders relate to the original mission:I have both the operation orders sent to all the involved commands and the original mission report of Ambra
Which was the first occasion when the Mediterranean Fleet sailed through the trap, March 20-24th and returned to Alexandria, or the second return trip when interception also failed?On March 5, 1941 she was deployed along with ten other submarines off Crete to search for British convoys on the route Alexandria to Piraeus. These convoys were a part of Operation "Lustre", an attempt by the British to bring in 58,000 men from Egypt to Greece in anticipation of the German invasion. Ambra failed to detect any enemy ships.
On March 22, 1941 Ambra together with Ascianghi and Dagabur was sent to patrol along Alexandria - Cape Krio line and arrived in her assigned area on March 24, 1941. The submarines deployed as a defensive screen for the Operation "Gaudo", an anticipated sortie by the Italian fleet into the Aegean which would end with a catastrophe in the Battle of Cape Matapan.
It would indeed be criminally stupid not to inform the submarine trap that Italian surface vessels could have been operating south of Crete, pursuing a defeated British squadron, thus incurring the danger of a blue on blue incident.Of course, the submarines were sent out to support of the main operation, but the key (weak) point is that they were not aware of it.
The submarine suffered damage to a variety of her equipment, including both gyroscopic and magnetic compasses. Once the escorts moved away, Ambra surfaced and using Celestial Navigation made her way back to Augusta.
Does anyone have a copy of "Gaudo e Matapan by Admiral Iachino?Who could have invented this level of detail? And why? No British source could know this, it surely can only have come from an Italian source
It's not really a MUST, but it would be simply hilarious. Doubly so if it were Bagnasco.who MUST find an Italian author who invented something to vindicate the British authors who wrote about the Denmark Strait..
....no comment...(any suitable comment would be surely redacted)"incurring the danger of a blue on blue incident. "
Moltke the Elder saidgraphically showing that no incident could happen as the Italian battlefleet was not allowed to get so easterly as the submarines patrol areas.... Study it, please.
Just because Supermarina drew a turnback point on the assumption of no enemy contact doesn't mean the Commander "had to obey orders". Jellicoe didn't plan to end up off the German coast.No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength
Sure, as well as Lutjens could have disobeyed orders following PoW after Hood demise....or he could have chosen to sail to the Indian ocean, instead of raiding in Atlantic.... A strange interpretation of "orders"...."Just because Supermarina drew a turnback point on the assumption of no enemy contact doesn't mean the Commander "had to obey orders". "
...and what is "blatantly wrong" in this book, according to this "expert""Bagnasco has been a co-author with Enrico Cernuschi of Le navi da guerra italiane 1940-1945."
andEnrico Cernuschi, con una ricostruzione fantasiosa, nell’articolo I cannoni di Punta Stilo pubblicato dal periodico Storia Militare, trasformatosi in tecnico di artiglierie navali, mentre io non l’ho mai fatto in prima persona facendo sempre parlare gli ammiragli e gli ufficiali esperti, ha scritto che un proietto da 203 del Trento, sparato alla seconda fiancata di otto colpi, secondo l’osservazione del Direttore del tiro dell’incrociatore avrebbe colpito a poppa la Warspite determinando “una fiammata rossastra ed una nuvoletta di fumo bleu”, tanto che la corazzata avrebbe poi continuato a sparare “soltanto con le torri di prora”.
Since my efforts with Bing translate are so crude I hope a native Italian speaker can help, but whilst fantasiosa tranlates as imaginative, I get the feeling Mattesini is being a little more critical than that, and anyway "imaginative" implies "lack of any evidence".I danni fantasiosi di Cernuschi, cui molti anche in Marina hanno creduto, erano stati causati alla Warspite dalle bombe degli aerei italiani cadute, in due occasioni, vicino allo scafo della corazzata (giorni 8 e 12 luglio), ma Cernuschi, per ovvi motivi, nega che ciò fosse accaduto.
On March 22, 1941 Ambra together with Ascianghi and Dagabur was sent to patrol along Alexandria - Cape Krio line and arrived in her assigned area on March 24, 1941. The submarines deployed as a defensive screen for the Operation "Gaudo", an anticipated sortie by the Italian fleet into the Aegean which would end with a catastrophe in the Battle of Cape Matapan.
and the allegation about her broken hydrophones came from.The submarine suffered damage to a variety of her equipment, including both gyroscopic and magnetic compasses. Once the escorts moved away, Ambra surfaced and using Celestial Navigation made her way back to Augusta.
I wonder which other Storia Militare articles he considers are "much worse" than Cernuschi's? He gives one example but maybe there are later examples of 'incredibile storiella...…...Del resto Storia Militare ha pubblicato ben di peggio degli articoli di
Cernuschi, vedi l'articolo di Luraghi sul fronte russo e quell'incredibile
storiella dei paracadutisti italiani nel deserto nel 1941.
and we are still discussing a ship, submarine Ambra and its part in the battle.My original question was about the ships and the battle
Accused of what exactly?He accused Bragadin, Giorgerini and Bagnasco.... without being able to present any single proof
They are quoted as sources without individual references in the English language Wikipedia article, whilst a different and partially contradictory account is apparently presented in the Italian language Wikipedia. We should be concerned about which is true. If we have Italian native language readers who are familiar with these works they should be able to tell us definitively and without invoking crude nationalistic arguments whether the highly detailed account in the English language article originates in any of these works.Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO
and of the intimate details of Ambra's damage and struggle to reach port:while I don't exclude that an Italian writer could have been wrong,
This is presumably meant to accept that an exaggerated "eye witness account" has been used by one of the sources used by the writer of the English language Wikipedia, and not Rohwer or Chesneau.I'm sure someone invented them, possibly, as Mr.Wadinga said, to make a more interesting story for Ambra by any of her sailor..
Hi Wadinga,wadinga wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:21 pm Fellow Contributors,
The point of a forum is surely discussion and possibly argument. Not to constantly lock threads to no purpose, simply because there is some dissension.
and we are still discussing a ship, submarine Ambra and its part in the battle.My original question was about the ships and the battle
Accused of what exactly?He accused Bragadin, Giorgerini and Bagnasco.... without being able to present any single proof
And BTW the sources are
They are quoted as sources without individual references in the English language Wikipedia article, whilst a different and partially contradictory account is apparently presented in the Italian language Wikipedia. We should be concerned about which is true. If we have Italian native language readers who are familiar with these works they should be able to tell us definitively and without invoking crude nationalistic arguments whether the highly detailed account in the English language article originates in any of these works.Pollini, Giorgerini or the famous editor of that most excellent journal which only prints the most "correct" material, ERMINIO BAGNASCO
At one stage we had some acceptance:
and of the intimate details of Ambra's damage and struggle to reach port:while I don't exclude that an Italian writer could have been wrong,
This is presumably meant to accept that an exaggerated "eye witness account" has been used by one of the sources used by the writer of the English language Wikipedia, and not Rohwer or Chesneau.I'm sure someone invented them, possibly, as Mr.Wadinga said, to make a more interesting story for Ambra by any of her sailor..
Previously we have agreed that there is a strong possibility that the "rememberings" of various Bletchley Park personnel is inaccurate in saying Cunningham had the complete enemy "order of battle" long before the engagement. This is valuable work. It shows some British writers have been wrong to accept these rememberings at face value.
Since the Italian cruisers were caught completely by surprise, at point blank range, the flat trajectories could not penetrate sub waterline magazines and there were no trains of combustible propellent leading down from the shattered gunhouses (ships at cruising stations) to those magazines as there would be in ships in action. So only bursting charges and no sympathetic explosions of the ships' own propellants. The ships were riddled, caught fire and completely incapacitated, but would only sink if uncontrolled fires reached the magazines. Hence the need for torpedoes.
All the best
wadinga