Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Italy's Contribution to the Axis (Patreon)

Published:
2020-05-26 19:04:32
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Files

Previews only

Italy's forgotten WW2 Victories? (featuring @Drachinifel)

The view on Italy and its contributions to the Axis in the Second World War are generally negative to very negative. To a certain degree this likely stems from a focus mostly on land warfare, as such I thought let us look at naval warfare. As such asked Drachinifel on his views on the subject. In this video we discuss the overall contributions of the Italian Navy (Regia Marina) to the Axis in WW2. What types of actions, how many enemy ships were sunk and what kind of troubles the created for the Royal Navy, British Forces and generally the Allies in the Mediterranean. Cover design by vonKickass. Timestamps to related content 01:23 – Wolfpack Tactics – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La6BM3HnU98 01:42 – Why France fell in 6 Weeks – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI29hh5qBug 01:50 – Why Japan declared War on the United States – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPn4mp6y-4w 02:07 – Bismarck vs. Swordfish – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTO3JagV8gE 02:09 – Scharnhorst – https://youtu.be/YD6pgMf1TTM 02:58 – HMS Warspite – https://youtu.be/t-_ExMo0g-s 04:42 – Afrika Korps Worth it? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD8eic4uLUw 11:31 - Italian Midget Submarines – https://youtu.be/zt1O8RIX9pw 15:28 – HMS Illustrious – https://youtu.be/TL3qoaxgAB0 16:01 – HMS Eagle – https://youtu.be/vXb6MVhpEKM 16:02 – HMS Ark Royal – https://youtu.be/sAr5--7W97o 24:14 - Afrika Korps Worth it? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD8eic4uLUw 24:33 – An Early Afrika Korps (Alternate History) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnKDgC9aNu0  »» SUPPORT MHV «« » patreon, see videos early (adfree) - https://www.patreon.com/join/mhv » subscribe star - https://www.subscribestar.com/mhv » paypal donation - https://paypal.me/mhvis »» MERCHANDISE «« » teespring - https://teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized » SOURCES « our brains #RegiaMarina #ItalianNavyWW2 #ItalyAndTheAxis

Comments

Volker Hartmann

I have one question for Drachinifel: I remembert that you once did an interview with another naval expert (Justin?) who said that submarines only could go into the Mediterranean but not out of it. The reason was the stream of water that made submarines trying to go out so slow that they would not propperly advance and exhaust their batteries. He was talking about u-boats i.e. German submarines. Obviously Italian submarines were able to go out. So the question is: How and why? Did they have better batteries, electric machinery or ...? And did the Germans try to get plans for that? After all everything that enabled Italian submarines to do something German submarines couldn't do might improve German submarines. --- Again a great talk! The question you raise at the end actually leads to the big question that you indirectly dealt with in your counter-factual episode (with Bismarck and Drachinifel): What if Germany had went for the Raeder-strategy of focusing on the Mediterranean. My suggestion: All the questions that pop up at the end actually have to be considered in the context of the strategical decision: Raeder or Hitler strategy? Mediterranean or Soviet approach? --- And then I have a question for you that popped up while I was considering this: Why did Germany settle with France on the conditions it did? Wouldn't it be the far better approach to keep fighting until France would accept the condition of handing over the French fleet. Had they achieved this they might really have chances of waging a successfull Meditarranean campaing. And after all France was really badly beaten: With Paris the Wehrmacht had not only conquered the political capital but also a major industrial area, Italy had just joined the war, reinforcements from Norway could be brought to France and there were still plenty of reserves in the Reich itself to totally conquer France and then possibly get at least part of the French navy, thus achieving a position to seriously threaten the Royal Navy in the Meditteranean. Of course I know that fuel was a major problem then, so I know it is complicated, but this complexitiy is what I would like to better understand. I don't expect an answer to all this thoughts I shared. It is just input from my side. Maybe you really want to look at this topic again from a wider perspective, after all it condenses quite some videos you did (including the "War Barbarossa just stupid?" - One of your best, back then you really got me as fan.). I know I am overstepping my tier as Feldwebel (will be joining higher tiers as soon as I find a solid payed employment), so just treat it as brainstorm-input and answer what you consider to be the core question.

Military History Visualized
>>37724885

sent the question to Drach, if he answers, I will post it here. About > Why did Germany settle with France on the conditions it did? I never looked into this. but > Wouldn't it be the far better approach to keep fighting until France would accept the > condition of handing over the French fleet. if they kept fighting the French (or the French Navy) would probably just run away / defect their fleet. Not to mention that continuous fighting: wears down everyone (men, material, stocks, population, etc.), everyone had still WW1 in mind, etc. This is not a min-max approach of Hearts of Iron etc. where you get a pop-up "Vichy or go all?" Also remember the Germans expected very high losses vs. France and a far longer campaign. So the question should be: why would the Germans insist on keep on fighting?