Talk:Battle of Cape Spada

problem

I've moved this to here
"Probably the major historical interest in the battle was that it revealed the inflated nature of Italian official trial stats. On paper (on trial) both the Italian cruisers had been listed with a maximum speed of over 40 knots and should never have been overhauled by the 32-knot Sydney. The truth of the matter is that the Italian navy had been in the habit of running speed trials not only at light-weight (without ammunition and full fuel loaded) but also without much of their designed armament."
as I'm not sure what's best to do with it. The observation about the emphasis on speed, and the fudging it led to, is in Conway; but whether this action revealed it, and whether that's the "the major historical interest in the battle" is debatable. And it has a slighting tone to it. Also, the same paragraph also appears verbatim on the Bartolomeo Colleoni page. What to do? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xyl. As I wrote earlier in the edit summary, I think that this statement is basically true; indeed, the trade of armour for speed was one of the handicaps of the Italian navy in WWII. They also committed the fatal mistake of listing their units with the maximum speed achieved in trials, hastily forgetting the wartime load (main guns, ammunition, torpedoes). I guess that Conway and other authors deal with this issue, and, with the proper inline citations, this paragraph could be included in an article about the Colleoni class or other Italian light-cruisers. I have already cited Conway regarding the speed stuff on the Capitani Romani as early as yesterday.

That was not, however, the cause of the loss of Colleoni at Cape Spada. The Italian cruisers failed to outrun HMAS Sydney because: 1) The most obvious route of escape (180º) was to be changed to SSW, in order to avoid being trapped between the enemy and the shores of Crete. This gave the Australian cruiser the chance to close the range, as she did. 2) The lack of aerial recce; in fact, the first notice to Admiral Casardi of the presence of Sydney was the fire of her main guns. The light armour of Colleoni made the rest; only two rounds from Sydney were enough to disable the Italian cruiser, and left her adrift, ready to be finished off by the destroyers. (Greene & Massignani, pp.84-85, ISBN 1861760574). My intention is to replace the uncited and controversial paragraph for a statement according to this source. Any opinions?.--Darius (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Darius : Good idea. The article needs some kind of analysis of what happened and why, and what you’ve said is sound enough.

As far as the speed trials are concerned (and yes, it should be on the ship/class pages, not here) Conway says there were a number of factors involved, so “the Italian Navy … running speed trials ..at light weight” is not “the truth of the matter” at all. And that it wasn’t so much the RM as the builders who were at fault.

But, trading protection for speed is the same mistake the RN made in WWI with the battlecruiser design, so it wasn’t just the Italian navy; and a business massaging the figures for a commercial advantage? Whatever next! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cape Spada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050316090849/http://www.regiamarina.net:80/battles/capespada/capespada_us.htm to http://www.regiamarina.net/battles/capespada/capespada_us.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)