Guns and gunnery equipment removed from some of the more obsolescent Italian ships and remounted on auxiliary escorts was the idea there. The crews of ships so disarmed man invasion transports. All would have to be transported by rail and mounted on site on the English Channel.
Why? They didn't have a shortage of "guns and gunnery equipment". They had a lack of "good escorts" auxiliary and regular and the crews to man them. So now the RM agrees - out of the goodness of its heart I suppose - to return to port, march its crews to the local train station...and kiss Africa Settrionale and probably Albania and any ambitions in Greece goodbye.
If the Italians had 40 MAS boats at the time, then at least 20. The reason “why” is that the military principle is concentration of force at the decisive point. Is Sealion the decisive point of the war, or Tobruk in Libya?
So like the rest of the RM, the Italians have no need for MAS boats in the Med. Noted.
BTW, "concentration of force" is an easy thing to do in a wargame, it's just shuffling counters after all, but a bit more difficult in reality. In this case, you need to first convince the Italians that giving up North Africa, Albania, and Greece in the long run to facilitate a "concentration of force" - 20 MAS boats is significant? - in th short run.
The ships you list were sunk in August and September, so would not have impacted the status of units transferred to the Channel starting in July.
The Siluro a Lenta Corsa has a range of 15 miles. It depended on its mother vessel for operations.
Who said anything about a hypothetical Italian naval cooperation happening as late as 10 September? That was far too late in the day. I was picturing more like mid-July as the starting date.
That is much too early. The Germans simply don't have the capability in mid-July to lift diddly-squat to England. Adding Italian crews and guns will not improve that.
Mmmn. Seems like this one was an afterthought. To answer your question, planners generally first look at the enemy’s capabilities, not their intentions. Intentions are hard to extract and extremely subject to change. Capabilities are far less amenable to revision. So, we look at capabilities. Were the Germans and Italians capable of moving Italian naval kit by rail from Italy to the English Channel starting in July 1940 in time to participate in an operation in late September? I say yes, they were capable of that.
Planners like to pretend they are looking at enemy capabilities, but rarely do. For example, NEPTUNE was based on a good knowledge of Germaan capabilities in Ob.West, but a piss-poor assessment of their intent was wrapped up in it.
So are we back to late September again? Or is it now mid-July? I wish you would make up your mind.
I’ll ask a pilot with 6,000 hours tonight which would have been the better option – upgrading experienced Italian biplane fighter pilots to certification in the ME-109’s, or using green German pilots that can’t even navigate straight out of flight school.
Why don't you ask him why you didn't respond to the most important part of my comment as well? That way you might not be so reliant on another straw man for your response.
No, I meant that warships entering port in Southern France would disarm their AA and secondary armaments and turn them over to the Germans as a condition of the armistice. All torpedoes in French service would be declared and inspected, and some total of them surrendered to the Axis. Sea mines, same thing. That sort of idea. The French would have scuttled their ships rather than surrender them.
Except none of that was a condition of the Armistice...and such a conditions would likely have resulted in the French fleet absconding to North Africa.
The Germans managed to make AA crews out of captured Russian POW’s, for example, that served in Normandy and elsewhere.
Really? Are you referring to Freiwillger or Hilfswillger? Which units? "Captured Russian POW's" could be either, but there was a significant difference. Freiwilliger served in autonomous units of infantry, artillery, and cavalry, as part of the Heer. The Luftwaffe did not employ Freiwilliger. Both employed Hilfswilliger who were unarmed support personnel.
Come up with some evidence.