Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- From: "Davide Pastore" <davide.pastore@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:49:53 GMT
"Louis Capdeboscq" <louisec00@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto
> No precise explanation was given (or if it was I missed it), but
> reasons invoked elsewhere and which might tie in were:
> - Lack of sufficient stores in Italy itself. So a full load wasn't
> available and it was decided to send the ship half-loaded rather than
> wait for the depot to be fully-stocked ?
Mmh... yes and no. Italian efforts in WW2 was often VERY poorly
organized, and actually there was a lot of weapons and other
materials available but never sent to the front. In late 1943 the
Germans, after the occupation of north-central Italy, were
amazed at the quantity of weapons and materials they have found
in stores and magazines - in a country which had loudly called for
German help for three years. But, while there was plenty of
stuff to send to Africa, its distribution structure was so inefficient
that some ships might have started with incomplete load, tired
to wait for days or weeks. Moreover, for most of the war the
Lybian front was in a state of perpetual emergency, and
waiting in port would have been difficult if not impossible,
under the continuous urge.
> - Risk of Allied interception. So sending half-loaded ships would 1/
> spread the risk in case of Allied attack, as well as 2/ increase
> survivability (greater speed) ?
I don't think so. I don't think a cargo ship's speed is much affected
by the amount of its load. Actually, in the return trip is it normal
practice, if no cargo is available, to carry a good amount of ballast.
[Note. I recall I've read somewhere about a visionary Italian
industrialist who, during the 1930s, had conceived the idea
of amassing some rare mineral with could have future industrial
applications. The mineral was carried by Italian cargo ships
during the return trip, as ballast (rocks), at token cost if not for
free althogeter. I don't remember the kind of mineral, but ISTM
it was something like wolfram or molybdenum (or another exotic
name). By 1940 this industrial had amassed a veritable little
mountain, but was unable to interest the Italian government in it,
and it was eventually "discovered" by Germans]
> - Insufficient port capacity. Sending half-loaded ships might 1/
> reduce draft (a problem in Tobruk, at least at times, IIRC)
This seems a valid point.
> and 2/ ease the strain on port capacity if the half-load was also
> a combat load, i.e. a loading that would be inefficient in terms
> of utilizing the full cargo capacity, but that would be far easier
> to unload.
I'm less sure about this. ISTM that a single ship with 2,000 tons
of stuff amassed in the hold will require less unloading time
that two ships - one at a time - with 1,000 tons each carefully
stacked. After all, the unloading work is just to amass anything
on the wharf!! Combat-load has a validity in amphibious
landing operations, when there is not a wharf, nor a port.
--
Davide
"Solo se la vostra visione va oltre quella del vostro maestro,
siete adatti per ricevere e tramandare la trasmissione."
(Massima Zen)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- From: Louis Capdeboscq
- Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- From: Geoffrey Sinclair
- Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- References:
- Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- From: Louis Capdeboscq
- Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- From: Davide Pastore
- Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- From: Louis Capdeboscq
- Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- Prev by Date: Re: Unwritten conventions of war
- Next by Date: Re: Saving Lives on Sugarloaf Hill, Okinawa
- Previous by thread: Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- Next by thread: Re: Mediterranean Logistic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|