A BACKGROUND OF THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 260, 30 July 1941, Page 6

A BACKGROUND OF THE WAR

Convoys Go Through THE SEA AFFAIR

A significant measure of the great importance attaching to the convoy successfully escorted through the Mediterranean last week by the naval forces commanded by Vice-Admiral Sir James Somerville was the wireless message of thanks, and congratulation broadcast by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. A. V. Alexander. That toe convoy was of considerable size is indicated by the strength of its naval escort which included H.M.S. Renown, flagship of Admiral Somerville, and possibly other capital ships, the aircraft-carrier Ark Royal, a cruiser force and a number of .destroyers. For two days and two nights while it was approaching and passing close by the shores of Sicily this great concourse of naval and mercantile ships had to fight off continual attacks by aircraft, submarines and E-boats. Way Of The Navy Once again the Royal Navy upheld its dictum, “the convoy must go through.” Only one ship in toe concoy was damaged but she was able to continue under her own power. The Navy paid the prjee of its success in the loss of the destroyer Fearless and damage to a cruiser and another destroyer with resultant casualties fortunately not heavy. The enemy lost at least 12 aircraft, four others being damaged and probably destroyed; a submarine was possibly sunk, an E-boat was destroyed and another probably damaged. Apart from the one unsuccessful attack by E-boats, no attempt was made by enemy surface naval forces to interfere with the passage of this great convoy though it was of necessity in close proximity to Italy’s main bases for a considerable time. The memory of Cape Matapan and other blows to its prestige and morale must weigh heavily with the Italian naval command. * The Fearless is. the 53rd destroyer lost to the Royal Navy during the war, a grim reminder of the endless risks run by these hard-worked ships. How many have been more or less seriously damaged it is not possible to say. The seventh ship of the Royal Navy to bear that name since 1798, the Fearless was one of a class of eight destroyers built under the 1932 programme. The previous ship of the name was a light cruiser of 3440 tons which served as leader of the Ist Destroyer Flotilla in the action in Heligoland Bight on August 28, 1914, and the Battle of Jutland, May 31, 1916. The destroyers of the Fearless class are vessels of 1350 tons displacement, armed with four 4.7-inch guns, a number of machine-guns and eight 21-inch torpedo-tubes. The Fearless was laid down at Birkenhead on July 17, 1933, and completed within 17 months, in December, 1934. No official figures are available during wartime, but it is probable that the navy’s heavy losses in destroyers have been largely made good by new construction since September, 1939. Italy’s “Secret Weapon”

The British official account of the enemy attack on Malta on Saturday said it appeared that the E-boats were acting as escorts for “small torpedocarrying craft which tried to break through into the harbour.” The Italian newspapers describe the latter as “tiny but powerful craft on which the designers have worked silently for many years and which constitute one of Italy’s most precious secrets.” They state further that a new type of torpedo piloted by specially-trained “suicide seamen” was used in the attack.

In all probability this secret weapon is a development of that employed by the Italians in October, 1918, when two officers performed the amazing feat of sinking the Austrian flagship Viribus Unitis at anchor iu Pola harbour. The heroes were Major R. Rossetti, of the Corps of Naval Constructors, and Surgeon-Lieutenant 11. Paolucci.

Rossetti was the inventor of a buoyant, self-propelling, infernal machine, “something between a torpedo and a mine.” No description of the contrivance has ever been published and to this day it is claimed to be an Italian “naval secret.” Rossetti conceived the idea of using his machine to attack the Austrian battle fleet, which was too well protected by the booms, batteries and minefields of Pola harbour to be got at by ordinary methods.

Battleship Sunk On October 31, 1918, Rossetti and Paolucci left Venice iu a torpedo-boat from which they transhipped seven hours later to an electric launch, which silently towed their machine in the darkness to within a mile Of the outer defences of Pola. Shortly before midnight they took to the water and, supported by the machine, guided it to the harbour boom defences. Then they had to get it across seven separate barriers of cables, nets and booms, a task that took till 3 o’clock in the morning. Finally they reached the great battleship Viribus Unitis, and they had just succeeded in securing the machine to the vessel’s side when they were seen and captured by a boatguard. When taken before the captain Rossetti warned him that his ship was iu grave danger and the order was given to abandon ship. A little later, however, the Austrians recovered from their panic and returned to the ship. But the “infernal machine” had beeu set to explode at 6.30 and punctual to the second, it went off frith a loud roar. Tais time the ship was abandoned for good, Rossetti and Paolucci being picked up by a boat. -The Viribus Unitis, a dreadnought of 21,400 tons, armed with 12 12in. guns, gradually heeled over and finally capsized. Many of the crew of more* than 1000 men lost their lives. Bismarck’s Company At the time of her destruction it was reported that the German battleship Bismarck was manned by some 2000 officers and men. The complements of German warships are generally on a higher scale than those of British meu-of-war, but even that would hardly account for the Bismarck carrying some 500 more than the Hood, a ship of similar size and armament.

According to the Free German newspaper “Die Zeitung” the Bismarck s own complement was 1300, and the extra 700 on board were the “key ranks and ratings of the Tirpitz who had been sent out on the sister-ships first cruise to gain experience of her working. This explanation remarks the naval correspondent of “The Times” is quite a possible one, for the same over-con-fidence which assumed that the Bismarck could repeat the Scharnhorst’s evasion of British squadrons would bo also capable of risking a great part of the crew of the Tirpitz. If the report is well founded, the sinking of the Bismarck was an even greater blow to the German Navy than had been realized. (S.D.W.)