Monday, June 16, 2014

Austrian Oak against Italian Iron



The Austro-Prussian War of 1866 saw Prussia and its ally Italy in a seven-week struggle against the German Confederation under the leadership of the Austrian Empire. The war left Prussia and its allies as the leading German power, while Austria lost Venice to Italy as well as official influence over the states of the former German Confederation. The Italians had been goaded into an alliance with Prussia with the prize of Venice being dangled before the eyes of fervent Italian nationalists, and Austria was forced to split its forces to safeguard against Italian action, and the Prussians could therefore not be met with full force. The Italians were indeed defeated at Custozza on June 24, but the dilution of Austrian force only made the Prussian victories easier to come by.  The decisive Prussian victory at Kӧniggrätz on July 3 led to the war ending on July 22, 1866.

Although the Austrians were losing the war, Italian nationalistic pride sought a way to avenge the loss at Custozza, and seeking to re-acquire Venice, the Italians decided that a maritime option would be the best to pursue. The Italian Navy also outnumbered the Austrian by a considerable margin, and in mid-July, the Italians ordered Count Carlo di Persano, the 60-year old commander-in-chief of the fleet to assault the Austrian island of Lissa (today’s Vis) on the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. The Italians were hoping to take Austrian territory to be used as bargaining chips in the expected future peace negotiations. The Austrian main fleet was located at Pola, at least one day away from Lissa.

 Admiral Persano

The island of Lissa was fortified and it was defended by 84 guns along with a garrison of some 2,000 men, and they put up a vigorous defence, damaging the ram Formidabile and forcing it to return to Ancona. The Austrian Navy was alerted and promptly left Pola. When it reached Lissa on the morning of July 20, there were seven armored and eleven unarmored Austrian ships against twelve armored and seventeen unarmored Italian ships. The Italian force also included the very powerful ram and turret ship Affondatore that had recently been delivered from a shipyard in England. The scene was set for the first major naval engagement with ironclads in European waters not even five years since the building of the Monitor during the American Civil War. However, far from all the vessels were ironclads, and the battle would see Austrian wooden ships-of-the-line furiously engaging Italian ironclads at point-blank range.
 
 
 Affondatore

Neither fleet was very well prepared, though, and both fleets were lacking in proficiency, training and leadership. The Italian fleet in particular was poorly trained in both maneuvering and fighting, and this had shown during the attack on Lissa. Furthermore, Persano’s plan were both poorly conceived and not well communicated to his subordinates. The Austrian fleet commander, 39-year old Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, on the other hand, was aware of the limitations of his fleet, and he had engaged his fleet in as much training as possible since war was declared. Also, his officers and sailors were filled with great élan, and perhaps most importantly, Tegetthoff intended to keep all plans simple. He briefed all of his captains that he was to form his fleet into three divisions, one of ironclads, one of wooden ships and one of minor vessels. The divisions were to engage in wedge formations, or “double line oblique” and he was personally to lead from his flagship Erzherzog Ferdinand Max in the division of ironclads. Meanwhile, as the Austrian ships were spotted, Admiral Persano received reports of unidentified ships approaching, and he ordered his force to break of support to the landings and form a conventional line of battle with the ironclads spread evenly throughout the line. Most importantly, he also left his flagship Re d’Italia for Affondatore, hoping that he could lead this potent vessel to the critical points of the upcoming battle. However, he failed to notify most of his fleet of his shift of flag, and most of his signals were thereby ignored as the Affondatore took up position starboard of the Italian line of battle. It should also be noted that the Austrian cannon were less powerful than the Italian, since Prussia had cut off Austria from deliveries of modern breech-loaded rifled guns. Thus the Austrian vessels were mainly armed with smoothbore muzzle loaders with little effect on armor.[1]

Von Tegetthoff’s signal of the day was “Ironclads will dash at the enemy and sink him.” As the Austrian fleet approached the Italians with heavy black smoke streaming from the funnels, the Italians had yet to complete forming a line due to the maneuvering necessary to transfer Admiral Persano from Re d’Italia to Affondatore. The Austrian divisions poured through a gap in the Italian line after the third ship, Ancona, and the Re d’Italia. Three Austrians ships turned port to engage the Italian center, while Tegetthoff himself noted that the leading Italian ships also were tuning port to engage the Austrian second division. Tegetthoff turned towards the Italians with his flagship Erzherzog Ferdinand Max as well as Salamander and Habsburg, but after completing his turn, Tegetthoff faced Re d’Italia and Palestro.  It would be up to the Austrian second division to face the Italian onslaught in a chaotic series of close-range encounters in between enormous clouds of smoke from coal and gunpowder. Ships would pass one another continually within pistol-shot, rapidly emerging from banks of smoke and mist and giving gunners little or no time to fire their cannon before targets were obscured again. It was well-nigh impossible to see national ensigns, and target identification was only possible because the Austrian ships were painted black and the Italians grey. Signaling was also difficult if not outright impossible, but the Austrians benefited from having a simple battle plan that really didn’t require additional signaling after the forces were committed.


The second Austrian division was composed of a starbord wing of four wooden ships (Graf Radetzky, Donau, Novara and Kaiser), a port wing of another four wooden ships (Erzherzog Friedrich, Adria, Furst Schwarzenberg, Greif, and from 5PM, Stadium). The division was led from Kaiser sailing in between the two wings, and commanded by Commodore Anton, Freiherr von Petz.

Anton von Petz

Von Petz was born on January 24, 1819, in Untervenitze (today's Veneţia de Jos), which was located in the region of Siebenbürgen in present-day Romania. He joined the Austrian Navy as a cadet in 1837 after finishing the Naval College in Venice, which was part of the Austrian Empire at the time. He was posted to the frigate Guerriera under command of Archduke Friedrich in 1840 and he took part in actions off the coast of Syria as part of a British-Turkish-Austrian expedition against Muhammed Ali Pasha, the ruler of Egypt, who was engaged in a war against the Ottoman Empire.

1842 saw von Petz appointed as the adjutant of the commandant of the Austrian Navy, Archduke Friedrich, on board the frigate Bellona as the Archduke traveled to England for studies. Von Petz then spent three years as professor of mathematics at the Marine College. Anton von Petz was then again to see combat in 1849 as 1st Lieutenant on board the Vulcan, when the Austrian Navy took part in the naval blockade of Venice during the First War of Italian Independence, which mainly was a war between Austria and Sardinia. He was then in command of minor warships until he was made Director of Fitting at the Sea Arsenal of Venice as well as adjutant to the Commander of the Navy.

Von Petz’s ship Kaiser of 5,194 tonnes was launched on October 5, 1858, at the Marinewerke (today’s Uljanik shipyard) at Pola. She was both the last wooden ship-of-the-line built for the Austrian Navy and the only screw-driven ship of this type. Kaiser had a crew of some 900 sailors and officers and she was armed with 90 guns on two decks: sixteen 60-punders, seventy-four 30-pounders and two 24-pounders. She was rigged as a three-masted full rigged ship with an auxiliary 2,000 horsepower steam engine. The ship was 266 feet long with a beam of 56 feet and a draft of 24 feet. Her top speed was 12.5 knots. Following commissioning in 1859, Kaiser became the flagship of the Austrian Navy, but she quickly became obsolete following the introduction of ironclads. Kaiser served in a defensive role during the German-Danish war of 1864 as part of the Austrian squadron in the North Sea. Following the Battle of Lissa, Kaiser was reconstructed as an ironclad and modified to carry ten 23-pounder guns in casemate mountings. She served in this role until 1902, when she was decommissioned, striped and renamed Bellona. She served as a hulk in Pola until 1918.

This painting by Constantine Volanakis shows the ships locked in tight groups. The Kaiser dominates the foreground while the Re d'Italia sinks to her left



Von Petz was not one to be intimidated as the Italians steamed towards his wooden ships, even as he saw Affondatore emerging from the dense smoke clouds. Admiral Persano tried to ram Kaiser twice, but as it turned out, maneuvering a large vessel in an attempt to ram is more difficult than it seems. However, fire from the enormous 300-pounder guns of Affondatore caused quite a bit of damage to the Kaiser, dismounting an upper-deck gun, wounding or killing six men at the wheel of the Kaiser, smashing the engine-room telegraph, binnacle and other parts of the vessel. Von Petz responded with broadsides from his damaged ship, and much damage was caused to the Affondatore’s top-hamper and deck. The proximity of the ships also led to exchanges of small-arms fire from marines and sailors on deck and on the tops. A third attempt to ram found Kaiser straight ahead of Affondatore. However, as the Affondatore steamed towards the Austrian ship, Admiral Persano ordered the captain to veer off to avoid a collision, perhaps out of chivalric sentiment.
 
 A painting by Alex Kirchner featuring the Kaiser with the Ré di Portogallo behind her and Erzherzog Ferdinand Max to the left.

Von Petz had barely managed to evade the formidable Affondatore when a new threat emerged in the shape of the ironclad Ré di Portogallo, which was commanded by Captain Ribotti who led Italian rear. Ré di Portogallo, together with Maria Pia and Varese, had brought heavy fire to bear on the lead ships of von Petz’s division. Several projectiles flew over Kaiser, hitting Novara, Erzherzog Friedrich and Kaiserin Elizabeth instead. Von Petz ordered full speed ahead in an attempt to ram and sink Ré di Portogallo. Kaiser did hit the Italian vessel at the beam abreast of the machinery, but at an angle. Nevertheless, the impacts shore off most of the small boats and damaged several gun ports as well as tearing off some sixty feet of armor. Ré di Portogallo replied with broadside from point-blank range that tore of the bowsprit, started a fire on board as well as causing the foremast to fall down with rigging and all into the funnel. The imperial crown from the Kasier’s figure-head was left on Ré di Portogallo’s deck. More importantly, the steam pressure began to decrease, but Kaiser managed fire off additional rounds at the Ré di Portogallo as the Italian vessel turned starboard, with several shot striking below her armor and with a 24-pound shell exploding on deck before the Ré di Portogallo disappeared in the smoke. Yet, the action wasn’t over for Von Petz as the ironclad Maria Pia loomed up at a distance of some 800 yards. Von Petz immediately engaged the enemy despite the state of his damaged and burning ship, and as the Kaiser fired its guns, two Italian shells burst between the decks of the Kaiser, putting part of her battery out of action. A steam pipe was also ruptured and the quarter deck was almost swept clean. The chief engineer informed von Petz that the machinery no longer could be trusted, and with fire on the port side and over the wreck of the funnel, von Petz decided to pull away in attempt to reach the harbor of San Giorgio di Lissa. Several other ships of von Petz’s division had also been damaged by the Italian ironclads, but the rear of the Italian line had unexpectedly been held in check by von Petz’s wooden ships.
 
 Eduard Nezbeda's painting of the Kasier ramming the Ré di Portogallo.

 While von Petz and his division battled the Italians, the Austrian ironclads were fully engaged with their counterparts. Erzherzog Ferdinand Max rammed Re d'Italia and Palestro. Striking both ships with glancing blows, Tegetthoff inflicted enough damage to sink Palestro. Returning to Re d'Italia, Erzherzog Ferdinand Max pounded the Italian ship with gunfire before ramming it. Opening an 18-foot hole, the ramming attack sent the Italian ship to the bottom. Following these dramatic actions, Admiral Persano chose to withdraw with his fleet.

Aftermath
The Battle of Lissa was the first time two fleets of ironclads met in battle and it was also the last time the ram was used effectively in battle. The Italians lost two ironclads as well as 620 dead and 20 wounded. Several Austrian ships were damaged in the battle, although the casualties were limited to 38 killed and 138 wounded. The battle did demonstrate many of the challenges of the ironclad era, for example how to handle machinery and steering gear, what formation to fight in, and how to communicate. Also, the Battle of Lissa serves as an excellent example of the importance of establishing and maintaining the Aim, as demonstrated by Tegetthoff and his simple and direct plan.  

Admiral Persano returned to Italy and a court-martial for cowardice. He was found guilty of negligence and incapacity, stripped of his rank and forced to leave the Italian Navy. However, Austria was forced to cede Venice to Italy, although the Austrian victory at the Battle of Lissa probably did prevent additional loss of territory along the Dalmatian coast.

The Battle of Lissa did show that the ram could be of use in an era when armor was superior to guns, and rams came in vogue in shipbuilding around the world for several decades after the battle. Ramming as a tactic also pointed out the necessity of being able to fire the main armament over the prow of a vessel. Various solutions with central batteries and prow-mounted heavy guns were tried out over the next decade, and these experiments led up to the turreted men-of-war that emerged during the late 1800s.   

Commodore von Petz was one of the celebrated victors of Lissa. He was awarded the Maria-Theresia-Orden on August 29, 1866 and promoted to Rear Admiral. Von Petz then went on to serve as commandant of the Fiume Naval Academy between October 1866 and September 1867. He was subsequently made the deputy Harbor Admiral of Pula before taking command of an expedition to Siam, China, Japan and South America between 1869 and 1871 with the frigate Donau and the corvette Erzherzog Friedrich. Von Petz was eventually promoted to Vice Admiral and commander of the Trieste Naval Region. He died on May 7, 1885, and he is buried at the Trieste military cemetery together with his wife, Elisabeth von Petz (neé von Narischkine).

 Kaiser immediately after the Battle of Lissa. Note the missing funnel and foremast.


Sources

Sir William Laird Clowes. Four moderns naval campaigns. January 1902.

R. G. Grant. Battle at Sea: 3,000 years of Naval Warfare.

Richard Hill. War at Sea in the Ironclad Age. London: Cassel, 2000.

Donald Macintyre and Basil W. Bathe. Örlogsfartyg genom seklen. Gӧteborg: Wahlstrӧm & Widstrand, 1968

Lincoln P. Paine. Warships of the World to 1900.

Lawrence Sondhaus. The Naval Policy of Austria-Hungary, 1867-1918. United States Naval Institute. Proceedings, January 1901.

<biographien.ac.at/oebl_8/14.pdf>




[1] The situation was often reversed in the land battles with the Austrian army having modern artillery and the Prussians older pieces.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Capronis shot down over the Baltic Sea



On June 13, 1952, Soviet MiG-15s shot down a Swedish DC-3 returning from a SIGINT flight, and three days later the Soviets shot down a Swedish Catalina that was searching for survivors from the downed DC-3. The Soviets denied shooting down the DC-3, the Swedes claimed that the flight had been a navigational training flight, and Swedish media took an anti-Soviet stance. However, the Swedish Air Force (SwAF) did have a fairly long tradition of flying very close to or downright violating other countries’ airspace, and in 1944 this led to the shooting down of three Swedish Caproni reconnaissance aircraft.

The SwAF was in sad shape when the Second World War broke out in 1939, and there was an intense search for new aircraft to purchase. For obvious reasons most nations in Europe as well as the United States had little interest in exporting aircraft, and the SwAF hafd to make do with what was available. This included the Italian Caproni Ca.313 reconnaissance bomber (Ricognizione Piccolo Bombardamento), and Sweden ordered 84 of these aircraft for use as bombers, reconnaissance aircraft and transports. Their Swedish designations were B 16, S 16 and Tp 16, respectively.      

 Caproni Ca.313 in Swedish service (flyghistoria.org).


The Capronis spent five unhappy years in the SwAF between 1940 and 1945. In all 41 aviators were killed while flying this aircraft and 21 Capronis were destroyed in accidents, earning it the nickname “The Flying Coffin.” The Caproni was so remarkably accident-prone that SwAF General Nils Söderberg suspected that the aircraft had been sabotaged, since they were originally intended for export to France. The calamities were actually caused by several factors, including bad manufacturing from low-quality materials, diluted fuel due to wartime restrictions, exposure to seasonal variations that the aircraft wasn’t designed for, excessive use of the airframes themselves and general misuse, including attempts to use the Caproni as a dive bomber.   

In all 40 Capronis were used as reconnaissance aircraft, and they were equipped with long-range fuel tanks as well as three cameras: a high altitude camera, an obliquely-mounted overview camera and a hand-held camera. They were arguably the first long-range reconnaissance aircraft in SwAF service, and they were based at two wings, F3 at Malmslätt and F11 at Nykӧping. The Capronis flew reconnaissance mission around most of Sweden, ranging from the Arctic to the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak, and at least one mission was flown to the immediate vicinity of the German rocket research facility at Peenemünde. On August 28, 1943, there was Swedish concern of a possible German invasion, and a Caproni from F11 flew from Everӧd in southern Sweden to carry out reconnaissance of several German harbors. Besides obvious domestic use, it may be reasonable to assume that photographs taken during such missions would be excellent to barter with the western Allies’ intelligence organizations, a precursor to the exchanges of intelligence that would lead to the demise of the DC-3 in 1952.

 Aerial photograph of the German rocket site at Peenemünde taken by a Caproni crew from F11
(f11museum.se).

The reconnaissance missions were intensified during the Fall of 1943, and the Germans were in all likelihood aware of the SwAF efforts. As the Swedish attitude became increasingly pro-Allied, patience with the Swedish flights may have been lost. On May 14, 1944, a Caproni from F11 was shot down by two Messerschmitt Bf 109Gs off the coast of Lithuania. One crew member was killed, and the three others were rescued by a German steamer. The next day, May 15, saw the disappearance of yet another Caproni close to the location where the first one was lost. A few days later, the German authorities admitted to shooting down a Caproni on May 14. They claimed that the Swedish aircraft was mistaken for a Soviet aircraft when attacked from above, and that the Swedish markings were only seen as the aircraft crashed. The Germans did use the opportunity to scold the Swedes for flying close to the Baltic coast during times of war, even if they remained over international water. There was no admitting to shooting down a plane on May 15, but refugees from the Baltic states later told the Swedish authorities that they had seen German aircraft shoot down a Swedish aircraft. The crew was never recovered. Swedish protests on May 27 did lead to the repatriation of the three surviving crew members from the Caproni that was shot down on May 14. Yet another Caproni, this time a bomber from F7 Såtenäs, disappeared in the Skagerrak area on May 23. Parts from the Caproni were found by Danish fishermen in 1951, and the parts did show both bullet holes and burns.

Although the camouflage of the Capronis differed quite a bit from the Soviet green or gray aircraft of that era, Swedish aircraft did not carry national markings on top of their wings until June of 1944. The SwAF did change their tactics, and individual missions were not flown. The frequency of the reconnaissance missions was also decreased, at least until the end of the Second World War.



Sources:

Giorgio Apostolo. Caproni Ca,311/314. Torino: La Bancarella Aeronautica, 2007



<f11museum.se>

<weaponsandwarfare.com>

Friday, May 9, 2014

Calling names - the Origin of Gook


Dehumanizing the enemy is part of many, if not most, conflicts throughout the history of mankind, and using derogatory names is part of such efforts. In some cases such names may not be seen as serious pejoratives, such as calling Germans "Fritz" or British fighting the Americans referring to the latter as "Cousin Jonathan", but when racial differences are added to the cultural differences, name-calling rapidly changes into full-forced slurs and bigotry. The term “gook” is indeed derogatory, but it has nevertheless been used quite a bit during the 20th century. It has become well-known outside military circles through both film and literature about the wars of the last century in general and the Vietnam War in particular.

As so often happens, it is difficult to determine exactly when this word came into use.  It has been claimed that the word was initially used by U.S. Marines fighting in the Moro Rebellion (1899-1913 and unconnected to the Philippine-American war of 1899-1902), and that the word was influenced by the word “gugu”, which in turn supposedly is derived from the bark of the “gu-gu” tree that was used by Filipino women to wash their hair. Another, perhaps more reasonable, explanation states that the term is derived from the attempts of American soldiers to mimic languages spoken by the Filipinos, languages that derisively described as “dog languages”. The languages were ridiculed and infantilized as being “goo-goo” or “gugu”, and this evolved into “gook” in a process not unlike ancient Greeks referring to non-Greek speech sounding like “bar-bar.” Claude F. Line, a young private in the Philippines at the time, wrote in a letter home not only of his love of home and family, but also his delight at terrifying two Filipino civilians: “They were the first goo-goos I ever saw turn white." It should be noted that the U.S. involvement in the Philippines also led to the Tagalog word “bundok” being assimilated into American English as the word “boondocks.”



A Moro tribesman during the turn of the previous century (<www.savageandsoldier.com/articles/asia/Moro.html>)

Filipinos were thus referred to as “gooks”, and the term traveled on with the Marines to Nicaragua in 1912, with the local Nicaraguans also being referred to as “gooks”.  When Marines deployed to Haiti in 1915, the word “gook” was once again used for local inhabitants.

However, in 1893, the word “gook” was already to be found in a dictionary, and it was described as a “low prostitute”, synonymous with “barrack hack” and “tart”, and since the Philippines were Spanish possessions up to 1898, the term predates any U.S. military involvement. Could it be that the term had traveled over to the United States via commercial links with the Philippines or some other region in Asia and that the term was already used by merchant mariners before the U.S. involvement in the Philippines to connect contempt for natives with contempt for "promiscuous" women?

The term “gook: was apparently used up to the Second World War in various, primarily Asian, theaters of war, but more specific ethnic slurs such as “nip” or “chink” seem to have been preferred by U.S. servicemen. Gook was also used as derogatory term for North African Arabs, and the term may have lived on in the French community during the Algerian War (1954-1962).

(waeguk.com)

The Korean War did however bring back “gook” with full force into the American military slang. The Korean the term for foreigner or alien is “waeguk-saram” or just “waegukin.” It has been claimed that when U.S. servicemen were addressed as “waegukin” this was interpreted as “we gooks”, and thus the word “gook” was re-discovered as a derogatory term early in the conflict. The use rapidly became so widespread that General Douglas MacArthur gave orders that term be discontinued since it “gave "aid and comfort to the enemy" by calling into question the U.S. commitment to democratic ideals. Official U.S. sources later stated that the term wasn’t used by U.S. soldiers later on in the war, but that is, of course, far from the truth.

With her brother on her back a war weary Korean girl tiredly trudges by a stalled M-26 tank, at Haengju, Korea., 06/09/1951
Item from Record Group 80: General Records of the Department of the Navy, 1804 - 1983

With many Korean War veterans still in service when the Vietnam War escalated, the word “gook” once again came into use as a derogatory term for Vietnamese. With the Vietnam War being part of mainstream media and popular culture, “gook” has been heard in any number of circumstances. In 2000, Senator John McCain referred to his wartime experience while attempting to apologize to the Vietnamese community at large by stating that “I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live… I was referring to my prison guards and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend.”



Sources:

Dirk deRoos. Lightning from the Clouds: The U.S. Army and the Moro Wars. <www.savageandsoldier.com/articles/asia/Moro.html>

               John S. Farmer and W. E. Henley. Slang and its analogues, past and present. A dictionary,
 historical and comparative, of the heterodox speech of all classes of society for more than three hundred
 years. With synonyms in English, French, German Italian etc. 
1893 <www.archive.org/stream/slangitsanalogue03farmuoft/slangitsanalogue03farmuoft_djvu.txt>
 

Robert G. Kaiser. Friend or Foe, He’s still A GOOK. St. Petersburg Times, October 20, 1969. <http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9fwNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-nsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7218,7089053&dq=gook>

 

Jason Ma. McCain Apologizes for ‘Gook’ Comment. Asiaweek, February 24, 2000

 

Jason Renshaw. The Korean notion of “waeguk-saram” (foreigner). October 1, 2009. <http://jasonrenshaw.typepad.com/jason_renshaws_web_log/2009/10/the-korean-notion-of-waeguksaram-foreigner.html>

 

David Roediger. Gook: The Short History of an Americanism. Monthly Review, 1992, Volume 43, Issue 10 (March) <http://www.davidroediger.org/articles/gook-the-short-history-of-americanism.html>

 

Raymond Leon Roker. How Come McCain’s “Gook” Slur Isn’t Bigger News? Huffington Post, October 20, 2008

Soldiers Revive ‘Gook’ as a Name for Korea Reds. Los Angeles Times, August 6, 1950.

 

Waeguk Blog. <waeguk.com>