I have written an article about this small engagement in which Partenope shot down two Blenheims of No. 107 Squadron operating out of Malta.
http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/a-costly-raid-no-107-squadron-11-october-1941/
All the best
Andreas
Hi Andreas,
thank you for the link. An excellent translation and a fair descripion. My compliments.
Greetings
Enrico
Grazie Enrico, molto gentile.
Cordiali Saluti!
Andreas
Tomorrow I will post a sketch of PRIARUGGIA, courtesy of Mauro Millefiorini, from the then owner Ignazio Messina.
To complete the picture, however, I think you should consider the follow-up. PRIARUGGIA, 1,196 grt/Dec. 1925, owner (since 1939) Ignazio Messina of Genoa, under Regia Marina requisition since 25.7.1941 (at Genoa), was taking a cargo of ammunition from Tripoli to Benghazi. After anchoring near Misurata (Misratah) on Oct. 11, she was towed back to Tripoli on Oct. 13 by CICLOPE, under the escort of TB CASCINO.
After more than one month of repairs in Tripoli, she sailed again for Benghazi with same cargo on board on Nov. 24 at 6:00 pm together with SS ASCIANGHI, under the escort of TB CANTORE. She reached Benghazi only on Nov. 27 at 11:00 am, but was hit in port the next day during an air attack which developed from 9:45 pm to midnight and, having still on board most of her cargo, literally blew up.
So from the critical point of view of the effective arrival of her cargo, the damage on Oct. 11 had the final result of preventing its delivery to destination.
Many thanks, that is very important, and I was wondering about it. The official history states the delay was only slight (a few days), and in the German war diary for the naval transport section Benghazi I could not find an entry for the arrival of PRIARUGGIA, only for her loss.
Were any of her crew killed when she blew up?
Was she (or A Fassio) actually armed with AA guns?
All the best
Andreas
Here is PRIARUGGIA:
http://www.naviearmatori.net/albums/userpics/10046/priaruggia-1.JPG
Source: Mauro Millefiorini, m1000f on naviearmatori.net
My source is the same: "La difesa del traffico con l'Africa settentrionale", 1972. You only have to use the name index for PRIARUGGIA, so at page 129 and in the convoy chronological table you' ll find the relevant information, beyond the usual propaganda...
Many thanks again!
Would it be possible to use the picture (with a link to naviarmatori)?
All the best
Andreas
And this is ALBERTO FASSIO (not A. FASSIO), 2,588 grt/1914, built by Harlan & Hollingsworth at Wilmington, Del., yard no. 433, completed Nov. 1914, owner Villain & Fassio Soc. An. Ital. di Navigaz., Genova (since 1936), ex RIVA SARDA of Unione Ital. di Navigaz., Genova (1931-1936), previously of Soc. Armatrice Ital., Genova (1927-1931), ex FREEPORT SULPHUR NO. 1 of the Freeport Sulphur Transportation Co., New York (1918-1927), ex FRANCIS HANIFY of the J.R. Hanify Co., San Francisco (1914-1918).
Requisitioned by the Regia Marina at Tripoli on 10 Oct. 1941 (just for our convoy, then).
The picture, from the Achille Rastelli collection, comes from USMM "Navi Mercantili Perdute", 1997. It clearly shows a very heavy AA armament.
No problem in this country about publication, provided you mention the sources.
Regards,
Francesco
(http://i50.tinypic.com/245lx7n.jpg)
Thanks for the picture.
But I have some doubts it's the "Alberto Fassio", which originally had three masts:
http://plimsollshipdata.org/pdffile.php?name=40a0066.pdf
I know two pictures of a tankship with only a tall mast at the rear of the bridge, which very probably is the "Alberto Fassio" during the war.
The picture you've posted looks like "Celeno".
But of course I may be wrong ...
I stand corrected, Klaus-Guenther (and not for the first time, I'm afraid). Actually, in "Navi Mercantili Perdute" there is a picture of CELENO, which looks like much the same ship, only as seen in peacetime. So there was some mix-up there.
Francesco
Hallo Klaus-Guenther
Koenntest Du eines der beiden Bilder (oder beide) hier einstellen?
Vielen Dank!
Alles Gute
Andreas
Das Bessere stammt aus der Sammlung von Peter Schenk, da muß er entscheiden, ob er das will.
Und ein Link zu einem Bild als "Freeport Sulphur No. 1":
http://www.bchm.org/Photos/P86-061-0001.jpg
Hier das andere irgendwo in den Weiten des Internet gefundene, angeblich am 30.10.42 in Tobruk entstanden:
moin,
wenn man sich die Fla-Bewaffnung anschaut, erscheint es doch möglich, daß die beiden Abschüsse, wie im britischen Bericht dargestellt, auf das Konto der Bordflak der "Alberto Fassio" und nicht auf das des Torpedoboots gehen ...
Gruß, Urs
Absolutely so, Urs, but please don't deprive PARTENOPE of all her laurels ...
If you look at the report by the CO o Partenope, I think it is impossible that A Fassio hit F/O Greenhill's plane. Priaruggia was between the planes and A Fassio, so if A Fassio had opened fire in this direction, she would have hit her consort as well as the attackers. For Sgt. Routh's plane, it is at least possible, depending on the offset angle, whether A Fassio could bring a gun to bear, and the distance between the vessels (which must have been small, if Partenope could engage the attackers focussing on the sternmost vessel at a distance of 800 metres from the foremost position of the convoy).
Nevertheless, the British report appears to be wrong, since it claims that F/O Greenhill actually attacked A Fassio (the larger M/V), as did Sgt. Routh. I think given the position of observation, I would give higher credence to the report by the CO of Partenope, i.e. that all planes attacked Priaruggia (which makes sense, given that she was first in line of attack on the left, and the sternmost vessel, i.e. the one where an attack was not going to end up in crossfire). My guess is the intent might have been to have 3 planes each for one target (first wave to pick off Priaruggia, second to then deal with A Fassio).
All the best
Andreas
hi, Francesco,
Zitat von: de domenico am 20 Dezember 2012, 16:02:40
... please don't deprive PARTENOPE of all her laurels ...
IMO two submarines are a fair score ...
greetings, Urs