The U.S.A. and Italy at war in 1891?

martymcfly

Both countries were regional powers with limited to no ability to project any significant power against each other.

At most you get economic sanctions and small naval and civilian skirmishes in random places around the world.

Once the emotions calm down, international pressure mounts due to the disruptions this causes to trade and the economy, and/or both sides realise there is little to gain, the "war" is quickly concluded.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
Historymaster said:
From the archives of the two navies we can asses their strength; Italian Navy, in those years went through a massive modernization;
Click to expand...

And the US was doing the same, with the steel and steam "New Navy." Both navies had experience in battle under steam in the 1860s; the USN won their war (fought in the Western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico), the Italians lost theirs (fought in the Adriatic). Given that's the generation of officers that would have provided the flag officers and doctrine in the 1890s, that's not a good result for the Italians.

Italian naval tonnage: 242,000
US naval tonnage: 240,000
Source is The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Kennedy; table 19.

Modern Italian ships in 1891: Seven Capital ships (loosely defined): Dandolo, Duilio, Italia, Lepanto, di Lauria, Morosini, Doria; Seven Cruisers: Bausan, Etna, Vesuvio, Stromboli, Fieramoresca, Dogali, Piemonte
Modern US ships in 1891: One to five Capital ships (loosely defined): Puritan, 1-4 (Ampritrite, Monadnock, Terror, Miantonomoh), Eight Cruisers - Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Newark, Charleston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Francisco

Source is various on-line sites, etc.

The problems for the Italians, of course, are a) they have to maintain a force in the Med; and b) these are all coal burners, and underway replenishment at sea with coal is c) very challenging, and d) not something the Italians would have had any need to accomplish in the Med or even the Red Sea, and e) the closest Italian shipyard is 4,500 miles away. The Americans, of course, can (other than a small force in San Francisco Bay) concentrate everything they have in sight of the shipyards their ships were built in, with more coming off the ways in the theater on a regular basis, along with all the coal, shells, and replacement personnel they'd ever need.

Tsushima and Santiago worked out the way the did for reasons.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
Historymaster said:
Merchantile ships full of fuel could be used to fill the warships midway; the merchantile ships, then, could go and refuel in any neutral port.
Click to expand...

Coal doesn't work like oil. It can't be pumped through a hose.

Sea-Power-AOGHS-284x300.jpg


Rather challenging to anchor in the middle of the Atlantic.

https://aoghs.org/petroleum-in-war/petroleum-and-sea-power/
 

Historymaster

Defeat teaches more then victory.Transboard coal cashes is hard but not impossible. However I suggest you read Storia della Regia Marina.
 
Virginia Liberal

Virginia Liberal

ok going back to the Spanish-Italian Alliance in 1898 how do a Joint Italian-Spanish fleet based in Cuba effect the out come of the blockade I'm not familar enough with the Regia Marina that early to form an intelligent guess but judging by what I've seen posted here I'd say that they could maybe give the USN a headache at least.
*****Edit ****

didn't US and CS ship refuel at sea during the Civil War. I seem to remember the CSS Alabama having several Tender ships listed on the CSN Order of Battle so did the CSS Shenandoah
 

TRH

Confederate Liberal said:
ok going back to the Spanish-Italian Alliance in 1898 how do a Joint Italian-Spanish fleet based in Cuba effect the out come of the blockade I'm not familar enough with the Regia Marina that early to form an intelligent guess but judging by what I've seen posted here I'd say that they could maybe give the USN a headache at least.
Click to expand...

If going back to that requires postulating the alliance's existence in spite of the political/timing hurdles we identified already, then going back puts the cart before the horse.
 

Historymaster

To allow Amedo I to hold the throne of Spain, you need for his "party" to have a strong majority in the cortes and in the spanish heart; have him making a name for himself in some liberal war, Garibaldi style. Make him a runaway rogue prince fighting for rigtous causes all around the world.
 

cerebropetrologist

Dave Shoup said:
Italian naval tonnage: 242,000
US naval tonnage: 240,000
Source is The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Kennedy; table 19.
Click to expand...

These figures have been misquoted. Table 19 deals with military and naval personnel and gives figures as follows:

Italy: 216,000 (1880), 284,000 (1890), 255,000 (1900), 322,000 (1910), 345,000 (1914)
United States: 34,000 (1880), 39,000 (1890), 96,000 (1900), 127,000 (1910), 164,000 (1914)

Furthermore, any statistics for US naval tonnage should be taken with an extreme degree of caution given the large number of obsolete vessels in the US inventory. Depending on the exact date of the inventory, which is not given here, such vessels could potentially include the USS Powhatan (wooden paddle frigate, laid down 1847, decommissioned 1886) or USS Passaic (single-turret monitor armed with smoothbore guns, laid down in 1862 and decommissioned 1898).

Dave Shoup said:
(loosely defined):
Click to expand...
This does seem to be extraordinarily loosely defined, as a comparison of the ships within this category presents a considerable gulf in capacity:

Andrea Doria: 11,204 tons, 16 knots, 4 x 17in guns, 17.75in belt
USS Puritan: 6,157 tons, 12 knots, 4 x 12in guns, 14in belt
USS Terror: 3,990 tons, 12 knots, 4x 10in guns, 7in belt

It also raises the question of why USS Puritan (launched 1882, completed 1896) and USS Terror (launched 1883, completed 1896) are included on the US side, but the Italians are not given ships like Re Umberto (launched 1888, completed 1893).

Dave Shoup said:
The Americans, of course, can (other than a small force in San Francisco Bay) concentrate everything they have in sight of the shipyards their ships were built in, with more coming off the ways in the theater on a regular basis, along with all the coal, shells, and replacement personnel they'd ever need.
Click to expand...
'Its indigenous steam coal was located in North Virginia and Pennsylvania ; further from the coast and inferior in quality to Welsh steam coal and on the west coast there was no suitable coal for naval purposes at all. Neither did America possess a significant merchant collier fleet or chain of overseas coaling stations. These shortcomings were came to the fore during the Spanish-American war of 1898 when the USN was forced to purchase Australian coal for its fleet in Manila and employ British colliers to help deliver it, as well as help deliver American coal along the Atlantic coast.' (from here; emphasis added)

Coal wasn't declared contraband in the Spanish-American War: however, if the Italians do choose to put coal on their contraband list, neutral British merchantmen will be prohibited from transporting it.

Confederate Liberal said:
didn't US and CS ship refuel at sea during the Civil War. I seem to remember the CSS Alabama having several Tender ships listed on the CSN Order of Battle so did the CSS Shenandoah
Click to expand...
Not strictly at sea, no:
'The next afternoon I had joined my coal-ship, and we ran in to our anchorage, together, in the little, barren island of Blanquilla, off the coast of Venezuela, where we came to about nightfall. This was one of those little coral islands that skirt the South American coast, not yet fully adapted to the habitation of man… we ran in to this anchorage, which I remembered well from having visited it once in a ship of war of the old service... We lay five days at the little island of Blanquilla, coaling ship, and getting ready for another cruise.'
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top