Talk:Battle of the Cigno Convoy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Cigno Convoy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Italian / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War II task force

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

CE[edit]

Did a drive-by ce that got a little bigger, will search my sources for details. Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revised and replaced online sources with printed ones, may have lost a little detail, particularly in the casualties section. Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DagosNavy: I was hoping you'd turn up. ;O) Thanks for the clean-up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: Quite the contrary mate, thanks to you for performing an outstanding job to improve this and other articles, as usual. Best regards.----Darius (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a battle though? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, Keith. This was a destroyer action, just like the First naval Battle of Narvik or Vella Lavella, and a two-ship convoy (Belluno and Tifone, the latter a warship carrying a critical cargo of aviation spirit) was successfuly defended. The fact that no major warship was involved on either side makes no difference.----Darius (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakenham's armament[edit]

I note that, in the 'Action' segment, HMS Pakenham is described as being hit in the stern (or aft section at least) by Cigno's gunfire, resulting in her "aft torpedo tubes" being put out of action. Later in the same section, Pakenham is described as launching torpedoes from her "undamaged forward" torpedo tubes. This is confusing, as the article on Pakenham lists her with the standard 'anti-aircraft version' armament for an O/P class destroyer, of two 4-inch guns forward in 'A' & 'B' positions, two 4-inch guns aft in 'X' & 'Y' positions and a fifth 4-inch gun which was mounted in place of the after bank of torpedo tubes. So, Pakenham being a 4-inch armed, five-gun destroyer, surely her 'aft torpedo tubes' could not have been put of action if they were not aboard? Or had she been completed with just four guns and had her torpedoes installed forward of the aft superstructure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.127.120 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to last point, Wikipedia's article on Pakenham may be at fault here. We presume that the details of damage to Pakenham in this action are verifiable and from first-hand witness reports aboard ship at the time, whereas the ship's article simply lists the standard 'as-built' armament for the P class. It appears, from reference to photographs of the class on IWM and Wikipedia, among other sources, that these ships were numerously rearmed with two banks of tubes, having the amidships 4-inch gun deleted to make room for the reinstated aft bank. Have noted on 'Pakenham' article that it may require editing to clarify this point. 92.29.127.120 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble, I'll see if my sources can help. regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman 'British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After (2006) p. 57 has "in 1942, Q 4-inch gun was ordered replaced by a second bank of torpedo tubes". Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]