Battle Of The Cigno Convoy 16 April 1943

[jainso31]

This was a naval engagement between two RN destroyers and two Italian RM torpedo boats; which took place SE of MARETTIMO ISLAND, in the early hours of the 16th April 1943.
The supply route for the RM was now shorter; but Allied air supremacy and the attrition of the war made it virtually impossible to assemble large convoys.
One of these small convoys which comprised two SPICA CLASS torpedo Boats ie. CIGNO (F) and CASSIOPEA were picked up at Trapani by the BELLUNO (4200 GRT) carrying munitions and two other torpedo boats TIFONE and CLIMENE which had sailed earlier from Naples. Cigno and Casssiope were to act as forward scouts and Tifone and Climene were the close escort for Belluno.
The convoy was barely underway when at 0238 Cigno spotted shapes 9000 yds to the south. These belonged to RN destroyers HMS PACKENHAM (F) and PALADIN who were making a sweep north at 20kts in search of the convoy. This was one of the few occasions in which the British failed to take their opponents by surprise and this was down to moonlight.
Cigno turned to engage with her fighting lights on, Packenham also switched on her fighting lights; while Paladin continued north on a flanking movement. At 0248 Cigno opened fire with her 3.9" guns at a range of 2500 yds; one shell hitting Packenham aft disabling her after torpedo tubes. At the sound of gunfire Belluno and her escort came hard about fo Trapani, in accordance with orders. Cigno hit Packenham again at 0250; causing the captain to flood the after magazine. The range became point blank and at 0253 Packenham 4.7" guns blasted Cigno in her forward boiler room. As Cigno drifted to a stop, Packenham launched a torpedo which struck Cigno amidships,breaking her back. Cigno's stern section sank quickly but her forward half remained afloat. Shortly after 0300 a Parthian shot hit Packenham's engine room bursting her boiler tubes and she took on a 15 degree list and slid to a stop. About this time Cigno sank, taking 100 of her crew with her.
Cassiopea had only suffered splinter damage but at 0302 Paladin raked her with 2pdr shells which jammed her rudder and started fires. At 0308 Paladin put out her fighting lights and disengaged and steered SE.
Meanwhile Packenham had restored power and was heading north hitting Cassiopea from 4000yds, Cassiopea replied hitting Packenham's 40mm quad mount killing nine men. Packenham ceased fire and followed Paladin. The severely damaged Cassiopea was content to see the enemy leave - she had to be towed back to Trapani.
The British destroyers withdrew south but at 0400 off SICILY, Packenham lost power again having no feed water - Paladin took her in tow Enemy aircraft attention caused orders to be issued from C in C Malta for Packenham to be scuttled - which was carried out at 0800 with torpedoes.
Belluno returned to sea at 0545 that day and proceeded to Tunis with her cargo.

Comments please.

jainso31

[jbryce1437]

They must have been fighting "down each others throats" at point blank range. It was a great shame that Pakenham had to be scuttled and sunk by torpedoes.

Jim

[jainso31]

Thank you for your interest and input Jim.This engagement was not particularly well handled from a number of aspects eg.it took some time for Packenham to "wake up" as it were -she knew where the enemy (CIGNO) was; and she took two nasty knocks BEFORE responding-why I do not know.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

Not a very successful result for the RN. Their main mission would hsve been to sink the loaded merchant ship. They did not and the ship sailed again and delivered her cargo to the Axix powers in North Africa.

A basic rule of war is 'concentration of forces.' If the two destroyers remained in company and with superior gun power they would have taken out Cigno before she could reduce Packenham to a floating wreck. Next target Cassiopea, Belluno and her escorts.

What was Paladin doing before 0308 when she retired SE ? And why did she retire ? No mention of her firing and only had splinter damage?

Brian

[jainso31]

HMS PALADIN whilst engaging CASSIOPEA,got the impression from the enemy shellbursts ,which caused large splashes; that he was up against a REGOLO Class cruiser so he broke off to the SE. Ref. Vince O'Hara
Brian you are of course absolutely correct -this operation was NOT a "job done"
My thanks for your interest and,as usual;hard hitting comment.
The more one looks at this action -the more questions spring up eg. the British force saw this convoy on radar at at 0242-six minutes before Cigno was allowed to approach HMS PACKENHAM and hit her twice before response????

[Old Salt]

[..........got the impression from the enemy shellbursts ,which caused large splashes; that he was up against a REGOLO Class cruiser so he broke off to the SE. Ref. Vince O'Hara

I see from Paladin's history she was involved in several prior actions with success. One could therefore expect better ?

With 5 single 4" mounts, at least one should have had starshell available for just such an occasion. Then they would be able to see exactly what the enemy was. This may have changed the decision to break off action and retreat.

Brian

[jainso31]

Good morning Brian-first-just in case you are not "au fait" with Regolo Class cruisers-these were three wartime build light cruisers of 3686 BRT and were armed with 4x2 5.3" DP guns and had a high turn of speed=40kts.
Paladin had come off worst in the engagement with Cassiopea-she was not damaged; but was "spooked".
It was bright moon lit night and neither side used starshell .When Packenham got going again she caught up with Cassiopea and hit her with a full broadside from 4000 yds, which caused a large fire forward and she too ultimately lost power; but not before she hit Packenham's quad mount killing 9 and mortally wounding 2 more. Packenham then ceased fire and followed Paladin.
A badly carried out operation IMO.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

Originally Posted by jainso31

Good morning Brian-first-just in case you are not "au fait" with Regolo Class cruisers-these were three wartime build light cruisers of 3686 BRT and were armed with 4x2 5.3" DP guns and had a high turn of speed=40kts.
Paladin had come off worst in the engagement with Cassiopea-she was not damaged; but was "spooked".
It was bright moon lit night and neither side used starshell .When Packenham got going again she caught up with Cassiopea and hit her with a full broadside from 4000 yds, which caused a large fire forward and she too ultimately lost power; but not before she hit Packenham's quad mount killing 9 and mortally wounding 2 more. Packenham then ceased fire and followed Paladin.
A badly carried out operation IMO.

jainso31

Wise move if the cruiser was there. Identifying (?) by the size of the splash is not exactly science, is it . Moonlight night or not, they could not identify the enemy. If you fire starshell first with all weapons ready and facing the right direction, you should get a salvo in before their eyes have adjusted.
If it is a cruiser, make smoke, increase to full speed, helm hard over and get the hell out of there.

I cannot see that Paladin came off worse with Cassiopea ... she was undamaged ! Just imagined a cruiser ? Does not comprehend with me.

Not exactly Gloworm stuff, was it.

Brian

[jainso31]

Brian-Paladin was "Spooked"-there was no cruiser present-just a battle experienced Italian torpedo boat of the Spica Class (1050 BRT); for once not going to run away.
Paladin's crew were relatively inexperienced-having spent,along with Packenham;most of their time in the quieter waters of the Indian Ocean.Came into Mediterranean Theatre in late 1942.
Paladin's retreat because of an "imaginary cruiser" was "unusually cautious"-to put it mildly.
I agree entirely with you about starshell; and a rapid salvo before the enemy had got their sight back.
jainso31

[KizmeRD]

Originally Posted by jainso31

in the quieter waters of the Indian Ocean
jainso31

I guess it depends on what ship you're talking about - those on Hermes, Vampire, Cornwall or the Dorsetshire would have probably welcomed some tranquility.
Merry Christmas to you Jim!
Michael

[KizmeRD]

And not forgetting HMS Tenedos (as I did!).
mb

[jainso31]

Good morning Michael- glad to have you on board.I did use the the term "relatively quiet"compared to the "constant activity" in the Mediterranean.
I realise that the Japanese Raid on Ceylon had caused quite a "crisis" and the loss of ships; but the two ships featured in this thread were not actively engaged at that time.
What did you think of the Italian planning in this particular action-it was something fairly unique to them after 3-4 yrs of fighting the British and I thought
it was the saving of the one ship convoy.[B]Remember they were only 20 or so [/B]miles out of Trapani.The answer is in the opening statement.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

Re: previous posts.

Was it a coincidence that Corrnwall and Dorsetshire were mentioned ?

The brand new Paladin left Greenock on 17 February 1942, arriving in Colombo via the Cape on 24 March. She was at sea with the fleet when the Japanese made their Indian Ocean raid with air attacks on Ceylon. She took part in rescue operations following the sinking of the heavy cruisers Cornwall and Dorsetshire on 5 April and assisted in the recovery of approximately 1,120 men from both crews, many of whom were in the water for 30 hours in a shark-infested sea ,

....Paladin's crew were relatively inexperienced-

After many operations in the Med. she sank the U-205 on 17 February 1943,
The Cigno convoy was only two months later. Her new cew did not join until July 1944

I suggest they were by this time battle hardened . And it is great to read that she had later success in sinking two convoys.

Brian

[KizmeRD]

Originally Posted by jainso31

The answer is in the opening statement.

jainso31

Good morning Jim,

Bearing in mind everything else going on in the Mediterranean, it's a bit of a misnomer to refer to this particular naval engagement as a naval battle. It was all over and done with in a relatively short time and so (although there was some intense close quarters action) IMO it lacks both the scale and an element of protracted struggle necessary to fulfill the definition of a 'battle'.

The objective of the RN ships was to sink the Belluno, however both Italian escorts were courageously handled, thus enabling the merchant ship to flee to safety.

Sorry, can't really comment on the planning of this engagement, other than it was obviously the duty of the escorts to protect the convoy and that by behaving as they did, they did their job admirably.

The RN ships couldn't hang around too long, that close to the Trapani, and so when the (inferior) Italian naval elements made it clear that they were up for a fight, it was basically a case of shoot and scoot. (Options were limited after Packenham took an early hit).

mb

[jainso31]

Good morning Brian- I did say "inexperienced"; but qualified that with "relatively" set against say, the the destroyers in the 14th Flotilla under the renowned Capt.P J Mack in Jervis along with Janus ,Juno and Jaguar etc.
I did not say they were not "battle hardened"; but lacked the experience of nightfighting in the Med.; and one of the most important operations on these occasions- was the standard use of starshell-the very point that you made earlier
Yes Paladin did very well later on; but on this occasion -not so well IMO.Brian I thank you for your informed input; and trust that where we cannot agree-we will agree to disagree.

jainso31

[jainso31]

Michael-the use of the word Battle is in the thread title only-it is thereafter referred to as an action/engagement, which is what this naval event was about-well spotted.
The Italian Plan was for this operation was to have two Experienced Spica Class Torpedo Boats in the van of the convoy; and two Ciclone TBs as close escort to the Belluno.As soon as there was evidence of "fighting", these latter three ships were under orders to about turn; and proceed at best speed for Trapani. Belluno could then sail later when things had cooled down-which she did without further ado.
The British Force which were looking for this convoy detected it on radar at 0242-why no Radar directed fire with their main armament which had a range of 16500 yds Max.or if not when on approach fire starshell-standard practice in naval night fighting???
No-the unit split up and Pakenham took two potentially fatal hits from Cigno at close range ,before she responded ;and sank her adversary, when it was too late to be of any value to the main objective-to sink the transport
PAKENHAM.was IMO the "Achilles Heel" in this operation.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

Originally Posted by jainso31

Good morning Brian- I did say "inexperienced"; but qualified that with "relatively" set against say, the the destroyers in the 14th Flotilla under the renowned Capt.P J Mack in Jervis along with Janus ,Juno and Jaguar etc.
I did not say they were not "battle hardened"; but lacked the experience of nightfighting in the Med.; and one of the most important operations on these occasions- was the standard use of starshell-the very point that you made earlier
Yes Paladin did very well later on; but on this occasion -not so well IMO.Brian I thank you for your informed input; and trust that where we cannot agree-we will agree to disagree.

jainso31

We do not really disagree, the action left a lot to be desired.
Our IMOs differ slightly. But as the man says, "What's in a word ? "

[jainso31]

Kia Kaha Brian for your support in this,not very important;but intriguing (I think) wee thread.There is always "something" in a cupboard somewhere; and a discussion just sometimes unearths the "something".
Hope to talk to you again in the near future; and in the meantime may I offer you Seasonal Greetings and Goodwill.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

Originally Posted by jainso31

Kia Kaha Brian for your support in this,not very important;but intriguing wee thread.There is always "something" in a cupboard somewhere; and a discussion just sometimes unearths the "something".
Hope to talk to you again in the near future; and in the meantime may I offer you Seasonal Greetings and Goodwill.

jainso31

Thanks Jim, I like to look simply from the viewpoint of a ship driver and maritime warfare exponent. I do not have heaps of fine reference books, I just try to get into the minds of the participants.

Seasons greetings to you in return, from a battered but smiling Christchurch.

Brian

[jainso31]

As a postscript to this thread herewith a quote from Vince O'Hara;s book "Struggle for the Middle Sea" viz.
"This action was one of the few times an Italian escort fought off a superior British surface group in a night engagement.In their inquest,the British concluded they had faced fleet destroyers and had sunk both.They attributed PAKENHAM's loss to an unfortunate hit and acknowledged that the crews of the of the two ships lacked experience.
Although chance played it's part and every hit can be considered unfortunate,exprience seemed to be the major factor.Both torpedo boats were seasoned veterans,while the British destroyers were not.[B]That the Italians saw the British first and hit first was significant.[/B???
Finally ,PALADIN's decision to retreat due to an imagined threat was unusually cautious.However ,to describe a as successful an action wherein the Italians preserved a one ship convoy from attack at the cost of one escort sunk and another seriously damaged- indicated the "degree of Britain's night combat superiority" on this occasion as being something less than expected-this last is my addition.
Reader make of that what you will

jainso31

[derek s.langsdon]

During my couple of days offline seems that everything has now been said, but on balance we seem to have lost out having not sunk the Italian supply ship
and suffering the loss of a destroyer.An Italian Torpedo boat against that. seems small change as see the Cassiopea,though damaged, was towed back to Trapani. A messy somewhat confused encounter,but all high praise for our
seamen in the Med during WWII when we did have much success in blocking other Axis supplies heading to North Africa.

derek-L

[jainso31]

Well put Derek-a fair summing up of an untidy and unsuccessful encounter with the RM on this occasion-the old adage applies "one can't win them all"
PS Without an Official "Report of Proceedings"-the absolute truth cannot be established.
jainso31

[Pontius]

Apologies for resurecting an old thread, but I have just joined and have been looking through some of the old posts as I find the small convoy convoy actions in the Med very interesting.

One point here; in the original narrative jainso31 makes reference to HMS Pakenham's 4.7" guns. I thought all the "P" class were equiped with 4" as built. Was the Pakenham later refitted with her designed armament or is this a slip of the keyboard? My references for the War Emergency classes are rather old and unreliable at times.

[jainso31]

A typo I'm sure-it has to be because- I do know Packenham (Paladin Class) had 4" QF guns. Sorry about that.Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

jainso31