WorldNavalShips .com Home Page
Order Enquiries (UK) : 01436 820269

You currently have no items in your basket
Naval History by Country :
ROYAL
NAVY 		US
NAVY 		GERMAN
NAVY 		FRENCH
NAVY 		MORE
PAGES
VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE
NAVAL ART AVIATION ART MILITARY ART SPORT ART
Ship Search by Name :
Product Search         
ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :
20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS
BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS
FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Tom May's Mediterranean War 1940-1943. World Naval Ships Forums Archive


Tom May's Mediterranean War 1940-1943.


Posts 1 to 19


I have been a long time preparing this, which started with an idea of showing the action history of the ships together with their details (armament, displacement, etc.), but this had to be curtailed as the work might have become unweildy. There are 22 photos, which have been drawn from post card size (or smaller) photos, which have been given something of a Photoshop treatment, although I am obviously a novice. My past included spells as a magazine co-editor whilst I was in employment and also whilst I was at College, so with that in mind, I found that I wished to tell a story using these photos. Therefore, I hope that it goes some way to portraying a story, showing the ships involved in the war, snippets of action, men in the war and the surrender (in part) of the then enemy, the Royal Italian Navy and Air Force. As I said, I hope that this does something in telling of a story. I have supplied an index which is a guide giving brief details of the subject, however, it is by no means exhaustive. If further information or amendments to the descriptions I have posted, I would be grateful. If it considered that the index should be included within this panel I will arrange it accordingly. The origin of the photos was Tom May, who is the father in law of a friend and who was in the Mediterranean as a Royal Marine. However, the information accompanying the photos was minimal and any incorrect details are down to myself. The story begins with an oft seen photo of HMS Warspite when she was on 'Neutrality' Patrol in the Mediterranean during the Spanish Civil War. The ship has markings on her 'B' turret which were used for this purpose, oddly enough I have seen photos of Kriegsmarine with their national colours on their ships, which actually makes you wonder about the meaning of neutrality. I would be grateful if others could expand this thread with appropriate photos and stories, as I believe that the Mediterranean Conflict was pivotal in World War and brought about many changes to the Royal Navy occasioned by hard fought battles.
Attachments :


Looks like a very worthy project, Hugh! Two quickies for you--- 1. Have you read [I]Struggle for the Middle Sea[/I] by V. P. O'Hara (recent book)? You will surely find much to help you sort the combatants, a ton of info to help you place the photographs in context, etc. The book excels for its wealth of facts and research, but is slightly tainted by some questionable opinions and conclusions, including its author's slant that the Med War was a waste of time and effort for the British (although I haven't read a corrollary offered by O'Hara to this assessment). Once past that however, it is a really superb read. 2. The participating SNP warships of Germany, France and Great Britain all wore striped turrets on "neutrality patrol"duties. Yes, Germany was play-acting, showing the world one thing with their participation in these duties, but all the while backing Franco militarily.

[QUOTE=RNfanDan;1721322]Looks like a very worthy project, Hugh! Two quickies for you--- 1. Have you read [I]Struggle for the Middle Sea[/I] by V. P. O'Hara (recent book)? You will surely find much to help you sort the combatants, a ton of info to help you place the photographs in context, etc. The book excels for its wealth of facts and research, but is slightly tainted by some questionable opinions and conclusions, including its author's slant that the Med War was a waste of time and effort for the British. Once past that however, it is a really superb read. 2. Germany, France and Great Britain all wore striped turrets on "neutrality patrol"duties. Yes, Germany was play-acting, showing the world one thing with their participation in these duties, but all the while backing Franco militarily.[/QUOTE] Hi, Thanks for the info re O'Hara's book, next one for my ever expanding library. I reckon that book may well have squared off my captioning to my satisfaction. As you can see from the index, three other parts to follow (despite the title), when I can get uploading finished. Regards, Hugh Williams

Congratulations Hugh on your really interesting Mediterranean War photographs.. In particular I really liked the photos of Hero and Janus and also the shot of the Italian destroyer in Tobruk Harbour and the beautiful Italian Floatplane! ;)

[quote=astraltrader;1721383]Congratulations Hugh on your really interesting Mediterranean War photographs.. In particular I really liked the photos of Hero and Janus and also the shot of the Italian destroyer in Tobruk Harbour and the beautiful Italian Floatplane!;)[/quote] Hi, I had intended to upload this in three parts, each with an appropriate chapter title, however, they software objected to this, so I ended up making amendments and additions to the original thread. So, unfortunately the second and third parts have been subsumed into the first post. Apologies to all, I hope this can really be a first part, with other contributors who can post photos which add to the story, perhaps embellishing those areas which I have made a start on. The content is liable to be updated as and when any more information comes to light following further reading and research. I hope this is not just a one shot job and that it can be enlarged upon. In other words, all comers are welcome. Regards, Hugh Williams

Thanks for posting an interesting series of photos and background. I have a couple of additions to your captions. I suspect the photo of JANUS was taken in 1942; she was in the UK in refit for most of 1943, and had a lattice mast instead of a tripod when she returned to sea. The damaged Italian destroyer is, I think, ARTIGLIERE. The two destroyers sunk at Matapan had both gone down before daybreak, so no daytime photo would have been possible. Also, I' not sure the photo of ISIS, with a J/K/N class ship in the background, is as late as 1943. Tim

[QUOTE=tjstoneman;1721416]Thanks for posting an interesting series of photos and background. I have a couple of additions to your captions. I suspect the photo of JANUS was taken in 1942; she was in the UK in refit for most of 1943, and had a lattice mast instead of a tripod when she returned to sea. The damaged Italian destroyer is, I think, ARTIGLIERE. The two destroyers sunk at Matapan had both gone down before daybreak, so no daytime photo would have been possible. Also, I' not sure the photo of ISIS, with a J/K/N class ship in the background, is as late as 1943. Tim[/QUOTE] Thanks Tim, I had expected some clarifications, particularly in respect of dates. I am just getting into reading about the Mediterranean Operations so this thread is a basis for expansion. I will be making amendments, that's for sure! Regards, Hugh Williams

Hi Hugh. Thanks for posting these brilliant photos. I find the Mediterranean conflict very interesting. Robert

[QUOTE=Robelfast;1721448]Hi Hugh. Thanks for posting these brilliant photos. I find the Mediterranean conflict very interesting. Robert[/QUOTE] Hi Robert, Thank you for the thanks. I hope the theme can be developed. Regards, Hugh Williams

An excellent series of photos Mr. Williams. I wish you well in your endeavor. Monty

[QUOTE=Hugh Williams;1721427]Thanks Tim, I had expected some clarifications, particularly in respect of dates. I am just getting into reading about the Mediterranean Operations so this thread is a basis for expansion. I will be making amendments, that's for sure! Regards, Hugh Williams[/QUOTE] Talking about clarifications, I have just noticed that the Isis appears to have had both banks of torpedo tubes replaced by single 3" AA mounts. Has anybody any knowledge on this one? I am aware that the RN was acutely short of AA, but I haven't found a reference to any other than a single bank of tubes being removed in Lenton and Colledge.

The photo of ISIS appears to show her still fitted as a fleet destroyer, with all four 4.7" guns, fire control on the bridge and the for'd bank of torpedo tubes still fitted, plus a 12pdr (3") HA gun in place of the after torpedo tube mounting (at least the starboard torpedo davit is visible, so I believe the tubes are there). Tim

[QUOTE=tjstoneman;1721457]The photo of ISIS appears to show her still fitted as a fleet destroyer, with all four 4.7" guns, fire control on the bridge and the for'd bank of torpedo tubes still fitted, plus a 12pdr (3") HA gun in place of the after torpedo tube mounting (at least the starboard torpedo davit is visible, so I believe the tubes are there). Tim[/QUOTE] Ah yes, davit mistaken for a 3" gun.......!

[QUOTE]Also, I' not sure the photo of ISIS, with a J/K/N class ship in the background, is as late as 1943.[/QUOTE] Further to Mr. Stoneman's comment above, I was also of the initial impression this was a J-K-N destroyer in the background. However, I am suspicious and have been trying to cross-match with other evidence since yesterday, as it seems to have two funnels--the forward one (belching smoke) but the aft one with the cut-down height these funnels underwent. J-K-N destroyers were single-funnelled, with a slightly larger trunking than the A-Is. This is preliminary and I would welcome sharper eyes (I am slowly losing my visual acuity to diabetes), but I believe I am seeing a rather "unraked" bow and lack of an obvious sheer in the background ship's silhouette---further strengthening my suspicion that it might be HMS [I]Ilex[/I], with whom [I]Isis[/I] operated on occasion. That the second destroyer is laying smoke is perhaps telling, as this was normally a hallmark of surface action rather than a defense against air attack. The two I-class sisters were known to have operated off Cape Bon, but most notably, during Operation Corkscrew off Pantellaria, where the two ships bombarded shore targets in support of Allied landings there, in June 1943. Finally, HMS [I]Isis[/I] missed a large part of the Med War during a lengthy repair and refit, for which she was towed on a long journey to the Far East, delayed some time in completion, then towed again to Batavia for completion of work begun elsewhere. By the time she got back to the Med, she was paired with [I]Ilex[/I] for at least the two occasions noted above, and it could very well be---barring any details brought forth to the contrary---that the photo shows one of these operations the pair undertook in company. Speculative at best for now, but this is what I've been pursuing for you, Hugh. I'm happy to be wrong, but am just as curious as ever about this photo... Respectfully, Dan

Nice photos Hugh, thank you for posting them. Re Isis, when she re-entered service in January 1943 after her 18 month absence she would have looked different. In this photo the camouflage pattern, (13th) flotilla markings, lack of mod to signal deck wings, lack of 20mm, lack of radar, lack of HF/DF, presence of quad 0.5” all point to this showing her during her time in the Med in the second quarter of 1941. (Her forward torpedo tubes were still in place during the tow from Singapore to Bombay in early 1942.)

Noting RNFanDan’s comments, I had another look at the photo of ISIS and ???. My interpretation (and only that, nothing definite) of the second ship remains that she’s a J/K/N class. Aft of the funnel which is belching smoke, I believe the first “lump” is the quad 2pdr pompom (ILEX, or any other A-I destroyer, would not have such a large object there – they had either two single 2pdrs, two quad 0.5” or two Oerlikons immediately aft of the forefunnel. There is then a gap, where one would expect the for’d set of torpedo tubes to be on a J/K/N, before another “lump”. This second “lump” has a smaller shape above it, which might be an ensign above a searchlight platform, rather than a second funnel. There is then another gap for a second set of tubes, before a fairly large after superstructure, larger than one might expect for an A-I destroyer (although the leaders had a larger after superstructure), before what seems a fairly short quarterdeck (without much room for “Y” gun). From this angle, I’m not sure that the rake and sheer of the bow of a J/K/N would be very obvious. By zooming in, I THINK I can see the leg of a tripod foremast. From a tactical viewpoint, I agree that the smoke might indicate laying a smokescreen during surface action (but why isn’t ISIS doing the same?) – on the other hand, it might show a problem in the boiler room – the second ship isn’t showing a bow-wave or wake, so may be stopped. Also, if there is a second funnel, why isn’t it also emitting smoke? I wonder if this shows ISIS off Syria in June 1941, going into action with Vichy French contre-torpeilleurs – JANUS, JACKAL, KANDAHAR and KIMBERLEY were involved in that campaign. I also agree with Dick that the photo was taken before ISIS went east in 1941. Tim

Very well, thanks for these posts, gents! Tim, as usual, spot-on observations! The lack of forward movement was not obvious at first, due to the length of the smoke stream (obviously a fair breeze blowing, that day). Your points clearly establish an earlier time frame, and in that regard, I have tracked down the specific action, date and time of this occurrence. The destroyer in the pic is HMS [I]Janus[/I], probably taken shortly after 1343 on June 9, 1941. She has been crippled by a series of five quick-succession hits from French destroyers off Sidon, and the two ships are being photographed from either [I]Hotspur[/I] or [I]Jackal[/I] (this information comes from the very book, [I]Struggle for the Middle Sea[/I], I referred to in a recent post). Hugh, I hope you're taking this down, as it seems we have some excellent examples from Tim and Dick, of the kind of input you were looking for. Cheers all, Dan

[QUOTE=RNfanDan;1721531]Very well, thanks for these posts, gents! Tim, as usual, spot-on observations! The lack of forward movement was not obvious at first, due to the length of the smoke stream (obviously a fair breeze blowing, that day). Your points clearly establish an earlier time frame. Dick, I noted the same camo pattern from a photo of her being towed to repairs, but assumed this pattern would have been retained, as she was not intended to remain in the east/Indian Ocean for anything beyond the time required to get her back to the Med. I'm afraid I'm losing my 16-year fight with diabetes, and my eyes just can't grab the minutae as well as they could, even a couple years ago. Hugh, I hope you're taking this down, as it seems we have the kind of input you were looking for. Cheers all, Dan[/QUOTE] Hi Dan, I am following this collective research closely and I will update/correct the photographs when the information has been confirmed. I have to admit to lacking the research sources for destroyers at present. I am very grateful for the research being done and look forward to passing the conclusions to Tom May. On a personal note, I wish you all the best that is possible for your health and thank you for getting involved in this 'adventure'. Regards, Hugh

[QUOTE=tjstoneman;1721526]Noting RNFanDan’s comments, I had another look at the photo of ISIS and ???. My interpretation (and only that, nothing definite) of the second ship remains that she’s a J/K/N class. Aft of the funnel which is belching smoke, I believe the first “lump” is the quad 2pdr pompom (ILEX, or any other A-I destroyer, would not have such a large object there – they had either two single 2pdrs, two quad 0.5” or two Oerlikons immediately aft of the forefunnel. There is then a gap, where one would expect the for’d set of torpedo tubes to be on a J/K/N, before another “lump”. This second “lump” has a smaller shape above it, which might be an ensign above a searchlight platform, rather than a second funnel. There is then another gap for a second set of tubes, before a fairly large after superstructure, larger than one might expect for an A-I destroyer (although the leaders had a larger after superstructure), before what seems a fairly short quarterdeck (without much room for “Y” gun). From this angle, I’m not sure that the rake and sheer of the bow of a J/K/N would be very obvious. By zooming in, I THINK I can see the leg of a tripod foremast. From a tactical viewpoint, I agree that the smoke might indicate laying a smokescreen during surface action (but why isn’t ISIS doing the same?) – on the other hand, it might show a problem in the boiler room – the second ship isn’t showing a bow-wave or wake, so may be stopped. Also, if there is a second funnel, why isn’t it also emitting smoke? I wonder if this shows ISIS off Syria in June 1941, going into action with Vichy French contre-torpeilleurs – JANUS, JACKAL, KANDAHAR and KIMBERLEY were involved in that campaign. I also agree with Dick that the photo was taken before ISIS went east in 1941. Tim[/QUOTE] Hi Tim, It does look like this is the action against the French contre-torpilleurs. I looked into the Naval History Net war history for Isis for which I have attached a word document which has the appropriate excerpts. Taking into account the other photos, Hotspur and Janus, which appear to have been taken about that time, the evidence is pointing in the direction of this engagement with the French warships and the bombardment as part of Operation Explorer. The photo of Isis in company with another of her type suggests that the unidentified ship is HMS Hero. That is if I have understood matters so far. Regards, Hugh Williams
Attachments :






Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY  COPYRIGHT  LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS.  NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Join us on Facebook!

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts.  Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269.  Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Follow us on Twitter!

Return to Home Page