Talk:Italian Navy

Horizon

I am not sure the new Horizon class are destroyers: as pointed out in the relative article, the Horizon class ships are frigates. --Panairjdde 17:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, checked on Marina Militare site, it says that the new vessels are frigates that will replace destroyers. --Panairjdde 12:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm italian. The Horizon (Doria) Class are AA destroyers, not frigates. The new italian frigates will be the FREMM (Rinascimento) class The pennant number of Horizon Class has the "D" for "Destroyer"; Fremm class has the "F" for "Frigates" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.161.249 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

pax tibi marce

Where describing the Marina Militare ensign, Marce is translated Mattew. Marce is the latin vocative of Marcus and he is Saint Mark, author of the corrispondent gospel. The Venice symbol is in fact commonly named "il Leone di San Marco", "the Saint Mark Lion".

Specialized Construction

I do believe that in the modern Marina Militare, the hulls below the waterline are constructed from transparent materials so as to facilitate visual perception of the earlier Marina Militare.

72.82.170.253 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

San giorgio

the name of the san giorgio vessel is simply san giorgio and not george buchmann....

Ranking

It's difficuly to make a ranking of navies, i have linked the Italian Navy 6th on the world looking the plane. A real aircraft carrier under costruction (another in service), 10 modern frigates (FREMM) and 2 AAW destroyer, 3 LPD and a new 20000 ton LPD in the near future.

Italian navy isnt 6th buddy. Get more than 1 source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.247.252 (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about what sources may say, but the US Navy is an obvious first, the Japanese Navy has a large fleet of destroyers (44) and submarines (17), plus a number of smaller ships, the Royal Navy and French Navy are both quite larger than the Italian Navy, the Russian navy and Chinese Navy are more difficult to assess, however, they likely easily make in bulk what they may lack in technology. I wouldn't discount the Taiwanese Navy either. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) South Korea and India also have significant navies. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Marina Militare, the 5th

1) US (* 12+3 ) 2) UK (* 3+2 ) 3) France (* 1+1 ) 4) Japan 5) Italy (* 2+1 ) Garibaldi and Cavour ( Cavour in service in early 2009 ) and Mazzini planned 6) Russia (* 1 ) 7) China 8) Germany 9) Spain (* 1 )

Italian Navy IS the 5th of the world for technology and experience.

• = Navies with aircraft carriers and number of them in service and planned

The Italian and French navies are the only naval forces able to keep safe the Mediterranean Sea by every threat. Their aircraft carriers and submarines grant a conventional ( Italy ) and nuclear ( France ) strategic deterrence in the entire region.

Marina Militare, the 5th

1) US (* 12+3 ) 2) UK (* 3+2 ) 3) France (* 1+1 ) 4) Japan 5) Italy (* 2+1 ) Garibaldi and Cavour ( Cavour in service in early 2009 ) and Mazzini planned 6) Russia (* 1 ) 7) China 8) Germany 9) Spain (* 1 )

Italian Navy IS the 5th of the world for technology and experience.

• = Navies with aircraft carriers and number of them in service and planned

The Italian and French navies are the only naval forces able to keep safe the Mediterranean Sea by every threat. Their aircraft carriers and submarines grant a conventional ( Italy ) and nuclear ( France ) strategic deterrence in the entire region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.194.146 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The ranking contradiction

Hi, I know you're all busy trying to figure out the best way to assess the Marina's ranking. I just wanted to point out that the ranking published on this article and that one published on the Italy page contradict one another (i.e. here it's 6th, in the Italy article it is 4th). Just a reminder to fix both articles when the issue has been solved. Cheers! Radarino (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• JUST SOME LITTLE EXPLANATIONS*

Hi evryone, its really absurd that an article with this importance (we are writing about the military capabilities of a NATO fleet) its so full of contracditions according with wikipedia standards that are usually objectives. About the ranking problem italian page talked about Marina its 4th, the english page 5th, spanish 6th and french 8th. I think that for make order in this mess we must clear something: 1)Doria class (Horizon) its a destroyer class, i can suppose that this misundertood happened by the different classification system between french(Marine National dont use the term destroyer) and other navies (Horizon project its italian-french). 2)The contemporary construction of:

 1 aircraft carrier (Cavour)
 4 destroyers (Doria, Duilio,Morosini, Des Geneys)
10 frigates (Bergamini,Margottini...)
 2 submarines (u-212 class)
 and more...

makes possible to think, according with the theory that the real naval power must be a launch in projection of aircraft carriers battle groups, that Italy can be considered as the 4th world navy. In this case Italy can deploy 2 aircraft carrier battle groups each well supported by lpd ships, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and submarines.

In this discussion we must also consider that the weight in tons that some countries can deploy its less important respect its real fight capability, train and organization. An example in this way its the russian navy, equipped with 4 useless cruisers, about 15 destroyers (soviet era) and about 20 frigates (most of soviet era). What could happen to a Kirov class cruiser if it would be under attack by 4/5 p-31 lightning or typhoon attack fighters? I think it would sank...

So, the modern equipment, the experience and the organization make for sure possible this ranking: 1)USA 2)UNITED KINGDOM 3)FRANCE 4)ITALY 5)INDIA 6)RUSSIA 7)SPAIN 8)BRAZIL 9)JAPAN 10)CHINA

Other speculations, expecially what i found in spanish translations, i think they are linked with a sort of envy complex. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.157.85.4 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Post WW2

"The important combat contributions of the Italian naval forces after the signing of the armistice with the Allies on 8 September 1943 and the subsequent cooperation agreement on 23 September 1943 left the Regia Marina in a poor condition, with much of its infrastructure and bases unusable and its ports mined and blocked by sunken ships." This sounds rather odd, surely what left the italian navy devastated was it's destruction by Britain pre 1943? Intend to change this if it can't be referenced 84.172.195.170 (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

worlds most powerful navys

USA UK France Russia Japan China Italy Germany India Spain Brazil

therfore the italian navy is the 7th most powerful navy in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro5990 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as non-controversial. - BilCat (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Marina Militare → Italian Navy — Per WP:MILMOS#Units, formations, and bases: "Root pages for the armed forces of a state are named, if the official name is known, by the official name's English translation (for example, "Australian Defence Force"). If the native language name is most commonly used, this should be kept (for example, "Bundeswehr")." I do not believe Marina Militare meets the standard of being "commonly used", and is piped to show the English name in most articles. Note that Italian Navy already redirects to Marina Militare, and that the army article is at Italian Army. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ranks section

I've started the edit of this section, like the pages United States Navy#Personnel, United States Coast Guard#Personnel, German Navy#Ranks and many other world navy pages. Work in progress template is present, every rollback will be considered as vandalism and/or an edit war. --Nicola Romani (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Who here is saying that the Royal Navy page should be took as a model? The US Navy page is too long, what about the oters navy pages? I've already ask an admin intervention, once again: WIP template is present, read it and stop your rollback! --Nicola Romani (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The ranks table is already present in the article specifically designed for contain it (Italian Navy ranks). Why create a useless duplicate in this page? See Royal Navy page for example, and not the US Navy#Personnel section that has been suggested for splitting or the German Navy page that (unfortunately) contains almost only tables and lists. --Enok (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I saw your discussion listed on WP:3O. I want to thank Nicola for their hard work to improve this article. However, I agree with Enok that the Royal Navy article is well-developed. In addition, the existance of a specific ranks page negates the need for actual insertion into the article. Therefore, I recommend the removal of the rank information, in line with the version recommended by Enok. I may make some edits to the article myself, as there are interesting points. Cogitatione (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the back-and-forth reversions come close to being an improper edit war. I would advise against continued repeated reversions, per WP:3RR. Cogitatione (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this Nicola. It does appear to be fairly common practice to have a separate page for ranks/structure/insignia, either for the military forces of a country in general, or the specific branches (Italian Army ranks). As the articles mature, this is often hived off to its own dedicated article, and linked from there. A work in progress template does not necessarily forbid other edits, and edits made with the template in place should still be discussed if they prove controversial, just like any other edits. It may be that a trimmed down version can be used to give some information/context on the navy page itself, let's see if consensus develops that way. Benea (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

footnote 3 - comparison to RN Midshipman

Hi guys. The comparison to an RN midshipman is incorrect. As I have stated on the RN Midshipman page, the RN Midshipman is an OF1 officer, and has been the first commissioned rank since around 2006. It is likely that the rank of RN 'Officer Cadet' more directly compares. Will change soon if no one has any objections? 87.224.106.227 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Retired vessels after 1949

Adding all the retired vessels of the Italian Navy since 1949 is making the article too long and also diverts from the main topic of the article: namely a current overview of the Italian Navy. That said I suggest that the entire section be split off into its own article. Before undertaking such a step I would like to hear other editors opinions first. Thank you, noclador (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed order of battle

@B.Velikov: I have reverted this edit. You simply pasted large chunks of info without any consideration to how it fits in. There is already a structure section and there is a page for Commander in Chief Naval Fleet. Instead of simply pasting why not create pages for the missing items eg Commander in Chief Logistics Command or MARICOMLOG Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)