RedBear87

I accept the proposition that torpedoes can't make up for guns in cruisers, but just how superior? Maximum theoretical range? That's true compared to Agano, but Kai-Agano would have the edge here with the 15.5cm guns. As I mentioned before I think/fear Kai-Agano could be better suited for tier VI placement or anyway being the Japanese equivalent of Leander, at least partially filling the Japanese missing links in light cruisers.

Moving the discussion from the Q&A before Ev1n gets angry Noticeably better on the magazines, but almost comparable on the machinery (76mm vs 60mm on the belt, 25mm vs 20mm on the deck). And the Type 93 was quite better than anything else, compared to the later Mark IX** it's almost 10 knots faster (41 knots vs 48-50 knots) and it had over twice the range (at maximum speed, 11,000 yards vs 21,900 yards), this combination should allow it to launch spreads as effective as the Mark IX at a longer range or more effective spreads at the same range. Only in the explosive charge the later Mark IX models could be comparable despite the smaller warhead, because of the torpex.

Yeah, one has to keep in account the internal space, etc. also the weight of boilers, turbines and so on. It's actually a very interesting subject, but it's not easy to come up with a solution without having at disposal all the involved parameters and a good knowledge of naval architecture... Anyway, I kind of forgot to mention it, the conversion of Impero to carrier was only briefly considered, but abandoned without any kind of work actually being carried out, Impero was being completed as a battleship when work was interrupted. From your last phrase I think it's possible (maybe I'm wrong) to understand that the conversion was started but not completed.

Caracciolo is a pain in that place, the various changes proposed while she was under construction invariably led to the lowering of the belt under the water line, for instance the 1919 plan of adding armour to raise horizontal protection to 90-110mm increased the draught to 10 metres, with 2/3 of the main belt disappearing under the sea (the belt was 300mm only on the waterline, the upper part was 220mm). Another serious issue was the lack of adequate underwater protection, which was never fully addressed, apparently adding bulges, which would have also helped with the draught, was not even considered (I suppose lowering speed was unacceptable). A full reconstruction à la Cavour could give interesting results, but it's just a speculation on my side, lighter machinery and the Pugliese system could help with the draught and improve underwater protection without reducing speed.

Well, at least unlike radar some practical experiments had been carried out and a working design was already available, German aid was also more widely searched and obtained with several ships being equipped with German sets (and better German depth charge equipment) before the Italian sets became available; one should keep in mind that Regia Marina didn't expect to take part in any major conflict until 1942 at the earlier, something could have been done in this regard during those two years, perhaps...

The plane seems to sit above a catapult, the problem is whether that catapult was powerful enough to launch a Re.2000. The problem with sonar was the lack of interest, the first set became available in 1938, but it wasn't placed in mass production until s##t hit the fan, only Albatros and Orsa had experimental sets at the beginning of the war.

In this website (trial?) displacement for the latter projects is given at 32,000 tons. I've read here that apparently those were little more than exercises that disregarded the actual logistic bottlenecks of the Austro-Hungarian navy. Unfortunately I don't have access to specific books about them at the moment, do you have the title(s) anyway?

It was lighter than most contemporary pre-dreadnoughts, which generally carried four large calibre guns in two twin mounts, but they were built on a fairly limited displacement with high speed (by pre-dreadnought standard) in mind. EDIT: Kind of ninja-ed.

Oh my, you're right, it's exactly Abruzzi. I got confused, this is the artist's impression by Franco Harrauer on Warships: It does have the 90mm/50 at least.

Ciano is problematic because it was never turned into a formal project, there aren't even plans like the ones for the Spanish Ansaldo cruisers. I believe it has been already mentioned before in one of the previous iterations of this thread, anyway I'll remind everyone that the profile on the website of the navy is "fake", or better, it's an artist's impression. It was also featured on the Warships article about the Breakout Fleet, actually I've the impression it could have been made for that article in the first place. Errata corrige. For the Spanish cruisers there's not really much to say, they were proposals for the ambitious naval build-up that Franco promised to the navy, which was also supposed to offer a "commercial offset" for the Italian support during the conflict, Italian companies were to sell projects, material and give technical support for the construction of modern warships in Spanish yards, including four Littorio-class battleships. It failed to materialise between the poor state of the Spanish industry and the outbreak of the war. The Spaniards actually had even their own similar "crucero super Washington" proposals apparently, it's briefly mentioned in Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. Question: what about Etna and Vesuvio? They're not very useful for the purpose of closing gaps in the tech tree, but having been requisitioned by the Italian government while under construction they certainly deserve a place.

I'm just glad that you don't mind the nitpicking. Yeah, sorting them out can help later, but having Cleveland just after that museum piece of Omaha really compressed the line too much; which is just ridiculous, we can't have light cruisers jumping from something that was already obsolete when the first ship of that class touched the water to an excellent design that was probably one of the best in that category during its era.

At the navy museum of La Spezia there's a that met a similar end during trials in 1927. I never figured out what happened to the persons involved, though. Battleship Roma: Source Unfortunately I'm not aware of the exact date and location at the moment, but I have to look through the old Orizzonte Mare issues. It doesn't appear in Bagnasco's book for sure, I've already check it out. EDIT: Nope, it doesn't appear to be featured in those books either. Oh well.

I would even simply call them large destroyers, but destroyer leader should be fine too. I'm sincerely of the opinion that the US cruiser line in its current form makes any effort at making a decent Italian line almost vain. Ahem, scout cruiser in this case. Sorry if I'm obsessed with terminology and good work with the thread.

Daemon, I think esploratori should be left untranslated, the literal translation doesn't have a corresponding meaning in English, it's like translating hot dog as cane caldo in Italian. You sure have sharp eyes and good memory, Ainene. ;-)

Different (high pressure) boilers, but identical turbines, afaik.

Shimakaze at tier X. It happened, just like I was hoping... And Fubuki at tier IX , just like Shinkirou had been advocating, but I'm less sure about this change. Now I wonder what will happen to the torpedo monster, though.

It should come from this magazine, according to this blog from which the picture is linked from.

I'm not too sure about placing Scharnhorst and Dunkerque on the same tier, especially if Scharnhorst will have access to the 381mm guns. Trom fills perfectly the role of flotilla leader, which is what WG is apparently aiming to. Well, the thing is that they came up with that Atlanta-wannabe for the Russian tech tree, which seems to be a recent choice, when there were a number of alternatives that are pure destroyers.

I missed this development about Cleveland being moved up, has it been mentioned in the Q&A? And it still looks to me like they're dead-set on using light cruisers as top tier destroyers.

Not necessarily, one just needs to look at Project 7/Project 7U or your own proposal for the Maestrale/Soldati.

Other WWII-era battleships had similar or even higher speed, for instance Iowa could reach 32.5 knots, while carrying heavier armament and protection. Tier VI/VII, near the modernised Kongo or Scharnhorst, is a better placement for Dunkerque. Hoche was also the lead ship for the second batch of Mogador class contre-torpilleurs, with all torpedo tubes on the centreline and possibly strengthened AA suite (two twin 100mm DP guns), but I would expect it to be at higher tier or a preset, given the possible improvements. EDIT: Fixed a mistake, apparently the last variant had four twin 130mm DP pseudo-turrets. The torpedo tubes were not on the centreline as I wrongly stated before, they kept the same bizarre arrangement but removed the aft twin torpedo tubes. AA armament was completed by one 37mm twin mount, two 37mm single mounts in place of the aft torpedo tubes and four twin lighter machineguns/autocannons, 13mm/25mm Hotchkiss and 20mm Oerlikons were under consideration. Source is appendix 2 of Le C.T. de 2880 tonnes du type Mogador by Jean Lassaque. RE-EDIT: I keep liking Le Fantasque better as top tier than any Mogador/Hoche weirdness.

- Early heavy cruisers had little-to-no armour, noticeable case are the British County class (as built) and the French Duquesne class, true glass cannons without a real armoured belt. - Torpedoes were fitted on a number of heavy cruisers from various countries. - High speed was possible for many heavy cruisers, especially those that carried less armour (with a few exceptions, the County again weren't even that fast in an attempt of striking a balance on 10,000 tons using middle 1920s technology). In general, especially during the 1930s, differences between heavy and light cruisers were reduced only to the calibre of the main armament, this was best illustrated by the Mogami class, but even late American heavy cruisers like Wichita and Baltimore class were based on a light cruiser (Cleveland) design.

Little more than what I mentioned here, the main guns are 152mm/55 (same of Abruzzi) in quadruple mounts, it was supposed to have hybrid diesel/steam propulsion, while construction was going to take advantage of welding to keep the weight under 8,000 tons, but the article of O'Hara and Cernuschi doesn't give more details. The description of the picture says that it comes from a bulletin of the USMM (Historical Office of the Navy), but it doesn't specify which one.

There was/is little or nothing available in terms of alternatives, the more credible one was a STOBAR-configured EF-2000, with all the involved caveats.

2018, but it really depends on the status of the F-35B. Currently she's fitting out, which is going to take at least until December 2015.