Historynerd

It should be kept in mind that the Nelson-class' 16-inch Mark I guns were not particularly successful weapons, and proved in terms of armor penetration to be only marginally better than the venerable 15-inch Mark I.

That doesn't change the fact that, right or wrong, she came to embody the might of the Royal Navy.

But in terms of popular culture, I think it's fair to say that it's trumped by other ships, which had a more dramatic career, like those I mentioned.

The Tirpitz is known, but not as much as the Bismarck. Had it been the Bismarck a premium, I believe that it would've been a hard thing to swallow. The Warspite... is known too, but it's not as iconic as the Hood or the Prince of Wales, I think. Well-versed people might know of Warspite, but still one of the record-claimant long shots does not stand up as battling it out against Bismarck, and tragically sinking in a desperate attempt to fend off the Japanese attack.

The firepower - on battleship levels - and the speed were iconic of "pure" battlecruisers... it was just the armor that made Hood different.

They do that and there might be an uproar. As an iconic and famous ship, having to pay for her could displease many people, I think...

When was it announced that WoWs would remain in perpetual beta? I missed that...

...Evidently we are still in Open Beta?

I have to agree, unfortunately... I sure will be happy when the Regia Marina will come, true, but that won't forbid me from enjoying the game till then.

In fact I do agree with you, and I said this: So, absolutely. It could have had a pretty good impact on the battle of Matapan. But it wouldn't have won the war. As for the responsibilities of the Germans, I also agree.

I'm afraid that asking about this topic is kind of like beating the proverbial dead horse... it's happening, period. And, as the poet said:

I hope that's not all you have read, because in this business it's advisable to read all the major authors and then form your own opinion rather than base said opinion on just one work. However, were I to suggest something to read, I would like to point you to a wonderful, interesting and objective book: "La guerra italiana sul mare: la marina tra vittoria e sconfitta 1940-1943" by Giorgio Giorgerini, a later work which is based upon and gives a critique of both Macintyre and Bernotti's works. Besides, while both have their value, they are rather old (Macintyre's work was first published in 1965); since then much archival references have been made available that wasn't accessible back then, so it didn't have (not by his fault) all the elements to make a truly objective analysis.

This is a rather superficial statement that comprehends two extremes (the quality of the Italian warships and the flaws of the leadership of the Regia Marina) that are both unwarranted. Italian ships were good, but they did have a number of flaws for numerous reasons, among which the requirement for speed to the detriment of seakeeping, the wrong choices made for the armament, and the insufficient quality of some secondary equipments which all detracted from their fighting ability. The mistakes of the leadership of the Regia Marina were many, however the reluctance to risk irreplaceable ships in name of pointless aggressiveness was to a degree warranted, although it was brought to an extreme. And the lack of adequate funding and resources to cover all the areas needing both in the years leading to the conflict, which had a huge impact on wartime performance, cannot be all ascribed to the failures of all leadership, but to the higher authority to which it answered. The radar has been the convenient scapegoat for many defeats for decades; in truth, its impact has been exaggerated. While at Matapan (whose main failure was at the basis, because such an abnormal offensive operation against convoys conceived partly because of the insistence of the German allies and partly to give the impression to them that the Regia Marina was "doing something") it would have come in handy, as Deamon said the high losses suffered were mainly due to the gross mistake of disbelieving, despite all proofs to the contrary, that a British force could be so near the Italian one, and likewise ordering a division of two heavy cruisers and three destroyers to go back to help the immobilized Pola (a tendency already shown by Admiral Iachino at Capo Teulada). In the end, had we had the radar earlier, it wouldn't have made a difference as big as it has been said; the faults of the Regia Marina were many and complex, and this was just one of them. Besides, the Pola was all but crippled; it would have sunk anyway. And while it was spotted through radar (on the British ships it was thought to be the Vittorio Veneto torpedoed earlier and presumed dead in the water), the other cruiser and destroyers coming to help it were not spotted with it but visually, and they were destroyed through optically-aimed gunfire.

I think that one vital part of this is also split teams, i.e. teams with only American ships, for example.

How about Punta Stilo? That wasn't exactly a small naval battle, although it wasn't fought to the end by either part.

If we talk about recreating surface battles with major warships (from destroyer upwards), we had plenty in the Mediterranean, between the RN and the RM.

There are also a few Italian movies, some of them propaganda films made during the war (Alfa Tau, La nave bianca), and others made later (I sette dell'Orsa Maggiore, Uomini Ombra); some of them feature real participants of the raids done with the "maiali" during the war, real ships and real seaman of the Regia Marina!

I like this screen. And I see you did use Libeccio somewhat...

Very interesting, thank you. I think that the reason for the substitution of her machinery was mainly that the old one was rather worn out after years of showing the flag and being always on active duty apart from some brief stints of minor refits...

On NavWeaps they say that the 16 Inch Mark I guns of the Nelson-class were rather underwhelming weapons for their caliber; the latter isn't automatically a guarantee of penetration power and effectiveness.

How much massive, exactly? From what I know, they can cause some flooding, but not on a serious level... but I might be wrong in this respect.

I think he meant an hypotetical hole made in the hull by a shell that doesn't explode within the ship. In that case, the hole would be rather small... But to my knowledge even cruisers had steel decks, even when horizontal protection was pretty much nonexistent. Wood planking may have been used, but underneath there was surely some steel.

Don't tell me, tell the guy I was talking to.

I might be wrong in this, but I think that her fire control director was still far from obsolete, and as far as electronics go I thought she already had the Type 284 radar installed in her last refit... About the main armament, I agree that there wasn't much to be improved, concerning the guns per se... most of the attention should have gone to the protection.

Not if a shot manages to penetrate the magazines; in that case it would blow up.