Historynerd

Allow me, two battleships sailed, but not because the third (the Andrea Doria) had been damaged at Taranto; she was unavailable because she hadn't yet completed her retraining after being modernised. And anyhow, just because some ships didn't sail, does it mean that they were under repair and unavailable for months? Or doesn't it mean that perhaps they were undergoing normal maintenance, or that perhaps it was felt that they were not needed (why get out with all the destroyers, given that fueling at sea was not practiced by the Regia Marina, so a rotation of destroyers squadron was required to keep the main forces protected at all times?); and moreover, why submarines would take part directly into a naval battle between surface forces? Your claim that the RM lost two thirds of its fighting force is therefore rather superficial, and lacking details. I can agree that Taranto was a heavy blow, and it didn't help the cautious attitude of the major surface fleet, but not that it reached such a blow. Besides, it's not like after Taranto the RN moved in to block the sea lanes between Italy and North Africa, which would have been the logical thing to do had the Regia Marina been rendered unable to sail; only in April 1941 as you said attacks from surface units, aircrafts and submarines would begin to take its toll. Besides, given the fact that the fuel reserve was limited and it was not a given that it could be readily restocked, coupled with the fact that contrary to other navies the Regia Marina could not replace losses to major warships (and even the losses of minor warships proved difficult to replace), it's easy and rather superficial to assume that the Regia Marina could sail at will, and could engage the enemy as if her resources were infinite; we can discuss the peculiarities of situation, but it's a fact that it was universally agreed in the Italian High Command that looking for battle without any other objective was absurd and should not be pursued. Besides, it's not like the Royal Navy behaved very much differently, sailing just to show the flag and hoping to find an enemy, instead always focusing on an objective (a bombardment, attacking a convoy, etc.). This is OT, however.

Er... none that I know of. There are some noticeable trends, though. This is what I gather, as a general thread (with more than one exception): - Names of battles, famous admirals and the names of Italy and of the royal family were usually reserved to ironclads and battleships (although some of them later migrated to submarines, to a degree). - Cruisers usually had regions or cities or other geographical features' names, or names of famous land combatants. - Destroyers either had adjectives or generical names of soldiers, winds, wild animals, with some named to honour single people (heroes, naval commanders, etc.). For example, a battleship class could conceivably be named "Vittorio Emanuele", just to say one of the most sure and obvious choices.

I had a random thought crossing my mind... nothing really important, and absolutely not urgent (there will be plenty of time to discuss these things, before we see these ships); but it still remains. How are these designs ships going to be named? Since we can infer from the Japanese tree that, if possible, fictitious names will be used for ships that never received one officially, we can knock ourselves out trying to propose names for these paper ships.

Um... these stats, other than missing some critical details (RoF, DPM, armor, etc.), are not completely shown (the Yamato doesn't show the details for survivability and concealment). In any case, I don't know anything about them yet (only fought against the Yamato a few times with my Nagato), so I can't say anything. But it doesn't seem to me that they are that far off from each other... this is all I can say at first glance at the stats.

Today I had a pretty good game with the Minekaze... I was the bane of capital ships, since I sank three battleships (one Kongo and two Kawachi) and two aircraft carriers (one Langley and one Hosho); and I managed to survive, to boot.

...We already knew that... sorry for mentioning it...

...and for islands. Either that, or one has to get used to being shelled to death while trying to get unstuck.

If you got stuck in an area with no apparent obstacles, then tell support. If it happened with a small yet visible obstacle... well, focus on where you're going is a must to all skippers, I'm afraid. I'm still getting stuck myself sometimes, when I get too concentrated on firing.

Since I usually glance at the commander every time after a battle, I always notice if another skill point has been gained. But this is just the way it goes with me, perhaps other players need more evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

Why for the Kawachi only 8 guns are considered? I know that at most only four turrets can fire in a broadside, but this might mislead some people... Perhaps it should be explained in the final conclusions, the fact that this ship (along with others, like the Nassau or the Dreadnought derivatives) has staggered turrets and therefore only X guns can fire in a broadside. Also, small typo, it's "North Carolina", with a final a. Sorry for being a pain. Otherwise, really interesting; can't wait to see what will happen when the USN BBs will come.

If I'm not mistaken they had some ideas about replacing her 320 mm guns with their own 305 mm gun, but these are just voices... besides, it wouldn't have changed that much. Hadn't it hit that mine in harbour, they would have stricken and scrapped her in the next following years... Anyway, if it arrives, Novorossiyrsk will probably be akin to a battlecruiser; rather fast (faster than a Fuso or a Nagato, perhaps somewhat faster than a Yamato), with limited protection (250 mm belt armor won't be much even against 203 mm cruisers, at close ranges), and tolerably powerful (ten 320 mm, probably long-ranged but with large dispersion patterns), with possibly some good degree of concealment (it was rather small, compared to WWII-era battleships).

It might be not simply a matter of grammar and language, but a matter of habit and tradition. In Fascist Italy, where before battleships were all considered feminine when referring directly to them, it was decided to change them to the masculine; for example, what before was called "la Cavour" was called "il Cavour", and so on.

Right. And with all that, at Taranto the Duilio managed to survive without too much trouble, and the Cavour would have too, hadn't a certain Admiral butted in and delayed the grounding until it was too late... In any case, from how things developed I am of the opinion that the optimal solution would have been to take from the Cavour everything still usable, and then forget all about it.

In the end, people won't just stay with the 155 mm, but will decide wheter they wish for a ship that kills destroyers, or a ship that can go against the big boys.

Right. Bagnasco in his recent work said that the system performed well enough on the Littorio-class, considering that the workmanship was mediocre, the torpedoes at Taranto didn't hit the hull but exploded beneath it, and two out of three torpedoes hit it outside the limits of citadel protection, where the cylinders were smaller and least effective. Besides, if we talk about damage to structures, it's one thing, if we talk about flooding, we have to talk about damage control parties, security systems etc.; from what I've read, there were several flaws in all these things on the Italian BBs at the start of the war, which through painful experiences (Punta Stilo, Taranto, Matapan) got gradually corrected. Besides, what Navy was flawless? An American destroyer almost torpedoed the Iowa (with President Roosevelt on board), while the Taiho was basically doomed by the inexperience of a single officer.

Battleships should fire at destroyers only when nothing else is available as a target, or if the destroyer is attempting a torpedo run towards the player. Now, I won't say "learn to play" and other insulting things to do, but it is a fact that some tactics can help a lot when dealing with destroyers, like avoiding certain areas (smokescreens, islands, straits) whenever there is suspicion of enemy DDs in there; and if one is under attack, he can present his stern to the destroyer, forcing him to run up to you (and getting damage from main and secondary batteries) and making his attack more difficult. More than once, when I fired at a destroyer with a battleship, I oneshotted him; this doesn't happen everytime simply because destroyers are small, because there is a huge chance of overpenetrating him, because even HE shell offer no absolute guarantee of destroying him with one swift shot. Besides, battleships have huge HP pools, and they have the repair ability; if one uses enough prudence, a BB can soak up a lot of damage, and receive less than a one-shot kill, but if he acts like a kamikaze, it's obvious that he will get sunk rather quickly. Even in a battlewagon, one is not invincible, nor is his health infinite; getting in a fight with multiple enemies, or getting in a situation where multiple attacks from multiple directions without support, is a rather grave mistake. Moreover, the USN battleships are coming over, and it seems they will be generally slower but better protected than their IJN counterparts; with this, and the armor patch coming, we might feel differently about BBs, so let's not be hasty about how the gameplay feels, right when it's about to change.

I'm just hoping that it won't just sink for one torpedo or something... you know that the Pugliese system is held in very poor esteem by many foreign naval historians (not that they're completely wrong, but they go rather hard on it).

Even with hand loading it would count for something... it would surely have better ceiling and range than the obiquitous 40 mm Bofors, for example. You're right. But as long as it will arrive, I'm cool with it.

Nice ships. Now, I don't want to be a spoilsport, but this topic would be better placed in the "Fan Zone" area, IMHO... just saying.

Yes she would. The 65 mm gun wasn't a killer, but it had respectable firepower, I think. Well... we might have to wait for an expert. I found a discussion about it, though; perhaps it can help: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/14158/Abruzzi-class-cruisers-armour-lay-out#.VVDUFfntmko

Yes... in the "Storia Militare" article I've mentioned, it was written that the Regia Marina experimented a little with DP mounts in the 1930s, but in the end woke up seriously when it was too late (asking for a 120 mm in a mount similar to that of the 90 mm AA gun), so nothing came out of it. Yes, some 2 knots faster... the vertical armor scheme of the Abruzzi is somewhat interesting, though, since it has a de-capping 30 mm layer before a concave 100 mm belt; I'm not an expert, but I think that this was meant to ensure that AP projectiles would not reach the ship vitals and actually explode, or something like that, but I have no idea how effective the concept proved. If it does so, it would be quite a good thing, and it would give it an edge.

But in some it wouldn't be enough, I think. And this would likely lead to complains.

Right... but some people might wonder what makes Etna an "anti-aircraft cruiser"... True; I think Abruzzi might be longer-ranged (if they keep the maximum elevation of Brooklyn to 40°), but we just learned that such a thing might not mean much...

Those are for sure going to be in the normal tech tree (because without we would lack a vital piece in the high-tier cruisers). Besides, the Piaggio P.6 was by WWII years replaced by the standard Ro.43 seaplane. No, unless it's Novorossyrsk or Kerch, we won't see any "Italian" premiums in game anytime soon...

Hmmm... the problem with Spalato is that it might be a problem that her main armament wasn't DP, at least at that Tier... To be honest, I don't see even the Abruzzi being a match for the Brooklyn, given that the latter has more guns, with a much higer RoF, and with arguably better penetration values...