Historynerd

In-game, the high barrel wear is not going to be a factor. IRL, overall it was not a major inconvenience as well, as these ships were not meant to operate far from their home ports in any case, and the barrels could be replaced without major infrastructures and in a day's work. Also, allow me to correct you. The Littorio's and the Richelieu's guns were not inaccurate; they suffered from high dispersion, which is not the same thing. Also, the issue about protection is tricky, because, rightly so, somebody said that the Littorio's protection scheme was "one of the most complex seen on contemporary battleships". The age of the design and the inexperience of Italian designers clearly showed in the deck armor scheme, which was clearly based on old principles. Even though the overall thickness was not bad, it was clearly not effective as newer schemes, therefore putting these ships at a disadvantage, if facing opponents with guns apt at plunging fire. On the other hand, the belt concept was one of the most original and, unfortunately, one that we can't pass a definite judgement about, in the end. The Italians' decision to adopt the "decapping plate" to such an extreme, and the fact that, for one reason or another, this concept was never battle-tested, meant that we simply don't have the data to say if this scheme would have worked as the tests suggested, or not. If it wouldn't have worked, then the net result would have been a loss. If it would have worked, then the mere thickness of the scheme wouldn't have been the lone factor for judging the overall effectiveness. This without even considering several factors (quality of the armor, design of the respective APC shells, etc.). in-game, though, such a scheme won't appear, so we'll have a uniform slab of 350 mm at 11° from vertical. While still decent, I think this is not on the same level of the King George V. Sorry for the OT.

I remain convinced that subs just shouldn't be in the game, because contrary to carriers, battleships (and battlecruisers) cruisers and destroyers, they did not fit into a battle fleet. Many tried, tried, and tried again. It didn't work. So in both WWI and WWII, if a submarine had a role in a major naval battle, it was never as an integral part of a battle force. I know this game does not value realism above anything else, but for (mostly) good reasons. Yet the line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me the line is drawn when we talk about the introduction of submarines.

I love it! And I fully admit that I'm biased, because she's Italian-looking (built with Italian help, and all that jazz, so I play the Kirov to pass the time until the Regia Marina arrives)! I concede that, if the teams melts around you, this turns into a bad day, because you have the speed to run away, but not the maneuverability and armor to dodge and/or absorb any hits, and if you're focused, you're dead one way or another. But honestly? I accept every flaw it has (paperthin armor, bad maneuverability, bad torpedoes - which I "rarely use" all across the board, though, so I don't care much about 'em), because to me its 180 mm guns are just MURDEROUS! I have to be opportunistic as heck, but, if nothing else, I always find somebody who is focused on someone else and shows me his sweet broadside. Then... it's citadel city, baby! Maybe I'm just weird, but I seriously appreciate this oversized and overarmed destroyer leader or whatever the heck this is. And even after I unlock the next cruiser in line, I'll absolutely keep it. Just my two cents, inspired by my (partial) experience.

I took quite a long time off from the game, and returned a few days ago. Maybe it's because I only had about 10 games so far, but I didn't notice any critical difference. For starters, I'm still only capable of focusing on damage, and little else. And I am rusty, I grounded myself two times! But my favorite ships are always there, and kickin' as always. Ahhh... I didn't realize it, but I missed you, Kirov, you fragile opportunistic citadel machine! (Glorious Italian help for glorious Motherland be blessed!)

Apart from a visit to HMS Belfast, this is the only warship I've ever been aboard:

Wow, what a necro! Anyway, I don't deny it, I was only pointing it out. It's a fact that a single dramatic fact can polarize the attention of the public and even of the historians, to varying degrees to the detriment of less dramatic or glamorous, but more solid and long-time achievements.

Unless they really haul a** this next few months and they start digging to get the data for the models and the performance, I doubt as well that WG can pull off an Italian line this year, especially given the number of projects they said they are cooking right now. I merely hope that at least one premium will see the light this year. After all the letdowns I have had with WoT and WT, it shouldn't bother me anymore, but it does bother a lot when the Italians, after years and years and years of being "interesting" and "possible" and "under consideration", get once more the short end of the deal.

The Roma might well be the most well-known Italian ship, so she's be a good candidate; the old issue is wheter they can find a way to get her different enough from what the regular Littorio (or Vittorio Veneto, if that's the name that will pop up) will be. The Montecuccoli is not known by many, but I've stated myself that, with what it managed at Pantelleria, it deserves to be a premium. The Duilio, I'm not that sure about. Apart from her being the lead ship (at least according to Italian conventions), I don't see it, neither as a Tier 4 in her WWI condition (as that's a spot that should go to the Dante Alighieri, IMHO), nor as a Tier 5 in her rebuilt condition (because I think many people talk about the Giulio Cesare/Novorossijrsk).

Now that I've caught up a bit with what has come down since I took a bit of a break around here, I saw that in this year we can hope at most for two premium ships, tops. I know many will (rightly) be unhappy about that, but as for myself I feel that raging at it doesn't accomplish anything. What could these premiums be? I've still got things to catch up, so I don't know how we are with premiums right now.

We might also have to gently remind them that in some cases some buffs would be warranted, because they decided to go in a direction that negates a potential edge for an Italian ship. If it's a relatively minor issue for the Littorio, the game engine's design to ignore any kind of "decapping plate" mechanic comes down pretty hard on the Abruzzi, since its scheme was rather unique (in fact, it looks rather different from the one used on the battleship design, with a bit more space between the outer plate and the main belt, and the concave shape of the latter) and I have an inkling that it may suffer the most for the change. And in its case, a simple 130 mm uniform strake won't be able to give out something similar to what its IRL armor scheme may have given, in terms of toughness (also because, if a 350 mm belt inclined at 11° is still a tough nut to crack for most battleships, an almost vertical 130 mm belt at Tier 6 is still going to be rather easy picking for several cruisers, I fear). I also managed to found a picture of the scheme. I'll put it here, to refresh everyone's memory!

Just add one flavor to the whole Italian line: the wholesale addition of RoF buffs! But we knew that from the beginning; Italian guns tended to be somewhat slowish, therefore it's a given that, with "historical" stats, their DpM ends up as low. Of course, when thinking about it WG will have to consider all the factors to give a properly balanced ship... ...that is, if they want Italian ships to have a performance in line with the other ships.

I also found one; under "main battery", the Capitani Romani's guns are numbered as five; however the broadside does show the correct number of eight.

...Maybe I don't know enough about the catapult aircrafts used by the Regia Marina, but I do recall that the Re.2000 catapultabili could be fitted only to the catapults of the Littorio-class battleships, as they were the only ones powerful enough to launch them. Again, I may be uninformed, but it seems to me that it would have taken more than a modification to the trolleys for the catapults to be able to carry and launch the Ca.316 (the difference in dimensions and weight between the two aircrafts seems large, although there may be more to this, that I can't see).

Well, first thing, thanks for pointing out this aircraft to me, as I did not know of its existence. ...But I am really puzzled by the fact that someone might have seriously considered it to be a catapult-launched seaplane, even for battleships. Longer, much wider and almost two times heavier than the Ro.43? Maybe I am missing a part of the puzzle, but I just don't see how this aircraft might have been a ship-launched seaplane.

Alright, thanks for solving my doubt. I just said Cavour for Tier 4 and Duilio for Tier 5 because the latter was modernized later and therefore, at the cost of a bit of speed, got better secondaries and AA, thus it might be more competitive at that Tier (although on the NA forum someone made an analysis of Italian BB's guns and how they perform, and the 320 mm turns out to be fine), leaving the former for the preceding Tier. Speaking of which... Since Phoenix-jz made such an awesome work guessing the behaviors of our beloved battlewagons' guns, he deserves to have his work mentioned here as well! I'll put it in spoilers, as it's quite long and I don't want to clutter things up. 12 in/40 - Cuniberti's 17'000 tons design 12in/46 Model 1909 - Conte di Cavour 320 mm Model 1934 - Rebuilt Duilio 381 mm Model 1914 - Caracciolo 381 mm Model 1934 - BC 1930(?) and Littorio Conclusions Basically, these babies are going to be punching armor up, definitely, with the exception of the guns of the Caracciolo (gotta give him credit, I would have never thought that their low muzzle velocity would be such a handicap! ). But maaayyybe.... we could "assume" that shells with higher muzzle velocities would be made for them, to improve their performance, right? Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I was always interested in the Caracciolo-class BBs, and it really saddens me that, as it is now, their guns are going to be useless moonrakers.

I know, that's why I cannot be certain that he didn't err somewhere. Honestly, if these were really 250 lb bombs, hitting a weak spot (maybe towards the bow or the extreme aft, where I think the deck armor would be non-existent) seems like the only option for the Pola to risk sinking. Maybe the bomb (since the article said that it was hit by two bombs, but a lucky hit alone might have done the job) penetrated all the way to the bottom, exploding and causing a large quantity of water to rush in. The Zaras had good protection against shellfire, but their underwater defense relied only on watertight compartments.

There is always such a possibility, but I'm skeptical. Augusto De Toro is a thorough and accurate researcher, I don't quite see him making such a mistake. Furthermore, the 250 lb value is consistent with ordnance that, as far as I know, was effectively carried by the Wellington, while the 250 kg value would be similar, again as far as I know, only for General Purpose/High Explosive ordnance that I think would have been ill-suited for attacking a fleet at anchor. Can I ask if on Tiers 4 and 5 you intend to split the ships in their pre-reconstruction and post-reconstruction forms (i.e. on Tier 4 the unrebuilt Conte di Cavour, and on Tier 5 the rebuilt Duilio) or not?

Hy, guys! I haven't been here for a while, for various reasons, but now I'm back with a vengeance! Today I bought the new number of "Storia Militare", and there's an interesting article authored by Augusto De Toro. It talks about the aerial incursions on Napoli on 30 December 1940 and 8 December 1941. The second caused the rather surreal damaging of the Giulio Cesare's Pugliese TDS by a bomb, which gives De Toro the chance to give some more details about it (although not that much more than what Stefano said in his much appreciated blog).. The first, instead, made me learn something I did not know and that left me a bit surprised. Apparently, the Pola was damaged by two SAP bombs (250 lbs each) and, other than having some killed and wounded, risked nothing else than sinking! Does anybody know more about it? Because maybe I'm wrong, but the idea I had about the Zara-class' protection schemes was that it would take heavier bombs for the ship to come close to fatal damage.

And this is what comes to mind, sorry.

Same ol', same ol'...

Easy workaround for that: Cavour for Tier IV, and Duilio for Tier V (since they were not identical, either in the original or in their rebuilt state).

I agree with Deamon. The scale of the rebuilds was something that was arguably unmatched by any other battleship, enough to warrant a split in my opinion. But we have plenty of time to discuss this, since it has been finally confirmed once and for all that the French ships will come earlier than the Italian ones.

Even the Vasa looked like a million dollars when she sailed for her maiden voyage. Just sayin'... Looks ain't everything.

Those threads serve the purpose to pointing out that, using documented paper ships (not creations out of WG's mind), complete lines for both the Marine Nationale and the Regia Marina are possible.

Substantially agree with this. Those ships were not adequate for fighting capital ships, and had they met one... well, tickets to Davy Jones' locker free for the whole crew.