Historynerd

Ignorant? Do you have ANY idea how complicated is the theory and the technology behind large caliber guns and shell design and construction? Do you have any idea how many factors can influence their behavior? Do you have any idea by how close a shell can shatter and deal superficial damage, or penetrate and cause devastating damage? The people working the gun themselves were trained to perform mechanical duties: work the hoists, work the rammers, etc. Does that entail knowing the detailed performance of the APC shells against armor at ranges from 0 to 25'000 m? Does that entail knowing the angle of fall of a shell at a given distance? If you want to know things like the detailed operation of each gun, the kinds of jams and failures these guns may have experienced from time to time, then fine, they can answer these questions. But if you want to ask about how the shells worked in practice against armor, you go ask the gun directors and those working under him. You go ask those who designed the gun, built it, tested it. Just because you had a relative there, it doesn't make him the ultimate authority on what ultimately was these guns' performance. I believe there is a good chance your point of view may be a bit biased, because you feel personally involved over this. It's not a proper way to discuss these matters.

I did not know that it was thought to rebuild them. Could you point me to some sources for this? I am intrigued to see how they wanted to modify them. If I am not mistaken, at one point it was considered that the internal belt was a potential disadvantage in case of flooding, but I don't recall exactly what it could have done...

These are the engagements in which they fired their guns at enemy ships: Cape Teulada Cape Matapan First Sirte Second Sirte In the first engagement, the Vittorio Veneto fired only 19 shots, all with the aft turret, at a slow rate and at extreme range; only ten minutes between opening and ceasing fire. In the second, the same ship fired from 1055 to 1115 a total of 92 shells (plus 11 misfires), against cruisers who immediately turned away to get out of range and in visibility that began to deteriorate; no hits were scored, but British reports do talk of "remarkable accuracy" and "uncomfortable close salvoes" (check O'Hara for that). In the third, the Littorio fired from 1753 to 1804 at extreme range (some 32'000 m), in failing daylight. In the fourth, the same ship engaged for a long time, at medium ranges but in bad weather that gradually got worse. Apart from what happened to HMS Kingston, two destroyers, HMS Lively and HMS Havock, received sensible damage from near misses. Considering the issues the Italians had with their fire control auxiliaries (the concept and the calculators themselves were good, not so transmission devices, lenses and other things), the sizes and behaviors of their targets, the conditions in which the longest and most significant engagement (the Second Sirte) was fought, and the headaches they had with their uneven shell and propellant bag weights, I don't think this can be qualified as bad gunnery. I am just taking exception to the fact that the results obtained by shooting at a big, helpless enemy ship should be automatically taken as proof of better accuracy, than those obtained by shooting at rather long ranges at smaller enemies trying their best to get out of your fire, or in any case well capable of maneuvering at the best of their abilities to avoid your shells. But we are drifting OT.

Whoops. Missed that seventh gun somehow. Sorry, my bad. Anyhow, how about my idea? After all, even if super-late the idea of 120 mm DP guns was slowly gaining ground within the Regia Marina. Give them some DP value, and it might balance things satisfactorily enough.

Was the 16-inch Mark I and the Model 1934 ever compared in firing trials together? Were these guns ever pitted against each other? To be completely honest, I am wary of these claims of people who "were there"; while their input is precious and appreciated (for telling procedures, duration of firing cycles, etc.), maybe they weren't that much in the knows, about how much these guns could and couldn't do, especially since the guys in the turrets just did their thing and fired, but didn't actually see what the shell did or didn't. I would be wary all the same if we could find someone who worked in the Littorio's turrets, in regard to their shells' performance, simply because his presence there wouldn't guarantee a competence in gunnery and shell performance. Besides, even if what we find in NavWeaps must be taken with a grain of salt (since the figures given by the USN empirical formula aren't that precise when coming to non-USN guns), they can't be that much off. And the difference between the Nelson's guns and those of the Littorio is rather huge. So, sorry, but I am not quite prepared to unconditionally trust these sources.

Check it, and you'll find out that the Błyskawica has three twin mounts of its 120 mm Bofors, which make a total of six. What you said make me think of something; maybe WG could consider to give the Maestrale potenziato's mounts some degree of AA value. That would give her some edge. Alright.

The Tier VII (the Soldati) will probably switch between hull forms, with the former keeping two torpedo mounts, and the latter switching one for added AA. The Tier VIII (Maestrale potenziato) is, as you say, going to be more of a pure gunboat, but I don't feel that it would suffer, as it has six guns (the same as the Błyskawica); besides, the latter is pretty much one of a kind in itself. We know the issue we have is that several destroyer classes turn up with the same 120 mm gun, but that's how it is. I have little doubt that WG, helped by the fact that little details are available for these ships, can fix things by tweaking the soft stats. The Dante is optimized for broadside firing, and had less conspicuous superstructure; it's far less visible, so it will probably have high concealment. Its structure and armor protection doesn't have the complication its French counterparts has because of the wing turrets concept. I'm not that into head-on fire, but I guess the Courbet has the advantage here. However, it looks to me that I can angle the Dante rather well to unmask all of her guns, so I'm not that worried. IRL, some of the Courbet's secondary guns were plated over, as they were useless, while some of the Dante's secondary guns were in powered turrets; besides, they don't matter much in a BB vs BB match, DDs are the one who need worry the most. Also, during WWI, the Dante would have comfortably outranged the Courbet by some 10'500 m (but we all know what WG does to range...). The Dante's guns fire a slightly heavier shell at a higher muzzle velocity (840 m/s instead of 783). So they'd do a bit more damage, with a flatter trajectory. So overall, yes, I think the Dante has an advantage (although saying "shred" was maybe too much).

Hmmm... you are right...

Can we mention that the 15-inchers she will meet at Tier 8 will have much better armour performance that its own 16-inch? Maybe it's relevant for the competition... Also, a higher muzzle velocity isn't necessarily a good thing. It wasn't for the Nelson, and it wasn't for the Littorio (coupled with the shell weight issues, true, but still...).

Apart from all the issues with the Italian tendency towards overcautiousness in deploying their battleships, which led to only one encounter with British battleships (in which the Littorio-class ships were not present), it was used against ships no bigger than a light cruisers, at medium-to-long ranges, which might help explain that. Also, the British ships had the tendency of not wishing to stay much under said fire, I cannot guess why... They got some pretty nice near-misses, though. Some claim that HMS Kingston was crippled by a 381 mm shell, while others credit a heavy cruiser's 203 mm with that hit. Not everyone had the luck of meeting an enemy battleship with an unserviceable rudder, with overwhelming support. Otherwise to this date we would ask ourselves how many hits the 16-inch Mark I had landed.

I substantially agreee with those who object that caliber and gun layout do not justify an increase in Tier above 7. The 16-inch Mark I, with its lightweight shell and its indifferent armor penetration performance, cannot really compete with the guns at Tier 8. Even with all the IRL issues it had, I would take the Italian 381 mm over the Mark I any day of the week. Besides, its protection scheme makes me scratch my head a bit. I don't think it will be an issue in-game, but IRL it suffered a lot because of underwater hits to the huge bow section; not to mention that my eyebrow rise a bit at seeing a belt so short (it seems also a bit narrow to me, but it might be just an impression).

Right. No disrespect intended, but the Dante would shred the South Carolina, the Kawachi, the Nassau, the Bellerophon and even the Courbet. She's got pretty thin armour, but she's a bit fast, and she can bring twelve guns to bear. It wouldn't be fair. She might well be a Tier IV premium.

For real...?

Which "Royal" do you mean? The Italian Navy was the "Regia Marina" (literal translation for "Royal Navy"). And even if monarchy in France did not exist later than 1870, the French Navy was still known back in the day as "La Royale"... Seriously now, I doubt that the Renown can be at Tier VII. I see at that level the Hood, but any earlier ship can't qualify in my opinion.

Guys, this has no bearing on the tech tree, but I guess we can allow one little departure once in a while, can't we? The recent work from Osprey, "British submarine vs Italian torpedo boat", is quite good. It described rather well the war that raged throughout the central Mediterranean, and in which the best efforts of the Regia Marina led to a very respectable result. Maybe the only thing I may have found negative could be the fact that the authors used Robert Mallett as a source. I don't care for him; too sensationalist and dismissive. Anyway, I say this is definitely worth a read.

I'd also point out the results for the most awaited lines. The German BB line is already here. After the British battleships and cruisers, the line most people are waiting for is that of the Italian battleships. Just sayin'...

I brought them up in Deamon93's thread, but I was told that they were not to be taken at face value, considering how the Germans thought of their own TDS. As for the Nelson, even though the case can be made that the Littorio-class was design-wise the oldest among the WWII battleships, so we should go a bit easy on it, I don't think we can compare it to the Nelsol, which was a 1920s design.

Submarines??!

Depends on wheter the game engine can take it, simulating what it was supposed to do. If it does, the Littorio is going to be one heck of a tough nut to crack at close range. If it doesn't... well, my guess is that 350 mm sloped at 11° can still be considered good.

That concerns only a few battleships, not all Italian ships. And if one reads through what I wrote, I believe he will know the answer will be: "more or less the same of same-tiered ships".

Alright. But...

Wrong. Here is the number of missions executed of all kind, together with distance travelled, from 10 June 1940 to 8 September 1943: Littorio: 49 missions, 12'452 nm Vittorio Veneto: 56 missions, 17'828 nm Roma: 17 missions, 2'523 nm This is way inferior to what a USN fast battleship might have done in the Pacific, but it's not exactly staying in port at all times. Besides, you really don't know what you're talking about if you say they were stationed in the Adriatic. Apart from the Roma when it was fitting out (it was built in Trieste), none of these battleship was ever assigned there. How can you compare peacetime goodwill cruises to wartime service? Not to mention that we might ask about what wartime service record the Dunkerque has, because the answer would be surely less than what the Italian ships had. And FYI, in JUne 1940 (i.e. when the war had already been going on from months), the Richelieu was still fitting out. How is it that it went to New York? If you reference the late-war service of the Richelieu after it was graciously completed and refitted by the Americans, apart from bombarding a few places and getting mined once, what did it do? Did it ever have an enemy ship under its fire, like both the Littorio and the Vittorio Veneto did? Your comments only reveal that it is your knowledge, rather than the Littorio-class, to be crippled with flaws. I am aware that a French line can come before any Italian one, and the Dunkerque reinforced the probability. I, however, have no problem with that. I know that, although deprived of the chance of having a considerable service record, the Marine Nationale had an impressive array of interesting ships.

Depends on what you considers qualify a Navy for being "good". If it is having exactly the ships it needs in wartime and the exact kind and amount of training and equipment to fight the battles it has to, then the Italian Navy doesn't qualify. If it is providing some quality contributions to naval engineering (among which the first pencilled down design for an all big-gun battleship, just to say the more prominent), building quite a bit of ships with good enough capabilities, fighting a campaign without having the right kind of ships and the right kind of training and equipment, yet not ending up totally wrecked or not collapsing as a fighting force in the first two months or so, then my educated guess would be that the Italian Navy might be considered for qualification. I have nothing against trying to keep contact with reality and considering all aspects before passing judgements. However, I am also against making broad statements like yours. Let's not get out of an extreme by going to the other. And I believe that, to someone who digs a bit deep, it becomes apparent that, overall, the contribution of Italian persons to the military arts is nothing to be sneezed at, without going all the way back to the Roman Empire. Anyone knew that an Italian (Giovanni Cavalli) was one of the first people to create a successful muzzle loading rifled gun in the 1840s? Or that the British have to share the title of first to try a torpedo bomber with an Italian, Alessandro Guidoni? We have more to be known for than just paintings, sculptures, and excellent food; exactly like the British have more to be known for than just the Royal Navy, Shakespeare and... well, less excellent food. XD

There's no point in discussing this. Unfortunately, when you can't bring much $$$ to a game, the game doesn't go in the direction you'd like, not fast enough anyway. The only thing to do is to try to keep our cool and be mature about this. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll eat my keyboard a little more.

Either that, or a strong presence in the minor tree. But in the long term, some Dutch presence is a must, in my opinion.