Historynerd

The first two are definitely going to get their own lines (except the CVs, I guess); but I doubt that the Dutch Navy can get in as a separate nation. But I am certain that before anything like them comes in the game, we'll have to pass through German DDs, British BBs and DDs, and Russian BBs.

That was said by Admiral David G. Farragut, during the American Civil War; he was fighting the Confederate States of America...

That was not a camo. That was a recognition pattern, worn by all Italian (and even some German, or so I read) ships in the Mediterranean, so that it could be easily distinguished from enemy ships. Do not confuse this with the camouflage patterns she might have worn; not to mention that they were very different in colour.

In-game, only time and WG may tell. IRL, I have made a post about it, and the findings may be of interest... http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/38017-the-pugliese-underwater-protection-system/ These guns were something to behold, true. However, it should also be noted that the performance figures put on NavWeaps might be somewhat off, as they're based on the US empirical formula, which has the slight disadvantage that it's accurate only for USN guns.

Not only was the design Italian, it was built in Italy, in Leghorn.

Bold part: against Yorck (not Yorke), perhaps; against the Admiral Hipper, not going to happen. Also, compared with what powers like the USA and the Japanese Empire did, both the absolute number of cruisers armed with 8-inch guns and the number of their classes are not that numerous (especially considering that the subclasses of the Country-class are not that important, at least not enough to warrant Tier separation in-game). Honestly, despite the British being the forerunners of the heavy cruisers (with their Hawkins-class cruisers, which were the models on which the Washington Naval Treaty's definition of 8-inch cruiser was based), they never focused on that (quite rightly), and to be completely honest I was never particularly impressed by the ones they did build. Anyway, paper ships are surely going to be needed for Tiers 8-10; the former can be fitted quite nicely by the Surrey (as this post by Trainspite shows).

Then we're not in a much different situation. And I doubt that the peculiarity of relying a lot on fighter-bombers can change things... Well, maybe they can deign to consider the Aquila as a premium, one day.

Here it is!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37156430 Recently, the BBC did a brief service about the Motor Torpedo Boats, as it was the centenary of their introduction in the Royal Navy. They explained how these "Spitfires of the Seas" could attack with good results even great warships. Given that this is about the British MTBs, it's not like we could have expected an excerpt on all the worldwide boats that were used throughout two World Wars, could we? However, it's interesting to see that, even if the service did give us a glimpse of the German Schnellboote, not a word was said otherwise. I guess it doesn't count that, in both World Wars, we Italians racked up the best preys (WWI: Austro-Hungarian dreadnought battleship Szent Istvan; WWII: British light cruiser HMS Manchester).

Then, why show us a glimpse of the Schnellboote? Had they not done that, it would've been okay; but since they did show it... then, why not do a brief painting of everything? And in that case, forgive me, but I believe that a mention of Italian fast attack crafts becomes kind of mandatory.

Yeah... Admiral Cunningham at the battle of Punta Stilo was convinced that the Italian admiral whom he fought against was Admiral Arturo Riccardi; it was instead Admiral Inigo Campioni.

0.1 rpm? Edit: Saw someone with a Reddit account quite similar to yours post a pic of the Fàa di Bruno, saying it was the ugliest 20th century warship. Apart from personal tastes (I personally feel that the monitor had no actual pretense of even looking like a warship, while horrors such as the USS Long Island had it), it seems a bit harsh... I expect you to find something else to write about an Italian warship, in a fully positive light, to compensate, and post it in short order. You've been warned...

Now that I think about it... couldn't one of those designs fill the gap for a Tier 3 cruiser? Replacing the poor Vettor Pisani?

Well, if this ends up confirmed, it's a bummer. Still, as long as we see a premium as a flag-bearer, why not? And especially, as long as we get the Italian BBs, CA/CLs and DDs.

While WG's behaviour towards the Italian tree in WoT is more than questionable, the situation in WoWs is radically different. The Regia Marina will arrive. It might take some time, but it will arrive.

I see; I hadn't noticed it. Well, a typo here and there is a must in every publication, even the most rigorous one, I guess!

Sorry for taking so long; the previous days were a bit hectic! Anyway, here it is, the scans of the article!

A very distant relative... And it's highly unlikely that a country would name a first-line warship for the head of state or even the monarch of a foreign state.

In what respect was the Italian fleet "bottled up"? In any case, the Mediterranean Fleet and the Force H did well even when they didn't have any battleship with them. So carriers, cruisers and destroyers did their part, too.

"Let's create a new thread about detonations even if another one about the exact same thing is sitting right there in the first page and is used nowadays."

Ok, not wishing to nitpick here, but even if I have no hope of understanding the other stats, I get what "luck" is. And I believe that Aquila's luck is undeserved. Ok, so she never went into service; alright, not gonna discuss that. However, that ship remained there for the next two years. And as the war came to an end, she was first bombed, then attacked by Mariassalto (the former X MAS divers who went South and fought alongside the Allies), then mined by the Germans. But when Genoa was liberated, she was still in harbour, afloat! I think that would warrant a slightly higher luck stat... Btw, Re.2005 "Sagittario" and Re.2001G "Silurante" FTW!

I agree; but if real-life ships were modified in a way or another because of real-life politics, I don't feel it right to take that modification patterns and apply them to what-if situations for other ships. That was my point.

The Italian BBs were a thing of their own. I won't repeat the story on how their radical reconstruction was explicitly allowed by the Washington Naval Treaty, but we have to consider that they were modified so much because of factors that I don't know would be repeated for the German ships. For example, the removal of the middle turret was alright because the ship was thoroughly gutted, re-boilered and re-engined, and the bow was lengthened by a significant degree. Also, the reboring of the 305 mm guns up to 320 mm (12.6 inches) was because the Regia Marina didn't have any gun bigger than the 305 mm (on a major warship, anyway), and because it was thought it would be a match for the French 340 mm gun. Would the Kaiser-class have been subjected by something so radical? I don't know, the "ifs" seems too many to count. I tend to be of the opinion that the Italian old battleships were peculiar, in respect to the degree of reconstruction to which they were subjected.

"All or nothing" wasn't a concept limited to USN battleship, as far as I recall. To varying degrees, every major navy in the interwar years ended up following it, replacing the earlier incremental armour schemes.

Good initiative. I'll remind myself to undertake a similar one when Italian ships arrive. I've already seen that several people, while genuinely interested in Italian stuff, don't have the slightest idea on how to correctly pronounce Italian words.