Historynerd

Here you go:

Are you serious, or are you just ignorant? Unless a battleship is already listing on the side, the torpedo sure as heck won't strike the belt armor (I think it happened to at least one American battleship at Pearl Harbor which was already listing, on which dents were found on the belt armor, signs of where torpedoes had struck after it had been already hit before), but it will strike the hull, which is not protected by conventional armor, but by defense systems that try to dissipate and contain the energy from the torpedo warhead's explosion.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Pretty much all the difference of the Roma sits in its slightly higher bow and in its bigger spaces for the admiral's staff. Little with which to work.

Perhaps I'm just stubborn, but regardless of the damage they can deal, they sure give some variety.

But Tirpitz has torpedoes.

In terms of armament, protection and mobility any difference that she has is at most minimal. Eye candy alone isn't enough, in my opinion.

I sure wouldn't be averse to see it. However, it seems to me that she's too similar to her sisters of the Littorio-class (which we can presume will be the Tier VIII BB of the regular Italian tree), to be considered as a premium.

There's no need to nitpick to notice that they are outclassed. Even if we consider (as I myself have suggested) that their 320 mm rifles weren't that bad in regards to dispersion, they just cannot stand up to the Modéle 1931; the weight that can be thrown in a minute is superior, but it's a weight that has inferior characteristics of penetration and flatness of trajectory, not to mention that their range is more than 10 km smaller. Armor-wise, even the Dunkerque itself is overall better protected, since its belt is uniformly 225 mm thick (while that of the Cavour and the Duilio classes is more tapered), not to mention that the deck is definitely stronger. The turrets are also stronger (I can't say if the stronger roof of the Italian turrets, 230 mm vs 150-160, can be a sensible edge, though). And speed-wise the French battleships can determine the range well enough, having a speed advantage of some 3-4 knots. Unless of course the Italian BB can show up unespectedly at close range, but that's a pretty substantial "if". IRL, it was sketchy, as there were eventually four Italian modernized BBs, against the two Dunkerques, but one-on-one the advantage clearly lies with the French ship. In a straight engagement, an Italian "Voronoff" (as they called them) can only hope that one of its shells will do something critical, and pray for their 330 mm to miss. And that if its French opponent decides not to stay comfortably out of range and play sniper.

He means in terms of capability, relative to battleships. I trust you won't say that in that respect, they are almost the same...

I also hope that somebody gets his facts straight. I've been locked with quite some time with someone on YouTube who keeps insisting that the Giulio Cesare/Novorossyrsk is "almsot the same" as ships such as the Dunkerque, and therefore it should be at Tier 6.

Well, I don't find any of this funny. So...

Maybe I find accomplishment in other forum activities, y'know... So, do you find accomplishment in pointing out to people that their sense of accomplishment is wondering wheter other people are finding accomplishment in troll threads?

How does one find accomplishment in writing such senseless and time-wasting posts such as the OP's?

It's kind of like asking a waterfall why its water goes down and now up, but whatever. I think we can expect an Italian premium in the next months.

Excuse me, but then what does this mean? Either the author of the article became lost, or these two sentences can't contradict each other. Either Schneider didn't have to do major corrections, or he did. You tell me which.

Looks like we might be getting an article on the "oceanic scouts" that were planned in the next number of Storia Militare. They'd be the true face of the Costanzo Ciano-class (the ones for years thought to be mere improvements of the Abruzzi). I'm so going to get that number; if there's anything interesting I'll share. It wouldn't hurt to have another light cruiser design, wouldn't it?

Nope. Everytime words like "French" and "Italian" show up, it's a statistical certainty that sooner or later someone will throw the usual jokes around. Here's the explanation for that.

The article that you point to says this: So, after the torpedo alarm, there was the need to re-establish the range, but after the Hood was sunk there was relatively little to do. It does say that the Hood's destruction was so sudden that the sixth salvo was still fired after the ship had blown up, at its estimated position.

It might be wrong, but the work cited on Wikipedia says that Bismarck fired three four-shot salvoes to find the range, before switching to rapid fire. Also, I might be recalling things wrong, but Prince of Wales was shadowing Hood, so the adjustements made to target her might have been small.

For my part, it was not my intention to pass a judgement of any kind, be it approval or disapproval, over the overall conduct of the government of France in that time. My comment was only a sarcastic remark for those who actually believe that, when in combat (against any opponent), they did little more than try and run away, or surrender, on a tactical level; nothing more.

Looking good.

[edited] Not to mention the fact that, other than Mers-El-Kebir, Dakar and Casablanca, there were other engagements between the Marine Nationale and the Royal Navy, even tough they were small. As for the logic between the "all-forward" main armament, we should remember that this, together with the adoption of the quadruple turret, allowed a nice saving in weight. And weight was the tyrant of military naval designers in that era.

Given that there's already one premium for Poland, how about we concentrate on other navies before adding a new one? The French are going to have a premium of their own soon, the Italians might be deserving one as well... Just my two cents...

Clickbait.