Historynerd

I see your point, and I know that such data is not to be taken as face value. However, although I fully agree on the possibility of it being off mark considerably, I don't think it ought to be dismissed completely. While these guns are not the underwhelming guns they seem by Okun (and to be fair I had expressed my disbelief at such pitiful indicated performance), they may not be exactly the 340 mm versions of the British 13.5 and 15-inch guns, in terms of hitting power and penetration. But you're right, in the end it comes down to balance and how WG decides to spin it. Anyway, I too think that the armor scheme precludes the Bretagne going close and personal USA-style. If WG does not surprise us, I'd sail mine with a bit of cautiousness and prepare to support the frontline.

Ugly as it was, it seems it did help advance aircraft technology.

Apart from the fact that some data seems to suggest that they could fire a bit faster than that, I think it won't be as slow as that, unless it would almost guarantee a citadel with each salvo. A reload time around 35+ seconds might be alright, considering that they should also have excellent performance for their Tier (having high muzzle velocity and a very flat trajectory).

Given that the Mark I was 40 calibers long, and all the sources about the subsequent designs talk of 18-inch guns 45 calibers long, I'd say it's safe to say it was so.

Weren't the planned battleships and battlecruisers to be armed with the 18-inch Mark II gun?

I always found somewhat ironic that the Roma (which, design-wise, was the oldest and least advanced 1930s battleship around) was sunk, among all the other modern BBs, with the most innovative and advanced weapon around (concept-wise at least, I know little about how well the Fritz-X worked). Even if they weren't that active, compared to other battleships, they very much played a part in the war, so much that only after they were interned (and the threat of the German capital ships had been reduced) the British were able to put together a sizable fleet in the Pacific area. As for the Fritz-X, Warspite was lucky, and Roma was unlucky. The latter blew up just because she had the misfortune of being hit straight into the magazines, after a previous hit and a near-miss had already seriously damaged her and slowed her down, without outright crippling her however. Warspite managed to survive, but stopped dead in the water without any power.

That may not be a problem. For several Italian guns, especially on cruisers and destroyers, the main contributor to dispersion was the single cradle, which placed the barrels too close together. However, there are many ships in-game that should have dispersion issues just as bad (Omaha, Kirov,...), and they haven't. On the battleships, the 1% tolerance of the fabricated shells and propellant bags was what caused most issues. But if WG were to consider that factor, it'd have to consider other historical examples - such as the poor performance of WWI British heavy caliber shells until the introduction of the "Greenboys". And I don't think that, when we'll get the British BBs, we'll find the early ones unable to deal damage. It boils down to a single matter. Will WG give the Italians bad dispersion as a national flavour? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think it will do so based on what happened IRL.

From what I gathered, dispersion is kind of fixed by nation... Yes... I know how this'll go...

How lucky we are that the game tends to favor guns such as the Model 1934...

Not quite. In Italian nomenclature, most major warships were considered male as well.

Well, those big guns are going to be counterproductive, since AFT won't apply to them. (Happily nurtures the 135 mm guns of the Capitani Romani )

Shouldn't this at least be in the "Warships project" section? Given that (for obvious reasons) such a ship was never built, this topic belongs more to that section.

I think that the best the Regia Marina can lay claim to, is that, as far as optic fire control systems went, its own equipment was not worse than those of the other major powers, although several secondary factors (auxiliary and transmission equipment) hampered their efficiency (beside all the other factors at gun and shell level that worked against Italian gunnery). In fact, I think that even though the dispersion issue was apparent, the accuracy of Italian fire during the war tended to be rather good. But of course, given that the Regia Marina woke up late to the importance of radar, and all research and studies ground to a halt in 1943, when radar fire control became widespread the Italian ships were simply outclassed in this area. And again, as others have said, the example of the Italian ships confirms that "accuracy" and "dispersion" aren't the same thing. A ship's fire can be accurate, yet its shots may not strike the enemy because of dispersion.

About the engagement of the Berwick vs the Admiral Hipper, I found this: So, it took quite a beating, and substantial damage that impaired its fighting ability quite a bit. Also, given that the 203 mm shell was deflected towards the bulges, I'd say that the hit was not normal. Curious that the Y turret was again knocked out. The Italian heavy cruisers at Cape Spartivento had done the same, and taken out the power to the whole aft section of the ship. A pity, Berwick wasn't a lucky ship, when it came to duking it out against ships of her own class...

You're saying that it means that they're using the half-turret mechanism? Considering each turret as two semi-turrets? If that's the case, alright, but in the stats it doesn't kinda look that way...

Weird. I would've bet that they would have souped up the turrets' HP.

...I'm thinking that maybe we should split the topic, and have the stuff about the Dunkerque on another...

IRL, I'd say yes. For how secondaries are implemented in the game, unless they have nothing better, I'm not sure if they're worth the bother.

I found this on NavWeaps: Overall, it looks that even though as AA guns they ended up being alright, as secondaries they weren't worth much. Interesting. It might have done something against secondary and AA mounts; create some confusion, and the likes. During the battle of the Harpoon convoy, the Italian cruisers at times used even their 37 mm MGs against their ships; however, this was done pretty much at extreme range, and even if something hit its effect must have been negligible. Historians chalk it up to the crews being excited and with high morale (as they were getting the upper hand), and just going "to heck with it" and blasting away.

You can. Just click on "edit", then "use full editor"; on that screen you can change the title.

It wasn't "solved", in my opinion, it was simply avoided, by making sure the guns wouldn't fire together. Not a crippling disadvantage, but not a good thing either.

Pages 225-6. No, but this was about IRL issues. As for the guns in the game... only wait and see, to see how they'll perform.

NavWeaps.com disagrees, and so does John Jordan in his book "French battleships 1922-1956"; they both say that the 330 mm mounts did cause huge dispersion issues. Would have been surprised if they hadn't, since in each pair the gun axes were separated by only 169 cm (while those on the Richelieu were 195 cm apart).