Historynerd

"Longest naval kill"? You still haven't gotten it right; it should be "one of the longest naval hits", since the Giulio Cesare was not quite killed (damage was moderate all in all, it's just that thanks to the fact that there was still lot of flammable stuff there was a lot of smoke that got sucked in the boiler rooms, forcing the people down there to get the heck out, therefore causing a temporary drop in speed), and since the consensus is that the Warspite's hit is equal (all things considered) to that of the Scharnhorst (and, we might add, even then the Glorious wasn't killed just by that shot). Also, just because it scored such a hit, it doesn't automatically mean that the gun itself were altogether accurate (although the 15-inch guns were overall weapons with tight dispersion patterns). During Operation Harpoon, an Italian light cruiser (the Raimondo Montecuccoli) scored a hit against a minesweeper (HMS Hebe) at more or less 21'000 m; this despite the fact that its 152 mm guns (high-velocity guns on twin mountings with single cradles) were infamous for having huge dispersion patterns.

Well, exactly! So why is it strange that their fleet was decimated ("destroyed" seems a bit too much, since only half of the Franco-Spanish ships were losses)? Sure it's a bad idea to have one's fleet destroyed. But that's why battles are not mere military events; sometimes politicians play a part, too (and usually not a good one). But I don't see how this is different from other happenings, for example Camperdown. Would you call that battle embarassing for the Dutch?

...So, the fact that the British enjoyed an advantage in crew training that potentially allowed each one of their ship to overwhelm a French or a Spanish one is moot? Sorry, but this logic baffles me. Why do you think they "allowed their whole fleet to be destroyed", otherwise?

DDs = Destroyers. IJN = Imperial Japanese Navy (i.e. Japan). Actually, CA meant Heavy Cruiser (not the same as Armoured). CV does theoretically mean that it's a "fleet" carrier; however, we have CVs in game that were considered light aircraft carriers IRL.

The impact on naval battles and history is not measured by victory alone; brave and competent men fought for the Royale: Tourville, Suffren, De Grasse, and the likes. As for French naval victories, I might cite what in retrospective has been called the most significant, the Battle of Beachy Head of 1690. Why is Trafalgar embarassing? Is it because the French and Spanish ships were more numerous? History has proven time and again that number alone is no guarantee of victory, and an opponent inferior in numbers but better trained and well-led can reach victory.

A very interesting write-up. I'd be interested in that, too. Given that IRL this design (from what I gather) was axed because it was too much like an improved Hood and not enough a match for the foreign battlecruisers she might have faced (Lexington and Amagi), firepower is not the least important factor. What gives me pause is that this new 15-inch gun might have followed the pattern of big caliber British guns of the early 1920s, which doesn't seem to be the optimal one...

Couldn't this be because there might be more Dutch players active in this forum than French or Italian ones? Also, this may spark a debate, but "much greater legacy in naval battle" seems a tad exaggerated. Sure, during the 17th century the Dutch Navy was amongst the most powerful in the world, it had great ships and great sailors, and it propelled more than a few admirals to glory. The French navy, however, was a persistent and dogged enemy even against the Royal Navy in the 18th and early 19th century, and more than a few times its efforts were rewarded by victory. It's more complicated to talk about Italy, since it's made up of several histories. However, the naval history of Italy traces back far behind, when the ships of its maritime republics largely dominated the Mediterranean sea, and even when large countries and its powerful navies began to wrest such domination from them, their ships were still able to fight and command respect. This is just my opinion, however.

WoT =/= WoWs Even if they did something of the sorts in the former, doesn't mean they'll do it in the latter. As you said yourself, this kind of ships is really awkward to balance, and that's the biggest con that sits against their implementation. As for submarines... doesn't matter how many people want them. They would be a mistake.

He was the one who pushed it. Admiral Cattaneo seemingly was hesitant (according to his flag lieutenant); but it seems he was also the one who had the destroyers trail his cruisers, while the opposite might have been warranted. He had the courage of his own opinions, true. He was self-admittedly an admirer of Nelson, and he had no trouble in contradicting the doctrines that he felt were wrong. The battle of Pantelleria wasn't exactly a tactical masterpiece (but we must also consider that he had an inferior broadside weight, that his recon planes were either shot down or unable to transmit anything, and he was constrained by minefields), but overall, I agree with what Vincent O'Hara said: not a bad day's work. He did get some nice shots on the enemy.

The admiral commanding the division (Carlo Cattaneo) was one of those who died. Admiral Iachino, in overall command, did not lose his job.

A task that might have been executed by destroyers; why send back the whole division? Besides, if you find an enemy, destroyers have way better chances to sneak away and find refuge in darkness.

By that logic, the American cruisers (plus the Canberra of the RAN) at Savo were terrible ships as well. How can a design be judged by an event that wouldn't have been thought of by any ship designer, and that anyways exceeded any of the requirements for this kind of ships? I'd like to see a heavy cruiser of any kind capable of not sinking after being blasted by 15-inch guns at almost point-blank range. The slaughter of Matapan did not happen because their design was bad; the vast majority of naval historians agree to this. It happened because the whole operation was ill-thought (a desire to go on the attack sometimes, coupled with the Germans saying "Do something!"), and the Italian commander refused to even suspect that major British forces might be out there. So, when a cruiser was torpedoed and immobilized, he sent its division back to tow it home, sending it right under the barrels of the Mediterranean Fleet. And given that they had no radar, and the idea that they might fight at night had not even been considered by the theoreticians, they were nothing more than fish in a barrel. Their loss was due to the glaring and huge flaws in the Regia Marina's doctrine and training, especially regarding nighttime combat, than to any technical fault of the cruisers and the destroyers sunk that night.

I'm not discussing that, absolutely. I'm just being what I am, a pain in the backside, with my love for precision! Still, the point stands. The naval engineers followed a completely different hierarchy. They were considered the peers of "pure" naval officers, but they simply had different ranks and titles. A difference was that the highest rank that could be achieved (Generale ispettore) was the equivalent of the rank of Vice Admiral (Ammiraglio di Squadra), so there weren't provisions for reaching the few remaining higher ranks (equivalents of full Admiral and Admiral of the Fleet). It's not a matter of not giving him a naval rank; he already held the one, appropriate for the branch he was working on. He reached the rank of Maggior Generale (the then-equivalent of Rear Admiral). One thing; it's difficult to keep track of the Italian naval ranks. They changed quite a bit over time!

I found this about the armor: So, that is definitely not cruiser-grade protection, true; but neither is battleship-level, as at normal combat ranges any 305 mm gun would be able to pierce through this with little problem. An odd one, this is.

As a Tier 2, maybe 3... what? Cruiser or battleship?

Um... Cuniberti was no admiral, he was an officer in the Naval Corps of Engineers (Genio Navale)...

Just because they were designed and carefully planned, it doesn't mean they were real. They were ready to become real, to be actually built, but they never were. Good idea; I would like to get to know these cruisers better myself!

Fair enough.

The source of the statement I've found in the article I've mentioned before is the following: Lloyd & Hadcock, Artillery: Its Progress and Present Position, Portsmouth, Griffin & Co., 1893, page 50.

Is it? The only way the Surrey came close to the protection of the Zara is because the machinery space was small; and it had a separate, short main belt, and separate magazine boxes, instead of the continuous belt and deck of the Zara. Moreover, the turrets and the ammunition trunks remained lightly protected (1 in of maximum thickness), while those of the Zara were well protected. All this for a ship with no big advantage in firepower if any (mainly thanks to the deficiences of the Italian mounts), and with similar speed. John Jordan in his book said that the degree of protection of the Zaras was such to make that of the Surrey look "grossly inadequate". So, while she's in the same class, and she was a definite improvement over the previous Type A cruisers, I wouldn't say that she is "very similar"... In-game, the only advantage that brings the Surrey up to Tier VIII, in my opinion, is the fact that it has torpedo armament. But as a gunboat, I'd choose the Zara. Sorry for the necro.

That's your fault for having a life! XD Somebody might say that the Caracciolo again sacrificed too much armor for speed, but they did show potential. I went to check an article about the Duilio's guns. It says that the accident happened on 6 March, not 8; it does not mention a double charge, instead it says that the probable cause was a fracturation of the gunpowder crystals that caused a very fast combustion, raising the working pressure to far above the designed value. In April the gun was sent to Great Britain to be repaired. True. Although some may reply that the Duilios might have needed just one shot on target, while the contrary is not true. It also seems that some detractors of these ships attributed the low rate of fire to the fact that the turrets were moved by steam power, not manual; they believe that with manual movement the RoF would have been higher...

Well, to be fair, it wasn't that horrible at that time. The 16-inch guns of the HMS Inflexible could take from 2.5 to 4 minutes to reload. The Duilio didn't suffer any explosion, if I'm not mistaken. Nor did her sister Dandolo.

Well said. That's why I personally feel more drawn to more balanced designs. Anyway, this discussion about battlecruisers got me thinking. Some (including the designers of a recently released game) seem to consider the Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships as battlecruisers. If we see it from the perspective of the Royal Navy (that considered battlecruisers any capital ships whose top speed exceeded 24 knots), it's not wrong. But I doubt that there was any doubt among the Regia Marina that they were meant to face ships of their own class, i.e. battleships. Is this right?

All true; however, even if the speed advantage that you enjoy is considerable (even 10 knots), it doesn't mean that you can escape that soon from the enemy's range, if you have the misfortune of getting too close to them before spotting them. If we posit a 10 knot speed advantage, that would mean that you would gain 300 meters every minute over your enemy. Say that you have to open the range by 5 km to get out of his fire; that means that you'd have to wait sixteen minutes and a half. That's quite a bit of time.

Theoretically. What happens if you meet the enemy by surprise? There are plenty of examples to pick from. In which case, speed is no guarantee of survival, no matter victory.