Historynerd

17-inch guns that took 8 minutes to reload. Yikes. I read that in one training exercises with the Duilio-class ironclads (that had similar guns), the Duilio fired both her guns, so the opposing torpedo-boat took advantage of it and closed in to hit her with a torpedo. The Duilio's captain showed her her bow and fired his torpedo as well, with both hitting. The umpire ruled that the torpedo-boat had been sunk, and the Duilio had been considerably damaged but had stayed afloat. I admit I had trouble picturing such an engagement...

Do you mean IRL, or in-game? Or both? IRL, isn't said gain in firepower paid for with complications to the ship's structure and armor protection?

I agree. I read in Friedman's book that on the USS New York they just couldn't keep dispersion low, because of the steam ducts that went around the midships magazine that altered the temperature of the propellant.

I think that the South Carolina deserves preminence in this. Whatever her other faults were (not because of her designers, but because of a cheapskate Congress), she was right on track. None of that silly wing turret business.

That goes without saying. Not to mention that WG isn't keen about fixed torpedo tubes...

They were all fixed, as was customary.

Ah, what the heck. It's true, one cannot be stopped from creating all the threads he likes... ...as long as he isn't banned. And I believe that the subject may have earned a vacation; or, at very least, badly needs one.

You said it yourself. Were the game to follow how things went IRL, the Omaha should have quite a bit of dispersion. Yet, it doesn't.

Yes, I meant it that way. I am aware that dispersion seems to be standardized by nation.

I don't think armor can be taken as a trait; it shifts from ship to ship. Generally speaking, it'll tend to get better going up towards Tier X. We could talk about dispersion. In fact, how about we speak about the elephant in the room? Italian ships had a reputation for huge dispersion patterns (and for most medium caliber guns it was justified, thanks to those darned single sleeved mounts). What are the chances that WG will give them long range, but sizable dispersion?

Not to my knowledge. What I know is that the shipyard was founded in 1864 by John Pattison, as an offshoot of the firm "Guppy & Co." of Bristol, if I understood it properly. So, it seems that it came to existence before the Thornycroft company itself (established in 1866).

Hey, c'mon, let's be positive here. I think we can look at 2017 with optimism, and that a premium might come as of Q2 of the same. In any case, it's not useful to beat the dead horse again, since it'll remain dead no matter what we do.

True that.

One trait that will emerge with full force as soon as the first Italian ship is released (either regular or premium) will be that most people will pronounce their names wrong. Not that it's only their fault, it's always difficult to pronounce properly names in a language we're not fluent with. I dread mispronouncing foreign names all the time. Still, it would be nice to hear, when it will come, people talking about the destroyer FOL-go-reh (not Fol-GO-reh), and the battleship Vit-TO-rioh VE-ne-toh (not Vit-To-Rio Ve-NE-toh). But what can we expect, if there is uncertainty on how to pronounce even an American cruiser?

That is true, but even then relations never became really strained. Now we can close this OT.

Not quite; the relations were much different from the ones you would expect between a fascist and a communist power. In fact, Italy was by a matter of days the second Great Power (the first was the United Kingdom) to formally open diplomatic relations with, and therefore recognize, the Soviet Union. And even in the days of the Anti-Comintern Pact, the relations never really became that bad. In this light, the continued trade of naval engineering is not quite a surprise.

Well, I think there are some around the forum who know more about the Soviet-Italian naval cooperation. However, the picture I've made is one in which, even though they did share quite a lot of stuff, the Italians didn't exactly share everything. There's another bit of info that, in my opinion, points to the fact that the Italians weren't willing to divulge just everything. When the Dutch were preparing to build their Design 1047-class battlecruisers, in February 1940 a delegation visited Itay, and they were allowed to visit the new battleship Vittorio Veneto (then fitting out) but not the sister Roma (still under construction). So, while they apparently got a few pointers, they weren't allowed to peek at the more sensitive things. I found out about this visit on this website: http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Special_battlecruiser.htm

I had the same doubt; however, it seems that the Italian companies did not include the Pugliese system in the designs they presented (UP.41 and such, in which there was an orthodox system), and the Soviets obtained only some sketches and the general idea of the system via other means (I guess some industrial espionage). So it seems they tested a system that it was just a rough and crude copy of the original, therefore inferior.

The earlier light cruisers wouldn't be that different from the Kirov, which seems to me that works pretty well. Since the Regia Marina's progress was halted in 1943, some "what-if" buffs can be considered with new weapons (new 20 mm mounts, the 65 mm AA gun, etc.). If you refer to the Capitani Romani, that's exactly what we claim. They were more super-destroyers than light cruisers, and several things point it out: - their choice of armament (lower than the standard 152 mm, but enough to match the French 138 mm) - their speed - their total lack of protection - the fact that when they were designed they were to fall under the classification of "scouts", and the light cruisers classification was a push (in 1938 the Regia Marina re-rated several ships as such, even those that didn't have the capacity). If you have doubts about the Pugliese TDS, I invite you to give a good read to this topic: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/38017-the-pugliese-underwater-protection-system/ The system lived up to its expectations pretty much as well as other systems implemented on similar ships (HMS Prince of Wales, Scharnhorst, etc.).

So... I believe it's safe to declare that our smaller playerbase did the job for us, isn't it? Deamon93, you can take your time looking into your things. We lost our top priority!

You are right, but I am afraid they are going to be a minority.

I hope so. Hope for progress is what makes me go forward, and not only progress of this things!

Well, we Italians tried to embrace the pitiful image (military-wise), because it supported the idea that we were "good people" who didn't participate in what the Germans did against many, many people. Now, it's now becoming apparent that we did better against the Allies, but we also had our fair share of war crimes, both before and during WWII. It's a common thing, that much is true, unfortunately.

Those were WWII-era torpedo-boats, the Spica-class, that likely won't be in game. And they later received their four torpedoes in two centerline twin mounts. Yes, sorry. I tend to get carried away. Yes, torpedo bombing was something that proved fruitful, but it was ruined early on by politics. The Regia Aeronautica Chief of Staff, general Valle, didn't want anything to do with any aircraft capable of doing something on the sea, because he feared that it would lead to resources being diverted towards the Navy. His successor reversed his decision, but by 1940 only one squadron had been formed; they joked about it, and nicknamed themselves "the four cats" (an Italian expression for very few people). Submarine-wise, Italy had its aces as well, namely skippers like Carlo Fecia di Cossato and Gianfranco Gazzana Priaroggia, both deserving to be mentioned alongside Otto Kretschmer, "Mush" Morton, David Malcoln Wanklyn and Takakazu Kinashi.

Also, this is a self-reinforcing role. After you've cast someone in the "laughing stock" role, you can't go and admit that the laughing stock actually landed a few good shots, can you? No, you better pretend that it never happened, or claim that the other guy (i.e. the Germans) did it. Someone looked at the post-operation reports of Operation Harpoon, and then at the version given on the Gazette in 1946. The first talked about Italian bombers attacking with their "usual Italian gallantry", of the Italian ships and their "accurate and unpleasant fire". And admitted that some British skippers, faced before such enemies, didn't exactly do the Nelsonian thing, i.e. attacking without a thought, but respecting their enemies. The latter omitted any positive comment on the Italians, exaggerated or made up German successes, and tried to give a Nelsonian picture on how the RN performed that day. Interesting differences, I'd say...