Jump to content

stefsap

Players
  • Content Сount

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stefsap

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

196 profile views
  1. stefsap

    Supposizioni su corazzate italiane tier IX e X

    Attenzione che UP41 sta per ufficio progetti (ansaldo) e non per umberto pugliese.
  2. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    It is amazing to see in 2017 people still believing the torpedo hits on RN Conte di Cavour and RN Caio Duilio were on the Pugliese system. They were under the keel. This said, D&G made serious mistakes in assessing the system. If you have a look to their references you will understand why. As for repair time and maintenance problem, the statements above doesn't fit with the evidence of the war records (verify times on you own, comparing different navies and damages, it will prove an interesting exercise). The hits on the 9 September 1943, are extremely interesting to analyse, as they say that, along with the KM trials on the RN Impero hull, non contact explosion were very well absorbed. There will be news in the naval literature on this point, in a short time. People should check the data, and not believe tertiary, scarcely documented were not plainly wrong sources. E.G.: G&D: “the loss of the battleship Roma revealed the vulnerability of the system to the near–miss detonation of large explosive charges” incredibly wrong. (W.H. Garzke e R.O. Dulin Jr., “Battleships - Allied battleships in WWII”, Annapolis, 1980, p 328) "the interior torpedo bulkhead was connected to the bottom of the hull by a riveted joint" amazing, just amazing. They never had a look to the detailed drawings. As for the PoW, of course chance has a role in war, as well good design, as previously said.
  3. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    Just updated the article about the RN Giulio Cesare at Naples with the bomb description. https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/rn-giulio-cesare-damage-at-puglieses-tds
  4. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    Well, it is easier to do "research" in you own language, so the Pennsylvania is good enough!
  5. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    HistoryNerd is right, cylinders inside the Pugliese system were empty (Breyer is wrong) while the surrounding space was filled with liquid. The reason for that is simple: according to the laws of physics, liquids can't be compressed. The explosion energy was so instantly distribute on the whole area interested (curved and armoured internal bulkhead and the light cylinder. This mean to strongly lessen the maximum pressure to be managed. Furthermore, the collapse of the light cylinder, besides adsorbing energy, causes a immediate lowering on the pressure on the entire area (always because of the liquid properties). Speaking of the RN Viittorio Veneto against Prince of Wales, it is always doubtful to compare hits apparently similar; for sure the damages were. Here is a picture of VV in the drydock showing the damage, as you can see two axis were destroyed while the ship was steaming at speed. According to the British sources, the "irreparable damage" suffered by the PoW on the first torpedo could had been worsened by wrong managing of the damage. A first hand account here: https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/the-loss-of-repulse-and-prince-of-wales-december-10-1941/ and a detailed post mortem analysis here: https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/death-of-a-battleship-2012-update-price-of-wales.pdf For sure both hits could had been fatal as in the Bismark case. VV survived, PoW and Bismark did not. Chance has a role in war, as well as robust design.
  6. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    Unfortunately not. May be some aviation expert could say which type of bombs were used by the Allies in that instance.
  7. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    Added a shot article on the blog on all the hits/damages suffered by the Pugliese TDS: https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/rn-giulio-cesare-damage-at-puglieses-tds/
  8. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    I appreciate your answer. The point here to my eyes is not if you know or not were the torpedo hit and the damage they caused, but the conclusion (and the tone of them) you draw.I openly admit they were able to upset me and made me harsher than I could. Here is my comment that explain it clearly I believe: "Actually i did. AS is nonsense to expect a TDS working against under the keel explosions (like in the case at Taranto for RN Conte di Cavour and RN Caio Duiliu, could not find an explanation for this sentence: "As for the Conte di Cavour and the Duilio, each hit by a torpedo, the situation was more clear-cut. With inadequate dimensions, the Pugliese system was overwhelmed, and both ships took on copious amounts of water." Pugliese system and its dimension onboard these ships did not have any relationship with the flooding they take, and the Pugliese system was not interested at all. Wonder about the meaning of the sentence "Yes, ingenuity was definitely at play, here." too. What are you referring to?So, as you can see, details are important when writing." As I said before, I am not interested in be proved right or wrong, as we are discussing facts and not people or opinions. I am sorry if you perceived my tone as offending, as for sure I perceived your conclusions as naive and based on wrong info. "Uneducated" has, besides others, one meaning in English, and in this meaning I used it: "not informed; lacking in knowledge or information; "the uninformed public"". So I am not questioning your kindness. On the contrary, I appreciate the discussion and the willing to go in depth on the topic. As far as the RN Caio Duilo is concerned, the quoted source says: "The only significant damage these units (RN Dulio and RN Andrea Doria) suffered in the was was the RN Duilio heavy damage in Taranto on November, 11th, 1940 when a torpedo, launched by a aircraft carrier based airplane, exploded below the keel under the forward MCG towers." From the damage drawings I have access to, it seems that the explosion was not right at the center of the keel as for RN Conte di Cavour, but more close to one side. Another interesting point, usually found in the English based literature are the claimed long repairing times for damages to the Pugliese system; these statement seems not to be supported by an analysis of the repairing times needed for torpedo damages across different navies on similar damage (just one example is the HMS Nelson, hit at sea by one Italian torpedo on 27 September 1941 and under repair in Britain until May 1942). As we are on the topic, I see often quoted the Soviet trials on the Pugliese system as disappointing (one of the sources is Vasiliev's book on the SS soviet class BBs). It must be noted that, on the contrary of what is usually believed, Italy did not disclose the system to the Soviet Navy with the UP41 design, as this design did not included this specific feature. It seems the Soviets got it via intelligence, but lacked of the essential info needed to correctly build it. There is another source of technical and detailed info on the Pugliese system performance, the trials made by the Kriegsmarine on the hull of the RN Impero in 1994. The reference is Dieter Thomaier, 42° Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Schiffahrts-u. Marinegeschichte Acta, Berliner Maritim, September 2013 (Bundesarchiv-Militarãrchiv, TS 487/43124 and W-04/14723). AFA the effectiveness of the Pugliese system is concerned on the rebuilt BBs, the only actual episode I am aware of was the explosion of a bomb very close to the system, but I have to dig out of the library the article. Hope we are settled the personal part of the dispute and we can go friendly go further in discussing Naval topics.
  9. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    Could you please specify which part of my actual writing you don't agree with? BTW, I don't unterstand the part of your sentence about "right" or "wrong" for someone. There are facts, and fact are neutral. Then, there are people that doen't know facts, and people that even knowing the facts still sticks to uneducated beliefs. Anyway, there is a shortlist of first class literature about damage at the Tarnto night. I would suggest you to read: http://www.amazon.it/navi-battaglia-classe-Littorio-1937-1948/dp/8887372667 the definitve text on the littorio class; Relevant pages for torpedo damage at Taranto 285-287 (the book reports all the damages suffered, including torpedo hits on the Pugliese System at sea) and http://www.amazon.it/Le-navi-guerra-italiane-1940-1945/dp/8887372365 for an overall knowledge of the history of the Regia Marina units. Relevant for teh topic page 72 for RN Conte di Cavour and 75 for RN Caio Duilio a good lecture for you could be http://www.amazon.it/GUERRA-SUL-MARE-BAGNASCO-ERMINIO/dp/B00O4YC1Q4 "In guerra sul mare" , too even the old booklets of the orizzonte marie series should be pretty informative. As for the RN Conte di Cavour, here is a picture of the damage, once in drydock. It was clearly a fault of the Pugliese System.
  10. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    Actually i did. AS is nonsense to expect a TDS working against under the keel explosions (like in the case at Taranto for RN Conte di Cavour and RN Caio Duiliu, could not find an explanation for this sentence: "As for the Conte di Cavour and the Duilio, each hit by a torpedo, the situation was more clear-cut. With inadequate dimensions, the Pugliese system was overwhelmed, and both ships took on copious amounts of water." Pugliese system and its dimension onboard these ships did not have any relationship with the flooding they take, and the Pugliese system was not interested at all. Wonder about the meaning of the sentence "Yes, ingenuity was definitely at play, here." too. What are you referring to? So, as you can see, details are important when writing.
  11. stefsap

    The Pugliese underwater protection system

    Sorry folks, both in the case of RB Cont di Cavour and RN Caio Duilio torpedoes exploded below the hull, the Pugliese system was non interested at all. Of the three hits on RN Littorio, only one ws inside the are protected by the system. Sometimes is useful looking in details at facts before even thinking to go to a statement.
  12. stefsap

    Italian capital ship Synopsis

    Well RN Synopsis, named after Admiral de Feo's quick notes at the Academy when he was a Cadet, had 3/381, 3/320, 2*2/305, 2*2 203, 2*2/152, 2*2/120, 4/90. She could dive to -100m, carried 2*533 TT and her speed varied from 2k to 30k, besides 2 floatplanes and a planned deck for at lest 2 fighter and 2 bombers.
  13. stefsap

    Unknow light-cruiser design

    It seems a kind of recovering seaplanes device, I guess to let the crane working even when ship is moving? I am puzzled by that, too. PS: corrected a mistake in the specs.
  14. As updated in 2005, there are some mistakes of false assumptions:
  15. stefsap

    Unknow light-cruiser design

    Not a great mistery here. It is the sketch for the oceanic cruiser, to be based (2 at the beginning, later 3) in Chisimaio, as reported in the article. Not to be confused with the new fleet cruisers, the Costanzo Ciano class (a warning: the Ciano class profile is NOT as showed in WI). Specs (as in 1939): 8000 tons max speed 32 k for 12 hours (normal load) 32000 miles at 15 k Diesel engine (central), turbine on the two laterals 6 or 8 if possible 152 mm 8/90 mm AA Good horizontal protection, even if the vertical one should prove to be reduced, envisioning long range fight against similar units 2 aircrafts 50% more ammo load if compared with normal cruisers
×