Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Criseox

Proposal for tier 7 and 10 of the Italian battleships

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NKK]
Players
2,000 posts

 

Say hello to Morosini and Michelangelo

 

 

In the Spanish forum we have prepared a forecast about the future branch of Italian battleships. It is here

 

 

 

 

And although it is in Spanish. It is easy to see because it has many drawings, photos and plans.

In this forum there is a post with similar content but covering the entire Italian fleet.

In the battleship branch there is a great coincidence over most tiers but it is observed that there are two gaps.

The tier 7 that is usually covered with a "Paper ship"

The tier 10 that is a pure fantasy

We present two options for these two tiers

 

 

Tier 7 Francesco Morosini

 

 

186fa598c8cb66f030429ad917dcc95b.png


 

 

What is the battleship Francesco Morosini?

 

It is the name of the third battleship of the class Francesco Caracciolo.

This class never came into service and according to their characteristics would have been excellent candidates for tier 6.

But if this had been rebuilt according to the model that was followed by the Cavour class,

they would have automatically become magnificent candidates for a higher tier.

 

The reconstruction would have been based on increasing protection without impairing speed.

Improve the situation of the main artillery turrets and equip it with an appropriate secondary and antiaircraft artillery.

 

The final result is very similar to the battlecruiser Hood which is good

because it puts it at a level similar to the Gneisenau

and clearly distinguishes it from the slow battleships like the Colorado and the Mutsu.

 

 

Tier 10 Michelangelo Buonarroti

 

 

As it would have been a tier 10 Italian is an election.We have chosen two things.

The first is the appearance.

We think it was very common that cruisers and battleships tended to look very similar.

Therefore the last Italian battleship should have resembled the last Italian cruiser the anti-aircraft cruiser Etna

The second is the caliber,

when we developed our vessel we did not know that the 17-inch caliber was going to be implemented

in the French battleships. But we already thought it was the right caliber for an Italian tier 10

 

What we have not finished deciding is the final configuration. Our first idea was that it was the same as the Littorio class.

It is a fast battleship, agile and forceful by the bow 9 x 341 mm

 

8224e2d41b7250093904b564ca1f3918.png

 

Our second favorite is a configuration similar to the Cavour class with ten 431 mm guns.

A battleship very, very balanced.


 

6170ea852a573ebb493fc4dee889d2d8.png


 

Of course WG can do something more conventional.

 

One possibility is to repeat the "Montana" model with twelve 406 mm guns

 

bd0a2cb39006f525127134f07ab51c0f.png


 

Another is somewhat similar to the second configuration of the Conqueror with eight 457 mm guns.

 

8690880b467e76297e4a2e5282ad4df8.png


 

We are so eager to see those designs in the game that we offer them free to WG in case they want to use them.

 

Although if we give a small reward for being such good fans we would not say no :Smile_Default:

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-I-N-]
[-I-N-]
Players
1,878 posts
11,025 battles

Nice work there. :Smile_honoring:

 

In the German Forum we also did discuss this topic and the problem with the T X. For me the second Version makes the most sense, sure the Montana gunsetup is great but also boring to use again and only 9 431mm guns seems a bit to low for me, which makes the Cavour Setup the most intressting and balanced choice.

 

For your Version i would say reduce the number of the german 128mm gun to 10 x 2 12 x 2 ist just a bit to much (Kurfürst also only has 10). I'm not sure about the 65mm/64 there rof is pretty damn low compared to all other hightier "midrange" AA-mounts, which would result in a low dps value (10 dps per twin I would say (and that is generous)). Maybe instead use the Gerät 58 would help or go with a fantasy automatic upgrade to the 65mm/64. :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
4,574 posts
4,788 battles

Nice one! I like the 2x2 + 2x3 Setup as it would be something different. Another Montana setup would be boring I’d say

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
1,972 posts
5,450 battles

I like it! Would be nice to see them in game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
249 posts
8,768 battles

I don't know why tier X should borrow some German guns, probaly it would have used the 135/45 of the capitani Romani as DualP guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
249 posts
8,768 battles
2 hours ago, 0ddys said:

fantasy automatic upgrade to the 65mm/64

There was an semi-OTOmatic mechanism but was unreliable, so not totally fantasy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-I-N-]
[-I-N-]
Players
1,878 posts
11,025 battles

Well even the 135mm/45 are compared to most other latewar DP guns just bad. Yes the shells it shoots are quite heavy, but the rof is extremly low (6-7 rounds per minute comapred to 15+ on most other DP guns) also they aren't real DP guns cause there maxelevation was only 45° and even if we go with a new better mounting as it was consiered, it would still have awfull stats (rang ewould be okay but dps would be really low).

 

All in all the italians just lack decent latewar AA-mounts (no surprise) and only if we go with weapons that entered service in 1960+ (the 40mm/70 for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
249 posts
8,768 battles

It was just to make all Italian guns and maybe some fantasy improvments on the mounts (and maybe 135/53 are overkill as an upgrade), as the 90 mm works well enough. And probably Italian one would be the least performant AA of the tier X BBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
527 posts
70 battles

The next upgrade of the radar system planned to use mattress style radar masts as shared by the Germans, afaik. Great artwork otherwise. iirc there where 3 65mm projects submitted, if WG wants to be unencumbered by the trial stats of the 65/64 they can magic the Breda 65/68 aka  avoiding the powered vs manual RoF question. :cap_cool: For game meta purposes I love the UP.41 4 piece shielded 37/54, not that conqueror cares for your secondary modules.

 

I'm doubtful on to whether the caliber for the 135/53 had already been extended on the proposed DP turret projects during the war. If it had not been then we are talking about something that may fall out of WG's time range. Although there are enough projects to avoid any use of German weapons. There where post war desires to turn Abruzzi into an AA cruiser with 4 x III 135/45, I'm not sure if it was just a proposal or if a draftsman ever committed it to paper. If the Tier X must have surface secondaries these would make more sense as they could have a modest AA bonus. Basically the desire of the 65mm system was to be of a size to replace 20mm and 37mm stations. So when creating an aa suite I would base it on main tier of 135mm turrets with 65mm in a secondary uniform layer and then if there must be have 20mm and 37mm in the standard "placed to be sacrificed to HE" positions.

 

Morosini I'm not even positive WG will want to see the 381/40 and its 700mps at tier VI. Continuing with the 381/40 to tier VII would be rough.  The rebuild version makes more sense at tier VI top hull with one of the BC projects going at tier VII, imoo. As far as the tier X name chosen, ehhhhh think for a second while a great artist there was a reason it had already been passed. Unless the Spanish community is trying to be a little cheeky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,087 posts
732 battles
7 hours ago, Criseox said:

 

 

I share Sparviero's doubts about the feasibility of the Morosini at Tier 7.

Even modernized, the Caracciolo-class in my eyes cannot compete with the likes of the Gneisenau, the Colorado, the Nagato and the KGV. Simply because, in all honesty, the guns look somewhat bad, and are standouts in the Italian BB line (and we know how these kind of ships are painful).

Tier 6 is alright for it, and it'll need some what-if modernization to have its AA buffed up to decent levels, but that's it, IMHO.

 

Nice work on the Tier 10, although for me the CRDA concept @Deamon93 found is somewhat better as a starting point by WG, rather than a pure fantasy design.

I doubt we're going to see "Michelangelo" as its name as well, because the Regia Marina only honoured poets at most, and Leonardo as an inventor; artists are a no-go in Italian naming conventions, I'm afraid.

In my opinion, for Tiers 9 (which should be the UP.41) and 10 we're going to see some name like "Italia" or "Vittorio Emanuele" or something like this. Even though Deamon's suggestion of "Marco Aurelio" is nice and I'd give my vote to that...

 

4 hours ago, 0ddys said:

Well even the 135mm/45 are compared to most other latewar DP guns just bad. Yes the shells it shoots are quite heavy, but the rof is extremly low (6-7 rounds per minute comapred to 15+ on most other DP guns) also they aren't real DP guns cause there maxelevation was only 45° and even if we go with a new better mounting as it was consiered, it would still have awfull stats (rang ewould be okay but dps would be really low).

 

All in all the italians just lack decent latewar AA-mounts (no surprise) and only if we go with weapons that entered service in 1960+ (the 40mm/70 for example).

There was work to whip up some single and twin DP mounts, that were planned to be fitted on battleships (the repaired Conte di Cavour), aircraft carriers (the Aquila) and destroyers (years after the war a DP fully automated mount was developed and fitted on the rebuilt Giuseppe Garibaldi). Had this work not been stopped dead by the Armistice, something would've been produced; therefore, WG can whip up some fictitious DP mount.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,574 posts
9,108 battles
3 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

 

 

Morosini I'm not even positive WG will want to see the 381/40 and its 700mps at tier VI. Continuing with the 381/40 to tier VII would be rough. 

 

5 minutes ago, Historynerd said:

 

I share Sparviero's doubts about the feasibility of the Morosini at Tier 7.

Even modernized, the Caracciolo-class in my eyes cannot compete with the likes of the Gneisenau, the Colorado, the Nagato and the KGV. Simply because, in all honesty, the guns look somewhat bad

 

Don't even start talking like that.
I did it a year ago, and I jinxed WG into actually releasing the Lyon at T7 :Smile_teethhappy:

 

 

So, if WG is reading this thread, yes, 381/40s can totally work at T7. Hell, put it at T8 even !

:Smile_hiding:

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,087 posts
732 battles
1 minute ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

Don't even start talking like that.
I did it a year ago, and I jinxed WG into actually releasing the Lyon at T7 :Smile_teethhappy:

 

 

So, if WG is reading this thread, yes, 381/40s can totally work at T7. Hell, put it at T8 even !

:Smile_hiding:

 

 

...

tenor.gif?itemid=5280356

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Players
2,000 posts
23 hours ago, 0ddys said:

 

For your Version i would say reduce the number of the german 128mm gun to 10 x 2 12 x 2 ist just a bit to much (Kurfürst also only has 10). I'm not sure about the 65mm/64 there rof is pretty damn low compared to all other hightier "midrange" AA-mounts, which would result in a low dps value (10 dps per twin I would say (and that is generous)). Maybe instead use the Gerät 58 would help or go with a fantasy automatic upgrade to the 65mm/64. :cap_hmm:

 

 

21 hours ago, cicciolorenz said:

There was an semi-OTOmatic mechanism but was unreliable, so not totally fantasy

 

Indeed, the 65 Ansaldo / Termi cannon was an automatic loading gun designed for the Etna and the Capitani Romani. They never worked, but we assume that their problems with the electric recharging system resolved over time. They would have been deadly cannons. We consider the Gerät gun but the Ansaldo is Italian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Players
2,000 posts
20 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

The next upgrade of the radar system planned to use mattress style radar masts as shared by the Germans, afaik.

 

Well is a good idea but we have opted for the GUFO radar at the moment.

By the way. We have also created a 2005 Reggiane naval fighter that nobody has said anything about. :Smile_sad:

 

Quote

 

Morosini I'm not even positive WG will want to see the 381/40 and its 700mps at tier VI. Continuing with the 381/40 to tier VII would be rough.  The rebuild version makes more sense at tier VI top hull with one of the BC projects going at tier VII, imoo.

 

 

Maybe you are right. It is a complete reconstruction, in the case of the Cavour even the cannons were changed. We believed that greatly improving the artillery would make it exceedingly good for its tier. But if in their tests WG verifies that the artillery is indeed too weak they can improve the cannon as much as they want, they can even put the cannons of the Littorio if they wish.

 

Quote

 

As far as the tier X name chosen, ehhhhh think for a second while a great artist there was a reason it had already been passed. Unless the Spanish community is trying to be a little cheeky?

 

You do not like the name! :Smile_ohmy:
Michelangelo is the greatest artist in history. Not only from Italy but from all over the world.

 

The Italians already put names of artists to two of their battleships. There are Dante and Leonardo Da Vinci. Latin countries have a certain tendency to use names of artists on our boats. In Spain a light cruiser was called Miguel de Cervantes, I do not think there is a British cruiser named William Shakespeare.
Since I am Spanish, it seems like a great idea. That Germanic tendency to call ships with numbers seems horrible to me. G-22 What kind of name is that?

And finally look at the whole series, Michelangelo, Raffaello, Leonardo and Donatello.


Do not you want to order Pizza? :Smile_glasses:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,087 posts
732 battles
12 minutes ago, Criseox said:

You do not like the name! :Smile_ohmy:
Michelangelo is the greatest artist in history. Not only from Italy but from all over the world.

 

The Italians already put names of artists to two of their battleships. There are Dante and Leonardo Da Vinci. Latin countries have a certain tendency to use names of artists on our boats. In Spain a light cruiser was called Miguel de Cervantes, I do not think there is a British cruiser named William Shakespeare.
Since I am Spanish, it seems like a great idea. That Germanic tendency to call ships with numbers seems horrible to me. G-22 What kind of name is that?

And finally look at the whole series, Michelangelo, Raffaello, Leonardo and Donatello.

 

The names you mentioned are something of a case of their own.

Dante was a poet, true, but he's kind of the greatest Italian poet of all time, and one who explicitly mentions how Italy should be united and together, as far as Fiume (Rijeka). And his name was given to a society that wanted to promote the Italian language and culture, namely defending it where it was "threatened" (i.e. the "terre irredente"). No wonder he was given the honour; after that, at most another few poets (also with nationalistic undertones) were used as namesakes for a few destroyers, but that's it.

I don't know about you, but when I think about Leonardo I think of him as a thinker first (in wartime Italian propaganda films it's stressed how the tank was first imagined by him), and as a great artist later. And I believe it''s not as the latter that the Regia Marina decided to name the battleship after him, but as the scientific genius.

 

This is further proved by the mottos of the two ships.

That of the Dante Alighieri was: "con l'animo che vince ogni battaglia" ("with the spirit that wins each battle").

That of the Leonardo da Vinci was: "Non si volta chi a stella è fiso" ("One who looks at a star does not turn"). This one is a bit ambiguous, and its meaning is probably about the determination, and a hint towards the "Stella d'Italia".

Still, the theme is rather clear to me. Those two were honoured as great (and "good") Italians, not as great artists.

 

The Cervantes is there, true, but it's just one ship. I don't know of other Latin-language countries that named big ships after artists.

There were two Royal Navy ships named after Shakespeare, a 1917 destroyer leader and a WWII submarine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Players
2,000 posts
17 hours ago, Historynerd said:

 

I share Sparviero's doubts about the feasibility of the Morosini at Tier 7.

Even modernized, the Caracciolo-class in my eyes cannot compete with the likes of the Gneisenau, the Colorado, the Nagato and the KGV. Simply because, in all honesty, the guns look somewhat bad, and are standouts in the Italian BB line (and we know how these kind of ships are painful).

Tier 6 is alright for it, and it'll need some what-if modernization to have its AA buffed up to decent levels, but that's it, IMHO.

 

A total reconstruction means a rise in tier. The Nagato is tier 7 his hull A (Mutsu) is tier 6. As we have already said if in the tests WG considers that the artillery is weak can improve it. But it is a terribly fast boat for its tier and with good armor and many points of life. If you also put a very powerful artillery the ship is level. when we imagine ships the tendency is to make them very powerful. Totally O.P. That is not fair. :fish_book:

 

17 hours ago, Historynerd said:

 

Nice work on the Tier 10, although for me the CRDA concept @Deamon93 found is somewhat better as a starting point by WG, rather than a pure fantasy design.

I doubt we're going to see "Michelangelo" as its name as well, because the Regia Marina only honoured poets at most, and Leonardo as an inventor; artists are a no-go in Italian naming conventions, I'm afraid.

In my opinion, for Tiers 9 (which should be the UP.41) and 10 we're going to see some name like "Italia" or "Vittorio Emanuele" or something like this. Even though Deamon's suggestion of "Marco Aurelio" is nice and I'd give my vote to that...

 

Of the name I have also spoken. :Smile_coin:
If Leonardo and Dante are good names, what about Michelangelo the best of all?:Smile_medal:


Italia don´t like me. I do not like to put the name of a country on a ship. It gives bad luck. :Smile_hiding:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,087 posts
732 battles
7 minutes ago, Criseox said:

 

A total reconstruction means a rise in tier. The Nagato is tier 7 his hull A (Mutsu) is tier 6. As we have already said if in the tests WG considers that the artillery is weak can improve it. But it is a terribly fast boat for its tier and with good armor and many points of life. If you also put a very powerful artillery the ship is level. when we imagine ships the tendency is to make them very powerful. Totally O.P. That is not fair. :fish_book:

 

Of the name I have also spoken. :Smile_coin:
If Leonardo and Dante are good names, what about Michelangelo the best of all?:Smile_medal:


Italia don´t like me. I do not like to put the name of a country on a ship. It gives bad luck. :Smile_hiding:

 

A total reconstruction is what the Caracciolo-class might not have had.

What was done to the four old Italian battleships was basically improving its main armament by modification, and radically improve its speed taking advantage of the huge space left by the removed amidships turret, barbette and magazines, which meant that there was a lot of space to devolve to machinery. And we know how much the Regia Marina loved fast ships.

The Caracciolos wouldn't have needed such an intervention; at most, they would've seen their boilers replaced by newer ones, also to keep up the speed in the face of the weight increase caused by the modernization, but that's it. They would've kept the main guns, replaced the secondary battery and the AA guns, perhaps they would've fitted the Pugliese cylinders, but that's it.

And this is not enough to warrant a Tier jump. The Mutsu is not a relevant example, as the armor modifications are way more than a mere reinforcement of the decks, as the turrets and the magazines are way better protected, and there's also a strong turtleback. There's little to show that the Caracciolo would've been rebuilt similarly.

It's not a point of making ships OP. It's about making a ship right for its Tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
527 posts
70 battles

Historynerd is on point. Dante Alighieri was a symbol for the unification of the Italian State, da Vinci was an inventor and short time a military engineer.  From the other ships of the class we have two linked to naval adventures, an explorer of world renown and a doge. As one looks at previous ships this naming tradition follows. Leaders, admirals, regions and the like. This is basically the same question as a proper name for the French battleship of tier X. People kept suggesting names without looking to see if they fit the tradition of naming scheme. 

 

This is is why I mock myself because my choice would be Mazzini and obviously that is never going to happen. 

 

As far as Caracciolo goes it is pretty much as stated. QE modernization. New deck mounted secondaries and AA, better range and a torpedo bulge are the most likely touches to be made. From brief looks around the web at videos of the forts I can’t tell if the rounds where modernized and the data for the shells seems to match the navweaps data. So at this point I don’t think there is any coastal artillery bonus to shells minus the increased angle of fire. Hopefully I am wrong. I throw all my eggs in the 343/55 having enough information to be used on a BC project hull for tier VII. It is obvious WG is already not a fan of the 381/50 at tier VIII and my understanding was all 381mm armed projects before Littorio where supposed to reuse the 381/40.  :Smile_ohmy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK2]
Players
1,892 posts
En 18/12/2017 en 11:01, 0ddys dijo:

For your Version i would say reduce the number of the german 128mm gun to 10 x 2 12 x 2 ist just a bit to much (Kurfürst also only has 10). I'm not sure about the 65mm/64 there rof is pretty damn low compared to all other hightier "midrange" AA-mounts, which would result in a low dps value (10 dps per twin I would say (and that is generous)). Maybe instead use the Gerät 58 would help or go with a fantasy automatic upgrade to the 65mm/64. :cap_hmm:

 

Hello everyone.

This is a very reasonable opinion, and that limitation to 10x2 was taken into account when designing the AA configuration of this ship. After all, the Montana also carries only 10x2 127 mm assemblies. However, we thought that the number of these turrets did not have to be limited to what already existed. We wanted to design a strong long-range AA defense, but if it looks like is too much heavy AA, you can imagine the two excess turrets replaced by 65/64 mountings. Regarding these guns, Criseox has already indicated it before, but we have assumed that the Italian engineers managed to develop the automatic loader, which would give to this AA system a rate of fire similar to the 3"/50 Mk 33 installed in the Des Moines.

 

Nice one! I like the 2x2 + 2x3 Setup as it would be something different. Another Montana setup would be boring I’d say

 

Thanks. This configuration was a last minute idea ... :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
527 posts
70 battles

Well you can't just decide a secondary outfit in a vacuum. There is short/medium/long range to consider as well as how the numbers compare against same tier competition.

 

Options include:

 

20/65(70) single, double or sextuple(prototype, pic in antonino's German language thread?), I'm unaware of a native Italian quad design?

37/54, single, double or quad(paper UP.41)

65/64 single, production model manual, prototype autoloader with rammer issues. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/31187-kantai-collection-discussion-thread-kai/?do=findComment&comment=1379512

65/68(Breda or OTO candidates not chosen)

76/62( @phoenix_jz has considered this before, I'm not sure about time frame eligibility)

90/50 single, dual(paper)

90/71(prototype?)

135/45 single(paper/prototype stage), dual(paper/prototype stage), triple(paper Abruzzi upgrade?)

135/53(outside appropriate time period?)

 

I know some people have worked out various DPS numbers for these at various aura levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,087 posts
732 battles

Also, I don't want another Abruzzi sitting uncomfortably at a Tier it doesn't really belong to.

 

The Abruzzi should've been a Tier 6, where it would've been appropriate without having to tweak it so much. Instead, because WG wanted to have the Duca d'Aosta at Tier 6, the Abruzzi had to be shoehorned at Tier 7, and now it's being subjected to a round of artificial buffs (not that it wasn't buffed in the version we already saw), because it's not where it should be. And of course, WG's concept on what it and the Aosta should be (ninja fast cruisers with good AP and bad HE) hasn't helped, either.

 

I'm afraid that's what would happen to the Caracciolo if it were brought to Tier 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
4,574 posts
4,788 battles

Well yes the Caracciolo is a natural  fit for T6. However we know that WG will give her Fantasy refits so she can be at any tier you like. Like Amagi - which received tons of artificial armor and a favourable interpretation of the 41cm AP shell’s performance. 

 

So yes, while some ships can seem a little out of place a lot of it is up to WG’s own interpretation of facts and sometimes very wanky. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Players
2,000 posts
22 hours ago, Historynerd said:

A total reconstruction is what the Caracciolo-class might not have had.

 

Quote

 

The Caracciolos wouldn't have needed such an intervention; at most, they would've seen their boilers replaced by newer ones, also to keep up the speed in the face of the weight increase caused by the modernization, but that's it. They would've kept the main guns, replaced the secondary battery and the AA guns, perhaps they would've fitted the Pugliese cylinders, but that's it.

 

It's not a point of making ships OP. It's about making a ship right for its Tier.

 

16 hours ago, Historynerd said:

 

I'm afraid that's what would happen to the Caracciolo if it were brought to Tier 7.

 

Pherhaps you have not understood the meaning of the Morosini. Maybe we have not explained ourselves well. :fish_book:


The Caracciolo is the tier 6. No discussion.
The Caracciolo as it was designed would even be a weak tier 6. Deamon himself says so in his proposal for an Italian tree.
The Caracciolo in tier 6 should have a certain refit. That you yourself say on antiaircraft and secondary artillery.
Look at a hull B for the Caracciolo.

 

ae643be4a014c8c30393aa1a1d69d594.png

The Morosini is something else. It is the mixture of the base of the Caracciolo with the total reconstruction suffered by the Cavour but with more emphasis on protection than on armament.

a3989d9d05fadab465e9b49fe6f709a0.png


It is a perfectly feasible recosntruction that could have been and that in our opinion would have been if Italy had managed its fleet better.
If Italy had realized that its real enemy was the United Kingdom and not France, history could have been different. (Is only a opinion)


But the important thing is that it is not any fantasy
And what would be an excellent tier 7
Remember the Caracciolo is the tier 6
:Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,087 posts
732 battles

I'd like for you to be a little more specific on the details of said reconstruction, adding stats like gun performance, armour values, top speed etc., instead of just posting a pic that is a hodgepodge of the Caracciolo, the rebuilt Cavour and the Littorio. Then I could look at them, and decide if it's as "feasible" as you say.

 

Still, I presume you aren't that knowledgeable about the issues about the rebuilds and reconstruction, and of the needs and thought of the Regia Marina's top brass, which helped shape the Italian fleet as it was before the war, so I'll venture into an analysis on what could've been done, in my opinion.

 

-

 

Let's presume the Morosini would be a radical reconstruction of the ship on the basis of what IRL was done to the Cavour-class, but with an emphasis on improving its protection instead of its speed.

 

So, what are we looking at, in terms of improvements?

 

An increase of horizontal protection goes without saying, perhaps enhancing it to a thickness of 100 mm, perhaps 120 mm on the magazines.

 

Are we looking into an increase of vertical protection, in terms of the belt? I'd say it would've been extremely difficult and costly (and don't forget, the idea behind the rebuilds, at least the first two, was to have better ships with less money than what a new battleship would've required), because we're looking at the complete replacement of the belt, or at very least the portion between the two superfiring turrets, with plates that could be around 350-356 mm thick. Also, other than costly, this could be a difficult thing, as it entails a huge increase of weight which might mean an increase in draft, and therefore having the belt even more submerged, and I'm not sure how much it could be done (that's why the protection wasn't that much tweaked with on the Cavour-class).

It's more likely to me that they would've left the 303 mm belt as it is, and concentrated their efforts on the secondaries, at most adding some thickness to the barbettes if needed (again, as they did with the IRL ships).

 

Then, modifications to the hull, namely the fitting of the Pugliese TDS.

I doubt that they would've fitted or replaced a new bow, as they did with the IRL ships, as speed-wise the Caracciolo don't need it, and a further increase in length might not be the best, considering we're talking about rather long ships alreade (the rebuilt Cavours were 187 m long, the Caracciolo as built was 210 m).

Then, the replacement of the old boilers with newer ones, and the fitting of newer turbines. That, at the very least, would've been enough to keep the sustainable speed up to 28 knots, which would've been perfectly acceptable for the Regia Marina.

 

As for the main armament, the modifications would've likely been limited to an increase in the maximum elevation (to 28°-30°), the fitting of new shells with a certain increase of shell velocity, and that's it. I doubt they would've modified the turrets further, i.e. for example increasing their protection, for the issues stated above. Nor would they have thought of outright replacing the guns, as their 381 mm caliber would've still been seen as sufficient.

 

The secondaries and the AA batteries are straightforward, i.e. the replacement of the old 152 mm guns with the 120 and 100 mm, and the 37 and 20 mm cannons.

 

-

 

This is what a rebuild would've entailed, in my opinion. I don't know if this collimates with your view.

So, we have a ship with eight 381 mm guns with less than optimal muzzle velocity (even with newer shells, I doubt we'd be looking at more than 750 m/s), a secondary battery and AA suite no better than the Cavour-class, a top speed of 28-29 knots, a long belt some 303 mm thick and acceptable horizontal protection.

 

All in all, it's still not enough to stand up on its own in Tier 7, still in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Players
2,000 posts
21 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

Historynerd is on point. Dante Alighieri was a symbol for the unification of the Italian State, da Vinci was an inventor and short time a military engineer.  From the other ships of the class we have two linked to naval adventures, an explorer of world renown and a doge. As one looks at previous ships this naming tradition follows. Leaders, admirals, regions and the like. This is basically the same question as a proper name for the French battleship of tier X. People kept suggesting names without looking to see if they fit the tradition of naming scheme. 

 

 

 

The subject of the name is tricky.
It is true that most of the names that the Italian battleships used throughout their history or even today: Doria, Cavour, Vittorio Veneto correspond to ships that are present at the time in other tier.
There are very few available:

Vittorio Emmanuele is a king name. I do not know if it's a good name. You also get confused a little with Vittorio Veneto.

Benedetto Brin is fine for a cruise, but not for a super battleship

Ruggiero di Lauria was the best admiral of the Middle Ages but like Lepanto it is a glory shared with Spain. We Spaniards have had a lot of boats called Roger de Lauria, the last one a destroyer retired from service in 1982.

I do not understand why you do not like Michelangelo

How about Venezia and a series of maritime republics: Venezia, Amalfi, Genova, Ancona (or Pisa)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×