Jump to content

Phoenix_jz

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    7,392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2075
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

2,539 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Getting chased around the rafters of the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Ammiraglio di 1ª Divisione Incrociatori Pesanti
    -Italian Heavy Cruiser Ace-
    -Punk Rocker-

Recent Profile Visitors

4,365 profile views
  1. Phoenix_jz

    Battle of North Cape

    Not quite. There are many, many factors that have an affect on shell ballistics, wind being just one of them - so pretty much every fire control computer (at least, every one that I know of) that had been developed within the last couple decades was built to take into account wind speed. In some navies you can even see the progression as more advanced systems came into play - the Japanese Type 92 fire control computer, which served the main batteries of all Japanese heavy cruisers and battleships (except for Yamato) could handle wind speeds of up to 20 mps, while the improved Type 98 on the Yamato-class was able to handle wind speeds of up to 40 mps. Ships, on top of a variety of other sensors, would typically also be equipped with the necessary thermometers (for temperature), barometers (air pressure), and anemometers (wind speed), the first two to determine air density, and the latter for raw speed (which, unfortunately, could not account for the higher altitude wind-speed). Thus, when the fire control computer gives its solution, it should hopefully have already accounted for the wind speed, although at longer ranges this can be inaccurate due to the high arc of shells and the inability to measure wind speed at the top of the shell's flight path. I won't hesitate at all to say that the system that equipped Iowa was by far the most accurate of the war, but straddling a destroyer in such a manner at 20,000 yards isn't even that specular for the most modern systems of WWII - the Littorio-class was able to straddle British destroyers and cruisers at ranges out to 35,000 yards, in some cases on the first salvo. Iowa's main battery directors were the Mk.38 iirc (mods. 4 & 5 were used in the fore/aft directors of Iowa and New Jersey, mods. 6 & 7 for the latter two), which equipped all the new battleships, and were paired with the Mk.8 mod. 11. The Mk.38 used a 26.5ft (8.0772m) stereoscopic rangefinder, and on the Iowa-class was equipped with the Mk.8 fire control radar as-built, which was traded for a Mk.13 on each member of the class between March and June of 1945.
  2. That's unfortunate. I do remember discussion about how open the French were with the archives, but I don't recall ever seeing one accounting for their visits to Italian archives. Would you happen to recall roughly when the Q&A was released? Mmm. I somewhat hope, given that the lead ships of the two best light cruiser classes are already premiums, that the line will focus on heavy cruisers (which won't have to worry about IFHE in the same way the current CLs do), which would be easier to round out on any cruiser tree. What I'm honestly questioning now is how much time WG actually spend in the archives. Duca d'Aosta and Giulio Cesare are both quite accurate ships in terms of their model and their armor, which seems to very likely be down to the fact both of them served under the Soviet flag. Roma and Abruzzi, which did not, are where things get a little weird - for example, some of Roma's armor is incorrect beyond that which was altered for the sake of balance (the aft transverse bulkhead is 70mm too thin, for example), and Abruzzi's bow armor strake that exists in-game but afaik did not irl - and yet WG claims according to the blueprints they have, it did. These 'blueprints' not only contradicts RM cruiser armor design at the time, but as far as I know also disagrees with pretty much every publication than has ever discussed the ship's armor layout. That being said, I don't think I can in good conscious say anything definitive against it at the moment as I may have found something that indicates it did exist, but has somehow spent the last 80 years being entirely overlooked(?). Plus, there are designs which we know existed - such as the successors to the Littorio-class, which only ceased development in 1941 - so I have to wonder how far WG actually, well, looked. Well, that's a half truth for the French. We do know the French 431mm guns aren't a WG design - the Mle 1939 did exist, at least in design. However, no 55-caliber 'Mle 1939' 240mm gun ever existed. The only naval gun was the 50-caliber gun designed for the Danton-class, all other 240mm guns being land-based artillery (and none of a 55 caliber-length). Likewise, no 240mm gun was even being called for in the same way a 55-caliber 305mm gun was for their supercruiser/small BB designs that lead up to Dunkerque - none of these designed called for anything less than a 305mm gun, and none of the larger cruiser designs from before the fall of France called for anything larger than a 203mm gun. In fact, as far as I can tell even the 203mm/55 than was thought to equip the Algérie for a long time, and is used on Charles Martel and Saint Louis in-game, did not exist either. As far as RM guns beyond the 203/53 - the only project I know of that was more powerful was the 203/55, which was to be obtained via the re-boring of the 254/45's from the armored cruisers. It appears these would be the guns that are referenced from the IX-203 Ansaldo 16000-ton cruiser. Unfortunately, we really don't have any data as to what their performance would be, although if the 152/55 is anything to go by, it's quite likely the shells will be the same (125.3 kg APC & 110.57 kg HE). The bigger changes would be velocity, which would likely increase compared 203/53's WWII performance (900/940 mps for APC/HE). Some speculation on the 203/55: Beyond the 203/55, however, there's not much. There are large designs like those sold to the USSR that were to use a 3x3 254mm/55, but as far as I know no work was ever put into them. They do, however, offer a basis similar to Henri IV's 240mm/55's - those are based on the 240/50 used by the Danton-class, with the velocity increased from 800 to 845 mps (and the drag of a modern shell, of course, on the 220 kg APC). It would be possible to take the same route for the Italian 254mm/45, which fires at 227 kg shell at 870 mps - the increase from /45 to /55 easily has the potential to create a ~1000 mps velocity gun, which would fit well with the HV nature of the RM 203mm guns. That would give WG the option to create two different types of tier X cruiser. The first would be a 254mm super cruiser, based on the plans sold to Russia. The second would be a 203mm cruiser, which would have to be one invented by WG, as no larger design than the Ansaldo 16000 ton IX-203 exists to my knowledge. That would likely take them on the Zao/Hindenburg route of a 4x3 203mm CA, although it would be nice if they allowed the ship something more unique - perhaps a 10-gun arrangement mirroring the Abruzzi-class? Or maybe stick with a 3x3 design, but raise the No.3 turret like on the Littorio design to give ±160º firing arcs on the aft turret like the Littorio historically had?
  3. Phoenix_jz

    Naval and Defense News 2019 (con't)

    As the Franco-German project continues to remain relatively exclusive, it seems that the Tempest project will find a likely partner in Italy; https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/02/15/taking-sides-italian-defense-industry-rep-attacks-franco-german-fighter-deal/
  4. 1:8 is against a brand-new full-sized battleship, so it's a bit of a different case. A Littorio would be much more costly and was a far more powerful combatant than a Kongo - she's a much larger and also a modern ship. It's also worth noting that each Littorio was only 'supposed to' cost just short of 600 million Kongo is actually an interesting case because she's a modernization of an older hull - that of a WWI battlecruiser. Costs for that can vary based on the scale of modernization and the equipment devoted towards it. For example, the rebuilding of each Conte di Cavour-class battleship cost ~161 million Lire. However, the reconstruction of the Caio Duilio-class cost ~303 million Lire a piece - but it should be noted that the Caio Duilio's were far more modern as modernized (work started in 1933 for the CdC's, 1937 for the CD's) - the Cavour's essentially had the same fire control suite as the contemporary cruisers, while Caio Duilio and Andrea Doria both had something nearly equal to the Littorio's suite, and the same went with the weaponry. Unfortunately, I don't have any figures for the cost of the Kongo's reconstructions, or better yet the cost of construction for the Dunkerque-class, which would be more representative of small cruiser killing battleships.
  5. That would be a very specific type of design, much like how ships such as the Dido and Atlanta-classes of the RN & USN were purpose-build as AA cruisers. As the difference between a heavy cruiser and a light cruiser is only gun caliber (either more or less than/equal to 155mm), there's nothing that specifically stops a heavy cruiser from being the same thing, barring the greater weight of the guns necessary to class it as a heavy cruiser. You could play around with things a little - for example, the Tone-class heavy cruisers put a special emphasis on acting as a scouting ship via its scout planes - sacrificing combat potential in a surface action for this sake. Perhaps one of the key things to note in regards to the light cruiser/heavy cruiser dynamic is that heavy cruisers generally have a very specific definition - light cruisers don't. Heavy Cruisers are very clearly defined ships as a result of the WNT & LNT - vessels with guns between 155mm and 203.2mm (generally, but can be larger), with a standard displacement of around 10000 long tons or less. This produces many comparable ships - Duquesne, Pensacola, the County-classes, Trento, Myoko, etc, etc. But even within these definitions are variations, as you have the much smaller York, Aoba, and Exeter-classes, and in the case of Russia - they were told that their Kirov-class (~7800 tons, 180mm guns), which had been designed as light cruisers (they had the same hull as the Montecuccoli-class) were heavy cruisers, as their main battery of 180mm guns was in excess of 155mm. But, all in all - heavy cruisers, even with variations, are a very specific type of ship with clear definitions. This is because they were designed with very specific limitations. If you look at other nations... things go wild. Light cruisers in comparison are an open-ended type of vessel. The 11000-ton, 12x 152mm Cleveland is a light cruiser, and so is the 3700-ton, 8x 135mm Attilio Regolo. In fact, it should be noted that as a warship type, light cruisers dated back to WWI, as scout cruisers. Many 'heavy' cruisers, when first built, still designed to act as scouts, were accordingly classed as light cruisers (in fact, the Italian acronym for treaty cruisers was GIL - Grandi Incrociatori Leggeri, or Large Light Cruisers) until the 1930s. With no specific definition except for '155mm or lesser caliber' and 'cruiser' as of the LNT, a light cruiser could be anything really - and they varied massively. For example, the first Italian 152mm cruisers (the Giussano-class) were Grande Esploratore - large scouts, rather than actual 'cruisers'. The French built a minelaying cruiser with the Pluton, and although full-sized cruiser meant to fight surface actions with enemy ships would become common in the west (classes like the British Town series, the La Galissonnière-class, the Abruzzi-class, Brooklyn-class, etc), Japan simply never had an equivalent type of cruiser as it didn't fit into their doctrine. For Japan, the only true cruisers meant to fight enemy cruisers were the 'Type A's - the heavy cruisers. Japanese light cruisers were only designed to act as flotilla leaders, meant to be fast enough to operate with Japanese destroyers, and armored to resist American destroyer guns. As they were only to ever 'fight' enemy destroyers, they were poorly armed with guns (but well armed with torpedoes), and overall quite small ships - but that's all the Japanese needed them to be. The type of thinking that produced the Agano-class of 1940 was distinctly different from that which produced a design like the French De Grasse-class of 1939. Likewise the Italian Capitani Romani-class light cruisers (originally classed as esploratori oceanici) were light cruisers by will of common definition (as the esploratori category was abolished by the RM in 1938 - so they became 'light cruisers' in the same way the Kongo-class battlecruisers became battleships in the interwar period). They were also built around specific purposes, namely to act as scouts and also to fight the French Le Fantasque & Mogador-class contre-torpilleurs, which themselves were also briefly classed as light cruisers (although this was more for maintenance issues than anything else). The Capitani had mine warfare abilities (like many Italian cruisers), but also were equipped for ASW work, which was relatively uncommon for a cruiser. They had no ability to stand up to a 'true' cruiser, however, as while fast, they were still only armed with eight 135mm guns, and had next to no armor. Both they and the Abruzzi-class (10x 152mm, heavy armor) were classes as 'light cruisers' by the same navy - but they were polar opposites in almost every way. The heavy/light cruiser dynamic has a clear-cut dividing line thanks to international treaty, but it should be noted that this is relatively rare. Just think of the recent discussion on this forum about battleships and battlecruisers - often the line is far from clear between ship types. Alaska is a Large Cruiser and Dunkerque is a battleship, yet Hood is larger and better armored than both - and is a battlecruiser. Kongo, also a battlecruiser, is neither. So it's hard to pin down that a light cruiser is better suited to a given task, as they vary so massively in type. First, we have to define which type of light cruiser, and that's a lot more complicated than one might think! In general, you're better off looking at raw displacement rather than dimensions when you want to figure out what's cheaper or more expensive than another vessel. For example - Zara is significantly smaller than Bolzano in raw dimensions (92.8% of the length, with the same beam), but she is heavier - and she cost more (106 versus 101.6 million Lire). Most heavy cruisers range from 7000-11000 tons standard, while most battlecruisers are well over 20000 tons standard - the Kongo-class as built was 27,500 long tons, and over 30,000 tons by the time WWII rolled around. A battleship like Littorio - over 40000 tons (in spite of being a '35000-tonner', which none of the '35000-ton' battleships really were).
  6. At the end of the day, the first and foremost reason they were built was because they were the most powerful type of warship any signatory to the Washington Naval Treaty could build - no more than 10,000 long tons (10,160 tons metric) standard displacement, and no gun of a caliber greater than 8" (203.2mm). Pretty much every power immediately built to the maximum, and no one was going to throw away an advantage by building anything less powerful In general? A heavy cruiser is a much more potent surface combatant that a light cruiser, but not that much more expensive. It wasn't a case of 'build two cheap CLs for every CA'. Taking Italian cruisers as an example; Heavy Cruisers: Trento-class - ???? Zara & Fiume - 106 million lire Gorizia - 112.7 million lire Pola - 114.7 million lire Bolzano - 101.6 million lire Light Cruisers: Giussano-class - 60.0 million lire Cadorna-class - 61.5 million lire Montecuccoli-class - 68.3 - 68.5 million lire Duca d'Aosta-class - 79 - 80 million lire Duca degli Abruzzi-class - 89.45 - 89.75 million lire Even the cheapest 'light cruisers' (actually just large scout ships, half the weight of a heavy cruiser), which both cost $3.2 million USD (exchange for relevant year), still cost around 60% of that of a heavy cruiser, and were far inferior combatants. The first real light cruiser design, the Montecuccoli-class, cost over 68 million lire ($3.6 million USD). The Abruzzi-class, the only light cruisers remotely similar to the size of the heavy cruisers in tonnage, and considered the equals in protection to the Zara-class, was still almost as expensive as a heavy cruiser - but as a light cruiser, still used 152mm guns, and had far inferior punching power. Their cost in USD was $4.7 million (versus $5.3 million USD for Bolzano and $5.6 million USD for Zara). So, cost-wise, while light cruisers were cheaper, they still weren't cheap enough so as to allow the 'out-building' of heavy cruisers in combat capacity if an enemy nation has an equal industrial ability - because the cost difference just wasn't enough. And in terms of combat ability, a heavy cruiser punched far harder than a light cruiser - for example, comparing an Abruzzi (10x 152/55) to a Zara (8x 203/53), each 203mm APC shell was 2.5x the mass of the 152mm APC, and each shell's bursting charge was 3.77x as powerful. Penetration was also easily twice as great at most combat ranges. The broadside weight of a Zara was twice that of an Abruzzi, and even in spite of the 152mm gun's greater rate of fire a Zara would still output 50% more mass per minute at maximum rate of fire for both ships. At the end of the day, a ship with 203mm guns has a massive advantage over a 152mm ship, as in raw output it hits much harder, and even ignoring those factors has a far greater effective range, due to lesser shell travel times, more visible splashes, etc. At the end of the day, in a fight a heavy cruiser will always be able to 'dominate' a light cruiser due to the disparity in hitting power, which is only compounded by the fact a cruiser needs to expend far less displacement on protection against 152mm projectiles than it does 203mm projectiles. On an escort mission, a heavy cruiser will be more likely to discourage a light cruiser from attacking a convoy due to this, and likewise a heavy cruiser is far more likely to overpower an escort than a light cruiser. A small fast battleship like a Dunkerque or a full-sized fast battleship like the '35,000-tonners' is certainly a stronger combatant (magnitudes upon magnitudes more powerful) and often capable of the same or similar speeds, so from that point of view, it would certainly seem to make no sense to build a cruiser - of any kind. But at the end of the day, battleships have major limitations on their ability to operate. They chug fuel more than almost any other type of warship, they represent a massive threat, are often at the center of unwieldy fleets - and they are also very few, because they are very expensive. Including modifications over the course of their construction, a Littorio-class battleship cost Italy some 800 million lire to build - about 8x the cost of a heavy cruiser. Battleships, at the end of the day, are massively expensive, not only in the raw steel of their displacement (Littorio being some 4x the displacement of a Zara), but also their equipment. They require more machinery, more weaponry, more expensive armor (battleships make extensive use of cemented/face-hardend armor types, while outside of the USN & RM, does not appear on cruisers, so cost is affected by both type and raw armor tonnage), and more fire control equipment. Just to pick on one category, let's take fire control. A Zara-class heavy cruiser, costing 106 million lire, would spend 8.2 million of this (7.74% of total cost) on fire control equipment; 4.9 million for the primary system for the 203/53's, 170 thousand for the reduced backup system, 2.6 million for the primary secondary battery directors, and 500 thousand for the barrage system for the secondary battery. Much of the additional cost of the Gorizia and Pola was associated with the more advanced system for the secondary battery. On the Littorio (who's armament alone cost almost as much as an entire cruiser of the aforementioned class), every single fire control system was more advanced than what went into a Zara and individually would have cost more - in fact, the fire control computers for the secondary battery 152mm guns would have been even more advanced than those a heavy cruiser would have for their main battery, and a battleship had two of them. There was no equal to the barrage calculators (they had been passed out by this point in favor of dual-purpose computers), but the equipment for the 90mm would have cost considerably more than those for the 100mm guns even on the Gorizia and Pola, being more advanced systems. Also, there would have been additional cost from the director system for the light AA, which was not present on the cruisers (as built). All in all the fire control suite could have easily cost 2-3x more than that of a Zara (or more), although unfortunately I don't have any exact figures for it at the moment. In summary - heavy cruisers are much more effective combatants than light cruisers, and while more expensive are not massively so. Comparatively, battleships, while much more powerful, are extremely expensive. One heavy cruiser costs less than two light cruisers. One battleship costs about as much as eight heavy cruisers, or around ten decent light cruisers.
  7. Mostly correct, although I still haven't seen the Q&A being referenced where archival visits are contrasted, unless you mean this? In which case I might be mis-reading it? No mention of Italian cruisers made, however, and it seems to be more contrasting the British experience, with no mention of the French aside from the state of their battleships historically (Normandie not completed, Lyon & Alsace not laid down). That being said, as was discussed the last time this topic came up, WG does seem to be holding the Italians to very different standards than other nations when it comes to completing the lines, why I can't fathom. The fact they thing they might have to make up their own design for tier IX cruisers would be bizarre to me given the French tree - the Ansaldo 3x3 is magnitudes more developed than Saint Louis ever was, for example. As for tier X - it would be unfortunately if the RM had to use a WG project, but that's somewhat common at tier X for cruisers. Even so, I'd be somewhat amazed if the necessary designs don't exist in the Russian archives, seeing as the Ansaldo sold two large cruiser designs (254mm) to the Soviets, one 19,000/22,000 tons standard/full, the other 22,000/26,700 tons (which became the basis of what was eventually developed into the Kronshtadt-class). And again, for battleships, tier X as been a WG project for every BB line since release - if the RM BB line required this, is would be par for the course, nothing more. As for tier IX - while UP.41 does exist, we know that it was developed from the 1935 version of the RM's 406mm battleship project, which developed beyond that point (in fact, they were the first RM projects to feature the improved bow design fitted to Impero and Roma), in fact only ceasing development in 1941. This was an official RM project, so it likely does exist within the archives - which leads me to question how far WG did look when they visited the USMM's archives - because Ardraeiss's phrasing in that RU thread seem to very much imply that WG didn't look so much as they expected the archival staff to do the work for them. But again, that's me relying on translation, as I cannot read or speak Russian.
  8. Phoenix_jz

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    That's not quite the issue that would be at play. While having more rangefinder positions for more rangefinders is always helpful to get more information (and turret rangefinders, since they can more easily be of a longer base-length, are generally more accurate than director-mounted rangefinders, you don't really need to have them be in different positions to triangulate anything, since each individual rangefinder is doing that already - essentially, a rangefinder is determining the range to the target via the tangent angle that results from the observation of the target ship from either end of the rangefinder. This graphic gives a basic example; Our target ship is a broadside Fuso-class battleship, on the bottom right. On the top left, we have a director with a rangefinder mounted in the back. On either end of the rangefinder are optics, which generate two images the rangefinder's operator must align correctly. The left side prism of the rangefinder does not move - it remains at a fixed, forming the 90º angle of our right-triangle. On the right side, we have our prism that does move, as the operator adjusts the image he sees. When it is perfectly aligned, the angle of the right prism, which would be known, can be taken, and this gives us the three values we need to calculate the range; Rangefinder Base-Length (in this case the director presented is that of an Italian cruiser, so the rangefinder base-length would be 5 meters) Left angle - 90º, always Right-side angle - varies, but always known Thus is becomes a 'simple' geometry question to figure out the adjacent side, which will give you your 'actual range' estimate. The phenomenon that made firing bow-on difficult for systems like the Dreyer table, which were of WWI vintage, couldn't handle that - divisional tactics had always tended to favor broadside fire, so it had never been an issue, and thus no one ever tried to deal with it. To borrow Norman Friedman's words;
  9. Phoenix_jz

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    It depends on the design, but in some cases this was the intent. Modern French and Italian battleship designs emphasized this, which is why the French battleships all had their main battery concentrated forward, and the Littorio was built with a raised No.3 turret in order to fire up to 20º off the bow with all nine guns. Of course, this wasn't to 'bow tank' enemy fire, but to allow the maximum amount of firepower to be brought to bear when uprising enemy ships... but being able to bring everything to bear to your broadside was still the rule of thumb. It should also be noted that firing straight ahead of the ship was not something that was 'easy' to do (compared to broadside fire) until the modern modern fire control equipment that was developed in the 1920s and started entering service in the 1930s, which were able to deal with the cross-rolling that was common when firing along a ship's axis. Older systems from WWI and earlier (like the Dreyer Table Mk.V that equipped Hood) couldn't, which was yet another factor that inhibited Hood's gunnery against the Germans in the action (while in contrast, Prince of Wales, with the modern AFCT Mk.IX, did not have this issue).
  10. I think this is a very important factor to consider. When reading Captain Hara's book, it becomes very clear that he did not think Kurita was fit for the job, not for any lack of skill or knowledge, but because of Kurita's sheer exhaustion. To quote him directly; Two years before, Vice Admiral Vian of the Royal Navy just barely prevent an Italian surface force of one battleship, two heavy cruisers, a light cruiser, and seven destroyers from being able to directly attack a British convoy during the Second Battle of Sirte. Vian's force, not counting ships that stuck by the convoy rather than district the attacking force (a light cruiser and six destroyer escorts), consisted of four light cruisers and eleven destroyers. Vian had the advantage of a far superior surface force to Taffy 3 (three destroyers and four destroyer escorts), and awful weather conditions that greatly aided in concealing his ships from enemy rangefinders, not to mention making said rangefinders barely usable. Taffy 3 was caught with their pants totally down, without anywhere near as heavy a force, and also totally lacked any advantage in the form of weather to aid their smokescreens or confound the ability for enemy ships to engage them. The force that attacked them was many times more powerful than the Italian force under Iachino at 2nd Sirte, boasting four battleships, six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and eleven destroyers. At the end of the day, with or without the heroics of the American warships, it's hard to explain the actual outcome of Samar without pointing to he fact that Kurita dropped the ball, hard. Had a more aggressive and less fatigued commander been in charge, I suspect things would have been very different. Instead, if I'm recalling correctly, he pretty much waved away control of the battle with the 'general' attack order, which played perfectly into the chaos the American destroyers were attempting to create in order to cover for their CVE's. All that considered, I'd hate to see how he might've handled facing a much more powerful force in open battle...
  11. Phoenix_jz

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Correct, and the same arrangement was to be had for Amagi - her turbines, as I understand, are placed between her 'Q' and 'X/Y' turrets.
  12. Phoenix_jz

    Can anybody condemn the sinking of Yamato?

    While I don't mean to take away from the rest of your point (and this certainly shouldn't), but as aide note, the U.S. didn't actually scrap the Italia. Via negotiated agreement, the US and British gave up all claims on the Italian warships assigned to them by the Treaty of Paris (1947), with the understanding the Italians would demilitarize and/or scrap the vessels (The former with the United States, while Britain also asked that 20,000 tons of material be delivered by the end of October 1948). Both ships, still in commission, left internment in February 1947 first for Augusta and then finally La Spezia (Italia actually conducted anti-aircraft gunnery exercises on the way to Augusta). Although dismantling did start once the ships were decommissioned in 1948, the MMI dragged their feet on this, hoping to be able to preserve the ships, until the Naval Armistice Commission, fed up with the delays, ordered the ships be crippled via the cutting of the main gun barrels and the steam pipes, and the ships were finally scrapped over the period 1951-1954.
  13. Another instance would be at the Second Battle of Sirte, Littorio's final salvo was fired aft over her floatplane, blowing the catapult over to starboard and setting the Ro.43 aflame.
  14. Personally, I don't know if I agree with this idea. I'm far from a Unicum - 56% WR and around 40k average damage. Yet, in my Cesare, I have a 67% WR and do almost 72k average damage - which has actually fallen from around 85k when I first got her. This makes her my highest average damage ship, ahead of Roma (71k), Warspite & Bayern at 62k, Alabama at 60k, and a 3-way between Algérie, Gneisenau, and Dunkerque at 57k. As far as server-wide stats, I'll take her data from Q4 of 2018 on NA - the most recent data. At 92,606 games played by 13,200 players, Cesare was played in 21.76% more games then ever other Italian premium (Roma, Duca d'Aosta, and Duca deli Abruzzi) combined, and was played by 18.8% more players than every other Italian premium combined. She averaged a 55.95% WR and 49856 average damage. Ships with a higher WR are; Vampire (Tier III Commonwealth DD) - 3,603 players Iwaki Alpha (Tier IV Japanese CL) - 279 players Kaga (Tier VII Japanese CV) - 1,106 players Kamikaze trio (Tier V Japanese DD) - 6,542 players combined Koenig Albert (Tier III German BB) - 2,094 players Emden (Tier II German CL) - 1,579 players Graf Zeppelin (Tier VIII German CV) - 285 players Dreadnought (Tier III British BB) - 1,022 players Gremyashchy (Tier V Russian DD) - 2,727 players Arkansas Beta (Tier VI American BB) - 3,713 players Flint (Tier VII American CL) - 525 players Enterprise (Tier VIII American CV) - 1,131 players Black (Tier IX American DD) - 324 players For varying levels of exclusivity, these ships have far, far fewer players than Cesare - in fact, combined, they're not even twice as many players playing these ships as play that single tier V battleship. Cesare's player base is definitely wide, and not narrowly focused on unicums - so I don't think it's just the players in this case, especially because I know she performs above my 'usual' level for me.
  15. Phoenix_jz

    WW2 BC FOUND

    And, as I said before - that was only a function of the deletion of the 'battlecruiser' category, and was inconsequential to any aspects of their operations. They were still very much considered battlecruisers by the IJN.
×