Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
skull_122_steel

Italian Tier X Cruiser

78 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,247
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,044 posts
4,848 battles
45 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

@Dr_Venture You're looking at the wrong cruiser for that picture. The Ansaldo designs to Spain shared a similar hull but 3 different armaments. One was a 4x3 152mm cruiser. The heavy cruiser projects were either 4x2 or 3x3, the latter one being likely as a tier IX successor to the Zara-class.

 

To the more general audience;

 

Italy's probably got 3 options for a tier X cruiser.

 


Primo -

The Ansaldo super cruiser project for Russia. With 26700 tons max displacement, she's somewhat between Henri IV and Moskva is displacement. With a massive 240000shp power plant, she was to be capable of 37 knots (like the cruiser designs for Spain).

Her armor values as of now are lost to history, although similar Russian projects around the time (because we all know how much the Russians like to take Italian designs, develop something based off of them, and call it their own) had 220mm belts and 90mm decks... so perhaps something similar to that? It's hard to translate actual Italian design trends into the game because had they built more cruisers, it's very likely they would have started putting composite decapping belts on them (as was done with Abruzzi). Given that they seemed to believe the presence of a decapping plate was a 50-60% improvement over the thickness of the belt behind it (Littorio's scheme allowing the 280mm belt to deflect was should've required 440mm of armor to block, And Abruzzi's decapping scheme (100mm main belt ) being judged the same projection as Zara's 150mm belt), a future heavy cruiser design seeking to get 220mm of effective armor might've stuck a 50mm decapping plate on to ensure protection from cruiser-caliber guns, even ones up to 283mm (and Type 1 305mm shells). Still, you're probably looking at even tougher armor than the prior 203mm heavy cruisers.

The main guns would've been 254mm/55's, which I assume would result in a smiler translation from the 254/45's of the San Giorgio-class that Henri iV's guns got from the elderly French 240mm/50 that was used to help make the /55 used by the tier X cruiser. (220kg shells, but from 800 to 845mps MV). The Italian 254/45's fire a 227 kg projectile at 870mps, so it's quite probable to see a similar shell weight but at an increased muzzle velocity, perhaps 900mps? As typical of Italian large-caliber shells of the 1930s, their drag values would probably be very good like on the 381/50. Most likely the result would be punchier, but slower-firing guns compared to Henri IV and Moskva.


Secondo -

WG Fudge CA #1 - Italian Hindi. "What?" I hear you say. Well, basically an Italian version of Hindenburg/Roon/Any tier X BB that isn't Yamato or Montana.

When WG doesn't have an option for a tier X of a line (and sometimes, as we've seen, their IX), they fudge things. Even entire hulls, in some cases. This basically turns into WG giving it their best shot as to what they think said nation's designers would've come up with next, had they done so. This usually involves re-working some of the more iconic layouts from said country's pedigree of prior ships in the type. For the Italians, my guess would be that this would be a similarly  fast and well armed cruiser, but probably smaller overall, and with an armament of 10x 203mm guns, in the iconic 2x3, 2x2 layout of the Abruzzi-class CLs and the rebuilt BBs (Cavour and Duilio classes). Whether they'd call them 203/55's or /53's, they'd probably use the original ballistics of the 203/53, which was to fire a 125.3 kg (about 8crh) AP shells at 960mps, while the HE (110.57 kg) would be fired at 940mps. The result would be very powerful guns, the strongest non-SHS 203mm guns in the game, falling roughly between the German 203mm guns and the American SHS is penetration, and second only to Zao's kaijukannonsTM in flight time (although the German 203 stands a good chance of catching up at longer ranges due to it's excellent drag qualities). This would be the option if WG wants to end the line in a more 'conventional' manner, especially as our remaining options for cruiser lines aren't likely to do so (The American getting a tier X light cruiser, and the best option for a British tier X would be another supercruiser, with 234mm guns. A Pan Latin-American line would probably end up using light cruisers, as would a Pan-European one).


Terzo -

WG Fudge CA #2 - Italian DM. I hear an even bigger "What?" Well, this is our other option. The Italians weren't know for high RoF pre-war, but post war some guns saw some pretty impressive jumps in RoF - most notably the 135mm guns, which went from around 7 rpm to 20 rpm when upgraded and put on the Giuseppe Garibaldi. Basically this would be to the Spanish CA what Des Moines is to Baltimore. Auto-loading 203mm guns, which would be kind of unique. Seeing as their ballistics are so much better than DM's guns, I'd say the RoF should probably be lower - maybe closer to 7 or 8 rpm. It would mesh well with the autoloading flavor WG is trying to put on to the high tier Italian tanks in WoT. It's a crazy idea I know, but who knows?


 

Most likely though, you're picking between a 203mm or 254mm gun, and the size of the ship will be affected by that. If it's anything like what Italian CA development was headed for, it's probably going to be fast, well armored, and fairly stealthy - I wouldn't expect long range like on Henri IV or Moskva.

 

I will be curious to see what they do for the naming conventions though - the heavy cruisers were all named after redeemed cities of WWI. However not too many major cities are available after the 7 WWII CA's... and I really doubt they're going to be so cheeky as to to pick on post war scenarios and call one of the ships 'Nizza' or 'Ajaccio' :Smile-_tongue:. They could go back and use cities redeemed in even older wars - for example, 'Venezia'.

My guess would be that they'd switch back to famous person names, as was used on the light cruisers. Perhaps this is exactly the reason they decided not to use Garibaldi as a premium? It would be hard to find a better name for an Italian tier X, and such a name was used on Armored Cruisers from the WWI era.

Good lord sir, I can't wait to grind this line with you.

When it comes out you better god damn division with me...so we can spread the glory of Italy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,629
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,794 posts
3,988 battles

I feel that the Italian Moskva would be more likely, bringing the totals to 4 superheavy cruisers (+ Moskva and Henri and later, Stalingrad), 3 regular heavy cruisers (DM, Zao, Hindi), and 2 light cruisers (Mino and the eventual Worcester) in terms of cruiser variety at T10. It'd also be a bit more in-line with the punchy but slow reloading feel of the RM cruiser line as a whole, while sort of limiting the number of railguns to 9 rather than 12, and potentially requiring the use of HE to not overpen CLs and DDs depending on the performance of the 254mm AP rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,121
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
6,150 posts
9,492 battles
21 hours ago, skull_122_steel said:

the other is a unique Cruiser with 4x2 11in guns

now, depending on the armor and speed, this would actually be more "battlecruiser" like, correct me if im wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,749 posts
4,594 battles

@Phoenix

I'd hope WG would gimmick the shells based on ratio from the 381/50 palla as they would already have to do that with the 406 rifles regardless. I'd hope for a solid belt and it would seem Alaska should set the outside at ~230mm. 220mm seems solid but probably means a 15s reload. I'd rather have a Hindy/Zao clone than a cruiser that plays like Roma and Cesare however that seems like it won't happen. :Smile_teethhappy:

At this point I would say Ciano wasn't going to be a small CL as it was planned for the evasion fleet.  If WG is serious about strong arming Zara into VII how about  3 x dual 253/55 turrets for MegaRoon™ at TIX to create a complete wth scenario? :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
10 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

@Phoenix

I'd hope WG would gimmick the shells based on ratio from the 381/50 palla as they would already have to do that with the 406 rifles regardless. I'd hope for a solid belt and it would seem Alaska should set the outside at ~230mm. 220mm seems solid but probably means a 15s reload. I'd rather have a Hindy/Zao clone than a cruiser that plays like Roma and Cesare however that seems like it won't happen. :Smile_teethhappy:

At this point I would say Ciano wasn't going to be a small CL as it was planned for the evasion fleet.  If WG is serious about strong arming Zara into VII how about  3 x dual 253/55 turrets for MegaRoon™ at TIX to create a complete wth scenario? :Smile-_tongue:

Most likely. Why would shell design regress, after all? 220mm is great for belt strength but if the ship is too big it won't be a help - like Alaska. Although any potential Italian design is likely to have a decent amount of extremity armor, which would give it more resistant than Alaska, but that's besides the point, There's a point where getting too big becomes a thing. As for RoF, it would have to balance out with the other big-gun cruisers. Moskva has 5.8, Henri IV has 4.9 - I'd guess something like 4.3-4.6 rpm for the 254mm guns?

 

Wait, is that 3x2 203/55's, or 254/55's for MegaRoon? If it's the 203's, which not just re-use the triples from the Ansaldo project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
4 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

I was joking about slapping 254/55 dual turret on Ciano.

XD that would be pretty hilarious. Sorry, wasn't quite sure which you referred to though because 253 could be a typo of 254 or 203 :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
533
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,071 posts
1,501 battles
2 hours ago, YamatoA150 said:

I feel that the Italian Moskva would be more likely, bringing the totals to 4 superheavy cruisers (+ Moskva and Henri and later, Stalingrad), 3 regular heavy cruisers (DM, Zao, Hindi), and 2 light cruisers (Mino and the eventual Worcester) in terms of cruiser variety at T10. It'd also be a bit more in-line with the punchy but slow reloading feel of the RM cruiser line as a whole, while sort of limiting the number of railguns to 9 rather than 12, and potentially requiring the use of HE to not overpen CLs and DDs depending on the performance of the 254mm AP rounds.

 

Bear in mind Moskva has italian style drag and mv allready so it's not certain the 254 would be much if any of an upgrade over the moskva 220mm, (Henri basically has the same issue, she's actually got quite a bit worse AP than moskva).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,749 posts
4,594 battles
8 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

Bear in mind Moskva has italian style drag and mv allready so it's not certain the 254 would be much if any of an upgrade over the moskva 220mm, (Henri basically has the same issue, she's actually got quite a bit worse AP than moskva).

House-Monument-Bulgarian-Communist-Party


Stalinium does not have competition. They all get thrown into the UFO for the sacrifice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
18 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

Bear in mind Moskva has italian style drag and mv allready so it's not certain the 254 would be much if any of an upgrade over the moskva 220mm, (Henri basically has the same issue, she's actually got quite a bit worse AP than moskva).

Perhaps. The 254mm should have much higher MV compared to the French 240mm gun (though almost certainly not as high at the Russian 220mm), but still has a heavier shell so that should help a lot with velocity retention and raw penetration - Henri's actually not that far behind Moskva in raw penetration, because she's got a significantly heavier shell despite the inferior MV and drag (although the high Krupp helps a lot too).

Also, there is a slight advantage that the 254mm would share with the French 240mm - it can overmatch Minotaur's bow and stern! :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
995 posts
1,871 battles

if they make the 254 gun design a brawler then I'm onboard if not then I'll be fine with another Hindenburg clone the 254 guns should also have more AP and HE alpha compared to the HIV and Moskva because you know bigger heavier shells I don't think they would give them torps though if the Zara and the Tier IX both don't get them and I expect their AA to suck more then a blond and there Gimik to be having both defAA and Hydro in separate slots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,749 posts
4,594 battles

AA shouldn’t be that bad. Double 90/50 AA turrets or 90/71 AA. 65/60 where designed to replace 20/65 and 37/54 stands. The medium aura should be formidable since aa module and aft are viable choices. Depending on the design chosen there could even be 135/45 single or double to give a real long range aura. 

If WG goes big böte I wouldn’t expect a brawler. Even the 203/53 at full power would probably overpen a lot of ships at closer ranges if armored sections aren’t targeted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles

Since tier X cruisers often get post-war AA projects, perhaps we could even get 76mm/62's...? I'd put them between the American and British 76mm AA guns in dps. After all, they both get 76's on their tier X cruisers, the French get their 57's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,749 posts
4,594 battles

90/71 kind of falls under the post war and is MAA capable if what little I know about it is true. It was more the great hope of the WoT community to arm the P43bis. The Ansaldo 65/60 can always be the conservative midrange upgrade. Afaik Breda and OTO came up with 65/68 autocannons that give WG more room for interpretation. :Smile_teethhappy: They did this to some extent with French AA guns I believe. If WG goes with the 76/62 there is always an interesting way to bring it in. These post war turrets weren’t that great but hey who cares?

 

Centauro_001a.jpg

4+Sovrapposto.jpg

Edited by SparvieroVV
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,247
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,044 posts
4,848 battles
2 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

90/71 kind of falls under the post war and is MAA capable if what little I know about it is true. It was more the great hope of the WoT community to arm the P43bis. The Ansaldo 65/60 can always be the conservative midrange upgrade. Afaik Breda and OTO came up with 65/68 autocannons that give WG more room for interpretation. :Smile_teethhappy: They did this to some extent with French AA guns I believe. If WG goes with the 76/62 there is always an interesting way to bring it in. These post war turrets weren’t that great but hey who cares?

 

Centauro_001a.jpg

4+Sovrapposto.jpg

50mm's on the later German cruisers, I could see WG'ing adding these to late Italian ships. 

Hell a late Littorio with those worthless 90's taken off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,247
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,044 posts
4,848 battles
2 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

There is no reason to use the German weapon. 

No I meant the auto cannons pictured above.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,749 posts
4,594 battles
10 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

No I meant the auto cannons pictured above.

Gotcha. I'd rather go with the upgraded 90mm or 65mm options. I'm fairly sure Breda had an upgraded 37mm autocannon. However I think it may have just been a bofors 40/56 after talking to demon about it.

 

However Phoenix is quite enamored with the 76. :Smile-_tongue:

Edited by SparvieroVV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
3 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

Gotcha. I'd rather go with the upgraded 90mm or 65mm options. I'm fairly sure Breda had an upgraded 37mm autocannon. However I think it may have just been a bofors 40/56 after talking to demon about it.

 

However Phoenix is quite enamored with the 76. :Smile-_tongue:

 

The British get them, the American get them... the Russians get their god-tier 130mm's on Moskva, and France gets their 57's.

So I'm just saying "Hey, why not?"

 

I was poking around a bit looking at the Ansaldo proposals to Spain, and I've found in somewhat interesting to note the changes and evolutions in the proposals.

Preemptively;

        All images are Stefano's website, as these are by far the most detailed/best resolution. 

 

Proposal I: 4x2 203mm Heavy Cruiser:

Spoiler

ezePGUp.jpg

The first of the Spanish cruisers, it's also the most obvious evolved from the Zara-class, featuring an almost carbon-copy armor scheme (150mm main belt + 30mm upper belt, 120-90mm bulkheads, 150-140 barbettes, 150mm turret faces, etc) with some improvements - for example, the upper deck is 25mm versus 20mm, which improves the protection against plunging cruiser-caliber fire significantly (immune to 6" shells), and the 50mm extremity armor. I don't know exactly what this refers to, though. Is that 50mm plates extending fore and aft from the main belt? Could it be a 50mm decapping plate as is found on the Abruzzi-class (such a layout would make the ship almost immune to cruiser-caliber belt penetrations!)?

The Armament features what appears to be the Model 1927 203mm mounts almost exactly. They're 203/53's with 150mm faceplates, with what's almost veritably a common cradle. Hell, for all we now they are the M1927's exactly. The addition of the 2x4 torpedoes could be Spanish preference, as an Italian design most likely would've favored a triple design - although now that I think about it, these are all labelled '1940,' so the quad mounts from the Capitani Romani do exist by this point... so that could be an Italian choice as well. 

The 90mm placements and mounts are interesting. As twin mounts they look far more like the 100/47 twin mounts than the 90/50 singles. It's also interesting to note that all the 90mm mounts are on the upper deck that extends back from the foc's'le - different from the Zara's, which had the foremost and aft most raised but the the amidships mounts on the lower 20mm upper deck. The AA suite is also much better spread out, versus the rest of the Italian cruisers that had the issue of 37mm mounts all focused aft and the MG's focused forward. Also this cruiser as 20mm cannons form the start lol!

Another major change is the location of the aviation facilitates. The Zara had the infamous frontal hangar and catapult carried over from the Trento-class, and although later Italian cruisers swapped to an amidships, this cruiser design seems to take influence from the Littorio-class and put them on a 'lower' aft deck (only lower in the sense that it's a deck below the extended foc's'le deck).


 

Proposal II: 4x3 152mm Light Cruiser:

Spoiler

nCqWsgw.jpg

An interesting evolution, it's the same hull, but radical changes are made amidships for the changed secondary battery. Being a light cruiser option it shares all the same armor and speed and the like, and AA suite - at least in number of barrels - but in this case it swaps out the M1927's for the Abruzzi's Model 1934 Triple 152/55 turrets.

The AA suite is an interesting change, the 90mm guns swapping to single mounts of LittorioDuilio, and planned Giussano refit in the same arrangement as Littorio. It causes the fo'c's'le's deck to extend even farther aft and bulge out in order to accomandate the necessary equipment for the 90mm mounts. My guess is weight savings from the switch to 6" triples versus 8" twins meant they wanted to try the same RPC + Quadraxial stabilization found on the BBs? I say this because the twin 90mm mounts in the 4x2 CA design appear to resemble the 100/47 mounts and don't appear to have RPC and the same advanced stabilization.


 

Proposal III: 3x3 203mm Heavy Cruiser:

Spoiler

CrM7M02.jpg

And then we get to this guy, who has even more changes versus the other ships, again in not just armament. 

The main obvious switch is armament, this being a 3x3, but using a 203mm, 55-caliber gun. They also come in radically improved turrets, the guns being much more wider spaced, quite possibly in separate cradles? They've still got the beautiful ±150º firing arcs of the other designs and most Italian cruisers (Abruzzi behind the exception). The turret faceplates are also sloped much further back, an interesting choice (certainly a departure from the older 8" turrets, much like what the 152/55 turrets saw compared to the 152/53's). This is clearly the 8" version if the 152/55 -and very interestingly features a 70º maximum elevation, rather than the traditional 45º of most Italian cruiser guns. Perhaps this is a result of the British influence on the Spanish from the Canarias-class cruisers? DP 8" guns, or at least the intention of such a weapon.

The heavy AA battery switches back to that of the first heavy cruiser design, with twin mounts that more resemble the old 100/47's. The shape of the end of the fo'c's'le deck is different too - more angular than rounded as is seen on the first CA. The Light AA sees a significant re-arrangment, the 37mm cannons being far more spread out while the 20mm cannons are still fairly bound to the middle of the ship, albeit more spread out.


 

 

It's a lot of interesting evolutions, a lot of them seem to be fairly logical leaps for Italian designs - moving aircraft facilities aft in favor of better AA positioning. Thicker upper deck armor for superior decapping performance. The swap to 90mm AA guns (as evidenced by the Ciano design, or what we know about it). Quad torpedo mounts is something that can be rationalized. 

 

The 203/55 is something that interests me greatly. I love my 8" guns, so there's obviously that - but it also has a lot of weird factors. I'm pretty sure the ridiculous 70º elevation is an influence from the British through the Spanish - 8" guns just aren't viable for AA, as the Americans proved with the Des Moines. As of now I'd assume it's a similar evolution from the 8"/53 as the 152/55 is to the 152/53. Those go from 1000(840)-950 for PP*-GD to 910-995 for velocity. The GD's accuracy was still funky because of the fuse placement iirc, but even with the high velocity, the detachment from a common cradle did wonders to the 152/55's PP - we go from 168m spreads at 16.8 km from the common-cradle 53-caliber guns to 80-90m spreads at 17.5 km for the 55-caliber guns.

*PP being Palla

The 203/53 is 960(900)-940 for GP-GD, so who knows what we'd see for the 203/55 outside of a common cradle? It seems the guns were prone to bouts of decent accuracy, so I don't see why they wouldn't see just as much of an improvement from the mounting change. I'd assume the AP velocity would go back up, quite probably to the previously used 960mps - and perhaps even the HE velocity would go up from the 940mps value?

 

The last odd thing that doesn't sit well with me is those twin 90mm mounts. They just seem too similar to the 100/47 twin mounts, which doesn't exactly sit well with me, as that's practically a guarantee to be lacking the RPC+Advanced Stabilization.

 

Umm... wow, this was longer than I thought it was going to be. Apologies for the lengthy rambling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,749 posts
4,594 battles

Which method of counting caliber do the Spanish use?

 

Quote

Barrel Length / Bore Length - One of the more confusing items about gun designations is that the way that the length (calibers) of a gun barrel is measured differs from nation to nation. The USA measured starting from the inner breech face for both bag and cartridge guns. Austria-Hungary (Skoda), Germany and Russia measured the length of the entire barrel. Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Sweden (Bofors) measured starting from the top of the mushroom head (vent axial) of the breech block for bag guns and starting from the inner breech face for cartridge guns. These differing methods have often resulted in nomenclature errors in reference works. For example, the 38 cm SK C/34 guns on the German battleship Bismarck are often noted as being 47 calibers long. Per the German method - overall barrel length - these guns were 51.66 calibers long and per the British/USA method - measured from the inner breech face - they were 48.3 calibers long. As every German document I have seen refers to these guns as being the equivalent of either 51.66 or 52 calibers long, I am not certain why so many authors refer to these guns as being 47 calibers long. My thanks to M.J. Whitley, whose series of books on German Warships of World War II first enlightened me on how the German methods differed from those of other nations. On my webpages, "Gun Length oa" refers to the overall barrel length. "Bore length" is per each nation's specification except where noted.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data.php

 

Not that this would explain 2 caliber difference. :Smile_teethhappy:

As for the dual 90/50 design I have no clue. WG has chosen in the past to mix and match. The 90/50 mounts as on Littorio and if they need the 90/71(74 or whatever it actually was) to upgrade to a decent dps so be it. As a tier X it should have advanced FCS to justify a 5.5km or what not. If the dual 90/50 didn't have an autoloader it must have been an attempt to make the ship cheaper to purchase. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles

Also - something else I forget to mention. The 50mm 'extremity' armor is also an interesting question.

 

Italian design was not trending towards putting random bow/stern belts on their cruisers in the same way that, for example, the Russians or Germans did. I would, however, think it extremely likely for them to invest in another composite belt structure as was done on Littorio or Abruzzi. If one wants to protect against cruiser-caliber shells, or even larger guns that cruiser-killers might potentially use, than a 50mm decapping belt would be an excellent thickness to use on top of the existing 150mm belt. It's essentially a guarantee of decapping 8" shells, and if we look at larger calibers considered for super-cruiser of other navies, it does fairly well too, being able to decap shells up to 12". I wonder if it would just have a decapping plate as on Abruzzi, or instead a true composite belt with cellulite filling as on Littorio?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,749 posts
4,594 battles

Well it would be interesting to see the machinery layout. The heavy cruisers suffered heavily from inability to have good damage control. However the more modern machinery layout on the Abruzzi class saw both ships survive torpedo hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
1 minute ago, SparvieroVV said:

Which method of counting caliber do the Spanish use?

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data.php

 

Not that this would explain 2 caliber difference. :Smile_teethhappy:

As for the dual 90/50 design I have no clue. WG has chosen in the past to mix and match. The 90/50 mounts as on Littorio and if they need the 90/71(74 or whatever it actually was) to upgrade to a decent dps so be it. As a tier X it should have advanced FCS to justify a 5.5km or what not. If the dual 90/50 didn't have an autoloader it must have been an attempt to make the ship cheaper to purchase. 

 

I've got no idea what the Spanish used. They didn't really make too much of their own stuff, but I'd guess they'd use the British system?

 

 

Nah, only glorious Russian post-war 130's get 5.7 km range! I think we'll be stuck with 5.2 km at best assuming we get the 135mm guns as DP guns. Bigger guns tend to get better range - for example, the French 130mm.

My suspicion right now is that the choice of using the iconic single mounts versus the Minisini-esque mounts is the result of what weight was saved from using 6" guns versus 8" guns, but that's just speculation.

Tbh as it stands now the 90mm gun has good dps so even if the /71-74 just gave us the extra range of 5.0 km it would be well worth the upgrade - twin 90mm mounts ought to do 13.4 dps per mount based on the singles, which is pretty damn good. Twelve of those twin mounts would give you 160.8 dps.

However, I suspect the reason for such high dps is because of the RPC & Stabilization, which would lead me to believe that the 90mm twins found on the Spanish projects would in fact have significantly lower AA output, closer to that of the German twin 88mm - which is worse than that of the single 90/50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
2 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

Well it would be interesting to see the machinery layout. The heavy cruisers suffered heavily from inability to have good damage control. However the more modern machinery layout on the Abruzzi class saw both ships survive torpedo hits.

 

True, unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything looking like an interior armor layout using god old Google fu.

The CA's had the issue of well-placed torpedoes being able to disable a large number of the boilers -the majority, it seems - at the same. As a whole the Zara's seemed to be fairly durable though in how many they could absorb. Pola had her hit, and her seacocks open for hours without, and yet didn't go down. She required another two torpedoes - and it's worth noting at least one of the boilers was relit and she was able to make roughly 8 knots iirc. Fiume just went down from raw shellfire, but Zara took a large amount too - not even considering all the 15", 6", and 4.5" hits she took she took at least one torpedo at one point and like two others later without going down, until eventually her magazines were ordered to be set off.

 

The layout of the Spanish cruisers is definente different from those of the earlier cruisers - if you notice the Spanish cruisers have their boilers sandwiched by the engines (If I'm reading it correctly), whereas the CA's and earlier CL's had the 'chess' layout:

Trento:

Spoiler

gsBUH8y.jpg

Zara:

Spoiler

9NBZIGo.jpg?1

 

The big issue with the CA's, imo, was the fact that they seemed to lack any kind of internal armor after the main belts. Their citadels were just big boxes, where most of the light cruisers had interior bulkheads that made them much more resistant to torpedo hits. The Heavy cruisers do not seem to have that, or at least if they do they are much thinner and less effective. Gli Incrociatori Italiani quite clearly shows there are some kind of interior bulkheads behind the main belts, but unlike the light cruisers it does not provide thicknesses for them. Unfortunately, these are also thicknesses that many online sources will just outright ignore, so unless someone gets the plans to the CA's from somewhere we may never know! There's a book coming out later this year on Italian cruisers, https://www.amazon.com/Italian-Cruisers-World-War-Vanguard/dp/1472825357, but these books are generally lightweight, so nice artwork aside I don't expect much new information to come with them.

 

I would expect, with the level of developments that seemed to have been carried over from the other cruisers, that the issue with the CA's would've been remedied as well with these designs... but ultimately it's hard to tell without getting a look at their interiors.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×