Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Phoenix_jz

Corazzate Italiane - A take on the Italian Battleship Tree

86 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

240
[SFOR]
Members
996 posts
7,895 battles

"Granata Perforante (GP) – This type of round, with a name that blended that of the two other types of round, is often erroneously dubbed a High-Explosive by English sources (such as navweaps.com, and English translations of Italian books). Their name translating directly as Piercing Shell"

 

The direct translation is  "Piercing grenade".  That sounds HE to me. Anyway i enjoyed reading your proposal for the italian BB tech tree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,839
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,773 posts
2,137 battles
8 minutes ago, _no_one_ said:

"Granata Perforante (GP) – This type of round, with a name that blended that of the two other types of round, is often erroneously dubbed a High-Explosive by English sources (such as navweaps.com, and English translations of Italian books). Their name translating directly as Piercing Shell"

 

The direct translation is  "Piercing grenade".  That sounds HE to me. Anyway i enjoyed reading your proposal for the italian BB tech tree. 

Grenade and Shell are analogus in this terminology. The direct HE shell was called Granata Dirompente. GP shells were in fact a type of AP - they even had their own penetration tables.

And thanks, I'm glad it was enjoyable at the very least! :D

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,709
[INTEL]
Members
13,056 posts
36,014 battles

That post is fantastic, OP. Very interesting and informative. Great historical detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
707 posts
5,735 battles

Very well thought out, well written; its obvious that a lot of time and effort went into this post.  At first read I'd say most of your proposed stats look pretty good, though the HP pool at tier VII and up may be a bit light.  I wouldn't get my hopes up on WG adding a third shell type into the game though, as much as I would love to see the SAP rounds modeled in game (my Roma would love it too!). 

Overall very solid work.  Have an upvote!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[UFFA]
Members
2,110 posts
75 battles

Piave is such a great name it will never happen. :Smile_hiding:

If a Littorio unleashed happens I would hope for the 200mm armored deck be magicked on. :cap_like:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[UFFA]
Members
2,110 posts
75 battles
6 minutes ago, Spooooooooooooooooooooon said:

I suspect we'll see a bunch of mythical Soviet battleships long before we see any real Italian BB's.

Russian Battleships are happening this year.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,256 posts
12,781 battles
Just now, Sparviero said:

Russian Battleships are happening this year.

Actually in the timeline I saw it was 2019.  But still long before Italian ships

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[UFFA]
Members
2,110 posts
75 battles
Just now, Spooooooooooooooooooooon said:

Actually in the timeline I saw it was 2019.  But still long before Italian ships

And the point of this thread is Italian battleships. So I’m not sure what the crying is about. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,256 posts
12,781 battles
12 minutes ago, Sparviero said:

And the point of this thread is Italian battleships. So I’m not sure what the crying is about. 

Crying?  

Just making a timeline note, Mr. Reroll.  But I will bow out and let you manage things from here on out since you seem to have a handle on it.

OP - great post, and great thoughts on the line!

 

 

Edited by Spooooooooooooooooooooon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,253
[PVE]
Members
11,835 posts
24,499 battles

That is a lot of work and well done OP.

Not a fan of Roma at all (well actually it is just the gun performance to be fair as the poor AA, secondary guns, and armor doesn't really bother me) so if the line kept that ship's national style and gun performance it wouldn't do much for me. They would need to improve upon the gun performance for the standard tech tree BB's. A whole line of BB's that hardly ever hit and that do mainly overpens or shatter when they do would just be horrible. :Smile_amazed:

Not sure a 3rd shell type, as was mentioned above, would happen. I would say they either totally fake it and add HE anyway or just make the ships AP only. Or somehow use that weaker AP shell to base HE stats on that give better raw damage but little fire chance?

I also agree with another poster that the HP is just too little as you move up (especially if their armor "protects" like Roma's does which is to say doesn't unless bow tanking). They would either need the Lazarus Rising From The Dead super heals like BRN gets or they would have to be tweaked to get more HP somehow.

Again, overall great job. I mainly play BB and have made T10 in every line so a new one to give me ships to grind would be great. Just not sure I could stomach a line full of Roma's. I don't even care much for Giulio Cesare for that matter. A line full of those would be hard for me to wade through. But others may find it to their liking?

Good job and thanks. This certainly would be a good place to start thinking about a line for WG no question.

:Smile_honoring:

Edited by AdmiralThunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[UFFA]
Members
2,110 posts
75 battles

In the early days WG used to state that the more armored ships would have smaller HP pools. I think this has since fallen away. However I think an argument can be made that a more accurate ship that can be blapped easily should be allowed. It seems only cruiser survival has been used against this. However "Cruiser" Stalingrad seems to disregard this philosophy.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

AA can see several upgrade options. Given the current need for long range aura to have feasible defense this is a serious consideration.

For tier IX/X at least the secondaries can become the double 135/45 aa we have talked about. There are also at least napkin ideas for converting Abruzzi to a 4 x 3 135/45 so maybe that would be enough to justify a triple a turret of the 135/45 as a secondary. :cap_popcorn:

 

For the dual 135/45 it begins in the 30s so well within the timeline.

 

Cannone da 135/45

Origins
Dual turret: di Guissano/Etna/Rebuild of the rebuilds. 
Triple turret???: Possible post war Abruzzi rebuild.

 

DE2kVai.jpg
jRV9BYH.jpg

 

Cannone da 90/74(?)

The 90mm can have a couple of options. WoT added the fabled 90/71 for the Italian tech tree.  On the EU forum a user states the MMI version was 90/74 with semi-auto loading. 1000m/s shell, 20+ rpm and bump range past 5km. At this point it is a simple art change for a longer barrel.

WG could also be very generous on the Ansaldo cruiser projects and imagine the double 90mm as being in stabilized mounts to add a bit of density to the short range aura provided by the current 90mm mounts.

Cannone da 65/64

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_65mm-64_m1939.php

4491335606_d5a4b548c4_b.jpg
This one WG can be adventurous depending on archive finds. The Ansaldo variant has the sin of being built and being restricted to hand loading possibly. The key information about this is that the point was to work in same mount space as a 20mm or 37mm mount space. Now realistically this won't work for every spot however sans shield it should be possible in most. This allows for WG to trade 20/65(70) and 37/54 strong inner aura for a better midrange aura. Then WG can either upgrade to the theorized automatic loading or bring out the Breda or OTO proposed 65/68 for better versions on later tier ships or upgrade hulls.

 

37/54 or Bofors upgrade

origin: UP.41 proposal.

All the open mounts are quickly destroyed. Maybe a little shield to require a second salvo to do the job? 

Oh6jw3i.jpg

 

Cannone da 20/65(70)

Ciano class study and Aquila carrier.

Option A: Stabilized 20mm nest from Ciano class.
tuJTX6c.jpg

Option B: Sextuple 20mm from Aquila.
Al1pfhR.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[UFFA]
Members
2,110 posts
75 battles
2 minutes ago, Mr_Alex said:

For prem BB are you willing to have Caracciolo included, she was the Italian equivalent of the Royal Navy QE class BB

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Caracciolo-class_battleship#/media/File%3ACaracciolo_class.jpg

The only way WG makes money off it is if they gimmick it to be really good at tier VI scenarios. The 700mps shells are just not game friendly.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_15-40_m1914.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[TASC]
Members
411 posts
9,638 battles

you sir, have nailed it. this would be a fun line to play. and we could have a target for warspite to shoot at range !  maybe even do some refighting of battles in the med. 

they knew that the guns had some problems but they did have a fix for it. WG chose not to model it on Roma. here is hoping WG can make it happen. i could do with fewer paper ships and more real ones in my game life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[UFFA]
Members
2,110 posts
75 battles
2 minutes ago, rutilius83 said:

you sir, have nailed it. this would be a fun line to play. and we could have a target for warspite to shoot at range !  maybe even do some refighting of battles in the med. 

they knew that the guns had some problems but they did have a fix for it. WG chose not to model it on Roma. here is hoping WG can make it happen. i could do with fewer paper ships and more real ones in my game life. 

The rifles didn't have the exaggerated problems at the ranges we play. That is WG Balans™

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[TASC]
Members
411 posts
9,638 battles
1 minute ago, Sparviero said:

The rifles didn't have the exaggerated problems at the ranges we play. That is WG Balans™

even with the range compression, we have in the game the hit rate for some is way off. from playing miniature wargames a lot of years, ground scale isn't model scale isn't gun scale.  the real world hit rate was nothing like what we have in game, but hits were much harder. missing isn't a fun game so damage has to be adjusted but they went too far with some of the hit rates till they are not fun. killing fish is not why i play the game. lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[UFFA]
Members
2,110 posts
75 battles
16 minutes ago, rutilius83 said:

even with the range compression, we have in the game the hit rate for some is way off. from playing miniature wargames a lot of years, ground scale isn't model scale isn't gun scale.  the real world hit rate was nothing like what we have in game, but hits were much harder. missing isn't a fun game so damage has to be adjusted but they went too far with some of the hit rates till they are not fun. killing fish is not why i play the game. lol 

RoF also appears to include the entire fire cycle which at 30+km 45 seconds is pretty decent. During gunnery trials, with targets at less than 19km, firing rates less than 30 seconds where achieved. Remember even at 19km it takes the round more than 20 seconds for a round to land and begin making corrections. In addition the Italian firing method involved bracketing a target and then adjusting not laddering as was the British model. So in most line battles the Italians where miffed that the British couldn't find the range to save their lives and the British where astonished by rounds landing so far apart. Only one observation makes it into most English literature. :cap_popcorn:

Lets just ignore pretty much everyone enjoys better traverse and RoF, sometimes by large margins.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,839
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,773 posts
2,137 battles
7 hours ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Could you change the text colour to Automatic instead of black, for the dark mode forum users! Thanks in advance :)

 

Yeah, I'm working on that. I'm really sorry, I'm not sure why it screwed me over on the color this time, usually that doesn't happen when I copy-paste from Word. 

 

3 hours ago, Spooooooooooooooooooooon said:

I suspect we'll see a bunch of mythical Soviet battleships long before we see any real Italian BB's.

 

Yep. Evidence seems to be pointing to this summer's line being Russian BBs, especially with all the BB shells data miners pulled up.

 

2 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

That is a lot of work and well done OP.

Not a fan of Roma at all (well actually it is just the gun performance to be fair as the poor AA, secondary guns, and armor doesn't really bother me) so if the line kept that ship's national style and gun performance it wouldn't do much for me. They would need to improve upon the gun performance for the standard tech tree BB's. A whole line of BB's that hardly ever hit and that do mainly overpens or shatter when they do would just be horrible. :Smile_amazed:

Not sure a 3rd shell type, as was mentioned above, would happen. I would say they either totally fake it and add HE anyway or just make the ships AP only. Or somehow use that weaker AP shell to base HE stats on that give better raw damage but little fire chance?

I also agree with another poster that the HP is just too little as you move up (especially if their armor "protects" like Roma's does which is to say doesn't unless bow tanking). They would either need the Lazarus Rising From The Dead super heals like BRN gets or they would have to be tweaked to get more HP somehow.

Again, overall great job. I mainly play BB and have made T10 in every line so a new one to give me ships to grind would be great. Just not sure I could stomach a line full of Roma's. I don't even care much for Giulio Cesare for that matter. A line full of those would be hard for me to wade through. But others may find it to their liking?

Good job and thanks. This certainly would be a good place to start thinking about a line for WG no question.

:Smile_honoring:

 

Gun performance in which regard? The raw dispersion? That's something that plagues the tier VIII+ ships using the 381mm/50 or 406mm guns, because of the exaggerated vertical dispersion (because of velocity retention and angle of impact). That issue is always going to be present, so the only real way to counter it is greater sigma, although it should be noted such a method will not create a major difference.

The biggest issue with the guns, Imo, is not even the dispersion (which although frustrating,  I find is balanced by ease of aim due to the absurdly low time-to-target). The real issue is doing damage when you hit, and that's the problem - the AP is way to strong against cruisers (because it was only meant for use against BBs), and the HE, since its stats are taken from an AP shell, suck. Those AP shells should be an SAP-style shell, as that is what was used against lighter targets like cruisers. Implementing such an ammunition feature would greatly improve the performance of the guns against cruisers, reducing the number of over-penetrations in the same places other BBs would get full penetrations or citadels.

It's possible the HP for these ships could be kicked up artificially - they've done it before, most notably pushing GK over 100k HP. That being said, the armor for the later ships is tougher than the belts of most tier X BBs. Roma unfortunately suffers from not having her citadel artificially lowered like many other competitors, and WG also chose to simplify her internal armor scheme for balance - which is why you can glitch shells past the armor. This may still be possible on Littorio in my tree as I left the armor scheme alone (for the sake of balance with Roma), but it should not be an issue for the tier VII, IX, and X.

That being said, Roma's armor in-game is quite tough, the issue is that unlike many BBs, when it fails, it fails colossally because WG didn't cut her boilers in half to lower the citadel. If you angle with Roma, she is very resistant against BB guns.

 

1 hour ago, Mr_Alex said:

For prem BB are you willing to have Caracciolo included, she was the Italian equivalent of the Royal Navy QE class BB

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Caracciolo-class_battleship#/media/File%3ACaracciolo_class.jpg

 

Perhaps as a premium she'd be a good fit. To be honest, I had kept her aside as a the starting ship for a second line, of ships that are more similar to her in performance than she is to the other Italian battleships (namely gun performance).

 

1 hour ago, Sparviero said:

In the early days WG used to state that the more armored ships would have smaller HP pools. I think this has since fallen away. However I think an argument can be made that a more accurate ship that can be blapped easily should be allowed. It seems only cruiser survival has been used against this. However "Cruiser" Stalingrad seems to disregard this philosophy.

 

On the armor and HP - true. I figured to combination of armor, HE resistance, stealth, and speed/handling would hopefully compensate the lack of HP, but I'm skeptical of my own assumption as well. That being said, as I mentioned above, WG has dropped simply massive HP buffs on ships before at tier X. The best example is Großer Kurfürst, which WG added 17800 HP on to buff from her original 88000 HP to 105800 HP - a 20% increase!

AA I'll mention in the the next comment, for some reason the forum keeps trying to eat my words when I type them here...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×