Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
CaptainKiwi_2016

Caio Duilio

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
523 posts

I've noticed that the Conte di Cavour class Battleships (The class Guilio Cesare belongs to) and the succeeding Caio Duilio Class Battleships look exactly the same, well almost. 

 

However, the Caio Duilio class seems to be a lot better looking. 

 

1024px-Italian_battleship_Andrea_Doria_s

I mean, look at Andrea Doria (Caio Duilio's sister ship),

Giulioce07.jpg

Compared to Guilio Cesare. But that's just my opinion. Somehow I feel the design of the Caio Duilio was better than the Conte di Cavour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,681
[POP]
Members
2,249 posts
19,667 battles
46 minutes ago, CaptainKiwi_2016 said:

I've noticed that the Conte di Cavour class Battleships (The class Guilio Cesare belongs to) and the succeeding Caio Duilio Class Battleships look exactly the same, well almost. 

 

However, the Caio Duilio class seems to be a lot better looking. 

 

1024px-Italian_battleship_Andrea_Doria_s

I mean, look at Andrea Doria (Caio Duilio's sister ship),

Giulioce07.jpg

Compared to Guilio Cesare. But that's just my opinion. Somehow I feel the design of the Caio Duilio was better than the Conte di Cavour. 

Well I wont dispute what your saying however I have been hoping to see Conte di Cavour in game herself whether as tech tree or premium.

cheers

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,148
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
8,947 posts
7,885 battles

There were a few differences between the two classes internally.

Most noticable one is in the bow. Whereas Guilio Cesare maintained her old armored bow, which prevents citadel hits through the bow, they were removed on Duilio as these heavy structures made the ships bowheavy. This would make them noticable more fragile against BB shells hitting the bow.

The other is concerning the side armor and the arrangement. Below is Guilio's armor scheme:

image.png.2df846873b1b6a5a960dd97975e2d7a8.png

As you can see, the only way for an AP shell to reach the citadel would be to go through the 250mm belt. If it hits too high, the 80mm deck would ensure the autobounce and that'd be it. Now Duilio's armor scheme:

image.png.3d58ddb698a282698001a1494111a683.png

Here the chances for a shell to hit the citadel are a lot more numerous.

The part where the Duilios would shine would be in regards to their auxilliary armament, as they were equipped with the more modern 90mm gun. However, since WG has severly hampered this gun in-game it would not be all that much of a gain.

 

All that doesn't change of course that the Duilios imo look a lot better.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,319
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,255 posts
13,046 battles
6 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Here the chances for a shell to hit the citadel are a lot more numerous.

Image result for scharnhorst armor cross section

Reminds me of the small 'saddle' on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, though that one was much shorter vertically and I think only extended over some of the boiler spaces? Does the Duilio have it throughout?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,148
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
8,947 posts
7,885 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:
Reminds me of the small 'saddle' on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, though that one was much shorter vertically and I think only extended over some of the boiler spaces? Does the Duilio have it throughout?

To my knowledge this section on Scharnhorst was only at the boiler uptakes, but not sure.

From what I can tell of the armor profiles given in Regia Marina - Italian Battleships of WWII they seem to be for the entire length of the citadel as the citadel deck itself never makes a step up or down.

image.thumb.png.b1c6a72c500f23192b58ec03adf146c8.png

But just to be sure I'll ping @Phoenix_jz, he can surely tell a bit more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,813
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,735 posts
2,129 battles

The above depiction of the Conte di Cavour's armor scheme is incorrect, or at least not labelled properly. The armor scheme on both battleships was similar - the main armor deck only protects the areas above the citadels, while the areas over the Pugliese system on both ships is thinner - only 30mm, iirc. On both classes, this leads to the 'hump' that protects the upper portions of the citadel, which protrude out of what was originally the ship's battery deck (which still exists as the 50mm deck plate over the interior void space of the TDS).

The 'hump' on both classes continues the entire length of the citadel, ending where it meets the barbettes of No.1 & No.4 main battery turrets. On neither class does the 'new' battery deck/main armor deck's (old main deck) 80mm (or 100mm over the magazines) extend to meet the main armor belt.

 

In terms of differences - the primary difference between the two classes, and the main reason for the rebuilds of Caio Duilio and Andrea Doria costing more than that of the Conte di Cavour-class, comes down to fire control.

Being rebuilt in the early-mid 1930s (1933-1947), the Cavour-class was limited by the technology of its era, and received a similar fire control suite to most Italian cruisers at the time. The 320mm guns were controlled by the RM Type 1 2a Version (my abbreviation style hereafter is RM-12) fire control system, with the turret backup systems being RM-31's, a simplified system being used for the 120mm guns, and a simplified 'calculator' version (model 1937) of Galileo's 1933 dual-purpose fire control computer.

 

The Caio Duilio-class, on the other hand, was rebuilt from 1937 and 1940, and benefited from a new generation of Italian fire control equipment. In fact, they actually received a fire control system similar in capability to that of the Littorio-class battleships. The main battery fire control system was the same RM-4 computer used by Littorio (although with 320mm ballistics rather than 381mm), and the turret backups were the same RM-32's. The 135mm secondary battery was controlled by the same RM-13 used by the Capitani Romani-class, and the 90mm guns shared the same fire control as Littorio, the Model 1940 AA fire control computer. That being said, it should be noted thatm with the exception of the 90mm guns & directors, the Caio Duilio-class did not receive the same RPC & stabilization equipment as the Littorio and Capitani Romani.

All in all they were significantly better combatants than the Conte di Cavour-class, with much better anti-aircraft firepower and fire control, and considerably better fire control for the main and secondary batteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×