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

Out of curiosity why can’t the proper lead ship names be used for Regia Marina tech tree battleships?

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

719
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,784 posts
5,099 battles

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Caio_Duilio_(nave_da_battaglia_1913)

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Littorio

https://www.marina.difesa.it/noi-siamo-la-marina/mezzi/mezzi-storici/Pagine/CorazzateeNavidaBattaglia.aspx


The ships should be class leaders Duilio and Littorio. Regia Marina practice was generally  first ship laid down and Italian language sources for some odd reason follow this. 

Useless trivia section.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/f8oaip/1415x642_the_italian_battleship_duilio_at_anchor/

 

cheers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,165
[WOLFC]
Members
2,210 posts
10,558 battles

 

58 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Caio_Duilio_(nave_da_battaglia_1913)

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Littorio

https://www.marina.difesa.it/noi-siamo-la-marina/mezzi/mezzi-storici/Pagine/CorazzateeNavidaBattaglia.aspx


The ships should be class leaders Duilio and Littorio. Regia Marina practice was generally  first ship laid down and Italian language sources for some odd reason follow this. 

Useless trivia section.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/f8oaip/1415x642_the_italian_battleship_duilio_at_anchor/

 

cheers. 

Caio Duilio was launched almost a month after Andrea Doria, but she was laid down a full month earlier (Feb 24 vs. Mar 24, 1912).

Littorio and her sister were laid down on the same date (October 28,1934), but Vitorrio Veneto was launched almost a month earlier than Littorio.

So WG appears to be using launch date for these Italian BBs.

However, then we have the case of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. They are often considered the Scharnhorst-class because Scharnhorst launched two months earlier than her sister, but Gneisenau was laid down more than a month earlier than Scharnhorst. WG selected Gneisenau for the tech tree.

Many sources name ship classes after the first launched, other sources go by launch date or commissioning date. WG is inconsistent.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,755
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,794 posts
20,285 battles
15 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

WG selected Gneisenau for the tech tree.

Which might have also something to do with the armament, falling more in line with the rest of the tree. Both were always intended for 3x 2 15" armament but Gneisenau actually started the conversion. Scharnhorst being the more famous and storied one was chosen to be a premium with her 11" armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
719
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,784 posts
5,099 battles
19 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

 

Caio Duilio was launched almost a month after Andrea Doria, but she was laid down a full month earlier (Feb 24 vs. Mar 24, 1912).

Littorio and her sister were laid down on the same date (October 28,1934), but Vitorrio Veneto was launched almost a month earlier than Littorio.

So WG appears to be using launch date for these Italian BBs.

However, then we have the case of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. They are often considered the Scharnhorst-class because Scharnhorst launched two months earlier than her sister, but Gneisenau was laid down more than a month earlier than Scharnhorst. WG selected Gneisenau for the tech tree.

Many sources name ship classes after the first launched, other sources go by launch date or commissioning date. WG is inconsistent.

Now read what I said. Italian ships, Italian tradition. Laid down is the standard. 

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,165
[WOLFC]
Members
2,210 posts
10,558 battles
Just now, Lert said:

Which might have also something to do with the armament, falling more in line with the rest of the tree. Both were always intended for 3x 2 15" armament but Gneisenau actually started the conversion. Scharnhorst being the more famous and storied one was chosen to be a premium with her 11" armament.

That was my feeling as well. It makes more sense to include Scharnhorst as the premium ship with the historical armament because she is, after all, the more famous ship, in no small part due to her (debateable) record-distance short on Glorious and her loss in the Battle of North Cape.

4 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

Now read what I said. Italian ships, Italian tradition. Laid down is the standard. 

Now read what I said. I pointed out that WG appears to follow a different criteria, but doesn’t even apply that consistently. Did I disagree with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,828
[A-I-M]
Members
3,588 posts
14,482 battles
10 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

Now read what I said. Italian ships, Italian tradition. Laid down is the standard. 

Just how Italian is WG’s management & ownership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[RSL]
Beta Testers
571 posts
9,030 battles

There could also be a legal reason why they can’t use the name Littorio. Littorio’s namesake was a Roman office called the Lictor who used a symbol called the fasces. The fasces was later adopted by a certain Italian dictator with a penchant for coopting Ancient Roman symbols into his regime.
 

If Italy has a law identical to Germany when it comes to the display or usage or certain symbols, the name Littorio might be affected. Also, they did rename Littorio after the Armistice to Italia probably as a symbolic break to the ship’s past.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,769
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,820 posts
15,413 battles

I suspect in this context perhaps Littorio was avoided due to the name being that of a fascist symbol, and while Italian fascism is not what people tend to think, that might be enough political reason not to (though OTOH WG were apparently ok with Drake, Hawkins and Ludendorff and are now going with 'Colombo'...).

If it's any comfort it doesn't seem a uniquely Italian issue. The Gneisenau is an example, the British destroyers Jutland and Acasta should really be Dunkirk and Anthony.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,619
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,586 posts
4,223 battles
56 minutes ago, mofton said:

I suspect in this context perhaps Littorio was avoided due to the name being that of a fascist symbol, and while Italian fascism is not what people tend to think, that might be enough political reason not to (though OTOH WG were apparently ok with Drake, Hawkins and Ludendorff and are now going with 'Colombo'...).

If it's any comfort it doesn't seem a uniquely Italian issue. The Gneisenau is an example, the British destroyers Jutland and Acasta should really be Dunkirk and Anthony.

There's a difference between triggering the SJWs (and I doubt WG cares much about the ridiculous things people get worked up over here in the US) and actually running into legal trouble in certain countries. Colombo, Drake, etc are in the former category, Littorio may be in the second.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
13 posts
10,230 battles

The Littorio also being a Fascist symbol did not prevent WG to name a ship like that. Do remember that there is already an anime Roma copy named Littorio in the game. 

If they really had a problem with naming a ship after a fascist symbol Littorio would never have been in the game. 

They might have named the class Vittorio Veneto because Littorio already exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×