Project UP.41

[Raptor_Fulcrum]

As is my habit, I copy also on the NA forum, my discussions about Italian aircraft and also now warships.

 

http://www.egamers.i...41-italian1.png

In 1937 was drafted new of battleship with a weight of 45,000 t, which ignored the limits imposed by the Treaty of Washington on displacement and armed with 406 mm guns in brand new that Ansaldo was planning.

 

In reality, whereas at full load battleships Littorio class passed the 40,000 t is possible guess that these ships would have surpassed 50,000 tons.  Italy had not any drydock could contain them so was started the project of a huge drydock in the port of Taranto. This project was then continued until 1941, when it became clear the impossibility to finish it before 5 or 6 years.

The primary and secondary artillery would have a disposition with 9 406/50 mm cannons and 12 152/55 mm, very similar to the Littorio class, as indeed was similar the general shape of the hull. The anti-aircraft armament would have been much improved and consists of 24 guns 90/53 mm in the  newest twin turrets, while the 37mm guns were placed in new plants quadruple for rapid fire.

 

The engine would be only slightly more powerful respect class Littorio and in fact it was expected for these battleship a maximum speed of 28 knots.

The protection would have been increased in all its aspects, although not in an excessive way. When in 1938 they were ordered two new battleships Littorio class, this project, strongly wanted by Admiral Pini but with opposed by Cavagnari for economic reasons, was abandoned.

 

http://www.egamers.i...arship/up41.jpg

I have not been able to find solid information on this ship were performed a lot studies on it and some of these projects were sent to the Russian navy with the code UP.41​​.

Much information from "Warship 2006":

 

 

http://aaminis.wonko...669-0-asc-0.php

Quote

According to the nearly universal doctrine of the age, the battleship reigned as Queen of the Sea. As a result of studies undertaken from 1934 by the chief of the Navy Corps of Engineers, General Umberto Pugliese, the Regia Marina hoped to add an additional pair of capital ships which, unlike the two Littorios laid down in 1934, could disregard Washington treaty limitations at a standard displacement of 41,000 tons (quickly increased after just a few months to 42,000 tons due to design modifications). Intended to show the flag with periodic visits to the future East African bases, this battleship design formed the foundation of a new, greater Italian fleet.

In addition to meeting a detailed list of requirements, the ship had to be capable of steaming at 32 knots and carrying nine 406/50 guns arranged in three triple turrets, as well as twelve 152/55 pieces also in triple turrets. The aerial component included four floatplanes launched from a new telescoping catapult and stowed in a covered hangar below decks astern. Pugliese designed a new keel between 1932 and 1934 when he headed the Spezia naval yard; this keel permitted a reduction in draught of one metre without sacrificing speed or range. The battleship’s lines were an improvement over the Littorios, and in 1937 the designers incorporated them into the two Romas.5

The battleship’s 406mm main armament, approved by the technical directorate in 1936, represented the fruit of various ballistic and operating choices and retained the layout adopted for Littorio. In fact, the designers originally armed the 35,000 ton design with six 406mm guns, but settled on the 381mm weapon not because of questions with power, ballistics, or control, but to save time.

However, Italy never constructed even a prototype 406mm gun, since new gunnery regulations put into effect in 1936 by Admiral Inigo Campioni’s, Deputy Chief of the II Squadra (one of the two main forces of the Italian fleet and the one which traditionally tested new weapons and materials) induced the Naval General Staff to prefer a smaller, more rapid firing gun calibre. Moreover, the modern armour-piercing, shaped shells introduced for the new 320mm guns proved very effective and the 381mm gun’s performance theoretically equalled the British 16in gun used in the Nelson class. This choice typified Cavagnari’s management, focusing on exploiting resources at hand, and stressing the advantage of fire volume over projectile weight. An analogous decision took place in January 1936 when the Navy decided to forgo development of a new 203/55 gun (re-bored from the old Armstrong Model 1908 254/45 weapons of the Italian armoured cruisers) for the envisaged new big cruisers, adopting instead the successful semi-automatic 152/55 with enhanced turret automation. The secondary battery consisted of twelve 152/55 guns arranged in four groups, following the precedent of the Littorio and twelve 100/47 twin systems (replaced in 1936 by a still undefined number of the more modern 90/50 weapon then under development). The strong anti-air outfit reflected Cavagnari’s prescient concern with the threat presented by torpedo bombers. The new battleship had more extensive and complete protection than the two Littorios. In particular Littorio’s 280mm + 70mm vertical armour had evolved to one layer of variable thickness ranging from 320mm to 425mm.

Given the concern for torpedoes as well as shells falling short and striking beneath the waterline, the designers proposed an innovative underwater protection system. In place of the famous cylinder absorbers designed by Pugliese in 1918, the new ship featured five double bottoms layered on the sides, alternatively filled with oil or deliberately left empty, extending throughout the centre zone of the hull and integrated by thick compartmentalisation and two false bottoms. The lower of the two false bottoms, given the threat from contact mines and magnetic torpedoes, was practically flat, armoured and positioned 1.3 metres above the keel.

Capitalising on the wealth of practical experience accumulated between 1934 and 1936, and the classic tendency toward inflation, the process of planning the great oceanic programme of 1936 continued even after the design team submitted its final drawings. Continuous revision and improvement resulted in a project retaining the original main armament and protection scheme on a displacement of 45,000 tons with an overall length of 249m, a beam of 35m and a draft of 9.4m. In 1936 this same process induced the government to sell to the Soviet Union through Ansaldo the original 1935 battleship as the ‘UP 41’ plan (Uffico Piani, Umberto Pugliese 41,000- ton). This decision, along with the generally excellent collaborative relationship that existed between Italy and the USSR from 1932 (and not just in the maritime and naval fields) had the immediate benefit of reducing Stalin’s bill, presented the day after the war in Ethiopia ended, for Moscow’s supplies of oil and coal that allowed Italy to endure the eight months of sanctions imposed by the League of Nations. The Navy Ministry also planned an infrastructure to support the larger battleships. In 1937 the ministry decided to construct at Taranto a massive new dry dock 406m long and 51.5m wide, able to receive battleships of considerably greater dimensions than the Littorios for completion in 1942. However, when the government acted in December 1937 to order two further battleships Cavagnari, in typically pragmatic fashion, decided to lay down two improved repeat 35,000-tonners (Roma and

Impero). He preferred a tested design that could be available as quickly as possible considering events in Spanish waters, the new Chamberlain government’s hostility, and Rome’s assessment that the definitive Mediterranean show-down with the French and British was growing ever more likely.

Even after Italy ordered the two Romas, the studies of the 41,000-ton battleships and their 406/50 guns continued undisturbed, anticipating the addition of twelve twin stabilised 90/50 systems (which by 1940 still didn’t exist even in prototype). The resurrection of a large oceanic programme in 1939 brought the new battleship, now officially tipping the scales at 45,000 tons, back to the forefront. Although Cavagnari continued to press for a third set of tested 35,000-tonners, the Navy’s new number two, Admiral Odoardo Somigli, appointed by Mussolini in July 1939 and a close friend of the Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano, favoured the new, larger ship anticipating for it an oceanic as well as a Mediterranean role. He also wanted to justify the studies, quickly reignited by FIAT, of using a full Diesel propulsion system in these ships employing two alternatives based on five or even six shafts. When the European war erupted unexpectedly in September 1939 Italy needed to preserve its limited materials and power for the completion of the Duilios and the first two 35,000-tonners. This affected the entire construction programme, to say nothing of the giant oceanic battleships. The vicissitudes of the 45,000-ton battleship definitively ended in the summer of 1941 under the press of more immediate needs taxing the nation, with the conflict’s unexpected expansion into a world war.

Immages from "ЛИНЕЙНЫЕ КОРАБЛИ ТИПА СОВЕТСКИЙ СОЮЗ"

 

http://www.egamers.i...russiannavy.png

 

About the theory of similarity of the project UP.41 and the Soviet projekt ​​23 and 24 there are different theories.

 

 

From "Stalin's Ocean-going Fleet: Soviet Naval Strategy and Shipbuilding Programs, 1935-53"

 

"At around the same time in autumn 1935, the italian yard Ansaldo at Genoa was asked for planes of a battleship of 42,000t which were delivered on 14 July 1936 and designated UP-41 with two triple turrets of 406mm at the foredeck and one aft, a design which was influenced by new italian Littorio-class with its Pugliese shock-absorbing system. This design was a great influence on the final  plans of the projekt 23 battleship."

 

 

According to Wikipedia, which cites this book: "Garzke & Dulin, British, Soviet, French and Dutch Battleships"

 

"In the early 1930s, the Soviet Navy began a naval construction program, and sought advice from foreign shipbuilders for a new class of battleships. On 14 July 1939, Ansaldo completed a design proposal for the Soviet Navy, for a ship largely based on the Littorio class, designated U.P. 41. The design was for a 42,000 t (41,000 long tons; 46,000 short tons) ship armed with nine 406 mm guns in triple turrets. The Italians did not disclose the specifications of the Pugliese system and instead used a multiple-torpedo bulkhead system. Regardless, the Soviet Navy did not use the U.P. 41 design as the basis for the Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleships they laid down in the late 1930s. They were, however, equipped with the Pugliese system, the details of which were revealed through Soviet espionage."

 

Info from: "British, Soviet, French and Dutch Battleships of WWII"

 

 

 

Quote

Italian technical assistance. After a group of Soviet naval specialists visited Italy in 1933, Ansaldo received contracts for the construction of both warships and merchant ships. In return, the U.S.S.R. sold fuel, ore, and grain to Italy. During the next few years, Ansaldo completed the escort vessels Kirov and Dzerzhinskii, and the destroyer leader Tashkent, and also furnished equipment for the heavy cruiser Kirov, which was

under construction in the Soviet Union.

 

Battleship design U.P. 41. Ansaldo completed a battleship design for the Soviet Union on 14 Iuly 1936. Design ”U.P. 41” was fonnally termed “Nave da Battaglia da 42,000 T. St.” (battleship of 42,000 tons standard displacement).

Superficially, the design was a progressive development of the Vittorio Veneto class, resulting in a very powerful ship for a standard displacement of only 42,000 tons. Design ”U.P. 41” had the following general characteristics, as compared to the Vittorio Veneto (Littorio-class):

• Improved main-battery armament of nine 406-mm/50-caliber guns in triple turrets.

• Increased side annor protection; slightly improved deck annor. The general scale of armor protection was improved as compared to the Vittorio Veneto.

• A conventional multiple-bulkhead side protection system. The Vittorio Veneto design featured the unique Pugliese system.

• Increased power and maximum speed.

The impressive military characteristics given this design were probably the consequence of the acceptance of limited endurance and structural scantlings suitable only for operations in relatively sheltered waters. The Italians were most secretive about their novel Pugliese system of underwater protection. The Ansaldo design for the U.S.S.R. did not include it, reverting to a conventional multiple-bulkhead side protection system design scheme. Several years later, when Dutch naval authorities visited ships of the Vittorio Veneto class under construction, the Italians were careful to keep their guests from learning of the Pugliese system. Despite this security, as will be seen later, the Soviets were well aware of the Pugliese concept.

It is probable that Design ”U.P. 41" was delivered to the Russians, although there is no specific evidence of this. In any event, it seems certain that the design did not serve as the specific basis for actual constmction.

 

Technical data reported to the project sent to the Russian Navy. from: "British, Soviet, French and Dutch Battleships of WWII"

 

Date I4 Iuly 1936

 

Displacement

• standard: 42,000 (42,674)

• normal: 45,470 (46,200)

Dimensions

• length overall:  826.572' (252.000)

• length between perpendiculars:  774.275’ (236.00)

• maximum beam:  116.469’ (35.500)

• normal draft:  30.840’ (9.400)

• hull depth amidships:  54.462‘ (161500)

Armament

• main-battery arrangement: x9 16"/'50 (406) 3-.3-A-3

• secondary (tripled):  x12  7.1"/60 (I80)

• antiaircraft (paired): x24  3.9" (100)

• machine gun (quad): x48  1.77"/45 (45)

• machine guns (paired): x24 0.52“ (l3.2)

• float planes  4

• catapults  1

Armor

• main side belt:  14.57" @ 6° [370]

• lower side belt:  none

• upper side belt:  5.91" [150]

• turret face plates:  1s.rs" [400]

• turret sides:  5.91" [150]

• turret roof:  7.87" [200]

• barbettes:  13.78" max. [350]

• secondary face plates:  13.78" [180]

• secondary sides:  2.36“ [60]

• secondary roof:  3.54“ [90]

• antiaircraft face plates:  3.94“ [100]

• antiaircraft sides:  1.57" [40]

• antiaircraft roof:  1.97" [50]

• conning tower sides:  14.57" [370]

• conning tower roof:  7.37" [200]

• main deck:  2.16" [55]

• second deck:  0.39"’ [10]

• third deck:  0.98“ [25]

• fourth deck-inboard:  2.56“ + 1.38" [65 + 35]

• fourth deck -outboard:  2.56“ [65]

• fourth deck -slopes:  1.33" [35]

Machinery

• boilers:  8

• shafts: 4

• shaft horsepower:  177,538 [180,000]

• maximum speed:  32 knots

[Crag_r]

Very interesting!

 

Although when ever i see Italian capital ships i feel the sudden need to look up Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers

[JeeWeeJ]

Heh, i dont know it the Russians should be happy by using the pugliese system:

Quote

The Italians made the next, much more negative leap in 1934, with the Pugliese System introduced in the Vittorio Veneto Class and the reconstructions of the Conte di Cavour Class and Andrea Doria Class ships.  The Pugliese design filled the volume of the TDS with a large cylinder, which was in turn filled with closed tubes reminiscent of those in HMS Ramillies.  Pugiese’s theory was that the torpedo would expend its energy crushing the cylinder.  In practice the design failed miserably.  Following the path of least resistance, the blast traveled around the cylinder and concentrated itself against the weakest point of the complex structure supporting the cylinder:  the concave holding bulkhead.

 

This bulkhead acted much like a dam mistakenly built bowing downstream, rather than upstream against the current.  This concave surface was structurally the weakest possible arrangement for containing the force of an explosion, and to make matters worse, the workmanship proved tragically defective.  Conte di Cavour sank from a single torpedo hit at Taranto, and Caio Duilio had to be beached to prevent her sinking, also after one hit.  Littorio suffered three hits, grounding her bow before she could sink.  Vittorio Veneto twice, and Littorio once, suffered severe flooding in dangerous situations at sea when struck by torpedoes, more than such modern ships should have.

 

Pugliese’s design also consumed tremendous volume, and foreshortened the depth of the armored belt, making the ships so fitted more vulnerable to shell hits below the waterline.  Once again, practical experience proved that not every innovation represented an improvement.

SOURCE

[Ex_Nihilo]

A nice looking ship, but from the pictures I wonder about the design. The citadel looks like it would be very long. Also, I wonder about the arcs of fire of the main armament, considering the position of the 152mm secondaries.

[Capcon]

Ex_Nihilo, on 29 August 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

A nice looking ship, but from the pictures I wonder about the design. The citadel looks like it would be very long. Also, I wonder about the arcs of fire of the main armament, considering the position of the 152mm secondaries.

The muzzles of the mains would be outboard of the secondary turrets and that means a lot regarding the overpressure they would experience. Making the secondary turrets more robust than was the norm would also allow for the closer placement. A downside would be protection of the secondaries would be necessarily less than the mains but hit on the ammunition supply would be very close to the main magazines. Not the best idea.

[DeadMemories]

And another guy with this "Battleship 2006" source

 

Just a little tip ... the UP.41 was a design who was made by Ansaldo exclusively after a Soviet request for ther Ship Build Program (the UP.41 concept gets dropped by the Project 23 "Sovetsky Soyuz class") and never was planed by the Italians to build it for there own fleet ...

 

Sources:

 

"British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II" by William H. Garzke & Robert O. Dulin, Jane's Information Group, ISBN: 0-7106-0078-X
"Stalin's Ocean-going Fleet: Soviet Naval Strategy and Shipbuilding programmes 1935-1953" by Mikhail Monakov & Jurgen Rohwer, Routledge, ISBN 13: 978-0415761253

[RedBear87]

And another guy with this "Battleship 2006" source

 

Just a little tip ... the UP.41 was a design who was made by Ansaldo exclusively after a Soviet request for ther Ship Build Program (the UP.41 concept gets dropped by the Project 23 "Sovetsky Soyuz class") and never was planed by the Italians to build it for there own fleet ...

 

Sources:

 

"British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II" by William H. Garzke & Robert O. Dulin, Jane's Information Group, ISBN: 0-7106-0078-X
"Stalin's Ocean-going Fleet: Soviet Naval Strategy and Shipbuilding programmes 1935-1953" by Mikhail Monakov & Jurgen Rohwer, Routledge, ISBN 13: 978-0415761253

It's Warship 2006, not "Battleship 2006", the journal published by the United States Naval Institute Press in the US and Conway Publishing in the UK. I would like to know which kind of mental process led you to establish, beyond any doubt, that what was said in those books is more authoritative than what was said by O'Hara and Cernuschi in that Warship article about the so called Breakout Fleet.

[alenalenalen]

And another guy with this "Battleship 2006" source

 

Just a little tip ... the UP.41 was a design who was made by Ansaldo exclusively after a Soviet request for ther Ship Build Program (the UP.41 concept gets dropped by the Project 23 "Sovetsky Soyuz class") and never was planed by the Italians to build it for there own fleet ...

 

Sources:

 

"British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II" by William H. Garzke & Robert O. Dulin, Jane's Information Group, ISBN: 0-7106-0078-X
"Stalin's Ocean-going Fleet: Soviet Naval Strategy and Shipbuilding programmes 1935-1953" by Mikhail Monakov & Jurgen Rohwer, Routledge, ISBN 13: 978-0415761253

It's Warship 2006, not "Battleship 2006", the journal published by the United States Naval Institute Press in the US and Conway Publishing in the UK. I would like to know which kind of mental process led you to establish, beyond any doubt, that what was said in those books is more authoritative than what was said by O'Hara and Cernuschi in that Warship article about the so called Breakout Fleet.

 

The Soviets did request Ansaldo to draw up plans. However as far as I know Ansaldo had no obligation to keep the design from Italy, or deliver the Russians an entirely new design. 

[stefsap]

UP 41 is for Uffico Progetti (Ansaldo) and does not share anything with Umberto Pugliese, at the time in charge for the Comitato Progetti Navi, the main commitee at the Navy Central department.

The UP41 design was developed for the Regia Marina, and sold to the Soviet, with modifications, only after Admiral Cavagnari opted for two new "Littorio" in place of the new design.

The Pugliese System had to be correctly placed and mounted, something Russian were not able to do. One of the soviet BB hull was captured in Sevastopol, and examined by Italian naval architects ;).

As far as Pugliese system effectiveness is concerned, I would suggest to read Dieter Thomaier, 42° Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Schiffahrts-u. Marinegeschichte Acta, Berliner Maritim, September 2013 (Bundesarchiv-Militarãrchiv, TS 487/43124 and W-04/14723), detailing the test Kriegsmarine performed on the RN Impero underwater protection in Trieste. Actual results are better than beliefs.