15 replies to this topic

[glenn_simpson]

I note that Cavour and Cesare are listed in the ship logs as having BC main armour belt while Duilio and Andrea Doria are listed as having BB.  As I understand that the belt and deck armour on the two classes was identical, is there a reason for this apparent anomaly?

[Phil Callcott]

I cannot explain the disparity. 

 

All I can do is confirm that you are correct according to "Mussolini's Navy" by Maurizio Brescia.

 

Regards, Phil

[W. Clark]

Better steel?

 

WMC

[W. Clark]

Just for the heck of it I looked at the Deluxe logs and they reprise the BB(BB) of the Doria class and the BC(BB) of the Cavour class. A check of other sources says that the Cavour class was based on the design (essentially a copy) of the Doria class. As the Dorias preceded the Cavours it does not seem likely that a worst grade of steel is the cause of the down grade in armor quality and all of the sources are in agreement that both classes had a 10" belt. It appears that there is a prima facia case for an error here.

 

WMC

[Thomas J Fitzgerald]

From "Regia Maina Italian Battleships of World War Two a Pictorial History" by Erminio Bagnasco and Mark Grossman.  Appendix 1 list the following difference in horizontal armour after reconstruction:

 

Cavour 80-100mm 

 

Duilio 135mm max

 

All other values were the same. Since the values in GQ3 represent a blended rating of vertical & horizontal protection for the hull or armament, I would suspect he higher rating for the Duilos is due to this difference. 

[W. Clark]

Yes, that would seem likely.

 

WMC

[glenn_simpson]

Yes my references were to Brescia.and Fraccaroli which say no difference.   Brescia says 250 waterline, 135 main deck, 260 conning tower, 280 main turrets, 120 secondary turrets, for both classes. Must try and get hold of Bagnasco, but given the armour was not changed in the reconstructions of either class, I would expect them to be identical.  Regrettably, there isn't much of assistance on line - the Wikipedia entry on this class is very minimal.  I also note that the two classes' displacement was nearly identical.   Luckily it is easy to correct the DX and GQ3_3 ship logs using Paint Shop Pro or similar.

 

I should also note that the Deluxe Ship Logs, while very valuable, are not always correct.  While Mal Wright is a terrific source of information, much more knowledgeable than anyone else I know, even he makes errors occasionally.  For example, the some of the early British County Class cruisers were uparmoured during refits in the 1930s, from CL to CA in GQ3.3 terms, but Australia, Canberra, Devonshire, Sussex, and Shropshire were not. The British Deluxe ship logs for the latter three (these ship alas are not listed in the GQ3_3 WW2 Complete Book) lists them as CA like their Kent class sisters, when they are really tinclad CLs like their later sisters Norfolk and Dorsetshire (correctly listed as CL in both the GQ3_3 and DX ship logs)..  Not a big issue, and it made no difference historically, but important in wargaming terms, particularly if (like me) you have gone to the trouble to convert Airfix 1/1200 Suffolk kits into each one of them.   

 

[W. Clark]

Are you sure about Australia? She had her TT removed before WWII which was a hallmark of having the up armored (belt armor) rebuild done for (some of) the Kent class in the 30s. Now, she does not have her quarter deck cut down like Suffolk and Cumberland, but they were the only ones to have that happen as they showed that it was not necessary to keep within treaty weight restrictions. Australia also had her 4" battery doubled, another hallmark of that rebuild.

 

WMC

[W. Clark]

I finally dragged out M.J. Whitley's "Cruisers of WWII" and looked up HMAS Australia. According to Whitley, Australia underwent a rebuild in 1938 beginning in April that resulted in a 4" belt being fitted to protect her machinery and transmitting stations, the single 4" secondaries were twined and moved down a deck and her TT were removed as well as some other small modifications to her AAMG outfit and the replacement of her trainable catapult for a fixed one athwartships with her FP complement being increased to 3. She did not receive the box hanger as the RN ships of the Kent class did upon undergoing the rebuild. Canberra did not undergo this rebuild and went to the bottom with very limited protection to her machinery spaces and 4" box protection to her magazines. All of the Kent class retained the 1" protection to their gun houses. If Whitley is correct, then Australia's armor rating of CA(CS) during WWII is correct.

 

WMC

[W. Clark]

According to Whitley all of the Kent class except for Canberra received the up armor. But of the succeeding London and Norfolk classes only London was up armored. So that is 6 out of 15 if you count the Cathedral class. 

 

WMC

[glenn_simpson]

Thanks for this - it appears that you are quite right, HMAS Australia apparently received an armour belt in 1938.  Raven and Roberts are unclear about Australia and Canberra’s refits, but certainly Australia landed her torpedo tubes and acquired twin 4” mounts before 1939 while Canberra did not.  Wikipedia however says she received additional armour in 1938 at Cockatoo Island (presumably sent out from England as Australia did not produce armour plate at that time)?  Anyway thanks for correcting my misinformation on this question - will have to redo my Ship Log!

[W. Clark]

Yes, but it appears to me that you were right about the London class logs as I can only establish the increased belt armor rebuild for London herself.

 

In any case, Australia, my favorite County Class deserved her due. That was one of the reasons (play balance being the other) I wanted the whole ANZAC Squadron included in the starting OOB for the Allies in "Defending the Malay Barrier". In the six Solomons Campaigns I was in or ran, Australia was seldom picked by Allied players until cruiser losses forced the choice upon them. I've run DTMB 8 plus times now and Australia has played a large part in every Allied victory to date. Australia is the best Allied 8" cruiser in the campaign hands down IMHO and now gets her just due every time the campaign is played. I always like to see a shout out to Australia and Canada for the part they played and the service they rendered in both WW.

 

WMC

[RTTrochim]

The information here is from Conway's All the World's Fighting Ship 1906 - 1921 & 1922 - 1946 volumes.

Cavour Class:

Sides (Belt) = 254mm (decreased to 130mm toward the stern and decreased to 80mm toward the bow), Strake = 220mm, Deck = 111mm, Main turret faces = 254mm, Casemates = 127mm.

Between war improvements to armor: Casemates where plated over and made flush with hull thereby increasing the armor to 177mm. Deck armor increased to 135mm.  

 

Doria Class: 

Sides (belt) = 254mm (decreased to 130mm toward the stern and decreased to 80mm toward the bow), Strake = 220, Deck = 98mm, Main turret faces = 280mm, Casemates = 120mm.

Between war improvements to armor: Casemates where plated over and made flush with hull, but no mention of increase in armor. Deck armor increased to 135mm, but spread out over three layers.

 

Deck armor increases I found on Wikipedia.

 

I don't know if this helps in anyway. 

 

RTT

[Lonnie Gill]

G' Day RT,

 

Thanks for bringing this issue up again.  I went back and checked the sources that were available a number of years ago when preparing the Hull armor classifications for GQ 3 including the always authoritative Siegfried Breyer, etc.  There was some minor variation in horizontal deck armor as Tom previously suggested, with slightly different values and dependant on whether or not several deck thicknesses were included along with the armored decks, but I didn't find anything definitive in my notes that would have clearly supported a lower Hull rating for the Cavour class.  More to the point, the more detailed modern sources which are now available are pretty consistent, especially from Italian authors which had access to the official Italian Navy files and design documents. [And hats off to Aldo Fraccaroli who had it right way back in 1969.]

 

So, mea culpa, mea culpa.  It's clear we need to upgrade the Cavours to BB Hull armor like the Doria class.  I will update the RMI Ship Log sheet accordingly and provide it for download from the ODGW website a little later this year.  It will be combined with several minor changes, primarily to enhance simulating night combat, as one package to save you having to deal with multiple downloads.  There will, of course, be no charge for the updates. 

 

Good catch guys!  Always ready to update GQ 3.3 when better data becomes available.

 

LONNIE

 

LONNIE     

[W. Clark]

RN heavy cruisers in the Med will not thank you Lonnie. Now, not only will they have to close within 9,000 yards but need end on fire also. Oh well, no one ever promised a cruiser a rose garden. Of course, there will be those who query why the RN is needing their cruisers to deal with RM older Bats when they have QE and R class bats. It reminds me of the journalist who queried a Confederate private on why he did not carry a bayonet? The private's reply might very well be useful for the RN. "I never found anyone who would wait for that".

[Jim O'Neil]

As we both know, RN Heavy Cruisers are only marginally useful in the Med. The Zaras aren't impressed with them and everything  smaller is better dealt with by the six inch armed Town Class cruisers. or the Leanders and Colony classes. 

Only a few of the County class got the 4" belt applied for the war, the rest had CL sides at best.

 

The later Italian Light cruisers are much better ships than they are given credit for if used as they were tended to be used (outside of 15,000 yards and trying to maintain an angle off of the opponent, not 90º side to side).

used like that against a Leander, the RN Cruiser has problems in daylight. It alien gunnery was much better controlled and more accurate than RN gunnery.