Jump to content


Photo

Conte de Cavour as BC armour belt?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 glenn_simpson

glenn_simpson

    Private

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationGold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Posted 05 April 2023 - 02:33 AM

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?



#2 Phil Callcott

Phil Callcott

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 11 April 2023 - 02:49 PM

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



#3 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Major

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 11 April 2023 - 05:29 PM

Better steel?

 

WMC



#4 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Major

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 11 April 2023 - 05:41 PM

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



#5 Thomas J Fitzgerald

Thomas J Fitzgerald

    Private

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 12 April 2023 - 11:33 AM

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. 



#6 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Major

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 12 April 2023 - 05:27 PM

Yes, that would seem likely.

 

WMC



#7 glenn_simpson

glenn_simpson

    Private

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationGold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Posted 16 April 2023 - 07:32 PM

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, CanberraDevonshire, 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.   

 



#8 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Major

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 17 April 2023 - 10:40 AM

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



#9 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Major

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 20 April 2023 - 09:58 AM

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



#10 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Major

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 21 April 2023 - 08:17 AM

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



#11 glenn_simpson

glenn_simpson

    Private

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationGold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Posted 24 April 2023 - 07:12 AM

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!



#12 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Major

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 24 April 2023 - 09:56 AM

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






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users