17 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.

[glenn_simpson]

Thanks for this acknowledgement Lonnie - it seems logical and appropriate.  It means that the old Italian battleships can manoeuvre as a squadron rather than keeping the weak bretheren hiding in the rear.

 

Jim O'Neil, did you really mean to say that Italian gunnery was more accurate than RN gunnery in WW2?  While it depends a lot on which gun we are talking about, I understand that in general it was the opposite, and that Italian 15" in particular had a large dispersion in practice, owing to overly wide manufacturing tolerances of shells and powder, and overspinning of shells (See Marco Santarini article in Warship International vol 54 No 7, December 2020).  I believe this also affected the 12.6" guns.  

[Jim O'Neil]

LoL, Yes I did. The brew-ha over italian projectile weights is mostly poo pushed by the ignorant it seems. I went through this with noted external ballistician Bill Jurens and to quote him "The heavier shell will be slightly slower, but will also lose velocity more slowly, while the lighter shell may leave faster, but will slow more quickly. The end effect at most reasonable battle range will be indiscernible. 

 

the actual issues were the high velocities they tried to achieve and the close proximity of the muzzles. Both were recognized before the war and steps taken to fix them. A factor was the Italians seem to have felt that the recoil of one gun in a twin turret would move the turret slightly causing the second round to be wide of the target.  Thus both guns were fired simultaneously, this was indeed noted as an issue and a delay circuit installed (just as the USN did) which offset firing by a few hundredths of a second, which largely fixed the problem while not giving the mass of the turret time to be overcome and moved.

 

Another issue was the Italian desire to use their fine fire control system to engage at long range. Multiple Navies bought into this and all found that it couldn't be done with the state of the many variables involved. The Italians were slow to accept this, but there was a case where several Italian Heavy Cruisers spent a couple of hours chasing some British cruisers and engaging at ranges over 20,000 meters for not a single hit. that's pretty convincing.

 

However at ranges under 20,000 yards the Italian fire control was indeed superior to the British version until FC Radar appeared. Italian doctrine prohibited rapid fire as wasteful and less effective.  Each salvo (the Italians fired half of the guns at a time, but always by whole turrets if they were twin turrets) was spotted and corrections made. The Italian system ranged on both the target and the fall of shot, adjusting them to coincide, using both stereoscopic and coincidence range finders depending on conditions. I am struggling to find the chart that compares hits in each battle,  Ah ha1 Found it !

 

Calabria          British shells fired 2,400    Italian shells fired  1,200

Cape Spada                                 1,300                                   500

Cape Smartivento                         1,300                                  677

Gavados Island                                 24                                   629

1st Sirte                                             30                                  140

2nd Sirte                                       2807                                 1490

Pantelleria Island                         3400                                  3371

 

And using British Sources,

the Italian hit totals from all this were  25 direct hits and 20 near misses

The British hits from Italian sources were 16 direct hits and 6 near misses

 

No it's not perfect or absolutely perfect, but does give a feel, when the British got "on" they hit often and hard ... but their Dispersion was so tight, that they had trouble getting the pattern on a target and holding there.

 

Lastly, let me add this:

We know the Italians Night Fighting was poor, due to training and equipment. That’s basically an accepted fact now… 

We know their armor was as good as any other (granted their were small qualitative differences between each countries armor, but they all group closely).

Likewise, their equipment was as good as most, and certainly better than the British equipment in some cases (range finders, AA guns and their distribution through the fleet etc.).

Their Naval officers were as good as any the British or Germans had, better than some. That probably extends to other Navies as well.

Tactically, they were sound, although their concept of modern war in the 1930s was off a bit.  

Politically they were handicapped a bit more than most navies, which caused serious issues with Naval aviation, which then affected fleet performance.