RN Littorio - Guide 045 - Part 1 of 2 (Human Voice) 

What were the broad specifications for and how many ships were planned for the Littorio follow on.

Did ships have gun crutches or travel locks like tanks do when they are traveling?

What is the reason for the aft turret being mounted so high? It seem the elevated barbette would cause unnecessary weight?

Isnt it Supposed to be the vittorio venetto Class?

Was the poor quality of the inconsistent weights of the power and shells for these ship's do to the artisan manner of Italian manufacturing or sabotage from the royalist faction?

Let’s talk again after you’ve seen the latest Italian Navy’s ship, the PPA (Pattugliatore Polivalente d’Altura) “Thaon di Revel”...

@@РоманБекиров-с4м Why I love my Beretta 92FS, beautiful Italian design!

They’re building our new FFG(X). I’m excited to see how they come out.

@@pincopallino6765 I mean.. overall it is an alright looking ship. That bow though...

Yeah,wish they were good at making tanks too.

Probably miss most of their salvoes due to the faulty shells.

Definitely agree with you here.

I mean.....how many battleships built around this time actually got to do anything to justify their existence? Only twice (Second Guadalcanal and North Cape). Any then - modern battleship that wasn't Washington or Duke of York never did anything other ships couldn't have done better.

@@bkjeong4302 Erm.... Denmark Strait and Bismark.

@@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns daylight engagement where a carrier would have been more efficient.

Would add Iowa to that collection. Also an utterly useless collection of warships. I would probably use them as museum ships and fill them with explanations of why they should never have existed.

@@bkjeong4302 I'd fill them with Model Railroads myself.

@@bkjeong4302 "history is so useless" :clap:

@@CH3TN1K313 I mean that these particular ships were useless, not history in general. There are many other warships far more deserving of being turned museum ships.

@@bkjeong4302 I'm talking about "sexy ships" which were the pinnacle of their nation's tech development, I'm pretty *sure* starting off about how "sexy" certain ships were, already is telling you this is just for fun, and an opinion. I'm not trying to make everyone happy, it's a fucking "fantasy", a "thought experiment", not a "like what I like, or you're stupid" kind of thing. It's literally that simple. Getting butthurt over something like that, speaks volumes on what someone's priorities in life are. If you need attention or gratification, the internet is the wrong place to look for it.

Italy had a good amount of fleet, under good leadership. For example, German discipline with the size of the Italian fleet could have controlled the Mediterranean completely by having the bases close to reposition the aviation that could be deployed from Italy or Sardinia itself.

The Shawn Horse and the Nice Now are my favorite German warships.

Every time!

Think you find that is no unique around here. 👍

A bit disrespectful cause what comes after you don't care. But we all know what to expect from him so justified.

@@owo5869 I can always deselect like if I am disappointed, although that has never been the case.

It's the Littorio class, ofcourse you are going to hit like. These are by far my favourite battleships, partly because of the merrits of the ships themselves but mostly just pure looks.

Agreed: one of the most underrated battleship designs of WWII. The fact they proved to be pointless doesn't really detract when all of their competition had the same fate.

@Brett Mitchell That was a shell quality issue not a design issue.

@Brett Mitchell No, but doesn't change the fact that there was nothing about the design that led to troubles with accuracy.

@Brett Mitchell Did you even see the argument? We are comparing ship designs. If it's not a design feature it's not a factor. So no, it is NOT irrelevant, because the poor accuracy was NOT caused by bad design, so has no bearing on design comparisons. By your logic Bismarck was a better-designed ship than Iowa (when it's the other way around) because Bismarck sank a peer opponent due to luck and Iowa never did. Also, that hit you mention was a lucky hit (pretty much all hits/near misses at that kind of range are), the engagement was inconclusive, and Giulio Cesare was also showing competent gunnery in that engagement.

@Brett Mitchell That opening comment is about ship design, in case you somehow missed that. In terms of design the QEs ARE outmatched by these ships.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kd5meoQo3as.html

Yep. Thats a littorio alright

It had been filmed partly in the Littorio and partly in the Giulio Cesare.

Lol... But I agree, Drach DOESNT f*** around,, IT'S ALL pertinent...

If you're in trouble, do a nine-minute, nintey-nine sec-oh wait...okay, do a nine minute, eleven second video, as a signal you need help.

The 90mm AA was also used on land as an effective anti-tank gun

AT battleship

Well, of course. Its the Italians, there was no way they were going to make an ugly looking ship, there's no way their pride would allow it

unfortunately, the UP 41 design looked like an airport so it'd be super ugly

The Sovetsky Soyuz were basically scaled-up Littorios.

They’re a far more capable design overall.

If battleships do get adde they should be shown in WWII-ERA maps as the liabilities they really were at that point.

World of Warships still have Italian tech tree. BBs are quite awful because war gaming also added an awful dispersion like it was something part of the ship design but, the ships themselves are really well designed.

Dire The tall Barbette was done so the turret would not interrupt the floatplane operations on the ships stern

​@@joshuasantos3692 thank you. Looking closer, the secondaries position wouldn't be possible without the taller barbette either. I looked at the tall barbette & thought 'that isn't ideal' (weight, centre of mass, silhouette) but if it didn't have it the ship would probably have had to be longer to fit as many secondaries without a significant redesign of the superstructure or losing other armaments (3:46 is a good photo)

To fire over the secondaries. The Littorio rear turret had an unmatched 320° arc of fire. forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2020_05/8-3.jpg.2d47bac477b8b0b46bf882d933901b2f.jpg

And lacking AA, since they were counting on the Regia Aeronautica for air coverage, a big mistake

@@LeCommieBoi AA weaponry wasn't scarce, but it was underperforming. Most of the AA guns had short range.

The Pugliese system worked just fine, and better than others. It being "terrible" is just a myth.

Blasphemy!!! The opening is classic.

The Italians used RN.

The Italien ships had the Regia Nave (something like that at least) prefix. just like the British ships had the His/Her Majestis Ships Prefix

They both means the same thing. "Regia Marina" is the Italian for "Royal Navy". That's because at the time Italy form of the State was the Kingdom, not republic or anything else.

Alaska-class is really a Large Cruiser and the Littorio were definitely a Fast Battleships and NOT Battlecruisers

whatever whatever theyre battleships

get outta here with your "UhM AcHtUaLlY" bullshit XD

@@Kay_213_ And get out of here with your "Alaska is a battlecruiser" BS, because they aren't. At least I actually use the correct designation for the ships

This is a full-on battleship....

The steel was not stainless. Painting them prevented rust.

Impero was never commissioned because she was never finished

Launched but never finished. After the launch there were still a lot of components to install.

Due to inconsistent shell quality in manufacturing, nothing to do with the ship itself. So while you could say it's technically accurate, it's also quite misleading.

@@bkjeong4302 Actually there was nothing wrong with the Italian 381/50, nor with their shells. The only complain of the excessive dispersion of the 381/50 came from Adm. Iachino. A pretty suspicious source since he had to justify his fiasco at Cape Matapan. The 381/50 actually shown a 2% distance longitudinal dispersion in actual battles fought in 1940-1941, that, at that time, was considered good by any navy even in tests. All the Littorios received delay coils for the central guns in winter 1942/1943, further tightening the patterns.

@@neutronalchemist3241 I never said anything was wrong with the guns (because there wasn't), I only talked about their shells; and if you're right then these ships are even more underrated than I thought they were.

@@bkjeong4302 The source of the inconsistency of the shell as an explanation for the inexistent excessive dispersion is Iachino too. On the dispersion of the 381/50 in battle at Gaudo (that's the example always taken of an excessive dispersion of those guns), we have both the direct testimony of the 1st Fire Director of the Vittorio Veneto, Capt. Luciano Sotgiu that, in his relation, in contrast with Adm. Iachino, did not see any out of the ordinary in his guns' salvos, and the pictures taken by the British of the salvos aimed at the HMS Gloucester that, knowing the dimension of the ship, and the range (from 23 to 26 km) clearly show a longitudinal dispersion of about 2% of the distance, that was pretty good considerig that the Vittorio Veneto was steaming at 28 knots. The Vittorio Veneto did not hit anything at Gaudo because, firing from 23.000 to 26.000m on a pair of light cruisers entering and leaving the smokescreens, it could have hit them only for a lucky chance. It had been already amply demonstrated that, even at far closer distances and with much more rapidly firing guns, it was practically impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not being hit, if not firing some thousands of shells.

RN stands for Regia Nave, which was used for the WW2 and earlier Italian Navy :)

@@Drachinifel wow thanks! 😊

None of the Axis had DP secondaries; the secondaries and AA guns were separated. This was not a good idea due to carriers rendering anti-ship secondaries obsolete, but then again, carriers rendered the entire battleship concept obsolete so even the Allied BBs with DP secondaries weren't worth their cost.

@@bkjeong4302 What? The Japanese 5 inch AA guns were DP lmao.

@@bkjeong4302 the Cannone da 100/47 (derived from the Skoda 10cm K10) was used as a dual-purpose gun and was equipped (in binate mounts) on the modernised Conte di Cavour class battleships, on the Trento and Zara class heavy cruisers, on the Bolzano (a modified Trento class), on the San Giorgio armoured cruiser, on the Condottieri series of light cruisers (Giussano, Cadorna, Montecuccoli, Duca d'Aosta and Duca degli Abruzzi classes). It was equipped in single mounts on the Spica (1st series, Climene, Perseo and Alcione series) class, Ariete class, Orsa class and Gabbiano class. It was also equipped on the Glauco, Sirena, Argo, Perla, Adua, Marcello, Liuzzi, Marconi, Ammiragli, Platino, Tritone I, Tritone II, modernised Foca, modernised Brin and Panigaglia classes of submarines.

The BL 6-inch guns of the Nelson class were dual purpose in theory only. The 5-inch/51-caliber guns of the Colorado class and the 6-inch/53-caliber guns of the South Dakota class were not dual purpose.

Technologically a lot better (design-wise). In terms of strategic sense, no.

@Nguyen Johnathan That's leaving aside German armour layout being a lot worse than everyone else...also these ships had a lot more firepower than the Germans.

​@Nguyen Johnathan Tested by the soviets in real scale, the Pugliese torpedo protection system proved superior to the standard spaced system. That's why they decided to use it in the Sovetsky Soyuz class. The often repeated "inverted dam" weakenss is actually 100% bullshit (standard spaced systems had a 90° inward angle. Is that a good dam? A curved surface is obviously better). Damaged Pugliese cylinders had also been always repaired in record times. The damages suffered by the Conte di Cavour and Caio Duilio at Taranto, often cited as a fault of the Pugliese system, had actually been due to the torpedoes ricocheting on the bottom of the arbour and hitting under the hull of the ships, out of the area covered by the system.

@@neutronalchemist3241 at Taranto also the Littorio's was hit by torps, but britts wasn't able to sink our battleships. We given them back the courtesy with our raid of Alexandria, when we sinked (temporarily) both the Queen Elizabeth and the Valiant with just six men. Frogmen to be precise.

Thwre is an entire book on this class written by Italians that's considered the defining work for these ships.

@@bkjeong4302 Unfortunately, Bagnasco doesn't touch on the follow-ons to the class, although the rest of the book is excellent and is a must-have. As far as the follow-ons, there was a larger '41,000-ton' battleship design meant to succeed the class, as part of the 1935 Breakout Fleet programme. To give a brief summary of the design; The design very much resembled a larger Littorio - basic requirements called for 3x3 406/50, 4x3 152/55, a top speed of 32 knots, and a below-decks hangar with a single telescoping catapult and 4 aircraft. Planned AA armament was the same as the Littorio-class at the time (12x2 100/47). Armor protection was to be heavier, and the Pugliese TDS was replaced by a 5-layer system designed by Ansaldo, which was intended to also protect against shells striking below the waterline. Design modifications meant that only a few months after its inception the real standard displacement was 42,000 tons. As a side note, the 1935 version of the design was sold by Ansaldo to Russia as UP.41 in 1936, with significant modifications (an inferior 3-layer TDS, Russian weaponry, modified armor scheme very different from Italian practice). Although the Projekt 23 battleships were not based on UP.41, they were heavily influenced by it. In 1936 further modifications occurred- like the Littorio-class, the 100mm guns were replaced by the new 90/50 (12x1) in the quadraxially stabilized mounts, and with other changes standard displacement had increased to 45,000 tons. Although not ordered in 1937 as originally assumed, the design was continously modified until mid-1941, with the 90mm mounts being replaced by twin versions in 1938/39, before ceasing development. Straying away from the technical and more towards the historical; The design was, as mentioned previously, meant for the 1935 'B' Programme for the 'Oceanic Fleet'. The ambitious plan saw Italy having 9 battleships by 1942 - 2x Cavour (rebuilt), 2x Littorio, 2x '41,000-tonner', and 3x 17,5000-ton 'Pocket Battleships' (2x3 254/55, 30 knots, 150mm belt), as well as a trio of 22,000-ton carriers, and numerous smaller units. The program was unwisely vetoed by Mussolini, however, as he felt he had come to an acceptable deal with the British and did not need to expand the navy in such a manner. This, however, did not kill the plans for the large battleships. When the question of new battleships came in 1937, the CoS of the Navy (Adm. Cavagnari) opted to build a repeat of the Littorio-class (Impero and Roma). This 2nd Series Littorio/Impero-class, Cavagnari felt, could be built faster, as he worried about the escalating situation in Europe. As such, the question did not appear again until 1939, when the next pair of battleships could be built. A 1939 programme again proved ambitious, as it was intended to build two '41,000-tonners', six 8,000- ton light cruisers, a pair of 15,000-ton carriers, twenty 2,100-ton destroyers, twenty 1,000-ton torpedo boats, and sixty submarines by the end of 1945. Cavagnari being Cavagnari, tried to press for a third pair of 35,000-ton ships instead. Regardless, the outbreak of the war in Europe killed any plans for new capital ships, and instead scarce resources were preserved for the completion of existing projects - the four Littorio-class then building, and the two Caio Duilio-class battleships being rebuilt. This was the last opportunity Italy had to build said ships, and the plans were definitely dropped in mid-1941.

@@phoenixjz4782 So Italy did the same thing as everyone else and had some never-built super-BBs planned.

@Phoenix jz Huh so Italy looked at having a pair of Iowa like battleships. At least some nations didn't go to over board in designs.

@@Ushio01 IMO everyone went overboard the moment they decided to build battleships after they were obsolete.

Regia Nave.

It means "Royal Ship (Warship)" in Italian. Regia Nave.

That's because we had a lot of spies and traitors in the navy, infact the plans and position of the Roma was given to the British, they never dare to come close.

@@titfortat5727 Yeah, ....especially the Germans! These imbeciles communicated to Berlin what the ships (and other things) of the Regia Marina were doing. Imbeciles did not suspect that they are regularly decrypted by EnigmA. ...What rude people these Englishmen,...they never bothered to thank the German imbeciles.

And what ship are they gonna build instead? An aircraft carrier?

@@anceldesingano8687 Which would actually be a far better investment for any nation in WWII than a battleship.

@@bkjeong4302 while true but also false you cant just build aircraft carrier outright without experience in deck operation and doctrine and tactics of said ship

@@bkjeong4302 Anddddd that was only in the LATER parts of WW2

@@battleshipfan3435 Even at the start of the war, where aircraft were much less capable, carriers STILL had an insurmountable advantage over battleships: they could maintain distance and launch aircraft without having to worry about being fired upon.