Rodney + POW v Littorio and Victorio Vento

[paul mercer]

Shortly after Rodney had been overhauled in the US after the Bismarck battle she was sent to the Med with Nelson, POW and Ark Royal on convoy duty. On one such voyage the Italians sent out a powerful fleet consisting of Littorio, Victorio Vento plus five cruisers and destroyers, Nelson was torpedoed and had to return, leaving Rodney, POW, Ark Royal and some destroyers to carry on (I'm not sure if there were any cruisers). As it turned out the Italians chose not to fight, but if they had, what do our experts think the outcome might have been?

[David89]

Going by historical precedent, the Italians turn and run after the first hit by either of the British battleships. But that means no battle, so lets assume that since the Italians made up their minds to fight they also have a brave enough commander to stay in the battle.

Vittorio Veneto and Littorio are powerful ships and reasonably well armoured. The Italian 15"/50 is a hugely powerful weapon, with highest MV of any battleship gun that saw service, and the heaviest shell used for a 15in gun. However, the Italian shells vary wildly in quality, resulting in a wide spread of shot and the rate of fire makes Rodney's rate of fire look good. For armour, the Vittorio Veneto's have excellent belt armour but despite the thickness of her deck armour, she is very vulnerable to long range fire because of the poor layout. Vittorio Veneto is fast, at 31kts and can break off the action at will, providing the weak deck armour has not resulted in an engine room hit. Fire control is another weak point for the Vittorio Veneto, since her optical rangefinder is no better than that of Prince of Wales and she has no radar at this point in the war.

Against this, both Prince of Wales and Rodney are outgunned in terms of a single broadside, but Rodney's rate of fire is better than the Italian ships, at 1.6rpm against Vittorio Veneto's 1.3rpm and Prince of Wales's is better yet at 2rpm. Both British ships therefore have a greater weight of fire per minute. The 15"/50 outperforms both the 16"/45 and the 14"/45 for belt penetration but both British guns have better deck penetration, especially at longer range. The British ships both have mk284 radar, and combined with the greater accuracy of their guns, the British have a firepower advantage. Both of the British ships have considerably better deck armour than the Vittorio Veneto's and this, combined with the more accurate British fire control means the British have a considerable advantage at long range. Closer in, the slow rate of fire possesed by the Italian battleships is a major disadvantage and therefore I would think that the British will win this fight.

[Tiornu]

Going by historical precedent, the Italians turn and run after the first hit by either of the British battleships.

Hopefully at some point we'll get past the misunderstanding that characterized the British view of the RM in wartime. The Italians didn't fight the way the British expected--that is, the way the British would have done it--and so earned a reputation for not being "brave enough," which of course is hogwash.

However, the Italian shells vary wildly in quality, resulting in a wide spread of shot and the rate of fire makes Rodney's rate of fire look good.

No, those aren't correct.

Fire control is another weak point for the Vittorio Veneto, since her optical rangefinder is no better than that of Prince of Wales and she has no radar at this point in the war.

Why do you think her rangefinders are no better?

[David89]

Going by historical precedent, the Italians turn and run after the first hit by either of the British battleships.

Hopefully at some point we'll get past the misunderstanding that characterized the British view of the RM in wartime. The Italians didn't fight the way the British expected--that is, the way the British would have done it--and so earned a reputation for not being "brave enough," which of course is hogwash.

I'm not questioning the bravery of individual Italians but the leaders have a history of breaking off any engagement that has anything aproaching even odds.

However, the Italian shells vary wildly in quality, resulting in a wide spread of shot and the rate of fire makes Rodney's rate of fire look good.

No, those aren't correct.

With the shells used for testing, the 15"/50 proved extremely accurate. However, as Admiral Iachino complained post-war, the quality varied between batches delivered to individual ships, and this was shown at the battle of Sirte Gulf when there was a considerable difference between the groupings shown by Littorio and Vittorio Veneto, and the different shell qualities are blamed for this. For the rate of fire, I was quoting Navweaps on Vittorio Veneto's 1.3rpm but Rodney has a RoF of 1.5rpm from the same site. Not many battleships have a slower Rof than the Nelson class, but the Vittorio Veneto's are amongst them.

Fire control is another weak point for the Vittorio Veneto, since her optical rangefinder is no better than that of Prince of Wales and she has no radar at this point in the war.

Why do you think her rangefinders are no better?

I was quoting from memory, and I confused the turret rangefinder base lengh with the main rangefinder base lengh. Vittorio Veneto has a 12m rangefinder, while Prince of Wales has a 6.75m rangefinder. The turret rangefinders have a base lengh of 9.25m for Prince of Wales and 12m for Vittorio Veneto.

[Tiornu]

I'm not questioning the bravery of individual Italians but the leaders have a history of breaking off any engagement that has anything aproaching even odds.

That would be a British history, I'm guessing.

With the shells used for testing, the 15"/50 proved extremely accurate.

Gunnery exercises, using production ammo, showed a much better performance than actual battle experience. With very little basis, I suspect the problem may have been something like improper shell seating--something subject to crew performance and thus possible to degrade in the tension of a battle. As far as I can tell, the shells themselves were not to blame. Some Italian researchers have found a bit of cover-your-backside in Iachino's writings.

For the rate of fire, I was quoting Navweaps on Vittorio Veneto's 1.3rpm but Rodney has a RoF of 1.5rpm from the same site.

Rate of fire is among the topics most susceptible to distortion via statistics. For example, you might see that American old battleships have a firing cycle near 45 seconds. (Navweaps may have that figure.) Yet we know that they could actually fire more rapidly than every 24 seconds. Both figures are correct. It depends how you go about calculating the figure. In real-live combat, battleships typically fired 1-2 times per minute, and all of them were capable of this. Unless we have specifics on the Littorio firing cycle, we don't know whether or not she was slower than Nelson.

Vittorio Veneto has a 12m rangefinder, while Prince of Wales has a 6.75m rangefinder. The turret rangefinders have a base lengh of 9.25m for Prince of Wales and 12m for Vittorio Veneto.

The Italians had a unique system, and it appears to have functioned well. Several British accounts show the Italians getting on target very quickly, but the performance was spoiled by the excessive dispersion.

[dunmunro]

Working from memory, IIRC, PoW had two 41ft RFs (12.5m) in A and Y turret, a duplex 35ft (10.7) unit in B turret and a duplex 15ft unit in the forward DCT and a single 15ft RF in the after DCT, Rodney's RFs were similar to PoW's but she had a 41ft+ unit in B turret. The RN used pure Coincidence (CI) RFs and the RM a mixture of CI and Stereo.The Littorios had duplex 7.2 metre RFs in her FC tower and 12m long base units in the turrets. Both PoW and Rodney had comprehensive FC radar suites by this time as well. The Warspite used a very similar FC system to PoW's, to score the longest range BB to BB hit in history, using optical only FC. I would give the RN BBs a big edge in FC, at any range.

In terms of total firepower both sides are fairly evenly matched, but of course the RM BBs have a big edge in speed over Rodney, which could result in PoW being drawn into a 2 on 1 situation. PoW and Littorio/VV are also closely matched in speed, with the RM ships maybe having a ~.5 knot edge.

Overall, in a pure BB fight, I think that the RN force would win, mainly due to superior FC and better accuracy from the main armament. IIRC, I ran across a document that indicated that the RM 15" shells had a wide variation in measured weight, which was part of the dispersion problem. The very short barrel life of these weapons is also an issue, and their impressive performance would deteriorate rapidly, while the RN weapons would still be close to their range table specs, even as the RM weapons were approaching the end of their barrel life.

[dunmunro]

Yes, here it is:

The main fleet striking forces of Littorio-class battleships and Zara and Bolzano-class
heavy cruisers were up to world standards except for the single detail
most vital in the daylight long-range combat for which the navy had
designed them: the accuracy and reliability of their main guns.
Cavagnari and associates accepted from industry an amazing 1 percent
tolerance in shell weight and a similar lack of uniformity in propellant
charges; they also failed to correct serious rangefinder, loading system,
firing circuit, and shell fuse defects revealed in exercises. The navy staff
was fully aware before 1939 that Italian battleship and cruiser salvos
grouped so loosely that hitting the enemy was problematic. In the preliminary
daytime action off Matapan, the battleship Vittorio Veneto and its
accompanying heavy cruisers had overwhelming superiority of force,
achieved surprise, and fired 636 rounds from their main batteries at a
British light cruiser squadron without a single hit.

Knox, MacGregor. Hitler's Italian Allies : Royal Armed Forces, Fascist Regime & the War of 1940-43.
Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2000. p 63.

[Tiornu]

That's quite a flattering depiction of the Bolzano "class" which the Italians described as "the magnificent mistake." The author fails to note that the 1% shell weight tolerance applied only to certain shells produced during a certain period. More typically the tolerances were less than half that, and we have yet to consider whether this was a problem or not. I am not familiar with any claims of gun unreliability in Italian ships, and even Iachino claims the systems were good ones. I would be interested in hearing about fuze problems, as I have often read that and even included a notation about it in my book, but I cannot find supporting documentation.
The author is to be forgiven for not referring to Colliva's extensive article series "Questioni di tiro...e altre" since it appeared after his book was published. He has apparently overlooked the Cernuschi articles "Sparammo Meglio di quasi tutti" and "Colpito e occultato" that appeared in the 1990's.
There are few who claim Italian gunnery did not suffer excessive dispersion, but some of the other old stories on gunnery issues probably deserve to be retired.

[dunmunro]

Perhaps the author is equating barrel life with reliability?

[Tiornu]

The guns were reliably short-lived.

[lwd]

How much impact would the VV's decapping system be likely to have?
This one looks to me like it could go either way. From what I recall one of the most serious flaws of the Italian BBs was their reaction to torpedos. That's unlikely to play an important part in this one.

[dunmunro]

How much impact would the VV's decapping system be likely to have?
This one looks to me like it could go either way. From what I recall one of the most serious flaws of the Italian BBs was their reaction to torpedos. That's unlikely to play an important part in this one.

VV has quite a shallow belt, IIRC, so this would have left her vulnerable to underwater hits. As for the decapping system, I would guess the RN would have had to finish them off with torpedoes as per Bismarck...

[RF]

Leaving aside for one moment the detailed technicalities discussed above, in the hands of a bold leader this is an action that should favour the Italians, subject to them achieving the required standards of gunnery accuracy.
The aim of the Italians, as already intimated above, should be to draw POW away from Rodney, and to concentrate 2 on 1 on POW to disable that ship.
With respect to Rodney the aim should be to use superior speed to engage on opposite flanks, so that either Rodney divides its fire, or leaves one of the Italian BB's unfired on.
All this analysis does not take into account one unknown - the amount of damage the Italians would take from the British.

[RF]

The Italians didn't fight the way the British expected--that is, the way the British would have done it--and so earned a reputation for not being "brave enough," which of course is hogwash.

So what was the Italian strategy - it seems very difficult to discern one.

[Tiornu]

The Italians did not share the RN's interest in Mahanian warfare--that is, command of the sea. The British aimed to control the Mediterranean. The Italians aimed to gain local control to support specific operations. And what is often missing in British accounts is the fact that the Italians were very successful. Off the top of my head, I recall only one time when the Italians planned to sortie for the purpose of a showdown with the British, and it didn't amount to anything anyway. The primary RM mission in so much of the central Med struggle was the convoy duel, and the Italians were actually winning for a good chunk of time, despite the fuel crisis, despite the lack of carriers, despite ULTRA.