Hood v Vittorio Veneto

[Francis Marliere]

Some quick comments on the scenario :

1- VADM Somerville is no longer in charge of the Mediterranean fleet in 1943.

2- If British ships are disadvantaged at long range (at the beginning of the battle), they would probably hide behind a smoke screen.

3- The italian "charge" may make some sense from a theorical point of view (you assume that they fight better at short range), but IMHO appears very unlikely in real life. Fighting at close range makes disengagement very difficult.

[alecsandros]

Thanks Francis,
I did not know about Somerville... And you're right about potential smoke screens...

Italians almost always fired from long range, but Bagnasco writes that the optimal range considered for the 381mm guns was 21.000 meters, because of the dispersion issues. So they tried to bring battle below 21.000meters, but they couldn't (with the exception of 2nd Battle for Sirte).

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Alecsandros:
Ciao Alec,
very interesting and well reconstructed scenario !

I'm not good at imagining battles as you are, but I mostly agree that things could have developed as you say. I just think that you are a bit underestimating Littorio's capabilities to withstand hits and perhaps a bit overestimating the QE's resilience.

Just 2 examples of what I say above, (there are more):

1) between 29 and 24 km I would not expect so many hits on both sides, but in case hits are scored I would not assume they are for sure damaging hits for the Littorio's. From much shorter distance, PoW at DS received 3 hits with only superficial damage, not affecting her fighting capability, Bismarck received 3 hits, severe for the mission, but not affecting much her fighting efficiency too. Even if Littorio takes 4 hits I expect therefore just one to inflict relevant damage.

As examples, the forecastle one can hit the deck, pass through the side well above waterline and do.... no damage at all at that range/inclination. 3 knots speed reduction look a very unfortunate hit indeed......

The funnel hit can pass through without exploding and basically inflicting very marginal damage.

The turret hit at that distance would be able to defeat neither the 380 KC front plate of Littorio nor the 200mm KC roof of the turret. As an example, at Mers-el-Kebir, the Dunkerque was hit by a British 15" shell on her much "softer" turret (330 and 150 mm) with no serious damage to the turret mechanisms (2 guns were always operative, another just needed crew replacement...) and just one gun out of 4 out of action due to deformation of the turret roof. The hit did not affect at all the opposite half-turret of Dunkerque and Littorio had 3 separated compartments inside the turret.
The turret hits on Littorio's are not going automatically to put the turret out of action until very/very short distances are reached (not even foreseen in your scenario), due to the performances of the British 15" shell (according to the site you have linked, the front of the Littorio turret is still immune until under 15km distance). The most probable scenario is the shell to ricochet over the roof or stopped by the front or by the KC 350mm barbette. However, the guns and the openings in the gunhouse are vulnerable.....so it's difficult to say what can happen.....


2) I think it's very optimistic to say that a hit in the 4" magazine would be an inert one at around 22 km on an almost 90° target angle as the most "cautionary" perforation (from "fighting instructions") of Italian gun is 380 mm at 22 km..... The optimistic data from the trials at "balipedio" gives 440 mm perforation at that distance. I think that (as in Hood case) a hit in a 4" mag or in an engine room close to the mag could anyway blow up the ship due to "sympathy" effect. Also the 10" (max) or 7" (min) barbette armor on QE's would be very, very vulnerable to the Italian 15" already from a long range, as Steve Crandell pointed out.


Of course, imagining a large scale battle is not easy and everything can happen, even a very (un)lucky hit at extreme distance blowing up Littorio..... but statistically I don't think the Italian would have had such a difficult task to win this battle.


All in all, my expectation is that 2 QE's will finally blow up or twill be sunk by gunfire when disabled (again if the Italians have orders to fight to the death without looking at their own damage), with possibly a single QE able to withdraw heavily damaged (in case she has still sufficient speed....). One Littorio disabled, heavily damaged and towed back, one heavily damaged and one with only light/medium damages but slowed, so she cannot catch the last QE.

Regarding times for repairs, I would keep in mind that we are in the Med, with Italian facilities available but with the British forced to send their remaining ship to the US or back to Britain, not having Alexandria any facility for such heavy repairs......

Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Alecsandros wrote: "Italians almost always fired from long range, but Bagnasco writes that the optimal range considered for the 381mm guns was 21.000 meters,"

..... the "fighting instructions" mentioned by Bagnasco too (pag.76 Italian edition of "Littorio class battleships"), state ideal battle range for Littorio's is between 19 km and 21 km...... Italians admirals were mostly unable/unwilling to get close to this.....

Paul Mercer wrote: "....perhaps you would be kind enough to do another (scenario) featuring 3 KGV's (with all their guns working properly!)...."

Hi Paul,
I'm not good as Alec at this , but I would not put my money on the Littorio's, even if I think that the quadruple turrets would have had still problems in 1943 (see DoY at North Cape)..... The problem here is that the Littorio's had not enough speed advantage over KGV's to force a short range battle and therefore (except British decide to close range....) the superior fire precision, less spread and IMHO better overall horizontal protection of the British ships would have made things very difficult for Italians at long ranges......

RF wrote: "...it might also be interesting to see a mix of the two classes - say two QE's plus KGV.... "

Hi RF,
in this case, KGV would have been limited to QE's low speed, not a good deal IMHO, as at short range the 350+ mm belt of KGV would have been vulnerable and, even without magazine explosion as they are deep in the hull, the damages to vitals could have been extremely serious, while the 14" could not really pose a threat to the vertical protection of Littorio's at quite short ranges.....


Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

1) between 29 and 24 km I would not expect so many hits on both sides, but in case hits are scored I would not assume they are for sure damaging hits for the Littorio's. From much shorter distance, PoW at DS received 3 hits with only superficial damage, not affecting her fighting capability, Bismarck received 3 hits, severe for the mission, but not affecting much her fighting efficiency too. Even if Littorio takes 4 hits I expect therefore just one to inflict relevant damage.

... Ciao Alberto,
Well, in the early phase of DS battle, Hood took 4 to 6 hits (we do not know exactly), in a timeframe of 5 minutes or perhaps slightly less. Each of those 4 to 6 hits were serious hits.

In regard to position of hits, it's a pure matter of chance, and I concur that hits may be placed elsewhere also.

As examples, the forecastle one can hit the deck, pass through the side well above waterline and do.... no damage at all at that range/inclination. 3 knots speed reduction look a very unfortunate hit indeed......

Depends... The forecastle hit on Bismarck brought in at least 1000 tons of water, and slowed the ship 2kts.

The funnel hit can pass through without exploding and basically inflicting very marginal damage.

Again, it depends. Giulio Caesare took one funnel hit with crippling damage. Musashi took a funell hit that caused massive damage and speed reduction.

The turret hit at that distance would be able to defeat neither the 380 KC front plate of Littorio nor the 200mm KC roof of the turret.

... I did not imagine penetration or perforation. I imagined that the shock of the hit is enough to take out the turret. No penetration is required. See 14" hit on South Dakota, 16" hit on Jean Bart, at least one 16" hit on one of Bismarck's turrets (Caesar), etc.

[alecsandros]

2) I think it's very optimistic to say that a hit in the 4" magazine would be an inert one at around 22 km on an almost 90° target angle as the most "cautionary" perforation (from "fighting instructions") of Italian gun is 380 mm at 22 km.....

But it is no 90* target angle. The Italian BBs are approaching in a diagonal course, to bring their aft guns to bear...

[Alberto Virtuani]

Alecsandros wrote :"...But it is no 90* target angle... "

Ciao Alec,
I mean that the QE's will be receiving the hits against their side armor at close to 90° angle, the Littorio are inclined during the approach but the QE are not, to keep all guns bearing on Italians with more limited arcs and limited tactical speed to impose a different geometry.....

I'm not good at imagining a scenario without a battlemap in front of me, but I imagine inclinations "similar" to DS (Holland steep approach) where British are Italians. Even if PoW and Hood had their guns trained full ahead, the incidence angle of the shells on German ships side was not so far from 70°-80°.......

Have I misunderstood your scenario ?

Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Alecsandros wrote: "Well, in the early phase of DS battle, Hood took 4 to 6 hits (we do not know exactly), in a timeframe of 5 minutes or perhaps slightly less. Each of those 4 to 6 hits were serious hits. "

......Yes, but at a range of less than 19 km....... not between 29 and 24 km.....

you wrote: "....at least one 16" hit on one of Bismarck's turrets (Caesar)..."

I don't know the South Dakota ranges, I couldn't find any reference to the range of Jean-Bart hit on turret at Casablanca from Massachussets...... but the Caesar hit on Bismarck was possibly achieved from close to point-blank range and I'm not sure it impacted the front of the turret as there were 2 ships firing at BS from very different bearings, while here the turrets will be facing the enemy.......
For sure, Dunkerque "light" turret was not disabled by the British 15" shell fired from average distance.

I agree the whole turret can be jammed even without perforation (a matter of probabilities, but to hit the barbette roof "small" area and jam the turret, as per Jean Bart, would be much less probable then hitting the roof and, at worst, to cripple one gun......).
Barbette hits under the first deck are IMHO the most dangerous ones.


Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

I mean that the QE's will be receiving the hits against their side armor at close to 90° angle, the Littorio are inclined during the approach but the QE are not, to keep all guns bearing on Italians with more limited arcs and limited tactical speed to impose a different geometry.....

[alecsandros]

......Yes, but at a range of less than 19 km....... not between 29 and 24 km.....

... Yes, but that was a consequence of the Germans opening fire rather late (first shot was fired by Prinz Eugen from maybe 20,5km, and first hit was obtained at 19km, 2 minutes adn 1,5km after the initial open fire range).
The Germans had 16 available guns (versus 24 proposed in the scenario), and 1941 radar technology... (versus 1943 in the scenario...).
Thus, with better visibility, better radar technology and first shot from 29km, I think there could be several hits coming to the Littorio, IF the course remains unchanged... and IF the British would mantain a constant fire output from their heavy guns.

I don't know the South Dakota ranges

Probably around 10km according to mr Robert Lundgren's research. It was not a direct hit, but a glancing hit (that initialy struck an opened hatch , and then slammed into the barbette, knocking out power of the turret and blocking it.

I couldn't find any reference to the range of Jean-Bart hit on turret at Casablanca from Massachussets......

"The battleship was silenced by the fifth hit from the 406 mm (16.0 in) guns of USS Massachusetts, which jammed the rotating mechanism of the one working turret"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ba ... Casablanca

but the Caesar hit on Bismarck was possibly achieved from close to point-blank range and I'm not sure it impacted the front of the turret as there were 2 ships firing at BS from very different bearings, while here the turrets will be facing the enemy.......

... "Hunting the Bismarck" gives 11km range of shooting from KGV to Bismarck. One 14" shell slammed into the frontal plate of Caesar, and was deflected high in the air where it exploded. The turret immediately lost power and both guns were depressed and non-operational.

For sure, Dunkerque "light" turret was not disabled by the British 15" shell fired from average distance.

2 guns from Dunkerque were disabled (1/2 of the turret was practically destroyed).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Alecsandrs wrote: "2 guns from Dunkerque were disabled (1/2 of the turret was practically destroyed)"

HI Alec,
not according to J.Jordan and R.Dumas (French battleships 1922-1956). The turret was operational provided the crew of the starboard half (injuried by the fire ignited by splinters) would be replaced,
Replenishment hoists/cages were working for all 4 guns, traverse mechanism working. Guns 5, 6 and 7 could elevate, only 8 could not elevate anymore (but could be easily decoupled from n.7). There is a long description of the shell path and of its consequences. A similar hit on Littorio can achieve nothing (far heavier armor) or at worst silence one gun only, due to bulkhead between all the guns, that was not the case of Dunkerque.


Re. battle geometry I agree with you, so not a very fine target angle anyway, even if, with the far superior speed of Littorio's allowing me to dictate the interception, I would have chosen a running in course like this (to the left) allowing a better target angle and a faster closing rate (of course we cannot say how British could/would have reacted.......)

target angle to plate.PNG (5.15 KiB) Viewed 985 times

Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

Hi Alberto,
Nice info on the damage to Dunkerque,
still everybody in 1/2 of the turret was dead... So rather difficult to operate those 2 guns in that half. A similar hit on Littorio may well knock out the entire turret, because of it's smaller mass then in Dunkerque (and thus diifferent distribution of impact energy).
It may also, possibly be deflected by the thicker armor as you say and not cause damage, but that would be a first... Even the 14" shell fired by Kirishima (which did not hit directly) managed to silence 1 triple turret.

[alecsandros]

British rules of engagement versus Bismarck (after the Bismarck was destroyed) required that the engaging ships mantain a 20 to 30* target angle to avoid possible effects of enemy guns "superperforation", as they called it. They would probably do the same in this instance...

Cheers,

[Alberto Virtuani]

CIao Alec,
the quadruple turret of Dunkerque was 1497 tons, the triple of Littorio was 1591 tons (both related to the complete rotating part, according to J.Jordan/R.Dumas and E.Bagnasco respectively), so no way a "similar" hit could affect Littorio more than Dunkerque.
Dunkerque turret has 2 guns together, so the crew of the starboard part was killed by the fire, in Littorio all guns are divided......


Re. geometry, if British try to turn to starboard in my proposed interception scenario (the one to the left) to get the 20-30°target angle for their belt, they risk to allow Italians to wood their fore turrets, with Littorio's aft turrets still bearing due to their larger arcs. They need to keep a straight course to cut the "T". QE's lacked the speed to impose their best interception, but even at 70° target angle at 21km the Italian gun still perforate 350 mm belts.....IMHO the 4" magazine hit is a fatal one in your scenario, provided the fuze act as designed.

Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

... Anything is possible,
But remember even a 5* course alteration can modify perforation very much.
Best,