Littorio class design flaws?

[Dave Saxton]

But the Littorio had 381mm not the older 320mm. Is the 381mm shell based on British WWI design? Rounder head shapes are easier to de-cap.

What hits ?

The hit on Havock at 17:20 hours when the range was 17K plus. I know some British accounts say it was only a near miss, but how does a near miss from AP shell cause a projectile to pass through and through the boiler room causing severe damage and 8 deaths? I find a pattern in secondary accounts of saying the ship wasn't actually hit but the ship spends months in dock yard hands being repaired after burying the dead. Lively was also seriously damaged (but only a near miss once again) by Littorio's aft 15" guns during the later battle segment at around 18:55 hours when Kingston was also damaged.

The British expended ~1550 rounds of cruiser caliber shells in this battle for no hits, and ~1300 rounds of destroyer caliber shells in exchange for two hits. The Italians expended ~1550 rounds, mostly cruiser caliber. Only one Italian destroyer fired its guns in the battle, and we know Littorio expended only 181 rounds all day. How many of those rounds were expended when Littorio lobbed shells from 35,000 yards straddling destroyers at around 16:40 hours?

[alecsandros]

But the Littorio had 381mm not the older 320mm. Is the 381mm shell based on British WWI design? Rounder head shapes are easier to de-cap.

I still haven't found the texts about Italian heavy shells. It must be on another computer. I'll look more into it.

What hits ?
The hit on Havock at 17:20 hours when the range was 17K plus. I know some British accounts say it was only a near miss, but how does a near miss from AP shell cause a projectile to pass through and through the boiler room causing severe damage and 8 deaths? I find a pattern in secondary accounts of saying the ship wasn't actually hit but the ship spends months in dock yard hands being repaired after burying the dead. Lively was also seriously damaged (but only a near miss once again) by Littorio's aft 15" guns during the later battle segment at around 18:55 hours when Kingston was also damaged.

Well, HMS Sheffiled suffered casualties from a near miss from Bismarck...

17k seems quite far anyway. Are you sure about the range ?

I think it was Kingston being holed from one side to the other - the destroyer was in the middle of the turn, after the unsuccessfull torpedo attack, and it makes sense that a shell passed completely from side to side...

The British expended ~1550 rounds of cruiser caliber shells in this battle for no hits, and ~1300 rounds of destroyer caliber shells in exchange for two hits. The Italians expended ~1550 rounds, mostly cruiser caliber. Only one Italian destroyer fired its guns in the battle, and we know Littorio expended only 181 rounds all day. How many of those rounds were expended when Littorio lobbed shells from 35,000 yards straddling destroyers at around 16:40 hours?

"16:18 - by this time the storm had intensified, and dense spray caused by gale-force winds whipped over the waves and lessened visibility"

My impression is that Littorio's reported accurate fire during the first battle of sirte gulf, on Dec 17 1941...The action on the 23rd of March 1942 (second battle of sirte gulf) was mostly done at close quarters...

[Dave Saxton]

I looked up a few narratives of 2nd Sirte, but I admit that these sources are probably not the best. You may have better sources than I. I have some documents on Italian and French shells on my old computor but if I recall correctly, they are mostly army artillery types.

[alecsandros]

To be honest, in neither of the 2 books that I have there is no mention of the damage suffered by the British destroyers.
One is G&D - Axis battleships, and the other Bagnasco's "Italian Battleships of the Second World War"

The only references I found about it are the once floating online...

[Dave Saxton]

A lack of thoroughness is a common citicism of the G&D books and is articulated by Friedman. Were they technical books or battle histories? Do they do either aspect well enough? Friedman thought they would have been better off to go into greater detail from the technical stand point by just leaving out the inadequate battle history segments, because as battle histories they are lacking. The books (not online accounts) detailing the battle histories of the Malta Convoys and the British destroyers mention these damages. More Primary documentation is what we need.

[alecsandros]

Indeed, some more primary documentation would be welcomed.

G&D is a good general source, but lacks some details. It would be probably extremely difficult to compress battleship design, construction, and history, into a few hundred pages...

Regardless, the info we have so far suggest a rather poor performance of the Littorio class as gunnery effectiveness.

There were multiple problems which contributed to this:
- large dispersion of salvos
- slow reloading times
- non-functional RPC
- lack of, or non-functional radar

If those problems would have been adressed, the battleships could become quite formidable opponents in the Mediteranean theatre...

[Serg]

As to 'poor perfomance' I not sure in existence of such problem. According to Bagnasco's Littoro class, she achieved 1 hit and 5 near misses (which caused damage) per 181 rounds expended or rate about 3%. For comparison the British official source claim that the DoY hit Scharnhorst by ~14 shells during North Cape chase. And she expended 448 shells. So this is the same 3%.
Well, from other side Littorio put out of action 3 british destroyers at second Sirt battle (Havock and Kingston were too badly damaged to return to Alexandria and Lively detached to Tobruk to escape further injury). Who knows another battleship which performed better against the light forces?

[alecsandros]

Which Bagnasco book are you quoting ?

What were those "5 near misses" ?

Remember the battle was fought at close quarters, Kingston was hit at 5km, after the torpedo run, and there were several other Italian units in the area, which may have contributed to some near-misses (I know at least one source attributing the hit on Kingston to a 200mm AP hit)

===

"Who knows another battleship which performed better against the light forces?"

- Bismarck, on the night of 26/27th - she damaged HMS Sheffield and scored several straddles on Vian's destroyers, 2 of which suffered splinter damage. Needless to say, it was night, the crew exhausted, and the Bismarck had no heavy cruisers screen to pummell the attacking destroyers. Also, by all probabilities Bismarck fired far less shells than the 181 mentioned for Littorio, and at longer ranges (Sheffield was straddled and suffered casualties at 12 km)

- Warspite at Narvik
- Washington at 2nd Guadalcanal
- Massachussets at Casablanca
...

[Serg]

This new book named as "Littorio class", actually translation of italian edition. A page from this book:

What mentioned in the book:
1 Euryalus hit by a 100kg fragment from 381mm gun.
2 Havock near miss 381mm, speed reducing to 15 knots
3 18.40 Legion near miss, light damage (probably Bagnasco counted it as a 381mm)
4 18.46 Lively near miss by 381mm, bow flooding and limited to 20 knots
5 18.51 Kingston hit by 381mm, dead in the water then speed up to 16 kts
I also know from another source that Sikh was damaged, so this is the last near miss.

Warspite got only fixed target, maybe without crew (I dont remember details).
Bismarck has put out of action nobody.
Washington? She has sunk only one DD.
At the very best Massachusetts has possibly sunk one and has put out of action probably two ships, it's comparable to Sirt.

[tommy303]

Bismarck has put out of action nobody.

I think Hood sunk counts as put out of action at the very least. Other damage inflicted, splinter damage to one heavy cruiser, one large light cruiser, two destroyers, minor damage to the underwater torpedo door on Rodney from a near miss,

Washington? She has sunk only one DD

What about her mauling the Kirishima so badly that she was abandoned and sank the next day?

[Serg]

I asked "Who knows another battleship which performed better against the light forces" because Littorio class BB's never meet enemy BB's in the battle.
What does Kirishima and Hood look like? I am sure that not as light force :-)

[alecsandros]

This new book named as "Littorio class", actually translation of italian edition. A page from this book:
...

I also know from another source that Sikh was damaged, so this is the last near miss.

...
The problem with 2nd SIrte is that there were several Italian ships present, including 3 heavy cruisers.
Just like at Casablanca, when Massachussets was supported by a screen of DDs and CAs, it is very difficult to pin down which ship hit which...
By the way, most recent reconstruction of the naval battle of Casablanca credit Massachussets with at least 8 direct hits on 3 different destroyers...

Warspite got only fixed target, maybe without crew (I dont remember details).

The German destroyers tried , ineffectively , to torpedo Warspite, but they were kept at bay by British DDs and 15" gunfire.

Washington? She has sunk only one DD.

[/quote]
But damaged at least 1 more, hasn't she ?

[alecsandros]

I asked "Who knows another battleship which performed better against the light forces" because Littorio class BB's never meet enemy BB's in the battle.
What does Kirishima and Hood look like? I am sure that not as light force :-)

Again, Warspite, Bismarck, Washington, Massachussets...

[Serg]

The problem with 2nd SIrte is that there were several Italian ships present, including 3 heavy cruisers.
Just like at Casablanca, when Massachussets was supported by a screen of DDs and CAs, it is very difficult to pin down which ship hit which...
By the way, most recent reconstruction of the naval battle of Casablanca credit Massachussets with at least 8 direct hits on 3 different destroyers...

It's truth. And I wonder why someone tried to prove 'poor performance' Littorio at Sirt if it is very difficult :-)
As to 8 hits on three DD's French sources confirmed Milan (1 405mm hit out of action due to fire - Lassaque/Épervier et Milan) and Malin (BTW moored in the harbor, 1 405mm hit - Lassaque/Le Fantasque). Also Mr. O'Hara claimed 1 405mm hit into Fougueux. That's all.

The German destroyers tried , ineffectively , to torpedo Warspite, but they were kept at bay by British DDs and 15" gunfire.

From other side the Warspite ineffectively tried to hit them.

But damaged at least 1 more, hasn't she ?

Yeah, I forgot that she badly damaged friendly destroyer. Agreed, in total 2 DD's. Versus 3.

Again, Warspite, Bismarck, Washington, Massachussets...

I can repeat too, this is boring but... Who has disabled the most enemy light ships in one battle? Possible answers: Littorio, Warspite, Bismarck, Washington, Massachussets...

[Dave Saxton]

(Washington) damaged at least 1 more, hasn't she ?

Washington sank the Preston, adding to a hit from Nagara. I don't know if sinking your own destroyers counts? The Washington may have scored hits on Ayanami along with hits by the US DDs. Washington or SD inflicted no damage to IJN DDs other than that.