Littorio class design flaws?

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Serg
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:23 am
Location: Russia

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by Serg » Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:56 pm

Richelieu conducted firing trials in 1948 with delay coils. Maximum dispersion was 577 metres and an average of 300 metres at a range of 25,000 metres what was considered very good as compared with 1710 metres and 950 metres respectively with the coils disabled. For VV range was 23-25km ("...at 10.57 Vittorio Veneto opened fire on Orion which was the leading British ship, with all her main gun turrets, at a range estimated at 23,000 metres... At 11.23, when the estimated range was 25,000 metres, Vittorio Veneto ceased firing")

And necessary to take into account that 381mm have flattest trajectory then any other gun. For comparision
at 25кm angle of fall was 19.3 degree vs 23.3 for Bismarck's 38cm.

phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by phil gollin » Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:09 pm

Serg wrote:
My opinion that 2 8” cruisers and 1 6” cruiser with 4 destroyers not enough to deal with 5 light cruises and 11 fleet destroyers even during daytime. They have advantage in the case of long range fire but for decisive result they must to close range where the enemy in turn had advantage. However the question lay in estimation of enemy strength by Parona. He claimed to have followed Iachino's orders in the event he found himself faced by stronger forces. As Italian version says: “In realtа, in questa prima fase del combattimento, non si capisce bene il perchй di questo gioco a rimpiattino dell'Ammiraglio Parona che con i suoi tre incrociatori, di cui due pesanti, aveva una ben decisa superiorità sui quattro incrociatori leggeri che aveva di fronte, superiorità in calibro ed in gittata anche se non in numero di pezzi. Ciò non si spiega se non con una interpretazione limitata dei già restrittivi ordini ricevuti di 'mantenere il contatto con il nemico senza impegnarsi a fondo', ordine dato in precedenza dall'Ammiraglio Jachino, quando ancora non era ben certo dell'entità delle forze inglesi che aveva di fronte.” (Incrociatori pesanty classe Zara by Elio Andó)
“In fact, at this early stage of the battle, it is difficult to understand the sense of hide-and-seek game of Admiral Parona with his three cruisers, two of which are heavy, who had a decisive superiority on the four light cruisers that had faced, superiority in arms and in range though not in number of pieces. This can not be explained except by a narrow interpretation of the already restrictive instructions (maintain contact with [superior] enemy without engaging) in the order given earlier by Admiral Iachino, when he [Parona? Serg] still wasn't quite sure of the strength of British forces.”

PS Seem the first 'revisionist' version had founded in 1964! Donald Macintyre, former naval officer, wrote that Iachino 'had partially achieved his aim'' (Battle for the Mediterranean).

Vian in his report to Admiralty .

The RN only had 4 light cruisers (the other was an AA cruiser with 4-inch guns WITH the convoy). The 3 of the light cruisers were armed with 5.25-inch guns and the other with 6 x 6-inch.

Why only 4 Italian destroyers ?

"Partial achievement" is an admission of failure considering the overwhelming advantage

.

Serg
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:23 am
Location: Russia

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by Serg » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:28 pm

phil gollin wrote:Vian in his report to Admiralty .
It is clearly that when Vian wrote report he did not know the REAL composition of enemy force. In fact the Italians were not as strong as he imagined.
phil gollin wrote: (the other was an AA cruiser with 4-inch guns WITH the convoy)
Only in second phase. "In view of the weight of the air attack on the convoy, I was forced to order the smokelaying division—CARLISLE and two Hunts [Avon Vail counted as 2 hunts - Serg] to rejoin the convoy and join in its air defence." Initially admiral Parona (Goritzia, Trento, Bande Nere + XIII Destroyer Flotilla - Alpino, Bersagliere, Fuciliere, Lanciere) faced 5 cruisers 11 DD's and 1 Hunt. The other Hunts were to form a close escort round the convoy and to continue in company with it.
Fire control systems on the Trento and Bande Nere were hard to use in heavy seas.

Why convoy was dispersed about 19.00?

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by alecsandros » Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:45 am

Serg wrote:Richelieu conducted firing trials in 1948 with delay coils. Maximum dispersion was 577 metres and an average of 300 metres at a range of 25,000 metres what was considered very good as compared with 1710 metres and 950 metres respectively with the coils disabled. For VV range was 23-25km ("...at 10.57 Vittorio Veneto opened fire on Orion which was the leading British ship, with all her main gun turrets, at a range estimated at 23,000 metres... At 11.23, when the estimated range was 25,000 metres, Vittorio Veneto ceased firing")

And necessary to take into account that 381mm have flattest trajectory then any other gun. For comparision
at 25кm angle of fall was 19.3 degree vs 23.3 for Bismarck's 38cm.
Richelieu was another battleship with severe dispersion problems...

They do not compare well to other battleships of the time (Massachussets recorded 200-250y dispersions when firing against Jean Bart at 22km; Bismarck and Tirpitz had about 120-150m dispersion for 4-gun salvos at 25km, etc)

Danger space is a good aspect to condider - after all the Italians 381mm/L50 guns had the highest muzzle velocity of any WW2 naval gun....

Serg
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:23 am
Location: Russia

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by Serg » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:57 pm

I don't think that such comparison is correct. Even if your figures is truth, Germans and Americans had RPC for elevation that excluded layers errors, which occured at battle conditions. For example, British high velocity 16'' Mk1 sometimes had spreads as much as 1400 yds at 17,000 yds during trials.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:39 am

WO 186-9 Ballistics Abnormal dispersion from triple turrets HMS Rodney 1935
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B12aaMD ... sp=sharing
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by phil gollin » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:57 am

.

Thanks for that, I didn't know they were also in the "WO" files. The "proper" copies (and maybe more ????) are in the SUPP 6 files.

Th solution was in the driving bands, not the differences in rifling.

Also note ;

Normal firing was is "salvos", i.e. half the guns at a time.

Delay coils were later fitted after later trials on the triple turrets in the Southampton class.

.

User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by RNfanDan » Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:14 pm

phil gollin wrote:. Delay coils were later fitted after later trials on the triple turrets in the Southampton class.
No kidding? I thought the offset of the center gun was sufficient to address in-flight interference between shells? When was it found necessary to provide further timing delay? I am assuming this coil was for the center gun, am I correct?

Thanks in advance,

Dan
Image

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by alecsandros » Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:18 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:WO 186-9 Ballistics Abnormal dispersion from triple turrets HMS Rodney 1935
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B12aaMD ... sp=sharing
@Thorsten, Serg
Rodney's dispersion problems were largely adressed until 1939.

Trial firings at 16000y in 1939 presented 5-600y dispersion for 9-gun salvos.

phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by phil gollin » Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:26 pm

RNfanDan wrote:
No kidding? I thought the offset of the center gun was sufficient to address in-flight interference between shells? When was it found necessary to provide further timing delay? I am assuming this coil was for the center gun, am I correct?

Thanks in advance,

Dan

There are contradictory remarks in both the SUPP 6 files and the ADM files, I do know that they fitted delay coils in Towns and counties as well as battleships (NO comprehensive list available as far as I know).

The delay coils could be switched on or off as the RN were VERY concerned that in heavy weather that the delay would cause larger dispersion than the in-flight disturbance. They had rough guidelines for Captain in terms of rate of roll.

.

Francis Marliere
Senior Member
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by Francis Marliere » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:03 am

alecsandros wrote:[
but pictures from battle of Matapan clearly show dispersion of at least 500-600y for 3-gun salvos fired by Veneto.
Hello Alecsandros,

I am interested by this picture. Can you post it or provide a link please ?
Thanks in advance,

Francis

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by alecsandros » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:39 am

Francis Marliere wrote:
alecsandros wrote:[
but pictures from battle of Matapan clearly show dispersion of at least 500-600y for 3-gun salvos fired by Veneto.
Hello Alecsandros,

I am interested by this picture. Can you post it or provide a link please ?
Thanks in advance,

Francis
[img]
https://plus.google.com/photos/10751096 ... IWhmtvIswE

[/img]

Francis Marliere
Senior Member
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by Francis Marliere » Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:42 pm

Thanks !

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Littorio class design flaws?

Post by alecsandros » Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:15 pm

Francis Marliere wrote:Thanks !
You're welcome

Post Reply