The Littorio class and the Bismarck

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Danelov
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:42 am
Location: Bern-Switzerland

The Littorio class and the Bismarck

Post by Danelov »

The class Littorio of Battleships of the Regia Marina,actually of the same generation year of the Bismarck class, had some very remarkables features in the construction design.Unlucky, the cooperation between Italia and Germany in this years of latter 30s were no so extended and "intim" .Specially Germany ,was very arrogant to receive lessons of conseils of his Italian allied. Some important points of the design in the Littorios would be very advantagous in the design of the Bismarck.

The Littorio class had included four battleships:Littorio, Vittorio Veneto ,Roma and Impero. Actually only the first tree were completed.

One of the more remarkable points of the Littorio class was his system of protection antisubmarine ; the System Pugliese(Deformation Cylinder System).This system was tested from 1921 and utilised in all the seven Italian Battleships, inclusive the rebuilded Conte Di Cavour, Giulio Cesare, Duilio, Andrea Doria and the three new operatives Littorios.
The system was less efective with the old rebuild types of the Cavour and Duilio class , but very effective with the Littorios.

The System Pulgiese had shown all his efficience in the war and the Littorios had taked a lot of punishment in the form of torpedos in WWII and survived to fight another day.

Only Roma was loss but by Missile Guided bombs of the Luftwaffe in 1943.

IN DETAIL

-Littorio take three torpedo hits in the Taranto Attack the 11-12th Nov 1940 .Time of reparation 4 1/2 months.

-Vittorio Veneto take a torpedo from a Albacore of the carrier HMS Illustrious in the Battle of Matapan near the backboard propellers the 28th March 1941.Time of reparation:3 months.

Is very interesant to compare this damage with the damage suffered by the Bismarck by the Swordfish of the Ark Royal.

The Vittorio Veneto had embarked after the hit 4000t of water ,the left rudder was temporaly jammed and the machine room engines stopped.But in few minutes ,the damage was partial repaired and the Battleship can sail at 19 knts and arrived safely to Taranto the next day.The sucess of a good design is notorious, specially in the system of three independ rudders wich were well separated.Main rudder was located in central position behind the two centerline screws with auxiliars rudders behind the external screws,port and starboard.The utility of this system was confirmed more than once in WWII and a so such system may well saved Bismarck.

-Vittorio Veneto take a torpedo of the submarine HMS Urge the 14th December 1941 also in the backboard side and near of the propeller shafts.Time of reparation:4 months.

-Littorio take a bomb hit and a torpedo hit in the starboard side front of turret A the 6th June 1942.Time of reparation:3 months.

-Littorio take a bomb hit and a near miss in La Spezia the 19th April 1943.Time of reparation:15 days

-Vittorio Veneto take two USAAF bombs hits the 5th June 1943.Time of reparation:1 month

-Littorio had take a hit of Radio Guided Bomb and a near miss the 9th September 1943.Italia was in the armistice process and the ships was temporally nor repaired.

-Roma was bombed by the USAAF at La Spezia and hit two times before his loss; the 5th June 1943 with two hits(Time of reparation: 15 days)and the 24th June 1943 with again two hits(Time of reparation 15 days).

Really good designed this Littorio class , and also a very nice looking ships , maybe the more elegants and "stetic" battleships in WWIIs.

Regards

Daniel
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: The Littorio class and the Bismarck

Post by Tiornu »

The Pugliese TDS was not a success, and it was designed out of the next Italian BB project.
Few of the torpedo hits against the Littorios involved the TDS. Most were at the ends.
The Littorios' three rudders must be a benefit of the relatively broad stern form.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Did the RM conduct any tests on these battleships to see how well they could be steered using the propellers only? I other words could they be maneouvered more easily than the Bismark classe if there was a major problem with the rudders?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Another thought has occured to me - the turret arrangement on this class I believe was similar to the Scharnhorst classe - three triple turrets, but 15 inch rather than 11 inch. I presume that the Littorio class was built to the required Treaty weight restrictions so would I be right in thinking that the overall armoured protection including deck armour would be rather less than Scharnhorst, or more certainly Bismarck?
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

Littorio was about the same tonnage as Bismarck. The deck armor was as thick as 150mm over the magazines, but it really was an overly complex patchwork. The Italians had a dalliance with layered armor schemes, which had some value when it came to decapping plates, but even these were abandoned in later design work. Littorio would have done better with a greater concentration in her deck armor. The bomb that sank Roma probably did not hit the 150mm deck, but didn't need to; penetrating a thinner nearby patch, it was still able to send blast and splinters into the magazines.
Danelov
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:42 am
Location: Bern-Switzerland

Littorio class protection

Post by Danelov »

About the Littorio class protection

-Side belt inclined at 14° to resist shells of 381mm at mimimum range of 17.500 yards.This best was composed with one external belt of 70mm to stop armor piercing shells, behind this one was the main belt of 280mm(forward and aft).This belt was 12 feet 4 in deep extending 5 feel below the waterline and was closed by 70mm bulkheads.
-Magazines were protected with a 162mm deck overhead and by bulkheads of 100mm to 210mm.
-Main deck 100mm at center,90 mm at sides, sector bow 70mm ,stern 36mm.
-Rudders and propellers protected by a deck of 100mm.
-Barbettes of the main artillery turrets protected by 350mm armour above the forecastle and 280mm below.
-Turrets of 381mm , front 380mm, laterals 200mm;secondary armament of 152mm ,protected front with 280mm and lateral 130mm.

The weight of the armour in the Littorios was of 14.023 t, that mean 37% of the weight of the type.

About the Roma damage , first Guided bomb hit in starboard side amidship,penetrating the hull and breaching this one and stopping part of the engines.Speed reduced to 16 knts.
Second hit,port side ,between the two main turrets and the forward secondary turret,near the forward magazine.This last caught fire ,the powder charges causing a massive explossion,blowing turret B in the sea.With heavy flooding ,the ship broke in two forward of the bridge and sank, 29 minutes after the first hit.
1266 sailors and subofficers, 86 officers including Capt Del Cima, Adm Bergamini and his staff were losses in the sank of Roma.622 crews were rescued by the escort ships.

About the point:

"Did the RM conduct any tests on these battleships to see how well they could be steered using the propellers only? I other words could they be maneouvered more easily than the Bismark classe if there was a major problem with the rudders?"

Not sure about the answer , but this type of procedure was standard in the programme of training and preparation of all new ship.Also in few words, the class was less vulnerable to this type of damage torpedo because the shafts and rudders were disposed well separated.
But certain is: the Littorio class,100 % operational, had a better capacity of maneuver in relation with the Bismarck class.Many attacks were launched againt this ships in the closed confined waters of the Mediterranean and a lot of torpedos dropped by torpedo bombers were avoided.
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 »

hey...
I think the Rm had some fine ships...

yet i don't think that if the Italians would have helped the Germans with the BS or watever was suggested...that it would have helped the BS in any real way...

I don't think that any ship crippled like the BS after the Ark Royal attack could have done any better...

adios
miro
Die See ruft....
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

miro777 wrote:hey...
I think the Rm had some fine ships...

yet i don't think that if the Italians would have helped the Germans with the BS or watever was suggested...that it would have helped the BS in any real way...

I don't think that any ship crippled like the BS after the Ark Royal attack could have done any better...

adios
miro
I think it would be a diiferent matter if the RM had servceable battleships in the Biscay ports. They could have come out to meet Bismarck, to act as a cover force, along with destroyer escorts and the required tugs.
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 »

hey

yes, i agree, yet
didn't the KM have the Scharnhorsts?
they were put outta service (for a while) because of heavy British bombing

wouldn't the same thing happen to the Italian warships, when stationed in the Biscay?

adios
Die See ruft....
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

The British expended a huge effort, at Churchill's instigation, into bombing Brest and the Atlantic ports, to disable the German ships. Two points here:
1) They got little return in relation to the size and weight of attack, managing a single torpedo hit on Gneisenau and one substantial bomb hit on Prinz Eugen. They were unable to prevent the ships from ultimately escaping so the campaign was really a failure.

2) The bombing was at the expense of targets eleswhere which were not attacked, it severely curtailed the strategic bombing operation over Germany itself.

So I think that Italian capital ships in the Biscay ports would have largely escaped damage - although a lot closer to Britain they would be better protected than anywhere in the Med.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

RF wrote:The British expended a huge effort, at Churchill's instigation, into bombing Brest and the Atlantic ports, to disable the German ships. Two points here:
1) They got little return in relation to the size and weight of attack, managing a single torpedo hit on Gneisenau and one substantial bomb hit on Prinz Eugen. They were unable to prevent the ships from ultimately escaping so the campaign was really a failure.

2) The bombing was at the expense of targets eleswhere which were not attacked, it severely curtailed the strategic bombing operation over Germany itself.

So I think that Italian capital ships in the Biscay ports would have largely escaped damage - although a lot closer to Britain they would be better protected than anywhere in the Med.
They absolutely prevented any further sorties into the Atlantic by these ships, and forced the Germans to move them north, receiving further damage in the process. Gneisenau was never able to sortie again, all because of British bombing.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

The German withdrawal from Brest was at the instigation of Hitler through a fear of what the British bombing might do. If the British bombing was to be counted a success the three German ships would have been holed up there until 1944 and scuttled.

What would have mattered more to the KM if the ships had remained in Biscay was the destruction of the lock gates to the Normandie dock by British commandoes.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Bgile wrote:Gneisenau was never able to sortie again, all because of British bombing.
It is clear from Richard Garrett that Gneisenau was effectively written off by the Germans failure to take proper precautions during an air raid, leaving open bunkers exposed to bombing. The severely damaged ship was then stripped down and decommissioned instead of being repaired.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Post by Djoser »

Yeah if you read about the individual bombing raids you get an idea of how much effort was expended for relatively speaking, very little result.
Post Reply