Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

@Antonio:
Under what circumstances ?

As historical, with Italian ships with no usefull gunnery radars, 400meters-wide patterns for 3gun salvos and 1.3 rpmpg max rate of fire, I say they would be in for a plastering from the British veterans.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

I see your opinion.

I have defined the possible circumstances, ... a day light gun engagement 3 versus 3.

In that situation the radar gunnery is less important and the Italian warships had good optics and much better main guns.

In a fight for survival ( or enemy destruction ) the superior speed in conjunction with the better armour protection and efficient main gun of the Littorio's would have most likely given the Italians a fair good advantage.

The QE's had no way to run away from them, and the Italians could position themselves with good advantages given the great delta speed of 6 knots, choose the fighting distance they like better, absorb more hits and use efficiently their superior main guns.

QE's = 24 knots speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Eli ... battleship

Littorio = 30 knots speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littorio-class_battleship

More, even if hit by the QE's the Littorio can still probably fight, ... they had a much better armour protection, ... while I think that every single hit of the Littorio on the QE's would have most likely resulted in a very serious fighting capability impact for the QE's, ... being the QE's much more vulnerable to the much better Italian main gun.

The combined result of those 2 parameters would have been probably lethal for the QE's.

Remember that we are talking a WW1 class battleships ( modernized ) versus a 20 years newer ones, ... and the huge difference between them has been fairly well analyzed here above.

I do not think that just being " veterans " would have given the British a winning chance ... too much of a difference between the warships, ... if really taken in a fight until the end battle.

Hood versus Bismarck is a good example ...

But it is just my personal opinion about this never happened scenario ... but if you ask me being a " skipper " which warship I would have taken to fight against the other on this scenario ... no doubts I would have taken a Littorio one, ... surely not a QE to fight this battle ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by RF »

Antonio,

You offer a fairly good case for Italian victory. Now as a graduate I can see that the basis of statistical probabilities will clearly support your opinions and favour the Italians.

However - there is always the Law of Sod to upset matters. There are numerous instances in WW2 and indeed throughout the history of military conflict where a statistically certain winner gets defeated. I could cite the bloodiest fiasco I know of in military history, the Battle of Watling Street where two Roman legions triumphed against odds of nearly fifteen to one in the final defeat of Boudicca, whose forces were literally annihilated - all through the brilliance of the Roman commander and the iron discipline of the Roman forces.

Now the three Italian battleships versus the British Queens offers a far less extreme disparity, but still clearly favouring the Italians. My first consideration that here we have three individual ship on ship actions, rather than the single ship action I proposed in starting this thread.
The key point I think is going to be the quality of the Italian shooting, their accuracy in spite of dispersion and the rate of fire. The RN is likely to offer superior discipline under fire and possibly better aggression and seamanship. The history of the RN from the seventeenth century onwards is that of Pax Britannica being dictated by superior aggression, discipline and seamanship by the RN over its French, Spanish and Dutch enemies, especially in situations where the RN is outgunned and outnumbered.
I am reminded of this in considering the scenario here. It is complicated by having a three on three confrontation, but I think that the triple ship action in itself tilts things towards the RN. This is on the basis of running a single ship action three times over, with each action running a different course.
Statistically it favours the Italians, but having a run of three actions with different courses is likely to produce at least one where the RN ship gets the upper hand. I think it could happen with two of the actions and possibly with all three. While the Italians have better protection, with heavy hits what is their damage control like, how many hits does it take to render a Littorio ineffective?

If the TN hit first it starts to swing things their way. Once the RN is hitting then even with one QE heavily damaged the other two can gain control of the situation. All that is needed for RN victory is for the British ships to keep hitting while the Italians keep missing.
The quality of commanders will be important - that could well be the trump card.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

@Antonio

I would take Warspite :)

Littorio's guns were not efficient ouside 21.000 meters, and the British guns were efficient in that interval as well (0 - 21.000 meters).
The British 15" projectile could cause extensive damage to Littorio class, which, except the armored citadel (a volume about 4 meters high and 130meters long) was completely vulnerable to hits. This means con tower, turrets, funells, forecastle, stearing, secondary guns, everything else outside that heavily armored volume.

The reason is that a 879kg projectile impacting a turret/con tower would badly damage it without the penetration factor. Examples abound. It was not necessary to perforate the turret to incapacitate it.

Littorio - 3 turrets. It required 3 hits to completely take out the main battery.

Warspite - 4 turrets. It required 4 hits to completely take out the main battery.

Real Immunity area: Warspite - no real immunity zone inside 21.000 meters. Littorio - armored box probably safe to 7-8km distance.

-----

Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, were extensively modernized, given several radars (including dedicated gunnery radar), and had the fire control systems brought up to date (unlike Hood which was scheduled for those changes for mid-1941 IIRC - but she did not survive until then).

In practice, Warspite demonstrated accurate shooting out to 24km, and the double-15"/L42 turrets recorded rate of fire of up to 2.3 rpmpg (during trials). IIRC Valiant obtained a 2.4 rpmpg rate of fire at battle for Matapan (3.5km range).

Littorio was considered to fire adequately inside 21.000 meters, and the triple-15"/L50 turrets recorded an average rate of fire of 1.3 rpmpg (during trials). Maximum rate of fire was expected to be 2 rpmpg. However that was never obtained in reality, and usual rates of fire were seriously below 1rpmpg (but ranges were great).
Last edited by alecsandros on Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by RF »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: But it is just my personal opinion about this never happened scenario ... but if you ask me being a " skipper " which warship I would have taken to fight against the other on this scenario ... no doubts I would have taken a Littorio one, ... surely not a QE to fight this battle ...
At Cape Spada in July 1940 would you have chosen to be on the bridge of the Bartolemo Collioni rather than HMAS Sydney?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

RF wrote: "At Cape Spada in July 1940 would you have chosen to be on the bridge of the Bartolemo Collioni rather than HMAS Sydney?"
Hi RF,
I would not. Colleoni (and Bande Nere) was 6500 tons (she was called a "paper" cruiser), with practically no protection (max 24mm), she was just fast, but unable to face even destroyers guns.,..... Sidney was a newer 9000 tons cruiser with armor of up to 80mm. I would have chosen Garibaldi to face Sidney. :wink:

Littrorio's were bigger than QE's (almost 15000 tons more), faster (6 to 7 knots), with more powerful guns and more protected with a large immunity zone that QE's lacked almost at all against any modern 15" gun.

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Littrorio's were bigger than QE's (almost 15000 tons more), faster (6 to 7 knots), with more powerful guns and more protected with a large immunity zone that QE's lacked almost at all against any modern 15" gun.
... AFter reconstruction, HMS Warspite displaced ~ 33.000 tons standard and was around 40.000 tons on full load in 1943. Littorio was around 40.000 tons standard and 46.000 tons fully loaded.

Littorio guns were much more powerfull, but not worked up properly. The turrets were not properly fitted out, and there was no usefull gunnery radar. Adding the ammo troubles (with shells varying in weight from each other), we have huge dispersion patterns, which mean no hits or few hits at long range.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by Steve Crandell »

Frankly I get a bit tired of the "British always win because they are just better" trump card in any possible battle you want to choose.

Here you are comparing very modern, better protected ships with the most powerful 15" guns in WW2 vs very old ships and still the British win? Because they are British.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

... Not because they are British,
but because they had correctly functioning turrets, guns and radars.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Alecsandros wrote: "Littorio guns were much more powerfull, but not worked up properly."
Hi Alec,
by late 1942, based on the results of the gunnery trials done during summer, they were (see Adm.Iachino report after the trials as reported by E.Bagnasco) . We don't have any proof in a real combat, however.
In a 3 vs 3 day combat to the death in September 1943, as per Antonio's hypothesis, the absence of radar can only influence the very early stage of the battle, at very short range it is negligible, and Littorio's had a gunnery radar (German technology) installed in 1943.....

I think KGV quad-turret problems took at least as much time to fix (if they were ever fixed..... :think: )

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by RF »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: I would not. Colleoni (and Bande Nere) was 6500 tons (she was called a "paper cruisers"), with practically no protection (max 24mm), she was just fast[/b], but unable to face even destroyers guns.,.....
Bye, Alberto


The bold highlight I have inserted into the quote is the key point I was making - the Collioni (on paper) should have escaped along with the other Italian ship. Here superior speed however counted for nothing.
I am not being disparaging about the Italians, as the Collioni was chasing four RN destroyers which led the Italians to HMAS Sydney.

But the end result - given that this was July 1940 when Italian confidence should have been at its highest - to me is astonishing
Last edited by RF on Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@RF: Hi RF, I agree.
My point was that Colleoni was not of the same class as HMS Sidney..... Garibaldi (my father's former ship... :wink: ), was.

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by RF »

Steve Crandell wrote:Frankly I get a bit tired of the "British always win because they are just better" trump card in any possible battle you want to choose.
If you read my posts I would hope that you would find them free of the nationalistic jingoism you are alluding to.

If the British win then that is through the reasoned arguments I present. In this revised scenario my conclusion is that there is a good chance of British victory but not a certainty, based on the caveats I mention.

This whole website after all is devoted to a narrow period in naval history starting with a crushing RN defeat - a defeat that many regard as being against the odds.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Alecsandros wrote: "Littorio guns were much more powerfull, but not worked up properly."
Hi Alec,
by late 1942, based on the results of the gunnery trials done during summer, they were (see Adm.Iachino report after the trials as reported by E.Bagnasco) . We don't have any proof in a real combat, however.
In a 3 vs 3 day combat to the death in September 1943, as per Antonio's hypothesis, the absence of radar can only influence the very early stage of the battle, at very short range it is negligible, and Littorio's had a gunnery radar (German technology) installed in 1943.....

I think KGV quad-turret problems took at least as much time to fix (if they were ever fixed..... :think: )

Bye, Alberto
Alberto,
AFAIK, the Littorio carried surface search radars from mid-1942 onwards, which were not sensitive enough to be gunnery radars, and were not employed as gunnery radars, with spotting and corrections done entirely by optical means.

The very early stages of the battle would be critical, meaing when range decreased from ~ 30 to 16-17km or so (the range at which the Littorio;s would probably attempt to engage in battle). WIth the QE's openeing fire from 27km, I would expect 3 to 5 hits on the leading ship of the Italian formation, before the Italian BBs would manouvre on parallel course with the British.

3 to 5 hits on that geometry (Littorio charging head-on to the British battle line) would mean at least 1 hit on 1 main turret and 1 hit on the con tower/foretop.

The Italians woudl have been firing from 30km down to 17km, but their huge dispersion, low rate of fire, and poor geometry (aft turret wooded for at least some time) , lack of usefull radar, etc, would bring few hits. Maybe 1 or 2, if they are lucky. Those 1 or 2 hits would be distributed anywhere along the length of a Queen Elizabeth battleship, meaning it could be very damaging or less damaging. Anyway, no catastrophic damage would occur, as the heavy armor around the magazines could keep out the 15"/L50 rounds at such ranges.

---
So at range 17km, we woudl have : 1 Littorio with 6 working guns and fire controled from teh aft control position; 2 Littorios undamaged. 1 QE moderately damaged, 2 un-damaged.
So 24 vs 24 guns. The BRitish would fire 48 rounds per minute, the Italians maybe 30. The British would have no immunity zone, and catastrophic explosions could occur. The Italians woudl have the armored box (magazines, machinery) well protected, but other then that the entire ship volume completely vulnerable to enemy fire.

This in turn brings the statistics into place - how many hits are expected to be delivered from 48 shots per minute versus 30 shots per minute (with dispersion issues) ?

IMHO, the Littorios would be degraded in 4-5 minutes of combat, all of them badly damaged and on fire. In return, maybe 1 QE would be sunk.
Last edited by alecsandros on Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by RF »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@RF: Hi RF, I agree.
My point was that Colleoni was not of the same class as HMS Sidney..... Garibaldi (my father's former ship... :wink: ), was.
Bye, Alberto
At the end of the proverbial day, it is the context the action takes place in - superior speed plus two ships on one....

On paper the Colloini and its attendant cruiser still had a better chance against HMAS Sydney than would Kormoran - as I say it is the context of the action.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply