Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Alecsandros wrote: "But they fired plenty of shots at DDs and CAs and CLs, and... we know the results.
"
Hi Alec,
I agree, but (not being an expert here) how many other battleships hit at extreme ranges any fast sailing cruiser that was maneuvering to avoid the hits ? :think:
you wrote:"My impression is that Queen Elizabeth's had a further 50 mm (25+25) armored bulkheads around the main magazines, in addition to the 330mm belt and 50mm slope."
Not before their reconstruction (at least from the scheme in Tarrant book that is similar to the one for Hood I posted above). Tarrant doesn't mention any additional protection for magazines except the middle deck addition of plates.

Bye, Alberto
This is from R&R, Ensign 4 Queen Elizabeth class:
Protection

During reconstruction the Malaya was fitted with 2 1/2-
inch NC armour on the middle deck over the engine
rooms and, like the Barham, the 1-inch plating over the
magazines, added after Jutland, was removed and
replaced by 4-inch NC armour.
This increased the total
thickness of the middle deck to 5 inches over the
magazines and 3.5 inches over the engine rooms. This
additional protection was only fitted on the flat of the
deck, the slopes being left at their original thickness.
Warspite, QE, Valiant:
The flat of the middle deck over the magazines was
fitted with 4-inch NC armour and over the machinery
spaces 2.5-inch NC armour
So the QE class as a whole were fairly well protected over their decks.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

Italian 381mm during trials:

Not bad straddle.
Attachments
Littorio trials.PNG
Littorio trials.PNG (84.28 KiB) Viewed 767 times
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 »

Hi Alec, unfortunately I wasn't able to find any reference to Littorio firing in trials to San Marco, but this doesn't mean this old ship was not used. The first gunnery trials were done during summer 1940 (most of them with incomplete battery due to a fire in the turret n.1 during the final set up of the gunnery systems).

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)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:Italian 381mm during trials:

Not bad straddle.
Looks like 6in or 8in splashes to me.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by Dave Saxton »

dunmunro wrote:
Protection

During reconstruction the Malaya was fitted with 2 1/2-
inch NC armour on the middle deck over the engine
rooms and, like the Barham, the 1-inch plating over the
magazines, added after Jutland, was removed and
replaced by 4-inch NC armour.
This increased the total
thickness of the middle deck to 5 inches over the
magazines and 3.5 inches over the engine rooms. This
additional protection was only fitted on the flat of the
deck, the slopes being left at their original thickness.
Warspite, QE, Valiant:
The flat of the middle deck over the magazines was
fitted with 4-inch NC armour and over the machinery
spaces 2.5-inch NC armour
So the QE class as a whole were fairly well protected over their decks.
I was going to go check a copy of R&R this coming weekend. thanks. That's pretty good ( the flat section over the magazines only) assuming it is the thickness of a whole plate and not the entire deck, which is implied.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Italian 381mm during trials:

Not bad straddle.
Looks like 6in or 8in splashes to me.
The caption is from Bagnasco's "Regia Maria battleships of WW2". I don't have further info...
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:
By 1942, when Adm.Iachino requested new trials at first charge to test the new supplies, the problem was considered as solved by RM and Adm.Iachino was quite satisfied with the result of the trials, unfortunately I don't have any data.....and we don't have any real engagement to support this statement, as by 1942 the Italian battlefleet was mostly kept safe in harbor.....

Bye, Alberto
Well,
The last major event to see 381/L50s used in combat was probably Second Battle for Sirte, March 22 1942.
Littorio fired 181 heavy rounds for 1 hit and 4 near misses, ranges between 5 to 18km. Targets - DDs and CLs. Weather - terrible; visibility - occasionaly as low as 3km.

Adm Iachino was not satisfied with the damage done to the enemy, and after the battle, wrote another letter to his higher-ups , pointing defficiencies in the artillery of Littorio and the 8" heavy cruisers that he had nearby. Bagnasco writes that his letter was "forgotten" , as there were otehrs before that.

It's true that weather conditions were poor, and other battlehsips may have done as bad, or worse. It may also be that Iachino used this moment as another occasion to adress the necessity for improvements which was badly needed in the navy.
I do not know.

"Best" comparisons , allthough far from mirroring exactly Littorio's situation on March 22nd 1942, are: Bismarck on the night of May 26th 1941 and Duke of York on the evening of Dec 26th 1943.
--
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 »

Dunmunro quoted R&R book re. QE's reconstruction: "Protection
During reconstruction the Malaya was fitted with 2 1/2-
inch NC armour on the middle deck over the engine
rooms and, like the Barham, the 1-inch plating over the
magazines, added after Jutland, was removed and
replaced by 4-inch NC armour. This increased the total
thickness of the middle deck to 5 inches over the
magazines and 3.5 inches over the engine rooms. This
additional protection was only fitted on the flat of the
deck, the slopes being left at their original thickness."
Hi Duncan,
thanks a lot for clarifying something that has always been a "mistery" to me....... :clap:
Re. your conclusion, yes the remedernized QE's were very well protected agaist bombs and plunging fire, as also Tarrant was stating.

However, the key point ifrom R&R s that the 2" HT+mild steel original slope was not improved, therefore nothing was added to the total vertical protection scheme against relatively flat trajectories. Once the belt is penetrated (close to the waterline), there is only the slope between the shell and the magazines/machinery.
Therefore the modernization left the vertical protection to the level of WWI and to the one of Hood. This level was indeed good but proved not to be enough to stop the modern BS 15" shell (that fell with an angle of 10 to 11 °if I remember correctly).

Vertical penetration of QE's belt is likely to happen from average to short distances in case of a gun confrontation against Littorio's.



@Alecsandros:
I fully agree with you (I "intentionally" did not mention the second Sirte :oops: ).
When referring to Iachino satisfaction about the gunnery of Littorio's in 1942, I was speaking about the result of the trials, not the outcome of the second Sirte.... After this one , Iachino had to defend himself from the (founded) accusations of being unable to attack a convoy protected by light cruisers with a battleship and 2 heavy cruisers...... Vian was excellent and in my view achieved an important victory (despite having more damages and casualties on board) but Iachino in this occasion was not at all. :kaput:

However this situation can neither be mentioned as a proof of a bad Littorio's shooting nor compared with the Warspite hit on Giulio Cesare at Punta Stilo with very good visibility and stable parallel courses for the battlefleets, as the Vian's British cruisers were (cleverly) closing and opening range quickly under a huge smoke screen...... The British fire did not achieved many hits too, due to the whether conditions (out of 1500 shells expended by the RN cruisers and 1300 by the RN destroyers, only one 4,7" shell hit Littorio with superficial damage).


RF wrote: "on 10 June 1940 the entire Italian battle fleet should have sailed to Malta escorting a full scale invasion force....."
I totally agree. The "Duce" choose "di spezzare le reni alla Grecia" (litterally "to break the kidneys to Greece" = "to smash and annihilate Greece") instead..... with the known (quite shameful) results until German intervention.....


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 »

dunmunro wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Italian 381mm during trials:

Not bad straddle.
Looks like 6in or 8in splashes to me.
I thought 8 inch as well.

Bismarck's 15 inch splashes were taller than the POW mainmast.
''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
WHat I meant was that it is not certain if the trouble with ammo was resolved by March 1942. Iachino was not satisfied with gunnery at the time, but that doesn't demonstrate, by itself, that the gunnery was any worse then contemporary battleships in same situations.

With this in mind, my comparisons would be:
1) Bismarck on May 26th 1941 - under attack by 5 Destroyers at night, during a building storm. Ship alone, un-manovreable; previously damaged. The battleship fired by radar, straddling the destroyers out to 9km. We do not have the record of the numbers of shots fired. My estimate, coming from the destroyer reports, which mentioned only sporadical firing, (when they tried to close the range - only to be straddled immediately and forced to turn back or launch from long range) is of about 80 to 120 x 380mm shots fired, probably high explosives. There were no direct hits, but there were 4 or 5 damaging near misses.

2) Duke of York on Dec 26th 1943 - attacking KGM Scharnhorst from range 11 to 19km, twillight, fog, during an arctic storm. The ship fired mostly from a difficult angle, against an end-on target. Probable number of shots fired during the "pursuit" phase was around 300 to 350 shots of heavy caliber. The nummber of direct hits was probably 5 or 6.

IMHO, in both examples above, the battleships obtained a superior hit % to Littorio at Second Sirte, allthough they were in worse situations then Littorio was. If this is attributable to gunnery/ammo mechanical troubles or to training, or to tactics, etc, I do not know. But the appearance is that Littorio obtained a "smaller" result then other battleships in worse circumstances.

[an interesting comparison with fleet action can be Battle of Casablanca - where 1 US battleship supported by 2 CAs , 1 CL and several DDs, devastated the Vichy French fleet which sortied to battle - 6 DDs, 1 CL, with gunnery support from 1 incomplete BB and land batteries]
Last edited by alecsandros on Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Italian 381mm during trials:

Not bad straddle.
Looks like 6in or 8in splashes to me.
I thought 8 inch as well.

Bismarck's 15 inch splashes were taller than the POW mainmast.
Possible.
It is also possible that the picture is not of water columns at maximum height, but during the increase or decrease phase.

Prince of Wales columns as they appear on film are comparable to those that appear above.
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: ".....If this is attributable to gunnery/ammo mechanical troubles or to training, or to tactics, etc, I do not know. But the appearance is that Littorio obtained a "smaller" result then other battleships in worse circumstances."
Hi Alec,
I would add the very poor tactical leadership of Iachino, whose first objective was not to risk his ships instead of attacking decisively the escort and the convoy.....

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
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by Dave Saxton »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
However, the key point ifrom R&R s that the 2" HT+mild steel original slope was not improved, therefore nothing was added to the total vertical protection scheme against relatively flat trajectories. Once the belt is penetrated (close to the waterline), there is only the slope between the shell and the magazines/machinery.
Therefore the modernization left the vertical protection to the level of WWI and to the one of Hood. This level was indeed good but proved not to be enough to stop the modern BS 15" shell (that fell with an angle of 10 to 11 °if I remember correctly).

Vertical penetration of QE's belt is likely to happen from average to short distances in case of a gun confrontation against Littorio's.
Yes, a similar chink in the armour to the Hood's armour remains.

However, addressing this flaw was next to impossible due the upright angle of the slope. Look at the angle of the slope on the German designs and it is different, along with a better positioning of the main armoured deck. Throwing more armour on the QE slopes would not have improved its capability against projectiles penetrating the belt because of the favorable striking angle. More thickness may have improved its ability to arrest plugs, lids, and other plate debris generated from non-penetrating hits, which is the primary function of the slope in this case.

If the QE belt is penetrated, as can happen all the way out to 32,000 yards, the slope cannot prevent entry of a projectile onward into the vital spaces.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Post by Dave Saxton »

alecsandros wrote: 1) Bismarck on May 26th 1941 - under attack by 5 Destroyers at night, during a building storm. Ship alone, un-manovreable; previously damaged. The battleship fired by radar, straddling the destroyers out to 9km. We do not have the record of the numbers of shots fired. My estimate, coming from the destroyer reports, which mentioned only sporadical firing, (when they tried to close the range - only to be straddled immediately and forced to turn back or launch from long range) is of about 80 to 120 x 380mm shots fired, probably high explosives. There were no direct hits, but there were 4 or 5 damaging near misses.
Three men were killed on the destroyers, and an additional three later died from their injuries. Previously, when Bismarck fired on the Sheffield, straddling it with 5 of 6 salvoes, one crewman was killed and seven others wounded, two of which later died. Sheffield's radar was also hit and destroyed during this episode.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
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,

... after all those very interesting information, ... I think my point is even more valid :

If the 3 Royal Navy QE class battleships, ... Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant ...
Valiant_QE_Barham.jpg
Valiant_QE_Barham.jpg (48.32 KiB) Viewed 667 times
... were going to face in a day light engagement on a gun confrontation the 3 Regia Marina class battleships, ... Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma
Roma_Littorio_VittorioVeneto.jpg
Roma_Littorio_VittorioVeneto.jpg (48.49 KiB) Viewed 667 times
... in a fight for survival ... the final result was going to be very likely in favour to the 3 Italian warships.

As simple as that ...

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 )
Post Reply