Hi all,
I've been traveling this past week-end, so I'm late with some comments:
Dunmunro, commenting the results of German tests on Littorio's belt, wrote: ".....However the RM used cemented armour on both plates (above document states homogeneous and cemented)...."
RM used homogeneous steel for the decapping plate (the 70mm one) and KC for the resistant plate (280 mm). My mistake when I posted at page 12 of this thread. However, if you look at the graphical armor scheme on the same page, you will see that the "piastra scappucciante" was an homogeneous (OD) one. The German tests were done correctly.
Maciej wrote: ".....So that structure is say the same in protection as say 370 mm plate ( that “sligth” difference ). And inclined 15 degree".....
Even accepting that the British tests are the correct ones, while German and Italians are not (and I would wonder why we should say that....
), a 370 mm one (and it could easily be 400mm as well, as the result of these tests is quite ambiguous; what does it mean "slightly better" ? 5%, 10% 15% ?.....), is equivalent to almost 400 mm KC (very good Italian quality) vertical belt, followed by heavy bulkheads to the vitals, therefore far better than Hood, QE's, KGV's and Vanguard......
Kevin32422 wrote: "To me the Vittorio Veneto has a few things better than the Hood "
Please, please, even discounting the more powerful guns, the far better protection (vertical, horizontal and underwater), the secondary armament, the AA armament, the fact she was 20 years newer and the structural construction (look how Roma's hull reacted to the explosion of the main magazines, having been already severed...)
she was at least immune to the German shell that doomed the British battlecruiser....
Bye, Alberto