North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (JonSidneyB) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:08:23 GMT

Is the statement (easily) a bit much.

I thought among the 5 or 6 ship designs at least there was always a threat. A battle might go lopsided but I thought they were all capable of hurting each other severly.

Because the Italian ships did not do much I thought was a matter of circumstance. Just because the Italian ships did not get the opportunity does not mean they could not perform.

I accept I could be wrong but it looks to me like the Littorio is not a helpless...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:28:21 GMT

NewGolconda wrote:
"What I find interesting on Littorios guns is their very long firing cycle. Wouldn´t 1.3 rpm at best conditions put them on a disadvantage?"

Not really 1 rpm is a good average for any action of decent length.

But that´s under best conditions, isn´t it? Loading angle was 15 degrees and the barrels could be elevated 6 deg. per sec. 46 sec. cyclic...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:06:57 GMT

Here's where I got my deck penetration figures guys.

http://www.geocities.com/kop_mic/?200726

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:41:36 GMT

"What I find interesting on Littorios guns is their very long firing cycle. Wouldn´t 1.3 rpm at best conditions put them on a disadvantage?"

Not really 1 rpm is a good average for any action of decent length.

With a heavy shell and high MV, these are excellent guns providing the shell quality and dispersion problems are either not present or imaginary in the first place. Almost 16in guns in some ways.

Early war, with optical ranging ans spotting, with...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:48:11 GMT

According to the USN empirical formula, which may or may not be precise enough (actually we cannot count on it), Littorios guns are expected to defeat 5.11" of US class B single plate thickness at 30.621 yards

There are no informations regarding the actual penetration power of Littorios guns in cross country tests, so take this with a grain of salt.
The proof angle pointed to by icksydad is not to be understood as breaking angle of the projectile. The penetration through...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:18:51 GMT

Red Admiral,
I had e-mailed Tiornu about an old thread pertaining to North Carolina verse Littorio he said he couldn't recollect it. He stated that the Italians proofed thier shells at 30 degrees and if that was against caliber thick plates then that was a perfectly normal requirement. He mentioned the Greene & Massignami book as mentioning problems with thier fuses though.. As far as accuracy the Italians seemed impressed with thier shooting in practice but not in actual combat...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:07:03 GMT

The tables I referred to show the Italian gun penetrating 4.3" of USN deck armor at 32K ,NC's deck rates higher then that so how is she "very vulnerable" to deck hits? More on belt hits later.

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:50:27 GMT

There are two definite 381mm hits on HMS Havock and HMS Kingston.

I went through the penetration calculations for North Carolina. She is extremely vulnerable to both belt and deck hits. My figures agree with P3D. If she is hit at reasonable range the 381mm shell will penetrate.

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:18:02 GMT

When did the Italian BB's ever score any hits?
Of course there is the Massachusetts hitting Jean Bart and penetrating the main /bomb deck, the main armored deck and the secondary armored deck. Also I think another hit from Massachusetts hit something like a 40mm deck ,then a 4.5" deck then another 45mm deck but not sure of my figures in the second instance will have to consult my G & D for sure. I'm not for sure on the ranges these hits were recorded will get...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:53:02 GMT

ickysdad wrote: Just when did the Italian BB's hit a DD or cruiser for that matter over 20K ?

I'm hard pressed to find an occasion when the Italian BBs hit a ship at a range under 200hm. The high visibilty and daylight actions in the Med meant that most actions occurred at ranges 200-250hm. I have a list of hits on my home computer which I'll post. Italian doctrine was to fire at ranges over 200hm at...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:19:17 GMT

P3D,

1. I did put up some numbers figuring what Bismarck's guns would penetrate at a certain range compared to Littorio's on thread "ideal treaty BB". I also stated I maybe wrong in one of my posts which is more then some people around here and no I'm not implying you or Red Admiral.

2. On range no I'm not saying the good ole USN magically hits at longer ranges compared to other navies. Though two USN BB's straddled a fast moving ,manuvering DD...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:51:25 GMT

ickysdad wrote:It also seems funny that range is a big issue if a contemporaries guns outrange a USN BB in these kind of arguments but when it's brought up about superior USN radar/FC it's then announced that no hit was made historically beyond 25-26K therefore impossible. I'm not saying you Red Admiral but some people have came out & said no hit could be made past 25-26K then turn right around and say Yamato could...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (P3D) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 08:32:07 GMT

Well actually I think I put up a pretty good argument to P3D's IZ calculations on what kind of IZ NC or SoDak would have against Littorio's guns.

I missed to spot these arguments, especially regarding NC. You were quoting your memory, and I assume you might just mixed up some numbers. Claiming authority of other posters won't convince anyone, I would argue with them too if they'd present such data again.

It also seems...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:24:12 GMT

Red Admiral wrote:

Their guns had wide dispersion problems.
Please quantify this

They couldn't hit the broadside of a battleship at range.
Strange that they managed to hit destroyers and cruisers repeatedly at ranges over 20.000m. P.S. a destroyer is smaller than a battleship

but also had...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:50:07 GMT

Their guns had wide dispersion problems.

Please quantify this

They couldn't hit the broadside of a battleship at range.

Strange that they managed to hit destroyers and cruisers repeatedly at ranges over 20.000m. P.S. a destroyer is smaller than a battleship

but also had a much higher wear

Which isn't a problem when you've developed loose liners...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Ed) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:51:51 GMT

Their guns had wide dispersion problems. They couldn't hit the broadside of a battleship at range. Yes, they fired a heavier shell than most 15" guns, and had a higher MV, but also had a much higher wear problem. Their armor was superior to NC's armor, but not to the SoDak's armor. Their radar wasn't very good.

They could not stand up to the USN 16" 2700lb AP superheavy Mk.8 shells. They couldn't even stand up to the standard USN 16" AP shells...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:43:23 GMT

Ed wrote:
Presumably because they are products of the US of A?

No, the two USN BB classes did not have the problems with their 16"/45s that the Italians had with their 15"/50s. The USN also had radar controled FCS, and very good armor (well at least on the SoDaks). But the Italian BBs were faster.

What problems with the 381/50s? The Littorios have equal or better firepower,...

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Ed) — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:12:07 GMT

Presumably because they are products of the US of A?

No, the two USN BB classes did not have the problems with their 16"/45s that the Italians had with their 15"/50s. The USN also had radar controled FCS, and very good armor (well at least on the SoDaks). But the Italian BBs were faster.

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:08:45 GMT

Ed wrote:
This really should be on the BB vs. BB board. But, to answer your question, either the NC class or the SoDak class BBs could easily handle the VV class BB.

Presumably because they are products of the US of A?

Re: North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (Ed) — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:46:48 GMT

This really should be on the BB vs. BB board. But, to answer your question, either the NC class or the SoDak class BBs could easily handle the VV class BB.

North Carolina/SoDak verse Littorio.

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:07:13 GMT

We did a Iowa verse Vanguard here so why not those 2 USN BB's verse the Italian BB?