In one of your videos, could you talk about kv7 that had two variations one with one high caliber gun and two smaller caliber and one with two high caliber guns
Can you do a video for me on the xm701? I’m actually curious as to if you can dig anything up on it. Its an old American cold war tank… i think. I just wanted to know if you would. Its kind of neat and obscure thing.
Little known fact, in spite of ideological differences, Soviet Russia paid Mussolini for engineers and technicians to design its navy. Pretty much every soviet ship is a modified Italian design: for example, the Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship were modified Littorio-class vessels.
The Soviets also paid Italy to do design work for some tank projects during the interwar period although I don't know if any of those were actually built
Ideological differences? Communism fascism and national socialism are all born from socialist ideologies. Soviets gained naval tech from the 1939-1941 III Reich and USSR cooperation. They even got a Prinz Eugen class heavy cruiser hull and blueprints of Bismark.
The Abruzzi is that one class of ships that has held a tight grip on my head solely because of looks, the AL designs are also... Very pleasing to look at to say the least
@@Pururut They are of a different class. When it comes to light cruisers, only Belfast and Mainz can really keep up with Luigi di Savoia Duca Degli Abruzzi
The air conditioners you mentioned were likely installed for the comfort of the electronics aboard rather than the men. Electronics of the era were power hungry and prone to failure from the resulting overheating.
Italian built great ships during ww2.The problem was the lack of fuel and poor command,not with the ships.The escort class they built durin ww2(gabbiano class) were so well built that they served even afte the war.
@@Andrew-df1dryeah also good depth charges but no sonar, or just a really bad one… Sometime you cannot believe how much Mussolini crippled its own army in ww2
Italians try not to build some of the best designed ships of the interwar period and then lose almost every major surface action in the Med challenge (impossible)
@@gluesniffingdudeActually, I’d argue that most Mediterranean surface engagements during WWII between the Royal Navy and the Regia Marina were inconclusive if anything, with limited strategic value gained by the other navy (Cape Matapan was a BIG exception to this rule, where the Regia Marina was decimated by the British, but it wasn’t the rule itself I’d argue).
@nathansullivan4433 Yes, the British had radar and approached at night with their lights off and opened fire. Mussolini thought that radar was useless and when they proposed the 'Grifo' radar he rejected it.
That, togheter with the Germans. Nazi believed, due to Hitler propaganda of "superiority" of aryan "race", that they was anyhow "superior" than us and by that, that our troops was lacking in courage, morale, skills etc, like also our generals and so on. In time, Anglo-Americans, that had the same kind of mindset due to things like "Manifest Destiny" etc, accepted the german nazi propaganda and we was marked as "incompetent" as best. 😑 But can be "incompetent" a civilization that have an heritage of 3000 years old and with more or less 400 wars won? Compared to us, the Germans are just what they are when they compared in front of the Romans: barbarians and rookies of war.
The big issue is that the Italian navy officer core was entirely monarchical, my own great grandfather left as soon as mussolini took power and so did many other officers because they served the king, not a dictator, those that didn't leave the navy were replaced by people loyal to mussolini, this left the Italian navy with an officer core made up entirely of people who had legitimately never sailed in their lives, this coupled with the terrible quality of the ammo meant that the British navy easily won an otherwise borderline unwinnable fight. This is also what allowed Britain to keep standing in general as without the British fleet Italian naval superiority in the mediterranean would've given Germany all the naval assets necessary to actually take Britain.
Until a channel from a major corporation uses it or a slightly modified version of it and hits every channel that uses the song with a copyright claim.
The largest drawback of Italian cruiser design was that their guns were mounted too close together in their turrets. Unless the guns firing wasn't staggered the shells would interfere with each other in flight. So a delay in firing the gun I. Each turret had to have a 2 (or linger) delay in firing the second gun, or accuracy would be greatly reduced.
Not trying to have a go at you just so it's said, yes they would need a staggering mechanism but it's due to the other gun/guns acting like almost firing a gun near a tuning fork. Though it is a very if/but/or kind of thing as the ship has now moved from when the first gun fired compared to when the 2nd gun would fire meaning that just the shear delay could cause inaccuracies
The Italians get a lot of undeserved hate for their performance in WWII. Sure, a lot of DESERVED hate as well, being fascists who performed very badly - but then again, isn't that the kind of fascist we like? The incompetent ones? Anyway, Italy had some of the same strengths we come to associate with different stories of success in the war - technological prowess and technical skill thanks to incredibly innovative designers, valiant soldiers both fighting hard and using the tactics best suited to their capabilities - but without the crucial element of being able to actually afford all of this stuff. Italian engineers were pioneers of jet aircraft, semi-automatic combat rifles, submarines and warships... but they were all Italian and as such had no money or materiel or manpower to put into all these ideas, so instead they made the most out of fast boats, mini-subs, mini-tanks and upgraded WW1 rifles. It would be very sad if not for the aforementioned fact they were fighting for the fascist side.
I might be wrong, but, as far as I know, the classification (and limitations) of light and heavy cruisers wasn't created with the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, there, the limitation of 10.000 tons was estabilished together with the maximum gun calibre of 8 inches. It was the London Naval Treaties of the 1930s that split the cruiser classification into heavy or light. It was also the London treaties that imposed limitations to destroyer and submarine sizes (thanks to the Fubuki-class destroyers and the French/British submarines with heavy guns). Again, I might be wrong, so don't consider this as 100% correct.
Baron may be able to add more to this as it's not something I'm super knowledgeable on, but I believe the wording used was that the treaty further defined the difference between the two not necessarily establishing the specific classifications
It is very confusing imo picking the two treaties apart, so most people just lump them together. Thanks _(even if some detail turns out to be wrong lol.)_
@@ConeOfArc Best way to think of it - all heavy cruisers are light cruisers, not all heavy cruisers are light cruisers. "Heavy" cruisers are simply light cruisers with guns larger than 155mm, which is the split between Category 'A' and 'B' cruisers enshrined by the London Naval Treaty of 1930. Otherwise, there is no distinction. Many light cruiser classes of the 1930s were in fact better protected than the 'heavy' light cruisers that preceded them in the 1920s, which usually had poor armor due to the combination of speed and firepower requirements on 10,000-ton limit set by the WNT. 'Light Cruiser' actually describes a type of cruiser (the 'light armored cruiser') that became dominant from the 1910s onwards (really until the decline of the cruiser in general), in terms of specific qualities of types of propulsion, armor, and armament. The 'heavy' designation came out only really to distinguish the ships with guns larger than 155mm after the LNT of 1930, and itself is something mostly used after most ships were built. The Americans and Italians, afaik, are the only ones who actually called their heavy cruisers 'heavy cruisers' in the 1930s, while the British, French, and Japanese predominantly adopted the term *after* WWII, when speaking historically. As a case in point - the Trento and Zara-classes (as well as Bolzano) were all initially rated as light cruisers (incrociatori leggeri), until the 1930s, when they were re-rated as heavy cruisers (incrociatori pesanti). The first light cruisers actually designed and built as such in the RM was the Raimondo Montecuccoli-class (the Giussano and Cadorna-classes were both designed as commissioned as scouts, or esploratori, which was a separate category in the RM until 1938). France's Marine Nationale, meanwhile, called all their new post-war cruisers light cruisers (cruisers légers). In 1930, they actually dropped this term entirely. All ships with guns larger than 155mm became 1st Class Cruisers (croiseurs de 1ère classe) - which in the MN included ships we would now call heavy cruisers and armored cruisers - while those with guns of 155mm or smaller became 2nd Class cruisers (croiseurs de 2e classe). These designations held until 1948, when all cruisers were simplified into a single category 'cruisers/croiseurs'. In something of a weird twist, the term 'light cruiser' came back, briefly, to describe the former contre-torpilleurs of the Le Fantasque-class that had been modernized in the United States in 1943, at least until July 1951, when all these ships were re-classified as 1st Class Destroyer Escorts (destroyer-escorteur de 1re classe).
You know there is an unexploited niche in professional nold war naval ships since drachinifel doesn't cover the cold war era. You could fit it into it nicely I think.
Wasn't there a broad plan for a flotilla of European warships firing Poseidon? The Italian Alpha rocket would go on to be the one of the stages of a joint Europe rocket programme. It and the French rocket weren't successful with only the British stage testing out OK. At that point my county being my country opted out of the programme and gifted the tech to France if my memory serves. And the French continue using it to this day. Super video BTW.
First off fantastic vid that I had know idea I'd be interested in! Second, I got done rewatching your concrete armour video and checked out tankparty, if I am allowed to know, what happened?
A superbly beautiful ship, timeless. The Italians & French ships get overlooked, I guess coz they both lost... _Btw, I'd consider WW1 the greatest naval arms race of all time, not WW2. Imho_
WW1 certainly had a significant shift in technology but most of those were built on both during the interwar period and WW2 much more. Look at aircraft technology for one example, during ww1 you see very early examples of aircraft but by the end of ww2 you are seeing the beginnings of the jet age.
This has been already debunked, most of the dispersion problems on SOME of the earlier italian light cruisers was not due to the single cradle system but rather the light building of the turrets of the Giusanno class and higher than avarage muzzle velocity, both fixed on the next cruisers developed by Italy. All italian cruisers between the Giusanno and Abruzzi equipped with single cradle design performed very well in accuracy and dispersion, actually they were famous for their good accuracy. During the famous italian victory at Operation Harpoon the italian cruisers Raimondo Montecuccoli and Eugenio Di Savoia hit more than 3 british ships more than 20 times, Montecuccoli for example hit the minesweeper Hebe at 21Km, the longest hit by a light cruiser in ww2, while going more than 34 knots and mastering a very high rate of fire.
Italian cruisers didn't have any "terrible dispersion". Italian heavy cruisers, all with single cradles, scored several +20km hits in battle, the longest of the war for their class. However, the Abruzzi triple turrets already had separated cradles. See Adm. Emilio Brenta "the Regia Marina had been able to technically eliminate the initial dispersions, greater or lesser, of its numerous calibres, large, medium and small. So much so that, in some cases, it was even necessary to increase the dispersion, so to maximize the chances of a hit" (the best dispersion infact is not the tightest possible. It's the one that gives you the best chances of hitting the enemy ship at least once for every salvo at the optimal combat distance. Given the inevitable errors in estimating distance and bearing of the enemy ship, a too tight salvo is going to miss al the shots).
@nrom7942 The cradle is the thing the gun is mounted onto. It's the cradle that tilts the gun, giving it the inclination needed for the projectile to reach a certain distance. The Italians, for twin turrets, chosen to put the two guns on a single cradle. That saved weight. Because, on a single cradle, the barrels were closer each-other (and you saved the weight of several servo-mechanisms) and so the entire turret was smaller (and so with the same total weight of armor, you could have it thicker). Mind that, in the interwar period, there were displacement limitations for classes of ships (10.000t for cruisers), so to save weight where possible was important. What you saved in turret weight could be put, for example, in armor, or in engines. If you compare the weight of twin guns cruiser turrets of various powers in WWII, you see that the Italian ones are almost always the lighter ones, thus having the thicker armor protection. However, there's nothing like a free lunch. it was well known at the time that the blast from one gun could interfere the accuracy of others fired at the same time, increasing dispersion. The more the guns were close together, the more likely that was to happen. However, that was not the only thing affecting dispersion, other factors could offset it and, if with close barrels, you could reach the designed dispersion (that, as said, it's not the tightest possible), all the better.
@@neutronalchemist3241 both John Campbell (author of Naval Weapons of World War Two) and the site regiamarinaitaliana disagree with Admiral Brenta, so it's pretty much dependent on source
Hey, can you do a video about pre dreadnoughts or ww1 dreadnoughts it is just a topic you don't hear that often ,other than from very niche chanels. I bet theres is a lot of content there...hell maybe even ironclads but thats way of a stretch nice video and keep going man...
@@ConeOfArc yeah i kinda guessed so. You should do more videos like this. It was cool learning more about naval history and WoW does a decent job at modeling things which makes it easier for you im guessing
Ehi Coneofarc, great video [as always], but please, the next time you talk about Italian designs get something or someone to tell you how to pronounce Italian nouns. No hate here, it's just that everytime you try to say something in Italian in this video I get a small stroke.
Italian ships were all amazing. Italian crews were good enough. Italian high command was kinda okay. Italian strategic resources and fuel supplies were not okay. And Italian quality control and ammunition was completely horrifying.
Actually, stating and checking the info recovered by the diaries of the captains and admirals of the period it came out that the Regia Marina had no problems with ammunitions. There was low quality shells in the stock. But commanders was wise enough to pile up stocks per quality. So at the end of the war in the naval stocks was present just the low quality shells. While the rest of good quality was still partially on board of the ships.
@@pavelslama5543 indeed there was no "terrible accuracy". This legend came out after Battle of Cape Matapan due to the fact that the Littorio-class was unable to hit a British cruiser. What they don't tell you is that the cruiser was hit by fragments of the shell... and the Littorio-class was shooting by 32km away.
@@danielefabbro822 Italian navy had chronic accuracy deficiency, despite having almost perfect range finding equipment. Their shells just werent made well enough. And your attempts at historical revisionism are wasted here.
@@pavelslama5543 that's a common place. Accordingly to our test fires and ballistics, pur units had problems only with guns obtained as prey of war, after ww1 or pre-ww2 wars. And regarded to that, yes. The problem occurred when we tried to make replacement ammo about those pieces of artillery. Regarding the 320mm and 381mm there was no problems. Our schools of ballistics was the same of Americans and British. We learned from the britts how to make those cannons. We could have problems for another reason: the initial speed of the shell. That at the time was magnified. We pushed that technology to the limit reaching speeds between 800 to 1000 km/h. Problem is, and the technicians and naval personell of the time discovered before the war, that if pushed at that limit, the shell loses accuracy. So our guns was set to have an initial speed of the shells bit further 800km/h. Maximum range of the 381mm was almost 43km. But an useful range of 32km. Indeed that was checked during the Matapan battle where the shells of the Roma barely hit a british cruiser at that distance. If only the fascist leadership in Rome (Supermarina) had the guts to risk and order to our ships to have a more aggressive conduct of the war and attack, probably the British would have lost lots of ships more. It was stated that the penetration power of the Littorio-class guns, 381mm, was superior than that of the 466mm of the Yamato guns. Just check the tables of the guns and their stats. You can easily find them on infernet.
Italian pronunciation is quite difficult for English speakers, and I think he did quite well considering, particularly on very difficult pronunciation of "degli" in the name of the titular flagship warship!
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
Play Word of Warships for FREE here - wo.ws/49tqF0i
i've recently been to the Bracciano Aeronautica Militare musem, but i don't recall seing it there
i could be wrong tho
Oh god now he’s gonna harass the naval community 😂
In one of your videos, could you talk about kv7 that had two variations one with one high caliber gun and two smaller caliber and one with two high caliber guns
Can you do a video for me on the xm701? I’m actually curious as to if you can dig anything up on it. Its an old American cold war tank… i think. I just wanted to know if you would. Its kind of neat and obscure thing.
Word
Little known fact, in spite of ideological differences, Soviet Russia paid Mussolini for engineers and technicians to design its navy. Pretty much every soviet ship is a modified Italian design: for example, the Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship were modified Littorio-class vessels.
The Soviets also paid Italy to do design work for some tank projects during the interwar period although I don't know if any of those were actually built
Ideological differences? Communism fascism and national socialism are all born from socialist ideologies.
Soviets gained naval tech from the 1939-1941 III Reich and USSR cooperation. They even got a Prinz Eugen class heavy cruiser hull and blueprints of Bismark.
Thanks for that bit. They do look similar now you mention it.
Russia paid their debt to Italy during the cold war unlike over previously axis power😊
During the Cold War we had one of our best aviationist designer in USSR. He was credited of many prototypes and aveniristic aircrafts.
The Abruzzi is that one class of ships that has held a tight grip on my head solely because of looks, the AL designs are also... Very pleasing to look at to say the least
I personally prefer zara and pola or vittorio, but abruzzi is good too
@@Pururut They are of a different class. When it comes to light cruisers, only Belfast and Mainz can really keep up with Luigi di Savoia Duca Degli Abruzzi
I have been looking to build a model of this class but can't find one anywhere.
@@at-90ree13 Used the full name, Luigi di Savoia Duca Delgi Abruzzi is proud of you 🗿
@@Marcos-ms1ij You gotta respect their wishes
Interesting class of light cruisers. The Regia Marina built some beautiful ships.
You’re getting better at these naval videos
It's all thanks to Baron. He handles all the information I just do the narration and editing of the script and video
Big Drach energy here. Really great video!
baron trying not to talk about italian ironclads (impossible task)
It is the natural order of things
The air conditioners you mentioned were likely installed for the comfort of the electronics aboard rather than the men. Electronics of the era were power hungry and prone to failure from the resulting overheating.
Italian built great ships during ww2.The problem was the lack of fuel and poor command,not with the ships.The escort class they built durin ww2(gabbiano class) were so well built that they served even afte the war.
No radar.
@Andrew-df1dr Mussolini disse che erano inutili.
@@Andrew-df1dryeah also good depth charges but no sonar, or just a really bad one…
Sometime you cannot believe how much Mussolini crippled its own army in ww2
@@AlFreeman-xy4jyIachino. Incompetent "no one fights at night" fuck should have been court-martialed after Matapan
Italians trying to make ship not sexy (impossible)
Italians try not to build some of the best designed ships of the interwar period and then lose almost every major surface action in the Med challenge (impossible)
@@gluesniffingdudeActually, I’d argue that most Mediterranean surface engagements during WWII between the Royal Navy and the Regia Marina were inconclusive if anything, with limited strategic value gained by the other navy (Cape Matapan was a BIG exception to this rule, where the Regia Marina was decimated by the British, but it wasn’t the rule itself I’d argue).
@nathansullivan4433 Yes, the British had radar and approached at night with their lights off and opened fire. Mussolini thought that radar was useless and when they proposed the 'Grifo' radar he rejected it.
There's the Monitor Faà di Bruno which doesn't even reassemble a ship with an oversized gun. It looks like a raft.
"Okay we have a top noch navy, that should give us an edge."
Mussolini "THERE'S LOTS OF WATER IN NORTH AFRICA RIGHT?"
Yeah, that give you an idea why we lost the war. 😑
That, togheter with the Germans.
Nazi believed, due to Hitler propaganda of "superiority" of aryan "race", that they was anyhow "superior" than us and by that, that our troops was lacking in courage, morale, skills etc, like also our generals and so on.
In time, Anglo-Americans, that had the same kind of mindset due to things like "Manifest Destiny" etc, accepted the german nazi propaganda and we was marked as "incompetent" as best. 😑
But can be "incompetent" a civilization that have an heritage of 3000 years old and with more or less 400 wars won? Compared to us, the Germans are just what they are when they compared in front of the Romans: barbarians and rookies of war.
The big issue is that the Italian navy officer core was entirely monarchical, my own great grandfather left as soon as mussolini took power and so did many other officers because they served the king, not a dictator, those that didn't leave the navy were replaced by people loyal to mussolini, this left the Italian navy with an officer core made up entirely of people who had legitimately never sailed in their lives, this coupled with the terrible quality of the ammo meant that the British navy easily won an otherwise borderline unwinnable fight.
This is also what allowed Britain to keep standing in general as without the British fleet Italian naval superiority in the mediterranean would've given Germany all the naval assets necessary to actually take Britain.
@@PeachDragon_ the Regia Marina was the army of the King as well as the Regia Aeronautica was the army of the fascists.
The Napoli is probably one of the best and most fun ship in WoWs
For anyone wondering the intro music is Now We Fight by Bonnie Grace it is a fire song.
Until a channel from a major corporation uses it or a slightly modified version of it and hits every channel that uses the song with a copyright claim.
One of the book sources you used: Mussolini's navy. Is a book I own. It's my favorite. The Italian navy during WW2 was just so cool
The largest drawback of Italian cruiser design was that their guns were mounted too close together in their turrets. Unless the guns firing wasn't staggered the shells would interfere with each other in flight. So a delay in firing the gun I. Each turret had to have a 2 (or linger) delay in firing the second gun, or accuracy would be greatly reduced.
Not trying to have a go at you just so it's said, yes they would need a staggering mechanism but it's due to the other gun/guns acting like almost firing a gun near a tuning fork. Though it is a very if/but/or kind of thing as the ship has now moved from when the first gun fired compared to when the 2nd gun would fire meaning that just the shear delay could cause inaccuracies
I'm not a navy guy but...
these ships are beautiful.
You should cover the Italian battleships next brother
5:42 poor thing, didn't even get a normal number🤣
Let's be thankful she wasn't given a Roman numeral xD
Yes, more Sails and Salvos episodes, please!
The Italians get a lot of undeserved hate for their performance in WWII. Sure, a lot of DESERVED hate as well, being fascists who performed very badly - but then again, isn't that the kind of fascist we like? The incompetent ones?
Anyway, Italy had some of the same strengths we come to associate with different stories of success in the war - technological prowess and technical skill thanks to incredibly innovative designers, valiant soldiers both fighting hard and using the tactics best suited to their capabilities - but without the crucial element of being able to actually afford all of this stuff.
Italian engineers were pioneers of jet aircraft, semi-automatic combat rifles, submarines and warships... but they were all Italian and as such had no money or materiel or manpower to put into all these ideas, so instead they made the most out of fast boats, mini-subs, mini-tanks and upgraded WW1 rifles.
It would be very sad if not for the aforementioned fact they were fighting for the fascist side.
@@CVC174You're out of line but you're not wrong.
The Italians are too powerful, so God nerfed them buy making them Italian.
I might be wrong, but, as far as I know, the classification (and limitations) of light and heavy cruisers wasn't created with the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, there, the limitation of 10.000 tons was estabilished together with the maximum gun calibre of 8 inches.
It was the London Naval Treaties of the 1930s that split the cruiser classification into heavy or light.
It was also the London treaties that imposed limitations to destroyer and submarine sizes (thanks to the Fubuki-class destroyers and the French/British submarines with heavy guns).
Again, I might be wrong, so don't consider this as 100% correct.
Baron may be able to add more to this as it's not something I'm super knowledgeable on, but I believe the wording used was that the treaty further defined the difference between the two not necessarily establishing the specific classifications
Indeed, that's why the Italian Trento class was referred to as "large light cruisers" before the London treaty
It is very confusing imo picking the two treaties apart, so most people just lump them together. Thanks _(even if some detail turns out to be wrong lol.)_
@@ConeOfArc Best way to think of it - all heavy cruisers are light cruisers, not all heavy cruisers are light cruisers. "Heavy" cruisers are simply light cruisers with guns larger than 155mm, which is the split between Category 'A' and 'B' cruisers enshrined by the London Naval Treaty of 1930. Otherwise, there is no distinction. Many light cruiser classes of the 1930s were in fact better protected than the 'heavy' light cruisers that preceded them in the 1920s, which usually had poor armor due to the combination of speed and firepower requirements on 10,000-ton limit set by the WNT.
'Light Cruiser' actually describes a type of cruiser (the 'light armored cruiser') that became dominant from the 1910s onwards (really until the decline of the cruiser in general), in terms of specific qualities of types of propulsion, armor, and armament. The 'heavy' designation came out only really to distinguish the ships with guns larger than 155mm after the LNT of 1930, and itself is something mostly used after most ships were built. The Americans and Italians, afaik, are the only ones who actually called their heavy cruisers 'heavy cruisers' in the 1930s, while the British, French, and Japanese predominantly adopted the term *after* WWII, when speaking historically.
As a case in point - the Trento and Zara-classes (as well as Bolzano) were all initially rated as light cruisers (incrociatori leggeri), until the 1930s, when they were re-rated as heavy cruisers (incrociatori pesanti). The first light cruisers actually designed and built as such in the RM was the Raimondo Montecuccoli-class (the Giussano and Cadorna-classes were both designed as commissioned as scouts, or esploratori, which was a separate category in the RM until 1938).
France's Marine Nationale, meanwhile, called all their new post-war cruisers light cruisers (cruisers légers). In 1930, they actually dropped this term entirely. All ships with guns larger than 155mm became 1st Class Cruisers (croiseurs de 1ère classe) - which in the MN included ships we would now call heavy cruisers and armored cruisers - while those with guns of 155mm or smaller became 2nd Class cruisers (croiseurs de 2e classe). These designations held until 1948, when all cruisers were simplified into a single category 'cruisers/croiseurs'. In something of a weird twist, the term 'light cruiser' came back, briefly, to describe the former contre-torpilleurs of the Le Fantasque-class that had been modernized in the United States in 1943, at least until July 1951, when all these ships were re-classified as 1st Class Destroyer Escorts (destroyer-escorteur de 1re classe).
As someone who made his bachelor's on Italian ships.
This video is mostly ok, with mostly minor things, but than, I don't remember everything I wrote.
I'm sorry, did I hear that right at the end ? Switzerland had a nuclear weapons program ???
You know there is an unexploited niche in professional nold war naval ships since drachinifel doesn't cover the cold war era. You could fit it into it nicely I think.
I'm looking more at things like ironclads and ships from that era but it is mostly up to what Baron feels like researching as I focus mainly on tanks
Watching this while making a ship in naval art
A slight correction. The guns we all the same caliber: 6''. The later guns were longer by 12'' or 2 calibers.
The sails and salvos title hits hard as a video game title
Wasn't there a broad plan for a flotilla of European warships firing Poseidon?
The Italian Alpha rocket would go on to be the one of the stages of a joint Europe rocket programme. It and the French rocket weren't successful with only the British stage testing out OK. At that point my county being my country opted out of the programme and gifted the tech to France if my memory serves. And the French continue using it to this day.
Super video BTW.
We have the horrible habit of scrapping historical ships instead of turning them into museums 😔
First off fantastic vid that I had know idea I'd be interested in! Second, I got done rewatching your concrete armour video and checked out tankparty, if I am allowed to know, what happened?
Might need to reach out to Mighty Jingles at the moment 🙁
The Royal Navy would have been way to understated to dispute the number of naval contestants in the Mediteranean
A superbly beautiful ship, timeless. The Italians & French ships get overlooked, I guess coz they both lost...
_Btw, I'd consider WW1 the greatest naval arms race of all time, not WW2. Imho_
WW1 certainly had a significant shift in technology but most of those were built on both during the interwar period and WW2 much more. Look at aircraft technology for one example, during ww1 you see very early examples of aircraft but by the end of ww2 you are seeing the beginnings of the jet age.
Another change was the separation of gun cradles, which fixed previous ships' terrible dispersion
This has been already debunked, most of the dispersion problems on SOME of the earlier italian light cruisers was not due to the single cradle system but rather the light building of the turrets of the Giusanno class and higher than avarage muzzle velocity, both fixed on the next cruisers developed by Italy. All italian cruisers between the Giusanno and Abruzzi equipped with single cradle design performed very well in accuracy and dispersion, actually they were famous for their good accuracy. During the famous italian victory at Operation Harpoon the italian cruisers Raimondo Montecuccoli and Eugenio Di Savoia hit more than 3 british ships more than 20 times, Montecuccoli for example hit the minesweeper Hebe at 21Km, the longest hit by a light cruiser in ww2, while going more than 34 knots and mastering a very high rate of fire.
Italian cruisers didn't have any "terrible dispersion". Italian heavy cruisers, all with single cradles, scored several +20km hits in battle, the longest of the war for their class.
However, the Abruzzi triple turrets already had separated cradles.
See Adm. Emilio Brenta "the Regia Marina had been able to technically eliminate the initial dispersions, greater or lesser, of its numerous calibres, large, medium and small. So much so that, in some cases, it was even necessary to increase the dispersion, so to maximize the chances of a hit" (the best dispersion infact is not the tightest possible. It's the one that gives you the best chances of hitting the enemy ship at least once for every salvo at the optimal combat distance. Given the inevitable errors in estimating distance and bearing of the enemy ship, a too tight salvo is going to miss al the shots).
@@neutronalchemist3241 what is a cradle? And why did they impact the accuracy of the guns??
@nrom7942 The cradle is the thing the gun is mounted onto. It's the cradle that tilts the gun, giving it the inclination needed for the projectile to reach a certain distance.
The Italians, for twin turrets, chosen to put the two guns on a single cradle. That saved weight. Because, on a single cradle, the barrels were closer each-other (and you saved the weight of several servo-mechanisms) and so the entire turret was smaller (and so with the same total weight of armor, you could have it thicker). Mind that, in the interwar period, there were displacement limitations for classes of ships (10.000t for cruisers), so to save weight where possible was important. What you saved in turret weight could be put, for example, in armor, or in engines. If you compare the weight of twin guns cruiser turrets of various powers in WWII, you see that the Italian ones are almost always the lighter ones, thus having the thicker armor protection.
However, there's nothing like a free lunch. it was well known at the time that the blast from one gun could interfere the accuracy of others fired at the same time, increasing dispersion. The more the guns were close together, the more likely that was to happen.
However, that was not the only thing affecting dispersion, other factors could offset it and, if with close barrels, you could reach the designed dispersion (that, as said, it's not the tightest possible), all the better.
@@neutronalchemist3241 both John Campbell (author of Naval Weapons of World War Two) and the site regiamarinaitaliana disagree with Admiral Brenta, so it's pretty much dependent on source
3:00 is it just me or the end of the song in the back ground sounds like skyrim's theme?
Can you talk about using big guns on smaller warships? My few braincells don’t understand why I don’t hear much about them
What is the thing launching at 21:51? It doesnt seem to be any of the systems mentioned afterwards
Unrelated missile test launch, was just a representation of the new technologies
@@ConeOfArc oh, thanks for clarifying!
Do you happen to know it's name?
Not bad, you should collaborate with OceanLinerDesigns.
Hey, can you do a video about pre dreadnoughts or ww1 dreadnoughts it is just a topic you don't hear that often ,other than from very niche chanels. I bet theres is a lot of content there...hell maybe even ironclads but thats way of a stretch nice video and keep going man...
please do a kv220 video
Cone said this video flopped so here I am
I know the answer is probably a no, but could you do the USS California? My grwat granddad was stationed on her at Pearl Harbor.
Can you do the M48A3 or M103A2? Just asking.
I think the ranges for the guns are not accurate for balance reasons
That is certainly the case and why we didn't criticize it outside of highlighting that it was indeed longer in real life
@@ConeOfArc yeah i kinda guessed so. You should do more videos like this. It was cool learning more about naval history and WoW does a decent job at modeling things which makes it easier for you im guessing
As the AL would say: call me Luigi do Savoia Duca Delgi Abruzzi... OR ELSE
Made to fight Titan?
Planes when ?
Ehi Coneofarc, great video [as always], but please, the next time you talk about Italian designs get something or someone to tell you how to pronounce Italian nouns.
No hate here, it's just that everytime you try to say something in Italian in this video I get a small stroke.
Didn't know that the Germans were into Touhou plushies.
im in the first 100 views this will have catastrophic consequences on the trout population
Italian ships were all amazing. Italian crews were good enough. Italian high command was kinda okay. Italian strategic resources and fuel supplies were not okay. And Italian quality control and ammunition was completely horrifying.
Actually, stating and checking the info recovered by the diaries of the captains and admirals of the period it came out that the Regia Marina had no problems with ammunitions.
There was low quality shells in the stock. But commanders was wise enough to pile up stocks per quality.
So at the end of the war in the naval stocks was present just the low quality shells.
While the rest of good quality was still partially on board of the ships.
@@danielefabbro822 Sure, so the terrible accuracy must have been the wind... What a terrible, terrible luck...
@@pavelslama5543 indeed there was no "terrible accuracy". This legend came out after Battle of Cape Matapan due to the fact that the Littorio-class was unable to hit a British cruiser.
What they don't tell you is that the cruiser was hit by fragments of the shell... and the Littorio-class was shooting by 32km away.
@@danielefabbro822 Italian navy had chronic accuracy deficiency, despite having almost perfect range finding equipment. Their shells just werent made well enough. And your attempts at historical revisionism are wasted here.
@@pavelslama5543 that's a common place.
Accordingly to our test fires and ballistics, pur units had problems only with guns obtained as prey of war, after ww1 or pre-ww2 wars.
And regarded to that, yes. The problem occurred when we tried to make replacement ammo about those pieces of artillery.
Regarding the 320mm and 381mm there was no problems.
Our schools of ballistics was the same of Americans and British. We learned from the britts how to make those cannons.
We could have problems for another reason: the initial speed of the shell. That at the time was magnified.
We pushed that technology to the limit reaching speeds between 800 to 1000 km/h.
Problem is, and the technicians and naval personell of the time discovered before the war, that if pushed at that limit, the shell loses accuracy. So our guns was set to have an initial speed of the shells bit further 800km/h.
Maximum range of the 381mm was almost 43km. But an useful range of 32km. Indeed that was checked during the Matapan battle where the shells of the Roma barely hit a british cruiser at that distance.
If only the fascist leadership in Rome (Supermarina) had the guts to risk and order to our ships to have a more aggressive conduct of the war and attack, probably the British would have lost lots of ships more.
It was stated that the penetration power of the Littorio-class guns, 381mm, was superior than that of the 466mm of the Yamato guns.
Just check the tables of the guns and their stats. You can easily find them on infernet.
If see ships i think about azur lane
And they are pretty too boot.
I got in to naval history because of azurlane😂😂
Boat
the pronunciations are making my ears bleed
Nobody expects perfect pronunciation, but you aren't even trying... it only takes a few seconds to check it with google translate
For the vast majority I did check them in Google translate, how am I to know if those are accurate or not
Don't complain and be happy that we got this video
Italian pronunciation is quite difficult for English speakers, and I think he did quite well considering, particularly on very difficult pronunciation of "degli" in the name of the titular flagship warship!
@@mikewindsor5759True, all names were perfectly understandable even if with a little off cadence. He did well
You should War Thunder Mobile yourself, NOW!
Condotieri means Leeders.
You should War Thunder Mobile yourself, NOW!
I will play your shitty game when you optimize it for my shitty phone, Gaijin!