Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Drachinifel" channel.

In the exchange with the POW, a ship with heavy teething problems that reduced it to one working main gun during the fight, the Bismark received worse damages than the ones it inflicted.
1
The Washington treaty had long expired when the Littorio had been launched. They could have painted what they wanted wherever they wanted. Even more for the Germans that, as for the peace treaty COULDN'T BUILD BATTLESHIPS AT ALL, figures if they had to paint a certain line or another on a battleship that shouldn't have even existed.
1
Cavour already carries 3 F-35B.
1
But the Regia Aeronautica had not prepared to support the Navy in the slightest. They didn't have a proper long range fighter (so land based fighters could protect the ships only for little time), so the Cr.25 had to be pressed in that role. They didn't have a proper torpedo-bomber, so the SM.79 had to be pressed in that role. They dind't have a proper dive-bomber, so they had to acquire Stukas from the Germans.
1
@geordiedog1749 Feel free to point out any mistake.
1
@geordiedog1749 After Pedestal Malta was resupplied by submarines. A new convoy didn't show up until November. Italian convoy losses had always been due much more to submarines than to Malta based aircrafts. That of the "moral supremacy" is in general a mith, when applied to defeats it's a pathetic excuse. Sirte 1 and 2 had been losses for the RN, and to talk about a pretended "moral supremacy" that should change the outcome is laughable. Sirte 1 is the Brits having the moral supremacy to flee the battle. Then having the moral supremacy to end up on an Italian freshly laid minefield they didn't suspect the existence of ("choosing", LOL!). Then having the moral supremacy to lose two ships and 830 seamen that surely had been happy to drawn showing their moral supremacy (but maybe they chose to), and having to retire the rest of the Malta Strike Force (but with the moral supremacy). In exchange for the the Regia Marina not having the moral supremacy and not having a single casualty. Trying to use "moral supremacy" to argue this had not been a defeat proves to not be able to handle basic facts, and infering "it would have had to anyway" is sour grapes. Sorry, IRL the Regia Marina didn't sail expecting to lose, they won easily without receiving a single casualty, the RN lost badly. Those are the facts. Sirte 2 is the Brits having the moral supremacy to have several ships badly damaged (The Kingston and Havock had ben effectively lost) in exchange for no damages for the Italians. Then having the moral supremacy to leave the merchants on their own. Then having the moral supremacy to have the convoy almost entirely destroyed. Sorry, IRL the Regia Marina didn't sail expecting to lose, they won easily, the RN lost badly. Those are the facts. Convoy PQ 17 is recalled as "PQ 17 disaster". 1/3 of the convoy passed through and the escort ships suffered no losses. If PQ 17 had been a disaster, Sirte 2 had been a tragedy. What you like or not is inconsequential. Randomly using the expression "cherry picking" doesn't make you any favour. YOU talked first about "first and second Sitre (sic)" so if someone was cherry picking it was YOU. It happens that "first and second Sitre" had been clear Italian victories. So did Pedestal. What had ben said about Convoy PQ 17 is valid for Pedestal too. If PQ 17 had been a disaster, Pedestal had been a tragedy. There is, and there will always be, people that prefer to not see plain facts, shut eyes and ears and repeat propaganda (like that of the "moral supremacy") until they believe it. They came to believe that losing two ships, 860 men, and having to leave an important base, in exchange for no losses for the enemy, is a victory due to something they call "moral supremacy" they pretend to have existed. They can't admit a defeat, for how much evident it is, because it doesn't fit their narrative of "bossed from start to finish" and, since the narrative is more important than facts, what doesn't fit into the narrative can't exist. Since they believe in things like "bossed from start to finish" they pretend to know what the people "expected" too. They don't know, obviously, but it fits into the narrative of the perpetual victory, and narrative is more important than facts. It's their choice, but they can't pretend to spread it without anyone recalling what the facts are. Facts are stubborn things.
1
He did mistake 88 for 90.
1
Maybe had they studied the rudder and bow section a little more the Bismark would have fared against aerial torpedoes as well as the Littorios did...
1
The Pugliese system worked just fine, and better than others. It being "terrible" is just a myth.
1
See the battle of the Espero convoy. It was close to impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not be hit, even only at few thousands meters distance, if not firing some thousands of shells. Battleships managed to hit each-other because they were going in a straight line, to be stable platforms for their own guns but, when one decided to break contact, it became an impossible target.
1
It's because those booklets practically became "proper history". Once the war had ben won, the newspaper articles and books written during it, often to serve an agenda, propaganda, personal promotion of some officer... became the accurate chronicle of the events, without being questioned at all. The only thing that had been added, because it had been a secret until the '70s, was Bletchley Park's work. Often overstating it's importance that, in the Med., had been very limited.
1
@michaelsommers2356 Enrico Cernuschi "Ultra, la fine di un mito". of 37.000 decrypted messages preserved at Kew Garden, 95% are German. 3-4% are Italian, most of them decrypted after the armistice of sept. 8 1943. Usually Italian messages were decrypted after several days, and most of them were administrative messages of no military importance. When Ultra had been declassified in the '70s many people believed to have found the "secret weapon" that allowed the Allies to win the war, so it's importance especially in the Med. ended up being overstated.
1
Not necessarily. It seems to me that the clip had not taken into account the main effect that hitting spaced armors at an angle has on a projectile, that's to make it tumble before hitting the main plate. That BOTH should help with decapping AND reduce the needed thickness of the main plate beyond the simply geometrical figure.
1
@pyronuke4768 I didn't suggest any manner. Simply, after the decapping plade did its work (and Drach confirmed it does) the cap separates faster from a shell that's tumbling than from one that's going straight, for obvious reasons. Nothing in that part says tumbling had been taken into account.
1
There was nothing wrong with Littorio's shells actually. The measured dispersion would have been considered good by any navy and, tested by the Allies, the fuses were more reliable than German ones.
1
It seems to me that the clip had not taken into account the main effect that hitting spaced armors at an angle has on a projectile, that's to make it tumble before hitting the main plate. That BOTH should help with decapping AND reduce the needed thickness of the main plate beyond the simply geometrical figure.
1
@Ah01 Not really. The first bomb on the Roma overpenetrated (like the Fritz-X tended to do, saving the intended target) and exploded in the water with limited damages. The second one hit the most armoured part of the deck, was stopped in the magazines and exploded there. The Warspite also was overpenetrated, but the hit had been more central than the first one on the Roma, and the target smaller, so the damages were more serious.
1
CipiRipi00 Having duds is about reliability, and it's quite easy for an unreliable explosive shell to be unreliable because of the unreliable fuse. The tale of the manufacturing tolerances has only one source, Adm. Iachino. it's not backed by any document and its disproved by many. I prefer to not rely on bias for my conclusions. If you prefer otherwise, your choice. In the battle of Denmark Strait The Bismarck opened fire only at 20.000m, and, thus being only at 15.000m at that point, ceased to hit ANYTHING as soon as the POW begun to steer to break contact. Had the Brits provided to a Littorio a KGV class battleship with a single working gun at 15.000m distance, we would have known if it would have fared better or worse than the Bismarck. But the results of the Bismarck in its clash with the POW had been far from impressive.
1
It seems to me that it had not been taken into account the main effect that hitting spaced armors at an angle has on a projectile, that's to make it tumble before hitting the main plate. That BOTH should help with decapping AND reduce the needed thickness of the main plate beyond the simply geometrical figure.
1
They were not forced to use it. After the frst attempts, they would have probably simply launched pointing the bow to the wind, like any other.
1
The BL 6-inch guns of the Nelson class were dual purpose in theory only. The 5-inch/51-caliber guns of the Colorado class and the 6-inch/53-caliber guns of the South Dakota class were not dual purpose.
1
@ What the magnetic proximity fuse of Calosi solved was EXACTLY that problem. Instead of searching for the weak magnetic field of ships (that could be easily covered by the Earth magnetic field), the S.I.C. torpedo used the compressed air cylindre as an electromagnet, and exploded when the metal mass of the ship made it change direction, when the torpedo passed under it.
1
For the battle of Cape Spada, the one involving the Condottieri Class cruisers, (the firs iteration, composed of four ships, the others were much better protected) you "forgot" to mention that: 1) It was two light cruisers vs. a light cruiser AND FIVE DESTROYERS. Infact the Colleoni was sunk by torpedoes launched by the destroyers. 2) After the battle became a 6 vs.1 It had been the Sidney that in the end made smoke and broke the contact, because it was running out of ammunitions.
1
@Drachinifel One should say that 3 light cruisers, and 10 destroyers should be able to deal with 1 light cruiser and 5 destroyers, but at Kolombangara id didn't go exactly that way. Battles with far more favorable odds than being in two and having to deal with six had been botched. At Cape Spada the odds were favourble to the Brits due to sheer numbers. The Giovanni dalla Bande Nere dealed quite well anyway. In a 6 vs. 1 battle it received two hits, with limited damages, in exchange of one, until the Brits decided to quit. Yeah, the Colleoni had been immobilised by a single hit, but it had been the presence of the destroyers that made the difference, since three of them could deal with the immobilised ship, while the others kept the single Italian cruisers at bay. Mind too that five years separated the Colleoni (laid down 1928) by the Sidney (laid down 1933). The contemporary Condottieri class cruisers were the Duca D'Aosta, or even the Duca Degli Abruzzi, that were very well protected.
1
@Drachinifel Actually the Italian ships were chasing the destroyers Sydney and Havock and turned when they saw Sidney AND OTHER THREE DESTROYERS. At that point the odds were clearly in favour of the British. To describe the battle as "two cruisers that run for their lives as soon as they sighted another cruiser", not mentioning the presence of OTHER FIVE BRITISH SHIPS, is or ill-informed, or dishonest. Choose one. As said, it had been the presence of the destroyers that made the difference in the outcome of the battle, since three of them could deal with the immobilised ship (that was finished with three torpedoes), while the other ships could keep the single Italian cruisers at bay. After the sinking of the Colleoni the battle went on 6 vs. 1 for another hour, until the Sidney decided to quit. At that point the Brits had scored two hits on the Bande Nere vs. one of the Italian unit on the Sidney, all of them with light damages. The Bande Nere speed was reduced to 28 knots, due to a boiler overheating, for half an hour, so it seems odd that the Brits had not been able to close distance having at least a 4 knots advantage.
1
@Drachinifel Sorry, they were chasing the second destroyers flotilla of Nicholson, (destroyers Hasty, Hero, Hyperion, Ilex), and turned when they saw Sydney and Havock. You are talking of false narrative? Three destroyers sunk the immobilised ship, while a cruiser and other two destroyers (so mantaining a numerical superiority) could deal with the other cruiser. It had been the presence of the destroyers that made the difference in the outcome of the battle. To describe the battle as "two cruisers that run for their lives as soon as they sighted another cruiser", not mentioning the presence of OTHER FIVE BRITISH SHIPS, is or ill-informed, or dishonest. Choose one. Have you read my first message, where I wrote "After the battle became a 6 vs.1 It had been the Sidney that in the end made smoke and broke the contact, BECAUSE IT WAS RUNNING OUT OF AMMUNITIONS."? In a 1 vs. 6 battle it was not really surprising that he didn't decide to quit because he was scared. BUT you wrote "the Italian ships survival was largely on account of them running away fast enough to keep the range open to a degree that scoring hits was quite hard." Since the Italian ship was limited to 28 knots for half an hour, while the Brits could steam at least at 32 knots, it doesn't seem the case. So you didn't mention them because you didn't like their class? Pretended battles don't count, sorry.
1
@hmsrenown7801 Cape Matapan, like the clashes at Savo in the Pacific, didn't have any real stategic effect. The Regia Marina lost three cruisers. The Royal Navy lost two in the Med. in different actions, the same month. Two monts after Cape Matapan, with the battle of Crete, that sector came under complete control of the Axis.
1
The British fleet didn't manage to sink a single Italian capital ship in navigation in the Med, while at the same time lost three (and almost other two)
1
@CalasTyphon488 Cruisers are not capital ships. The Royal Navy lost 15 of them in the Med (not to say of 43 destroyers). Two the same month the Regia Marina lost three at Cape Matapan. In harbour is not "in navigation", otherwise other two battheships sank at Alexandria had to be added to the British losses. Again. The British fleet didn't manage to sink a single Italian capital ship in navigation in the Med, while at the same time lost three (Barham, Ark Royal and Eagle), and almost other two (Nelson and Illustrious).
1
How someone can look at those pictures and state they show a 1.5km dispersion is beyond me. It's like hearing someone stating they depicts a renaissance painting of the ascension of Christ and the others commenting "Yeah, yeah. Look a the colours. The brush strokes...". Knowing the lenght of the HMAS Perth, the first picture shows a single turret spread of 410m and the second one of 413m (a little more do to the parallax). That means 1.7% of the distance. Any navy of the time would have considered 2% acceptable to good in action. US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of peacetime tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal, will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
1
@tubeglider Actually the damage control did a very good job. By the arrival of the rescue fleet the Pola had electricity back and was heating the boilers. The ship would have been ready to steam in half an hour. Unfortunately the magazines had been flooded, so it culdn't shoot a single shell and could only watch it's sister ship being crippled.
1
We'll never know what really happened to the Hood, but vs. the Prince of Wales, that had serious teething problems that silenced all of his guns bar one, the Bismarck received worse damages that it inflicted. "still floating" is not that a great result. The very low metacentric height made the Bismarck almost impossible to capsize (in return it made it a poor shooting platform, due to the very short roll time), but the ship was sinking anyway, only slower. The Dorsetshire's torpedo actually hit the superstructure (near to the catapult), because the ship's superstructure was already underwater. Much shells hit it, but the battle had been already over in quite a few minutes. "Most of the British shells struck the forward superstructure of Bismarck with the hits late in the action simply rearranging the debris created by earlier shell hits." The ship's four turrets scheme was quite outdated. For a ship that big it lacked system's redundance and the lack of pumps and valves between the fuel tanks was a major flaw (a single hit on a tank, and the ship was condemned to leak fuel until drydocked), her two rudders were placed so close that it was near to impossible a hit damaging the first wouldn't damage the second too. It shared a design flaw with all the Germans' major ships of her generation, that made her stern section too fragile. The AA fire proved to be ineffective. The very high pressure engines gave her long endurance, but proved to be problematic on any German ship that lived enough.
1
It had been pointed out how, the Italian fleet was in better shape after 39 months of war than the German and Japanese were after 36.
1
@ReichLife Contemporary to PQ17, Vigorous turned back to Alexandria because the Littorio was at sea (no "scatter and proceed") and Harpoon had been a disaster, with the Italian surface vessels involved in inflicting losses, contrary than the German ones in PQ17. The percentage of shipment arrived had been far worse, despite the far stronger close escort, that suffered heavy losses as well (contrary to none in PQ17).
1
@ReichLife Except that PQ17 took place at about 33 months since the start of the war for the Germans, and the German surface fleet didn't really sail at all. 33 months of war for Italy was March 1943, when the Italian fleet was still regularly delivering shipment to N. Africa.
1
@ReichLife Then is 34 for the Regia Marina in March '43. Since the war declaration obviously. If we count from the first real engagement, then there were 7 months difference between the Battle of the River Plate and the Battle of Calabria, so it would be January 1943 for the italians. So, at 34, for both, or 31 for both, months of war, the italians were still regularly delivering shipment to N. Africa, while the Germans were seldomly moving ships from port to port, far from the operations, while the Luftwaffe attacked a convoy.
1
@ReichLife Sorry, I didn't notice you still have to learn to : a) read. It's written "the first real engagement" not "active ships". Ships are active even before the start of the war. b) count. Between Dec. 13 1939 and Jul. 9 1940 there are 7 monts. For the precision there are 209 days, or 30*6+29, so a little less than 7 months, not 8. Study those subjects and next time I'll teach you to read the watch. A shame those shipments were uncontested. "seldomly moving ships from port to port, far from the operations".
1
@ReichLife 1) again your problems in reading. "first real engagement" doesn't mean "moving the ships". 2)So someone that believed he could correct others without even checking talks about "jumping to conclusions like kangooru, without second thought whether they are right or wrong". That, other than being quite funny, perfectly showcases your entire argument. Italian shipments were going to, and through, heavily contested areas, not seldomly strolling from port to port. Cute you conveniently "forgetting" this simple fact. Another example of your jumping to conclusions like kangooru, without second thought whether they are right or wrong.
1
@ReichLife 1) Only problem is you purposedly keeping on trying to derange the argument, because you know you have nothing to say on the real one. An engagement is not badmouthing the Brits, that's what you consider "conducting offensive operations". Nor the respective navies had suffered any real attrition before the first engagement. I have to corect myself however, for the Regia Marina the first real engagement had not been the Battle of Calabria, but the Battle of the Espero Convoy, two weeks before. I'll still consider 7 months difference though. 2) keep trying to ignore you believed you could correct others without even checking and then had been able to talk about others "jumping to conclusions like kangooru, without second thought whether they are right or wrong". That, other than being quite funny, perfectly showcases your entire argument and your blatant inability to comprehend simple concepts. It's cute you think you are able to "ridicule" something. Italian shipments were going to, and through, heavily contested areas, not seldomly strolling from port to port like the Germans in Norway. Notice (like you being able to. LOL!) that I din't talk about shipments to Aegean, that obviously were less contested. Your childish inabily to comprehend simple concepts is still cute. Go on.
1
RN, Regia Nave, Royal Ship. The equivalent of HMS.
1
The Americans and French used similar systems. Brits, German and Italians didn't. The Germans didn't suffer much the problem since they never had enough ships with same caliber shells firing at the same target to experience it. The Italians didn't suffer much the problem, since their ballistic computers tended to be quite accurate, so, even at first salvo, the shells tended to land where they expected at the time they expected. The Brits suffered the problem, especially since they used a lot of old ships. IE, at the Battle of Calabria, for half of the battle, the Malaya mistook the Warspite's splashes around the Giulio Cesare for her own. In reality Malaya's shells were falling short of a pair of kms.
1
Submarines launched at less than 5 kms. The range was determined by: 1) the vertical apparent distance between the waterline of the target and the horizon. 2) the dimensions of the target in the ocular.
1
In reality land based aircrafts could protect convoys to N. Africa only for brief time, and for the Regia Aeronautica, the navy's needs came in second place. Even an escort aircraft would have been much useful. As for "constantly on the run", not that much. Until Operation Torch the Allies didn't have much in the Med capable to sink a ship protected by 50 fighters.
1
@Ah01 I said "Iowa class".
1
@walterCronkitesleftshoe6684 And with the light cruiser Raimondo Montecuccoli, that scored a hit on the minesweeper HMS Hebe at "approx. 26,000 yards".
1
It's an often repeated mith. The Littorios almost always fired few shots at extreme ranges. Had they hit something, it would have been by far the longest range hit in history. Only in two occasions they fired more shots. At Gaudo the Vittorio Veneto was steaming at 28 knots and trying to hit, from 23 to 26 kms distance, two light cruisers that were entering and exiting smokescreens and only manuvering to not be hit. At that time it had been already amply demonstrated that it was practically impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not be hit, even at far closer distances and with far more rapidly firing guns (see the battle of the Espero convoy) if not firing thousands of shells. The second battle of the Sirte had been fought in a storm, and the Littorio had been the most accurate ship of both parties in that occasion. The pictures taken by the Brits at Gaudo show, for Vittorio Veneto's salvo, a consistent single turret spread of 1.7% of the distance. Any navy of the time would have considered 2% acceptable to good in action. US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of peacetime tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal, will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and reduces the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
1