Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "RN Littorio - Guide 045 - Part 1 of 2 (Human Voice)" video.

  1.  @bkjeong4302  Actually there was nothing wrong with the Italian 381/50, nor with their shells. The only complain of the excessive dispersion of the 381/50 came from Adm. Iachino. A pretty suspicious source since he had to justify his fiasco at Cape Matapan. The 381/50 actually shown a 2% distance longitudinal dispersion in actual battles fought in 1940-1941, that, at that time, was considered good by any navy even in tests. All the Littorios received delay coils for the central guns in winter 1942/1943, further tightening the patterns.
    5
  2.  @bkjeong4302  The source of the inconsistency of the shell as an explanation for the inexistent excessive dispersion is Iachino too. On the dispersion of the 381/50 in battle at Gaudo (that's the example always taken of an excessive dispersion of those guns), we have both the direct testimony of the 1st Fire Director of the Vittorio Veneto, Capt. Luciano Sotgiu that, in his relation, in contrast with Adm. Iachino, did not see any out of the ordinary in his guns' salvos, and the pictures taken by the British of the salvos aimed at the HMS Gloucester that, knowing the dimension of the ship, and the range (from 23 to 26 km) clearly show a longitudinal dispersion of about 2% of the distance, that was pretty good considerig that the Vittorio Veneto was steaming at 28 knots. The Vittorio Veneto did not hit anything at Gaudo because, firing from 23.000 to 26.000m on a pair of light cruisers entering and leaving the smokescreens, it could have hit them only for a lucky chance. It had been already amply demonstrated that, even at far closer distances and with much more rapidly firing guns, it was practically impossible to hit a ship that was only manuvering to not being hit, if not firing some thousands of shells.
    5
  3.  Infinite Plain  It was not. The Littorio Class shown a longitudinal dispersion of 2% of the range in real battles, that at the time was considered good by any navy (even more remarkable, since the Littorios were very "new". IE it took many years to solve the dispersion problems of the Nelson class, not to speak of those of the Richelieu). All the Littorios received delay coils for the central guns in winter 1942/1943, further tightening the patterns. RN gunnery proved superior where? Actually, in Italian reports, they had never been impressed by RN gunnery. IE in the Second Sirte Battle, the Regia Marina hit 5 times (plus several near miss damages) out of 1325 shells fired. The RN had one hit out of 2790 shells fired.
    4
  4. To fire over the secondaries. The Littorio rear turret had an unmatched 320° arc of fire. https://forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2020_05/8-3.jpg.2d47bac477b8b0b46bf882d933901b2f.jpg
    4
  5. It had been filmed partly in the Littorio and partly in the Giulio Cesare.
    3
  6. Launched but never finished. After the launch there were still a lot of components to install.
    3
  7. The steel was not stainless. Painting them prevented rust.
    3
  8. They saw more action than the Iowa class for that matter.
    2
  9. ​ Nguyen Johnathan  Tested by the soviets in real scale, the Pugliese torpedo protection system proved superior to the standard spaced system. That's why they decided to use it in the Sovetsky Soyuz class. The often repeated "inverted dam" weakenss is actually 100% bullshit (standard spaced systems had a 90° inward angle. Is that a good dam? A curved surface is obviously better). Damaged Pugliese cylinders had also been always repaired in record times. The damages suffered by the Conte di Cavour and Caio Duilio at Taranto, often cited as a fault of the Pugliese system, had actually been due to the torpedoes ricocheting on the bottom of the arbour and hitting under the hull of the ships, out of the area covered by the system.
    2
  10. The Sovetsky Soyuz were basically scaled-up Littorios.
    2
  11. The Pugliese system worked just fine, and better than others. It being "terrible" is just a myth.
    1
  12. 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