She was discovered the game files on the dev server. They might finish the work on it before the patch goes live, we’ll see…
… I did a ton of research in my suggestion for the vessel - Francesco Caracciolo Class - Italy's only Super-Dreadnought - so I remain hopeful we’ll get to play her sooner rather than later ❤
I saw this suggestion a long time ago when you first posted it. But it is one of the best detailed naval suggestions on the forums.
I also hope for this class. Also the high speed for a 1914 design with decent enough armour at 11.8" whilst maintaining ~33,000 tonnes is rather incredible.
It certainly is in the CDK.
https://forum-en-cdn.warthunder.com/original/3X/a/f/af0d1bc80322d169d3e022898a7bba5cc8b79f04.jpeg
can we check how her AP and SAP perform?
Honestly, I don’t know. I found this on the Rumors/discussion thread, I’m not the one who pulled it out. And they didn’t mention it.
Navweaps is showing HE and AP only with the AP having no bursting charge. How is that possible?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_15-40_m1914.php
Wikipedia(not the most reliable source) shows this:
AP: The primary armor-piercing round, in Italian these rounds were known as “Palla” (literally; “ball”) or “Proiettile Perforante” (Piercing Shot"). They were heavy for their caliber at 884.8 kg (1,951 lb), with a small bursting charge of only 10.16 kg TNT (1.15%). The shells were made of nickel-chrome steel, with a steel cap and a Silumin ballistic cap. The total length was 170 cm (67 in), or 4.46 calibers.
SAP: A semi armor-piercing round named “Granata Perforante” (“Piercing Shell”) designed for use against lightly armored targets such as cruisers and destroyers. They were lighter than the AP shells with a greater bursting charge (3.57%), and had a significantly lesser penetrative ability. During the war, they showed an unfortunate tendency to fuse later than they had been set to, which lead to over-penetrations of their targets.
that N/A would mean he don’t know anything.
It seems like what you bring is about 381/50 of Littorio, not 381/40 of Caracciolo.
That is correct. I didn’t notice the discrepancy.
I guess we will have to play that game where we compare it to similar weapons?
So compared to British 15"/42 its projectile is 5kg heavier fired 50mps slower.
She’s finally in the dev server but…
@Magiaconatus @HK_Reporter please talk to me that work is in progress for AP.
I swear they never used a SAP shell either? I can understand them being 6.7 due to armour being blatantly worse than Barham or Bayern which are the closest equivalents… but why SAP?
(I checked, used APC and SAP, perhaps due to limited information on the APC they exclusively gave it the SAP)
Also, why does Italy not have Guilio Cesare?
It is their ship, yes USSR received it as reparations but this is just blatant poaching of an Italian vessel that could fill their top tier also? Should have been added to Italy first, and USSR later as clearly we can see they can give themselves 3 7.0s.
There is some confusion about the types of shells produced for these guns, but ultimately there were only two types of ammunition.
SAP and Training.
HE is a complete fabrication and never existed. What is commonly referred to as “AP” is the “SAP” round. What is commonly referred to as “Common” is the “Training” round.
Thanks very much
Very interesting. SAP only?
Is this a Gaijin technicality due to the filler proportion or is the internet just wrong on the APC shell being APC and not SAP.
Also can you clarify if a round being classified as SAP in-game inherently reduces its penetration compared to if a round with the same stats was classified as APC in-game?
(Poorly worded I know, better version is: if you input the data for Dunkerque’s SAPCBC as APCBC would it have higher penetration simply due to now being APCBC and not SAPCBC?)
I don’t know about further technicalities, but with 38 kg of filler, you will never pass it off as AP.
SAP shells are given some kind of penetration penalty in the form of a modifier.
Yes. The online penetration calculator therefor can only be used for AP shells, since the final SAP penetration values come from an additional modifier not present in the online calculator.
Perfect, thank-you very much I appreciate the prompt and informative reply.
Hey @Magiaconatus , you seem to be knowledgeable about the implementation of the vessel in the game.
Do you happen to know why they went with 102mm guns, when the ships didn’t have them in as-laid-down configuration?
I mean given they managed to call the version of repulse in game the 1941 version dispite that version having an extra 8x40mm mount instead of the 102mm mount. dispite every picture of it in 41 showing the 40mm mount
I’m not particularly, but I can ask others more versed on the topic.
This is another confusing element.
The 102/35 guns were a later addition to the project, not the 1913 guns. (In the 1913 project the auxiliary guns were 76mm, and in 1913 the 102/35, like the 102/45, didn’t even exist.
Finally, the 102/45 is an error of the older English sources, which confuse it with the 102/35.
just in case you have not seen on the bug report you made they have decided to go for the 1919 version of the plans
Interesting. Would you be so kind and send some sources my way?
I’d be absolutely delighted to get access to the plans that the bug moderator was talking about
According last edit of plans in 1919 there are 8 single 102\35 should be installed
^ I never encountered even a single mention of those plans in all of my research.
