We all know the Littorios are the best BB’s Italy can get. I am trying to figure out if any of them had meaningful differences in armament or armor. So we can get more than one.
Does anyone know?
1 Like
Not a lot other than some size and displacement differences that wouldn’t have much effect in game. Luckily, Gaijin has no problems with copy-paste versions of the same ship.
There were some plans for various changes in armament with 15" and 16" guns, and some potential export versions that never happened. There’s also the possibility of the Soviet UP 41, which was never built, but Gaijin also loves paper vehicles for the Russians/Soviets.
3 Likes
I think we can dig into Impero ship different proposals, I’ve seen a plan to convert it into V-1 carrier, maybe there were some other ideas.
1 Like
Now this is an idea.
1 Like
even with little changes it would be nice to have another as back wp spawn (not counting actual purchasable back up)
1 Like
Not big difference except number of autocannons, but there are difference of hull(precisely the bow) between Littorio/Vittorio Venetto and Roma/Impero. And bridge is different between Littorio, Vittorio Venetto and Roma each other. For Roma and Impero there could be difference with sonar/radar as Roma remove sonar and installed radar in 1943 while Impero can be in design version with sonar.
4 Likes
TYVM. I just want to see two of them. I really hop Gaijin figures it out.
That project was never even accepted, let alone laid down, so no, we won’t see it in WT.
There are no “paper” ships in WT, the requirement is that they were laid down; this has always been the rule.
And no, the Soviets are not special in this area; we have laid down Italian, Japanese, and German ships too, off the top of my head.
2 Likes
10.6% complete hull only. It’s a paper ship.
“Paper” is by definition blueprint-only, hence the name. Everything else I said is also correct.
It is of course an incomplete ship, so try using appropriate terms like that instead of trying to slap on terms that are both incorrect and snarky/loaded.
2 Likes
Sorry you are taking it personally.
So I am picturing the Littorio and the Impero with as many differences as possible. Maybe even treat the Roma as separate subclass or something. I am saying the Impero because maybe they can mess with some “planned” armament since she was not completed.
I just am pretty certain we need two of these ships.
1 Like
Well on this year we could get two Littorio class along five update? Or just one? I’m curious as there are only Littorio class left for Regia Marina.
It’s certainly possible that we’ll get two, maybe even three with one as a premium.
Gaijin doesn’t have any other options for Italy at top tier and we know they will add Richelieu for France some time this year, so the Littiorios will surely come this year as well.
They’re already late, as usual.
Not much depending on reload rate, and how Gaijin will implement ‘concrete filler’ or 'cement’filler on main belt.
Her speed and penetration will be enough to compete even with top-end battleships, so protection and reload rate is the key factor about her fate.
I do wonder how they’ll do it, since concrete as part of the armor seems to have been more common than is widely appreciated. Until very recently I was unaware that the USN by WW2 seems to have put 2” of cement behind most if not nearly all Class A plates when anchoring them to STS or structural steel. I don’t know how that will play with laminated armor rules, as I imagine most navies were probably doing something similar. Is only the RCA counted? Would the STS plate behind be modeled also since they’re technically distinct if the cement is discounted? Or will it be the best case but probably least likely scenario and the entire array is counted?
Using Cement or wood between structual steel and armor plate is quite usual for every navy, as with only steel plates it is harder to airtight between those plates and to absorb fragmentation caused by main armor plates.
But currently afaik those cement and woods laminated between armor plates were not in the game.
For STS plate behind armor, it is depends on developers to implement it or not. For Brooklyn class and Baltimore class, those STS are implemented. But after that, developers decided to not to implement STS(or RHA for other nation) on the logic of ‘those STS plates makes fuze activated faster than structual steel’. So Cleveland/Fargo/Worcester/Des Moines/Alaska doesn’t have it. For standard battleships, afaik they don’t use STS as backplate so not a case of this problem.
For Littorio’s ‘concrete foam’, I’m mentioning as concrete is already in this game as armor, especially in AF D1/D3 of german coastal and Kongo class of Japan. It’s about 0.35 RHAe, just little worse than structrual steel, so 250 mm of ‘concrete foam’ used on Littorio class main armor would mean a lot if they were implemented as ‘concrete’ that is used in this game.
It would be nice if they had a bit more consistency about it, since I think Roanoke is the most recent US cruiser added and that’s back to having the STS hull modeled behind the cemented armor. Might be worth considering some revision of the rule for more modern ships that were more deliberate about designing their laminated plates and using full armor grade steels for them vs the older ships that often had whatever RHA was used nationally thrown over old HTS or Nickel steel plates. Though they’re even inconsistent about the old ones, with Mutsu getting the 3x layered plate HTS turtleback counted as 3” solid RHA. The concrete armor for Littorio I do hope makes it in, as it’s probably going to suffer otherwise with the reload figures I commonly see thrown around for it. The extra ~3.5” RHA equivalent wouldn’t make them meta but would at least let them be semi viable in a similar niche to what the standards occupy in the current top tier.