The italian destroyers issue

The development of War Thunder is progressing, and numerous ships are being added with each patch to balance the various tech trees. However, one aspect remains unchanged: the bluewater Italian tree remains stuck in World War II, with the exception of the solitary premium ship, Geniere. In contrast, other nations’ trees have seen the addition of post-war vessels.

For example, the French tree has had the Marceau, a post-war destroyer armed with German guns, dating back to 1950. The British tree boasts three post-war destroyers: the Tobruk from 1950, the Daring from 1956, and the Diana from 1958. The Russian tree offers the Bezuprechny from 1950, the Spokoinyy from 1956, and the Bravy from 1967. Japan only has one post-war destroyer, the Harukaze from 1956, while the already powerful American tree features the Mitscher, a formidable destroyer from 1954. Surprisingly, the German tree lacks post-war destroyers altogether.

This raises the question of why all the trees that initially had decent destroyers were provided with post-war vessels, while Italy, which struggles in the destroyer department, received ships of questionable usefulness like the Aquila. As early as the 1950s, the Italian navy made determined efforts to build new ships armed with modern weaponry, such as the Indomito class and the San Giorgio class (ships with guns only, built in 1955). Is there an issue with the ship suggestion forum being filled with old ships from World War I? Or is it difficult to retrieve information about post-war Italian ships?

I am not complaining about the absence of additions, but rather about what has been added. Although the cruisers and battleships have been drafted well, the priorities concerning destroyers seem to have been rather specific from the beginning.


I hadn’t noticed. You have a point.
I struggle with the current Italian destroyers.

Something like the San Giorgio class Destroyers will be a great addition.
Plus, it will be nice to see how they compare to the T47 class.


Marceau is little bit off-point as it is basically WW2 destroyer Z31 that has transferred to French navy for war reparation. Though I agree with your opinion of Italian destroyer.

USA, one who has one of the best destroyers get USS Mitscher and USS Wilkinson. USSR and Great Britain, those who follows USA in quality and quantity of destroyer, gets at least three destroyers from 1950s. Japan, who has limit of destroyer 'cause of inexistence of SAP/AP on their imperial destroyer, at least gets JDS Yugure and Harukaze. Meanwhile, Italy and Germany, who desperately needs modern destroyer to fight on, didn’t get such destroyers.


Gaijin need to adjust the BR’s of the Italian Destroyers about more like putting most of them at 4.0 as they aren’t that good when facing most other nations in game atm


I can’t imagine having to grind through the Italian destroyer line. USA was a breeze, USSR was boring but capable, Britain was a mixed bag, Germany was meh, Japan was mostly awful, and Italy makes Japan look like the USA.

Part of the problem is due to the chronic overtiering in the destroyer area. If we consider the Turbine as a reserve, things are not so negative; in fact, I consider it a decent reserve overall. However, if we move up just one tier (3.7), we find the Dardo, which actually has less firepower than the Turbine. This is because the damage calculation for the shells prioritizes the quantity of explosive, and the Schneider-Canet gun shells have a lot more of it. Exploiting this logical flaw, we come across the Corazziere, which indeed has better anti-aircraft capabilities but only one additional cannon compared to the Dardo at 4.3, even though the ship would still be weak at 4.0.

The issue with the Verrazzano lies in the choice of one of the less useful configurations of the Navigatori-class ships. An alternative choice, such as the Nicoloso da Recco with less torpedo launchers, would have provided better speed, significantly more anti-aircraft capabilities, and, most importantly, improved firing arcs for the aft turret. Leone and Margottini are two rare ships with almost the correct rank.

To conclude the discussion on destroyers, let’s talk about the Attilio Regolo. All surviving ships of the “Capitani Romani” class were reclassified as destroyers after the war, but War Thunder continues to classify them as cruisers. Interestingly, there is a precedent in the Italian nation where a vehicle was classified differently than it’s wartime classification. The P26/40 tank was classified as a heavy tank by the Regio Esercito, while the game rightfully classifies it as a medium tank. Why can’t the same principle be applied to the naval branch?


Technically Japan has three post war destroyers yet one is labelled a frigate, Furthermore if you count them under just a destroyer without going into their subcategory they four destroyer escorts as well (although in many countries a DE is equal to a FF).


• Fletcher class destroyer JDS Yūgure DD-184

• Harukaze class destroyer JDS Harukaze DD-101

• Ayanami class Destroyer JDS Ayanami DD-103

Destroyer Escorts

• Akebono class Destroyer Escort JDS Akebono DE-201

• Ikazuchi class Destroyer Escort JDS Ikazuchi DE-203

• Isuzu class Destroyer Escort JDS Isuzu DE-211

• Chikugo class Destroyer Escort JDS Chikugo DE-215

There are many things in this game that annoy me but incorrect classification of warships annoy me the most especially when said classification is done by country isn’t represented ntm the issues of prefixes as well. (that’s in reference to the Ayanami since the class doesn’t lineup with the pennant & the prefixes mentioned).

Still you’re right the Italians & to a degree the germans are in need of a postwar destroyer at least with the Germans they gets the Köln class Frigate as stand in but Italy gets the Fante class & to so extend the Albatros class Corvette but should definitely see more destroyers, So hopefully in the next coming updates this changes.

1 Like

Which is the wrong way around…

Field artillery prioritises explosive content… Roughly, the quality of steel the shells are made out of matters too. So the 25pdr used soft steel and a reasonably high HE content designed to produce roughly ounce sized fragments. Nobody would suggest putting it on a ship. The field 4.5 on the other hand was designed for counter battery work hence less HE but higher tensile steel to create larger splinters which would knock out artillery.

Naval artillery has to be a mix of all three types. High velocity for AAA work and to defeat armour, high HE for gunfire support and high tensile steel with a small filler for anti ship work. Larger and heavier shells lose less speed due to air resistance and therefore retain more energy at range, which is needed for defeating armour.

To rip through ship compartments you want large fragments, garden shear sized bits of jagged metal. For that you need a large shell of good steel and a small but reliable filler.

The game seems to promote howitzer style artillery as an optimum, which is nonsense.


now it seems at least one is ready, though I think San Giorgio class would be better option.


The Indomito class is a good addition, the San Giorgio is better but this addition will improve a lot the tree (probably it will be still the worst national tree but I like challenges). Good job Gaijin