If you need any help ...

[Lutscha]

What is apparent is the comparatively low baselength of the main rangefinders, Yamato for example has more than twice the baselength which is important for determing the range. This and the lack of a second high mounted rangefinder at the aft fire control tower are the only weaknesses I see in this arangement

[t-geronimo]

It is the same with the KGV-Class: the long rangefinders are in the turrets and the smaller ones in the upper positions.

[harold]

Ciao Antonio,

is there any source which factory did manufacture those optical systems of italian BB´s in the mid-to-late  30´ies? As we had seen in a recent discussion about "Graf Spee", some companies are proud to give data about their past products, e.g. Zeiss did so.

Spero di non molstarti troppo con questa domanda,
Ciao caro,
Harold

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

@ Huszar,

I think that the different solutions they have to manage the fire control  were just  established in case of something  happened to one of them (  First Artillery. than Second Artillery than single turrets ).
For the data acquisition  they obviously were depending on the main  rangefinders  group ( 2x )  in case of out of action of those 2  they could use the  '' tactical '' if the above 2 were hit, or the ones on the turrets.

@ Lutscha,

I think the effectiveness of the data acquisition is not so much related on were the rangefinders were  ( as it was depending on how your ship was designed  if 4x2 turrets like BS or 3x3 turrets like the V.V.  ) because it is related on how you are supposed to fire mainly ( forward  or 2 different turret groups ( fore and aft like BS ).
The data acquisition quality was depending on the material first, than the methodology used ( and in this case the mix seems a good idea )  and mostly on how many you had  '' highly '' placed.
Vittorio Veneto  had  3 highly placed with 2 methods of readings and one acting indipendently, so they can count on 3 evaluations if against a single enemy as you can see, than 3 on the turrets.
Bismarck had 3 of which 1 highly placed, 2 medium placed ( one fore and one aft ) but a bit bigger ( 10 meters ), than 3 on the turrets.
Than a lot is due on how well and fast your data were managed thru the different  fire control stations and how those were connected and interchangeable each others.

@ Thorsten and Thomas,

OK, thanks.

@ Harold,

my pleasure my friend, just give me some time and I will see what I can do for you on this one.   Very interesting ...  

         Ciao  Antonio  

[Lutscha]

Littorio may have 3 rangefinders highly placed but 2 of them cannot train independently. One problem imo with this arrangement was, that one hit was likely to disable all 3 rangefinders (damage through shrapnels, damage to cable trunks or the entire construction could topple) thereby stripping the L of all high mounted rangefinders. This would decrease her ability to correctly spot splashes and her visual horizon and thus diminish her gun range and accuracy. At last I think she suffered from a low baselength of her high mounted range finders, otherwise her setup looks quite good.

[Huszar]

@Lutscha:

ok, one unfortunate hit can disable the high-mounted range-finders on nearly every battleship. If you look at pictures, every BB had her main rangefinders on the of the conning tower. The rest was mounted deeper, orin some cases, only in the turrets.

Our comparation VV vs Richelieu in the other thread for example:
The R had one big and one medium rangefinder on the of the conning tower. An unfortunate hit can disble both also on her.

Since you cannot armor the rangefinders (small damage can disable them easyly), the best protection for them is to mount them as high as possible.



mfg

alex

[Lutscha]

Fire control redundancy wasn't pretty good in any navy, only the americans had a multitude of directors capable of centralised fire control. (with all their additional radar sets installed later in WW2)

(I'm not sure about the British)

[Leutnant Werner]

@Antonio,
I don´t understand, that the class did not get fitted out with German radar sytems.
The fitting of italian units with German "Funkmess-Ortungsgeraete" happened to italian navy units. Due to Whitley the "navigatori"-class destroyer LANZEROTTO MALOCELLO got fitted with a FuMO 26 in the end of 1942 for example. The same happened to the DD ORIANI and LEGIONARIO.
The lack of radio detection systems must have been a serious point of discussion in the Regia Marina at least after the lost Cape-Matapan-Battle. Matapan never had happened with the German technology already at hand.
Propably you have more information about these questions. Can you compare GUFO with contemporary German systems?

I very much would like to hear about it
Sincereyl yours
Ekkehard

[Peter K.]

Hello EKKEHARD!

According to my sources the first Italian warship equipped with a radar device was the destroyer LEGIONARIO in march 1942 with a German Fu.MO 21/40 G.
The next one was LITTORIO in september 1942 with an Italian E.C.-3/ter Gufo.
And the third vessel with a radar device was the destroyer MALOCELLO, which received an Fu.MO 21/40 G in december 1942.

The performance of both devices was very similar:
frequence 400 (Italian) vs. 368 (German) MHz
power 10 (Italian) vs. 8 (German) kW
puls frequence 500 (both) Hz
wave length 75 (Italian) vs. 80 (German) cm
range against naval targets (both):
30.000 m with antenna at 35 m height
25.000 m with antenna at 25 m height
15.000 m with antenna at 15 m height

source:
Erminio Bagnasco,
Le Armi delle Navi Italiane

Grüße aus Österreich
Peter K.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Ekkehard, Peter and all,

you are both right, Littorio was in fact progressively radar equipped with the GUFO ( it means Owl in English or Waldohreule in German ).

I am glad you used my editor and good friend Erminio Bagnasco as a source of reference with his book ' Le Armi delle Navi Italiane ' edited by Albertelli in Parma that you can buy exactly at same  link I gave you for my article ( guns and rangefinders infos in there too ).

More on another E. Bagnasco very good book about Italian  ships ' Italian Warships on WW 2 '  you can find out that Littorio radar initial installations started with a  prototype on August 1941.

YES, your references of German radar installations on Italian ships  are correct too ( Oriani, Malocello, Legionario etc etc ).

But I agree in line of principle with  Ekkehard, with ' real cooperation'  between Kriegsmarine and Regia Marina on technical aspects  a lot of troubles could have been avoided  easily, like if they both had better air cooperation support.

German in fact had good radar since 1939,  but used only for spotting and not artillery  range,  they could have  jointly developed something better earlier.

Peter did a very good job on the comparison.

In Italy the lack of radar  installation on warships is a very hot argument of discussion ( given what the German had )  and the tragedy of Matapan  would have been easily avoided as you said, but here the list of ' what if ' is going to be really long.

                                       Ciao  Antonio  

[Lutscha]

Ciao Antonio, since we had a bit of a discussion about a false claim by Prager that triple turrets had to train in to permit reloading of the centre gun I would like to ask you about pictures of the loading cycle and ammunition storage. (pictures showing the entire loading cycle in sequences if available)
I guess the ready ammunition was loacated in a rotating structure of the turret.

If you lack images, maybe you can tell us if the process was similar to the American one (as I suspect) shown here : http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-7-E.html

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Lutscha and all,

this one sound really strange to me    

But I do not have at hand the material you refer to, so I must ask and see what I can get.

Talk to you soon on this as well as on Harold rangefinder infos I have to find out too, hoping all those companies or infos are still available.
   
                            Ciao  Antonio  

[Path]

According to my sources the first Italian warship equipped with a radar device was the destroyer LEGIONARIO in march 1942 with a German Fu.MO 21/40 G.
The next one was LITTORIO in september 1942 with an Italian E.C.-3/ter Gufo.
And the third vessel with a radar device was the destroyer MALOCELLO, which received an Fu.MO 21/40 G in december 1942.

Green & Massignani wrote, that first prototype radars EC.3 & EC.3bis were installed on torpedoboat "Giacinto Carini" and battleship "Littorio" in July 1941, but because of bugs both were removed in September 1941. First suitable radar EC.3ter were installed on "Littorio" in September 1942.
According to my sources, to the war's end EC.3ter radars were installed to battleships "Littorio" (two band), "Vittorio Veneto", "Roma", cruisers "Raimondo Montecuccoli", "Eugenio di Savoia", "Scipione Africano", "Attilio Regolo", destroyers "Carabiniere", "Dardo", "Fuciliere", "Leone Pancaldo", "Velite". German FuMO-21/40G sets were installed to destroyers "Legionario", "Lanzerotto Malocello", "Alfredo Oriani", "Alpino", "Bombardiere", torpedoboats "Ardimentoso", "Procione" and cruisers "Duca d'Aosta" & "Duca degli Abruzzi".