Wheres the torpedo belt for the Littorio class battleships

rokassan

Mongoose
Designed by Umberto Pugliese, all four ships incorporated a unique underwater protection system that shares his name. Using flooded hollow tubes, separated by ship inner rooms by a thin armoured wall, the Pugliese system was a revolutionary approach to defense against torpedo attack.
 
True, but it was somewhat effective. It was designed to resist torpedo hits and did......perhaps not as well as other systems, but it was better than nothing and that should be reflected. Im sure there are other weapon and defensive systems other countries used that werent that great that are still represented in the game. The Soviets used the same system as well.
 
The Pugliese system DID work perfectly when enployed by the Littorio class , but it was ineffective in the older classes of Italian battleships due to their small size and (mainly) some poor workmanship during the reconstruction of these ships , and their relatively poor compartimentation .
Another entirely different thing are the myths created by the british during the war about the Italian navy "coward" sailos and "lame" ships . :roll:
 
Natxomann said:
..........Another entirely different thing are the myths created by the british during the war about the Italian navy "coward" sailos and "lame" ships . :roll:

There again No-one mentioned that did they :D
 
The Pugliese system DID work perfectly when enployed by the Littorio class

I was going to post arebuttal of this but then thought I'd just be accused of British bias and spreading propaganda to belittle the enemy so I thought I'd find a reference from the net (only joking - I wanted to post something quickly and this entry is perfect)

The following is taken from the Navweaps

The Italians made the next, much more negative leap in 1934, with the Pugliese System introduced in the Vittorio Veneto Class and the reconstructions of the Conte di Cavour Class and Andrea Doria Class ships. The Pugliese design filled the volume of the TDS with a large cylinder, which was in turn filled with closed tubes reminiscent of those in HMS Ramillies. Pugiese’s theory was that the torpedo would expend its energy crushing the cylinder. In practice the design failed miserably. Following the path of least resistance, the blast traveled around the cylinder and concentrated itself against the weakest point of the complex structure supporting the cylinder: the concave holding bulkhead.

This bulkhead acted much like a dam mistakenly built bowing downstream, rather than upstream against the current. This concave surface was structurally the weakest possible arrangement for containing the force of an explosion, and to make matters worse, the workmanship proved tragically defective. Conte di Cavour sank from a single torpedo hit at Taranto, and Caio Duilio had to be beached to prevent her sinking, also after one hit. Littorio suffered three hits, grounding her bow before she could sink. Vittorio Veneto twice, and Littorio once, suffered severe flooding in dangerous situations at sea when struck by torpedoes, more than such modern ships should have.

Pugliese’s design also consumed tremendous volume, and foreshortened the depth of the armored belt, making the ships so fitted more vulnerable to shell hits below the waterline. Once again, practical experience proved that not every innovation represented an improvement.

I've spent some time looking at warship side protection systems for real ships, incuding FE analysis of candidate designs. The Pugliese system didn't come close I'm afraid :(
 
Shouldn't you be more worried about them breaking the keel than hitting the sides these days?

Not necessarily......

USS_Cole_Hole.jpg
 
France intended to build six battleships of the Dunkerque and Richelieu classes, and the Italians two powerful Littorio-class ships.
 
Back
Top