U.S.S. Alabama VS Italian Battelship Roma, Littorio class BB


Просмотров: 25171
Длительность: 9:40
Комментарии: 93

Тэги для этого Видео:

Найти больше видео в категории: "25"
Видео загрузил:
Показать больше видео, загруженных


Автор TheAmerican Admiral ( назад)
whats the name of this game????

Автор jeff rice ( назад)
I don't care how detailed U make Alabama r how crude U make the Littorio's
I'm having trouble finding alabama listed n the top ten fighting ships? N I
don't care about poor italian gunnery, that's 2 many guns against 1 ship.

Автор Nathan Durrence ( назад)
Looks more like an Alsace class but the triple 15 inch guns instead of the
quad 15 in guns

Автор Aleo Fale ( назад)
actually i don't like the game
try battlestation's pacific or battlestation's midway is much more better
that game is like you're wasting memory of you're computer or laptop..

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
Iowa's 18 inch armor of turrets and tower was homogeneous armor which is
MUCH WEAKER than face hardened cemented armor. Littorio's Terni cemented
armor was the BEST armor of WWII. Littorio's guns had 4 miles MORE RANGE
than Iowa and more range than Yamato. And also with MORE PENETRATION than
both Iowa and Yamato (Yamato above 25k yards). Will penetrate Iowa's belt
to vitals out to 28k yards. Iowa to Littorio 14k yards. It armor belt was
only rivaled was Yamato's. Also had 32k yard radar by 42'.

Автор Nick 0utd00rs ( назад)
Iowa would smoke'em 18 inch armor best radar by wars end 16 inch guns
almost as good as 18 inch Japanese shells from Yamamoto wich iowa.Roma only
had 15 inch guns and 14 inch armor and probly also lose to biskmark 

Автор Cw Tbird ( назад)
I have decided you are gay

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
Now we would not like it if someone took a comment, like the one you just
made, and substituted the USS Arizona instead of the Roma. You are the UGLY
American. You embarrass me, and most Americans who feel that objectivity is
of some importance. 

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
To be clear, the reference in the prior comment was to IOWA's turret faces.

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
Ridiculous that you would want to compare the Savannah to the Roma. Compare
it to the Italian Zara cruiser class and you will find that the Savannah
would look like an embarrassment to the US Navy. And let's not even talk
about comparing Terni armor to US grade A armor with it severe spalding
effects, so serious that they used weaker homogenous armor on the turret
faces instead Grade A armor. 

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
And do not forget the Roma and one of her sister ship Littorio were both
hit by Fritz-x previous to to the Roma being hit with a second Fritz-x that
set off the magazine. Both ships after being hit by the first Fritz-x where
under steam taking evasive maneuvers. The Littorio continued on to Malta
under her own power. It was thanks to excellent hull integrity mainly due
to it's Terni armor that the Roma stayed afloat for over six minutes. You
do know that it's Terni armor was the best of WWII ?

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
You do not realize that by you constant reference to this item you show
your total ignorance in this subject matter. I will put this in a way you
can maybe understand. The Savannah is like a wooden boat compared to the
Roma. In addition if the Iowa, or any other battleship with "maybe" the
exception of Yamato, was hit in the same location they would have suffered
the same fate. The difference is they would have sunk in a minute or less
and not stay afloat for over six minutes as the Roma did. 

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
I had a long conversation, 8 months ago, with woofdogmeow on youtube video
"Clash RN Littorio vs USS Iowa", you may find it interesting. The ship he
is talking about is the USS Savannah, it did NOT get hit in the magazine,
but the turret powder handling room a big, huge difference. What people
don't understand is that the Roma stayed afloat for more than six minutes
after a magazine explosion. That is an unmatched record when most ship
succumbed in less than a minute if not seconds. 

Автор tchirn ( назад)
To Woofdog pussy--- Would you be so kind as to name the American light
crruiser which had a bomb explode in its magazine and "lived and fought
through the war" as you so emphatically state? If it did it would have had
to have had an empty magazine but even with that, I don't think so. Now if
only the Hood, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Arizona and others had had the
structural integrity of your mystery ship which for some strange reason you
do not name, maybe its because there is no no name

Автор tchirn ( назад)
To--- Woofdogpussy Would you be so kind as to name the American light
cruiser which had a bomb explode in its magazine and "lived and fought
through the war as you so emphatically state"? If it did it would have had
to have had an empty magazine but even with that, I don't think so. Now if
only the Hood, the Prince of Wales , Repulse, the Arizona and others had
had the structural integrity of your mystery ship which for some stange
reason you don't name, maybe its because there is no name.

Автор tchirn ( назад)
They "ran" because they had no AIR COVER and the British were accompanied
by aircraft carriers which carry airplanes, do you capisci? The Brits
should have destroyed more as I believe a plane can catch a ship but they
did not, I guess just being kind. There were times when the Brits broke off
the engagement and "ran" but you won't see that in the old Victory at Sea
series or any of those post WW2 b/s.There are many books by by non Italian
authors which dispel the WW2 propaganda. Read them

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
@woofdogmeow Be specific ! What specifically is the bilge ? And who is this
directed too ? 

Автор prowler878 ( назад)
@311nonono One more thing: Littorio's main belt wasnt 13.8" Terni, it's
11.02", an inch less than Iowa's 12.1" Class A armor. If you will insist on
the 13.8", you should have at least mentioned the additional 2.76" PO
plate, which is very much different from face-hardened Terni armor. It
would then be unjust not to add Iowa's 1.5" STS plate to 12.1" Class A
plate, for a total of 13.6" for Iowa. 

Автор prowler878 ( назад)
And what's with that huge miscalculation about an 8,000-yard difference
bet. Iowa and Littorio? Even with weaker Mark 1-5 shells, it's up to 4000
yards only - and that's just the South Dakota. Besides, that's the vertical
armor you wrote. US guns are meant to hit horizontal/deck armors, as
Pacific warfare dictates. SoDak's decks are immune against Littorio up to
8000 yards more than vice versa, the Iowas moreso, at whch point US shells
penetrate twice the deck armor than Italians can. 

Автор prowler878 ( назад)
@311nonono 31kn was Iowa's average speed, 35kn max. Same with Iowa, both
Littorio (31.3kn) and Vittorio Veneto (31.4kn) achieved their max speeds
during trials only with lighter loads, but their average speed's at 28kn
only. That's not even counting reliability problem - this one from
Navweaps. Same as with what led to Littorio's ammunition accuracy problem,
the contractors were paid premiums for every knot above contract speed-
limits could've been forced at the expense of standards

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
@HAL9000Intelligence The only battleship that was talked about as achieving
35 knots was the Iowa. BUT.... Iowa could not have got near 35kn was unless
in stripped down weight with the engines running 20% past their rated
redline. In post WWII speed trials the Iowas were never able to exceed
32kn. Littorio maximum speed was 31.5kn. Most ships, including Littorio &
Iowas, were able to run their engines past their redlines when emergencies
warranted possible engine damage or short engine life. 

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
When all is taken into account with Littorio’s three additional plates
after the main belt. Littorio will penetrates Iowa’s belt to vitals, out to
23,000 yards. However Iowa penetrates Littorio’s belt to vitals, only out
to 15,000 yards. A huge difference! And the Alabama need to be within
13,000 yards. Fantasy?….that’s putting it mildly ! 

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
Besides the most powerful guns of any battleship before and since. The
Littorio class also had the toughest armor of all. It’s Terni armor was 17%
tougher than US armor and 22% tougher than Japanese armor. That means
Littorio's 13.8" belt was more penetration resistant than Yamato's 16.2"
belt and far surpassed Iowa's 12.1 belt in penetration protection. 

Автор deino117 ( назад)
@RodentSaurus I guess by definition a "fantasy" doesn't have to be
accurate! Regardless, thanks for the info on the Italian guns. The Italians
got such a bad rap in WWII and it's nice to correct it whenever possible.
Good stuff.

Автор carsmasher ( назад)
@311nonono I have always thought that the Italian BB's were underated. I
read one time that after they were surrended to the allies in 1943 that
consederation was made to use them in the Pacific, but the navy decided
against it becase of lack of spare parts. I also remember some where
reading that in the case of the 16 Mk.6 a gear was made slighty too long in
the analog fire control computers throwing the range off and not discovered
until after the war.

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
@carsmasher But ...AA protection sucked ! (90mm DP AA was very good, not
enough) And with Mussolini refusing to built aircraft carriers. A big
problem for these ships.

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
@carsmasher This ship was overly underestimated by a very long shot ! It
had more hitting power than both Iowa and Yamato and as fast(-1knt) as
Iowa. When you look at the armor penetration tables and consider the
conversion from Italian Terni armor to Japanese armor. The Littorio’s 13.8”
armor belt surpassed the Yamato’s 16.1” belt in penetration protection, and
far-exceeded Iowa’s belt protection. If you stop and think about this, it’s
incredible. A light, powerful, fast, well protected ship.

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
@carsmasher Absolutely correct. But they wanted to exceed the power of
larger guns, without the weight penalty. Their solution to wear was to
design guns with, on ship 24hr replacement liners. The British(and others)
after 300+ shots would require the replacement of the entire gun. This
alternative was both very costly and time consuming, the 24hr liners also
avoided with this. The heavier guns, if they went that way, would have also
meant a heavier ship with a large power plant or a slow ship.

Автор carsmasher ( назад)
@311nonono Yes, they were, but at a price. the liners were wore out after
less than 100 rounds. To achieve the ballastics needed a price had to be

Автор giulene ( назад)
@RodentSaurus Yes, on an English techno-scientific site about Navy guns in
II WW, they said that the guns of main battleships of Italian Regia Marina
(381/50) were among most powerful guns in the world and a range exceeded
all others (they shot an 885 kg shell much over 45,000 yards) and even if
not hitting the targets would anyway create trouble for the opponent ships.

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
@RodentSaurus Littorio's guns had the longest range of any gun ever mounted
on a battleship. They had more penetrating power than the Japanese 18"
(except at point blank range). THEREFORE, It be unambiguously and clearly
stated that; The Littorio's guns were the most powerful guns ever put on a
battleship. Period.

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
@RodentSaurus "there is no doubt that the Iowas would have defeated...." I
disagree, I think they were about equal it could go either way. The
Littorio's guns were definitely better. The speed was about the same with
the edge towards Iowa. Littorio had better armor in the more critical
areas. Ha...and food poisoning, well...it can doom a ship! 

Автор 311nonono ( назад)
@f3hdemon Sorry to bring you into reality.....but the Alabama would have
been just another Hood. Try the Iowa and with luck it may... maybe(a big
maybe)...work your way.

Автор JuergenGDB ( назад)
@RodentSaurus No worries mate.. sometimes I jump the gun on Nationalism..
LOL Yeah you are right.. when the Iowa class was created.. Nothing could
defend against her. I know there has been lots of debate over this.. but
with her radar, and awesome belt line, etc... she was the best battleship
afloat. cheers!

Автор JuergenGDB ( назад)
@RodentSaurus WTF does being American have to do with anything? Knowing
History... is knowing history regardless of where on planet earth you come
from. For one thing and Im not aiming this at you Rodent... but everyone
should be proud of whatever nation they come from period... American or

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
@RodentSaurus That answer also does not tale 'weight of shot' into
consideration, nor the US advantage of superior fire control and radar. The
American range computers and fire control being the best of any navy during
WW2 hands down (No I'm not American)

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
@RodentSaurus Unfortunately though they often could only use three of them
at any one time since invariably they were being stern chased back to port

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
@RodentSaurus Dude, KnightOfChrist1 is right, I went to navweaps and found
the ballistics info on the Italian Ansalado and OTO produced guns and ammo,
The italians suffered wide and irregular dispersion patterns from
inconsisteency and quality control issues with their 15" ammunition so your
claims are erroneous as I thought.

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
@RodentSaurus Right about the armour but italian cemented armour was based
on British principles, the best in the world at thicknesses over 10", the
correct abbreviation for this armour being CA, so the italian armour was
likely of good or better quality. However not all your posts are accurate.
The longest recorded hits on moving ships at sea were the Scharnhorst on
HMS glorious at 26,646 yards and Warspite on Guilio Cesare at 26,000 yards.
So were is your source for the 32,000 yard claim??

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
@RodentSaurus Again you don't know what you're talking about. Vittorio
Veneto's shooting at Matapan was poor and unaccurate. Go to navweaps and
look up Nathan Okun's gunnery and ballistics information, the Italian 15"
ammo from Ansalado and OTO suffered from consistency problems throughout
the war..LOOK IT UP.

Автор JuergenGDB ( назад)
@RodentSaurus True.... The British BB's in the Med in the early stages of
the war were Lumbering relics of sorts.... Why Italy did not at least
manuever to engage still boggles my mind, I know fuel was an issue, as well
as the the thought of losing a Capital ship, but look what happened at
Taranto. If I was one of their Admirals, I would say, its better to go down
fighting, then being sunk running away or at Port.

Автор JuergenGDB ( назад)
@RodentSaurus no worries.. Hearts of Iron III, by paradox. Its a WWII
Sim-Strategic game where you can be either Allied or Axis. check out the
site. Its pretty fun... will take up lots of your time... LOL

Автор JuergenGDB ( назад)
Cant they remake this game but better.. Dear god.... its about time a great
Naval battle game came back to the Market.

Автор JuergenGDB ( назад)
@RodentSaurus True I was just reading about this.. Playing HOI3 as the
Italians and thought I would do some research.. LOL WOW.. the Italian guns
designed in I guess 1934 are indeed Kick ass. The Bismarck had slightly
longer barrels, but the penetration, and distance was in the Italian
advantage.. if their data is accurate??? I do agree the Alabama class would
have been man handled, and their crew decimated within the first 4 salvo's.

Автор JuergenGDB ( назад)
@RodentSaurus True the Italian guns were supurb.. and had a tad more range
26mi vs 22miles for Bismarck. However it would be interesting to see them
at ends with each other.... I would still give Bismarck the advantage...
thats just me, but I would have loved to see the Italian ships decimate the
French fleet in the Med. Why the Italians did not ambush with Aerial attack
(great Planes) and then pummel them at range with their Navy will always
boggle my mind. Also their fast attack boats????

Автор Silmacar ( назад)
@wallaka iirc the Regia Marina had no fc computers

Автор ToonandBBfan ( назад)
@RodentSaurus I agree with you. Many people seem to think that the 16inch
gunned American battleships were unbeatable but they werent. The Littrorio
class were tremendous Battlewagons and if properly used would have given
ANY ship a run for its money one on one. Thanks

Автор wallaka ( назад)
@RodentSaurus Interesting. The wiki says that the guns on the
Littorio-class fired at 1.3 rpm, while the Mark VI on the Alabama fired at
2 rpm. Did the Italians have fire control computers?

Автор Lorenzo Capasso ( назад)

Автор johndeckard ( назад)

Автор Fdelphinus ( назад)
As you can probably see, we kept the tradition alive and healthy about
buffoons! That was an off topic but i couldn't resist. hehe.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
huh, thats interesting. I'm pretty sure I have the original

Автор 7omnia7 ( назад)
Too bad you don't live next to me: I have a couple of friends that keep
playing it. In the last edition you get to play Italy and the one who plays
the US, controls China wich is a minor power by itself (without factories

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
yes, Once again the Italians prove to be the Italian's worst enemy.
Honestly, if they just let Rommel do what he wanted, who knows what would
have happened. Maybe Germany would get a good hold on North African fuel
supplies, perhaps not altering the outcome of the war, but causing the
allies thousands of servicemen (especially from the Luftwaffe, who did not
have any fuel left towards the end) plus those lost taking back those
Egyptian oil fields.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
I am a fan of it, but I do not have anyone to play it with most of the time

Автор 7omnia7 ( назад)
Btw, you should play the last edition of "Axis and Allies", you'd have fun!
(maybe you're already a fan of that game?)

Автор 7omnia7 ( назад)
Well, about the N. African campaign, Rommel was pissed when he ordered the
bombing of Tobruk (I guess it was Tobruk, not sure) captured by the Brits
before the Germans arrival cause the Italian high officers stopped him
since they had property in the city and didn't want it to be damaged! They
simply had no fucking idea of what war meant to be.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
I do agree fully though, the command was the main reason the Italians fared
so poorly

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
LOL about 2 out of 3 books I own are about WWII. However, singularly,
Italians did very brave things, but were thoroughly unprepared and poorly
equipped with just about everything (especially their tanks) I guess in one
sense, you could say the Italian army was a joke. Y'now, Italy basically
ruined the North Africa campaign for Rommel, by not allowing too many of
their transport ships to cross the Mediterranean to supply him. That's the
real reason Rommel lost in that theater.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
However, they went way out of their way to rescue as many as possible. They
were able to establish contact and explain the situation going on. They
stopped the air raids and the British broadcast the locations of the
survivors and allowed an (ITALIAN!) hospital ship to pick up the rest. They
potentially willingly let maybe even a thousand Italian sailors back to
Italy where they would be able to fight again! If that's not chivalrous
what is?

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
One other thing I think you should consider before calling the British
"cowards." not only are they not (ex. battle of Britain, North Africa,
Arnhem, etc) but they are also very chivalrous. In the very same battle
that you refer to, they were picking up as many Italian survivors as they
could. While they were doing so air raids forced them to stop.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
Well I can see that your main beef is with the British. Well, with their
entire country at stake, why would they not use radar controlled guns if it
gives them such an advantage. With the forces their up against, and all
that is at stake for them, I would never think that is at all cowardly.

Автор 7omnia7 ( назад)
You do like WWII History! But your wrong on one point: the Italian army
wasn't "respectable" because it was incredibly unprepared. Mussolini knew
it (that's why Italy officially got itself into the war a year later, after
the Germans had the upper hand in France). The faults: the Italian high
officers who didn't even know what the word war means (Rommel). On the
other hand the Italian soldiers were brave beyond standards. A true waist
of human lives! FUCK nowadays Italian fascists!

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
I'm sorry, but the total ignorance that you expressed is very frustrating.
That is one of my pet peeves, is people talking about something they don't
know about. I would like to once again make things clear. I am by no means
mocking the poor souls that died in the Italian army, no less any army
ever. Well, for the most part. But when you lie like that I cant stand it.
It is absolutely disgusting your prejudice against non Italian nations.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
I would also like to comment on your anti Americanism. Let me make things
clear. I'm not conservative. I'm very liberal and believe strongly in
socialism, and I'm unhappy with our country right now. But my interest in
world war two is a result of looking back on a time when I would have been
proud of my country. the reason we lost in Vietnam is basic. the
unpopularity back home (I cant say I was proud of us then), and poor
tactics on our part.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
now a word about the attack on the "Italian boats during the night like the
cowards with the radar." I presume that you are talking about the raid on
Taranto. You are absolutely 100 percent wrong on that one. The fairey
swordfish torpedo bombers were very ancient machines, outclassed in its
time (biplanes, metal frame and fabric etc. I point out that the first
swordfish variant that had radar came out in 1943, a good 2 1/2 years after
the raid. Learn your flippin history!

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
it was about then that Mussolini invaded Greece (once again, to impress
Hitler through defeating a vastly inferior force). Not only did poorly
equipped Greek soldiers hold the line, but attacked and held southern
Albania. this happened in late 1940 and early the next year, a massive
counterattack failed. guess who bailed out Mussolini? German forces who
were sent to help managed a swift victory. even then, the allies managed to
evacuate 50000 troops.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
they worked well enough when the Italian tenth army invaded parts of Egypt,
not encountering organized resistance, but when the British counterattacked
(operation compass), it was a massacre. Crews of tanks attempted to
increase armor protection by putting sandbags on the fronts of their
vehicles, but to no avail. Hundreds of thousands of prisoners were taken by
inferior British forces (36,000 to 200000). Rommel then came in to bail
them out, to simply hold the line.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
Mussolini was a buffoon. Pure and simple. The Italian army was respectable,
but preformed terribly in combat. Mussolini, being a toady to Hitler,
wanted to impress him by sending a squadron of Italian heavy bombers to
participate in the battle of Britain. Guess what? All of them were shot
down but a few (2?). Italian tanks were worn out in world war one, and were
called "self propelled coffins" by their own crews.

Автор smsteve888 ( назад)
Congratulations! you have just succeeded in convincing yourself of what you
want to believe! You have some fucking nerve talking about overwhelming
forces! you just finish talking about Britain being "destroyed" and then
talk about them being superior in number. The US when it entered the war,
its army ranked somewhere in the 20 somethings in the size of its army
compared to all developed nations of the world. we faced incredibly
superior forces at the beginning of the war.

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
You're an idiot, Britain wasnt' invaded was it. You Italians were useless
in WW2, ask any German. LOLOLOLOL

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
They won the battle of Britain didn't they, they fought against you and the
Germans alone for two and a half years. Look fuckwit, the Italians were an
embarrasment to the Germans, you always lost or ran away, or like Abbysinia
were you surrendered in the thousands, Your record in the war is a shame

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
You had one adversary in the Med, yes the British, fighting you at your own
back door and kicking your asses, there where no other navies present. Yes
you ran from the fight or at best were defeated repeatedly, without the
Germans Italy was a nobody...Look at your record during the war. How about
Abbysinia were the Italian army surrendered in droves to smaller, sometimes
much smaller British units, at least until the Germans reinforcements
arrived to save you from being totally destroyed.

Автор hoplite1766 ( назад)
This confrontation couldn't happen because the Italians would have run
away, Shit, the British chased them all over the mediterranean using old
WW1 battleships in the italians back yard. Mussolini's 'mare nostrum' was
all talk, the Italian navy was an embarassment.

Автор ToonandBBfan ( назад)
The Italian Littorios were very good battleships and are always
underestimated by people who dont really understand battleships. Littorio
was far better than Bismarck

Автор Hattusilis74 ( назад)
che cazzta di animazione!

Автор pran2006 ( назад)
undi arzer levergutte tenb bitten dregostilberg!

Автор Sartori (1795 лет назад)
Hit harder than the 16" with American super-heavy shells? Are you fucking

Автор Sartori ( назад)
Roma was only armed with 15" guns. Alabama was armed with 16" and had radar
directed fire control.

Автор AmericanThunder ( назад)
Alabama(BB-60) is the last of the South Dakota class battleships, and as
such, has fairly similar armor protection as the more modern and much
larger Iowa class. They have proven to be a very durable class. And of
course, the USS Alabama is still afloat today, as a museum ship.

Автор Logan Seal ( назад)
Need to do some death matches. Show us what a sinking ship is like. Oh and
I concur with RodentSaurus, the Littorio should have won this fight. I
noticed that the secondary guns on the Alabama seemed to fire faster that
the Roma. Wonder if that had anything to do with the outcome?

Автор silvan500 ( назад)
This video is very orrible. Greetings with brunstad org

Автор frarevo ( назад)
This video is a beautiful fantasy: the battleship Roma was heavier than
Alabama and the global armament of Roma was heavier than Alabama.

Автор Kris Matheson ( назад)

Автор Kris Matheson (77 лет назад)
Fighting Steel

Автор Kris Matheson (90 лет назад)

Автор MackyG (277 лет назад)
what game is this

Автор evilwarlord4 (1139 лет назад)
Excellent Video

Вставка видео:


Поиск Видео

Top Видео

Top 100 >>>


Seo анализ сайта