WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
On the other hand Italy is pretty much the only major power still using bolt action rifles, no T-34 tanks or anything close to that, no ampibious capability, no Antarctic research stations, no rockets, no heavy bombers....

Italy's not using bolt-action rifles, per your thread here: http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=5615&sid= Italy's actually using a full-blown battle rifle, along with SMGs and some bolt rifles, BEFORE anyone else begins their transitions to semi-autos except the US. In 1937, the FAR countries and Germany are beginning to transition to semi-autos, but all countries are primarily bolt-action users and will be for years.

Quoted

The IV-1430/O-1430 didn't work reliably though which was always the problem. The V-1710/V-3420 gives a nice development line.

With only 23 I-1430s built, it's not truly a surprise. Continental was a builder of smaller engines, normally 1/3rd the size of the O- or I-1430. From what I've read, the problem was more that it didn't generate design power in 1943 or so (when design power was up around 1600 hp). Add the fact that the Packard Merlin was in full-scale production, and the I-1430 didn't have a prayer.

I decided to use the I-1430 mostly to have a break from the historic, especially since without a major war it's unlikely the US will adopt the Merlin. The R-2160s more fun, but also MUCH more problematic (a 6-row liquid cooled radial).

Quoted

This is a good point and one of my greatest concerns with your development of Italian technology and doctrine.

Well the alternative is to hunker down in the Mediterrenean and ignore the rest of the world. That isn't very interesting. I'm not sure why its unrealistic for Italy to have floating airbases and fire support ships to assist their allies on load when fighting. The alternative is either do nothing or develop a large army with amphibious capability so Italy can d-day anyone else. Lack of experience doesn't stop Germany or France from building large aircraft carriers, it doesn't stop Japan from building very large aircraft carriers.

Quoted

In general Italian designs show design features for years now, that are well advanced.

Most of these problems seem to arise because I draw out my ships. With a faceless sim there are no complaints. AA technology; Italy has 152mm DP guns. There were historically such weapons which didn't work very well. Italy's won't either, but they've only been in service a year so its difficult to tell that yet. They'll get replaced by a 127mm DP weapon that will work. Not sure about electronic warfare. New ships are beginning to sport radar antennas but there isn't anything in service. Italy is a couple of years behind others in this regard. Otherwise there's a fair few aerials on some ships - thats just art. Not sure what you mean about hull features (there are a couple of ships with fixed stabilisers, then I read a bit more on it and decided it wasn't really possible or worthwhile so they went). Stealth ships - pretty much impossible against current radars. Having guns and so on makes it rather harder as well.

Italy has continuously reined back and postphoned advanced bits of kit whilst others steam on unchecked.

Quoted

Italy's not using bolt-action rifles

The Carcano M35 in 7.35x51 vastly outnumbers everything else. There's the Breda M31 in small numbers as a sort of LMG/SAW but with the note that its heavy and unreliable. Some SMGs, mostly old OVPs. In 1936/37 most countries have adopted self loading rifles and are beginning to be widely issued, mostly alongside the Bren...

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Italy's not using bolt-action rifles

The Carcano M35 in 7.35x51 vastly outnumbers everything else. There's the Breda M31 in small numbers as a sort of LMG/SAW but with the note that its heavy and unreliable. Some SMGs, mostly old OVPs. In 1936/37 most countries have adopted self loading rifles and are beginning to be widely issued, mostly alongside the Bren...

The M31 might be somewhat heavy by rifle standards, but by period LMG/SAW standards it's light, most of them are 8+ kgs.

Having mostly bolt-action rifles means you're about like everyone else: Germany, in 1937, has the infantry armed with bolt action Kar. 31s with 1 MG33 per squad. Germany has placed an order for semi-autos, but it will be 1938 before the first rifle is issued. The FAR countries may have agreed (to one degree or another) on the new FAR semi-auto, but there's no way it's been issued in great numbers yet.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Having mostly bolt-action rifles means you're about like everyone else: Germany, in 1937, has the infantry armed with bolt action Kar. 31s with 1 MG33 per squad. Germany has placed an order for semi-autos, but it will be 1938 before the first rifle is issued. The FAR countries may have agreed (to one degree or another) on the new FAR semi-auto, but there's no way it's been issued in great numbers yet.

Indeed not. It's my estimate that the rifle probably will arm between 30-40% of the various FAR armies by, say, 1941. Right now it's probably still very rare in all the FAR countries - for that matter, the Chileans won't even start manufacturing it until June, and are using a few hundred rifles from allied production runs to partially arm the Paras. By 1941 I might have three divisions completely changed over. Everyone might have adopted a semiauto rifle design, but actually having it in service is a whole different cup of tea.

Additionally, I've seen nothing regarding the British, the Iberians, the Nords, the Japanese, or the Chinese adopting semiautomatic rifles. India's adopted one, but I recall from talking to Perdedor that it's a kooky half-cousin of the FG-42, which is about the most complex and expensive SLR in the world - so odds are that's not going to arm much of anyone anytime soon. Britain's still in the "sampling" stage and asking for people to send in their designs, but I'd expect Hood will switch them over to something like the EM-2 in the 1940s.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The only power in all WesWorld with at least _some_ experience using CVs in that role is the SAE. To a much, much lesser extend the Indians probably too.

As I understand it, Chile also used the Mapuche as a floating airbase during the siege of Antofagasta, and got a few air attacks on her in return. It's why the Chileans are sticking to their plans to build Libertad when the South American War rather panned the effectiveness of carriers.

While a remarkable capable design for her size (at least on paper) the Mapuche hardly was used as a strike platform in a way RA describes above and compared to air raids the RSAN started against Brazilian ports. With 36 A/C total she simply lacks the numbers and her short deck permits high bomb loads to be carried.

Anyway, you may have a point even though I don´t know how this helps regarding the Italians....

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
[I'm not sure why its unrealistic for Italy to have floating airbases and fire support ships to assist their allies on load when fighting. The alternative is either do nothing or develop a large army with amphibious capability so Italy can d-day anyone else.

I´d probably be happy if Italy would D-Day somebody in the Med but I got your point. I do no object the idea of floating airbases and fire support to help some allies. I merely question the tools to do so. Does Italy own some big gun monitors for fire support? Why build large fast CVs when you only need a floating airbase - which would better be located at a relatively fixed position for ease of use and instead focuses on a wide range of workshops, spare parts, crew quarters and training facilities?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
While a remarkable capable design for her size (at least on paper) the Mapuche hardly was used as a strike platform in a way RA describes above and compared to air raids the RSAN started against Brazilian ports. With 36 A/C total she simply lacks the numbers and her short deck permits high bomb loads to be carried.

Anyway, you may have a point even though I don´t know how this helps regarding the Italians....

It doesn't, entirely. I'm just saying that Chile has some recent and marginally relevant carrier experience, too.

And technically, Mapuche can carry 50something planes according to our rules. I just use 36 planes because I think that's more realistic for her size.

The Indian army will field TWO different semiautos. One will be a direct descendant of the examination of samples of the Garand obtained from the Filipino Army and will be only a semiauto. The other will be radical design with folding stock but so difficult to make only elite units like the Chosen, motorized troopers or the BNS Commandos will have them.

Atlantis and France had very brief experience in executing anti-anarchist air raids in French Guiana, and by brief I mean it. Atlantis has also participated in several NATO naval exersizes involving carrier operations but even that has gained different lessons than some of the South American country's.

Germany is building a pair of large aircraft carriers, agreed, mostly because it wants to build fairly well protected carriers and smaller carriers tend to lose too much of their airgroup when they are well protected. Now, while they are fairly large, if you look at the airgroup their planes are nothing special: Bf-109s and Ju-87s. I hadn't even considered putting a Bf-110 or a Fw-187 variant on board, though by the standards of this design I probably could.

Quoted

Does Italy own some big gun monitors for fire support?

No, but the "coastal defence ships" should work quite well. Monitors aren't really the sort of vessel you want to send half way around the world to a warzone.

Quoted

Why build large fast CVs when you only need a floating airbase

Large carriers mean you can fit larger planes on them and carry more in the way of workshops etc. Speed is fairly essential in being able to launch aircraft or escape from trouble. The large degree of armouring also forces up the size considerably. A barge as a floating airbase wouldn't be as good as a proper carrier, and by our rules would cost almost the same so there's no point. Now, building replenishment vessels, aircraft maintenance ships etc. does drive the overall cost up quite a lot. Its a long term plan though and gives the Marina Italiana more of a purpose.

Quoted

Now, while they are fairly large, if you look at the airgroup their planes are nothing special: Bf-109s and Ju-87s.

Which are fairly equivalent to the aircraft on Italy's similar sized carriers. For Italy's intended role, a larger aircraft is necessary, and lack of really big engines means its got to be a twin. Are the Bf 110 or Fw 187 necessary for the KM's roles? The Bf 110 might make a useful nightfighter in a few years...Fw 187 gives a bit better capability than the Bf 109T at the expense of numbers.

Mwha ha ha ha....

Actually its a real pain trying to fit those twins onto a carrier in numbers, even a fairly large carrier. Double hangars aren't really suitable because they're quite tall as well.

No doubt the blue/red bits in the boat are the nuclear reactors, right?

Quoted

No doubt the blue/red bits in the boat are the nuclear reactors, right?

I think they'd be in orange, or some glowing colour. They're combined turbine/boiler rooms. I haven't been able to find a good weight estimate for a nuclear plant yet.

I've got plans in my head for two further fleet carriers. Given the increase in size for my sixth carrier the seventh and eigth will be bigger still. Nothing this big, but increasing aircraft weights and loads are going to push up carrier sizes. Each generation is bigger and the more they carry the larger the bomb stores need to be. Quite easily WW carriers could cycle to much bigger sizes.

Quoted

Quite easily WW carriers could cycle to much bigger sizes.

It depends on aircraft size a lot and how long you want to operate for. At the same time, its not possible to keep sticking more aircraft on and operate effectively. The limit is probably around 100 aircraft. Midway's complement of 137 was too big. Midway with 100 aircraft and more fuel and bomb stowage makes sense. At the same time there's limits on how much highly flammable fuel you can safely stow around the ship. Friedman notes that jets running on much less volatile fuel were much better in regard as it was easier to store alongside the fuel oil for the engine plant.