Ansaldo Ship Designs

Hardrada55 said:
Ponte di lancio = flight deck
Ponte di atterraggio = landing deck

So I would venture a guess from the drawing that the deck for launching planes is under the deck for landing on planes. I wonder if they steam in reverse during launching operations?
Click to expand...

Ah, understood. So, its essentially double-deck design, just reversed.
 
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/lraam3
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/lraam3/700x492_the_italian_battleship_littorio_under/



forum.worldofwarships.com

Forum Shutdown | World of Warships

World of Warships - free-to-play naval warfare-themed massively multiplayer game from Wargaming. Get the latest news and developments here and play for free!
forum.worldofwarships.com forum.worldofwarships.com
Click to expand...
Excellent assessment of the strengths and falls of the Pugliese TDS. But the real jem is the reference to the Ansaldo's engineers examination of Sovetskaya Ukraina. Has anyone the report they produced on project 23?
 
ceccherini said:
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/lraam3
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/lraam3/700x492_the_italian_battleship_littorio_under/



forum.worldofwarships.com

Forum Shutdown | World of Warships

World of Warships - free-to-play naval warfare-themed massively multiplayer game from Wargaming. Get the latest news and developments here and play for free!
forum.worldofwarships.com forum.worldofwarships.com
Click to expand...
Excellent assessment of the strengths and falls of the Pugliese TDS. But the real jem is the reference to the Ansaldo's engineers examination of Sovetskaya Ukraina. Has anyone the report they produced on project 23?
Click to expand...

Thank you!

The parts I included in regards to the investigation by Ansaldo engineers of Sovetskaya Ukrania (Campagnoli and Carlarino) were related in Stefano Sappino's book Aircraft Carrier Impero, and his source was the personal archives of Lino Campagnoli (Archivio Privato Campagnoli), with the relevant citation being;
‘Note ed osservazioni tecniche Sebastopoli, August 1942’.


Information as provided by the book;

Image 1
Image 2

It is also noteworthy that the system, as installed in the Sovetsky Soyuz-class, did not incorporate a triple bottom (instead it had only a double bottom), and the maximum diameter of the absorbing cylinder was quite small at maximum thickness - 3.15 meters. For reference, the corresponding figure for the system as installed on the Littorio-class was 3.8 meters, while the rebuilt Conte di Cavour and Duilio had a 3.4-m diameter absorbing cylinder.
 
Tzoli said:
ceccherini said:
Tzoli said:
The Italian archives too must had a very large number of never were designs buried on their shelves like the Vickers, Armstrong and Admiralty papers in the UK.
So more info on these proposals must be in them as well
Click to expand...
Sure there are many unaccounted Italian projects, we have practically no known designs of large battleship except for those actually built and some export designs. But one must remember Italian navy was basically disbanded and rebuilt 4 different time in less than 3 years and Italy was the a land battlefront for almost two years. I really hope we will find something someday but actually it is really possible that the bulk of the documents was simply destroyed or lost.
Click to expand...
I would not count just the few years of WW2 but rather the entire 20th century for warship projects.
There is one more Italian let's say proposal from the 1920's (By the look of the hull elements) shared by me by Stefano
A Battleship / Carrier / Torpedo Boat Carrier (MAS Boat carrier)
WVXQuRO.png
Click to expand...
Is there any more data on this? Source? Specs? Anything? Looks remarkably interesting (if impractical)
 
That is all the data you can have the sketch drawing and the texts
 
Decide to revive this thread, does anyone have archive link to this project? (Italian three funnel battleship with lattice mast according to).
 
Photobucket links... they are dead now so we cannot see the details but did not see the design so far
 
@Graham1973 is a member here and still might have the images saved somewhere.
 
alexi said:
Decide to revive this thread, does anyone have archive link to this project? (Italian three funnel battleship with lattice mast according to).
Click to expand...
It's a sketch from the chairman of the Orlando shipyard made during a business trip in Nuremberg. The year is 1912 or 1913. The drawing depict a 28000 ton battleship armed with 8 15" guns and showed many German influences. It's a design broadly comparable but most probably unrelated to the Caracciolos
 
alexi said:
Phoenix_jz said:
The relevant images can be found here, on Stefano Sappino's blog
Click to expand...
Thanks you, i didn't know he have them, interesting design i wonder if intended for exports?
Click to expand...

It is not clear. @ceccherini already described the background of the design itself. The notes appear to be be dated 28 January 1913, which is notable as this is about the point at which the RM decided to move to a 381mm design (what became the Caracciolo-class), versus the earlier concept of what was essentially a 356mm 'super-Duilio', for lack of a better term. Specifically, the decision was made in February 1913 (though the 381mm design itself had been worked on since 1911).

That said, it's also worth noting that this design is a considerably less extreme design than the initial versions of the Caracciolo, which called for a 35,000-ton battleship with a top speed of 28 knots and twelve 381mm guns in four triple turrets. By the end of 1913 it was considerably reduced to 31,000 tons and eight guns.

That said, it's also worth noting that Admiral Thaon di Revel was in favor of smaller ships than this type, and Cuniberti had proposed smaller designs in the range of 25,000 tons and 25 knots - not dissimilar from the design by Orlando under discussion here. It would seem like the most likely point of relation, if there was any at all - this could have easily been drawn up totally independently of the RM, after all.
 
The pre war program to build the Francesco Caracciolo class battleships was also to include some 6" armed light cruisers. Could these be them or an updated version? The angled fixed tubes under the bridge seem an unusual feature.
 
00-PureEvil-00 said:
Scout cruiser design from somewhen 1920's. Six 152-mm guns, two twin and four single 533-mm torpedo tubes, 29 knots.
Does anyone have more information about that?
https://imgur.com/Bdx40bk
View: https://i.imgur.com/Bdx40bk_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
Click to expand...
It's one of the many studies for the very first postwar construction program aimed at producing a class of Esploratori Oceanici, basically a light cruiser. A recent issue of the magazine Storia Militare has an article about it. The projects were made directly by the Regia Marina, there was no connection to Ansaldo or other private firms.
 

Attachments

  • Esploratori Oceanici.png
    Esploratori Oceanici.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 88
There are multiple versions of the design shown in the article. The scheme shown above is a variant of the first version of the design, rather then the second version of the design shown in the table (reflected by schemes 3 &4);

gpaoz6P.png

iusq7cK.png
 
MrMemerMan said:
Does anyone have the data for Project 7770?
Click to expand...

Do you mean Design 770 from 1932?

Garzke & Dulin in Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II give the basic specifications as such;

1670350771845.png

Profile & Internal Cuts:


image.png
1670351804729.png

The exact armor scheme was never decided, between a system that would use a 210mm inclined belt with a 70mm outer belt or a classic 280mm belt with a 25mm sloped deck behind it, which I will put in this spoiler below. It should be noted that on either scheme, the battery deck/main armor deck was 50mm thick over machinery spaces, and 75mm thick over the magazines. Inboard torpedo bulkheads were 7mm thick.

1670351571517.png

Much as with the armor scheme, the propulsion was never finalized, with four different arrangements existing at the time the design was dropped in December 1932;
  • Steam Turbo-Electric w/ two shafts
  • Diesel Electric w/ four shafts
  • Combined Steam Turbo & Diesel Electric w/ four shafts (seen in Figure 7-11 above)
  • Steam turbine w/two shafts
The RM at the time had high hopes for diesel propulsion, hence it's proposed use on these ships, as a way to achieve high endurance despite the size limits of the design, and Fiat was trying their hand at large marine diesels at this time (they did so throughout the 1930s, but without much success).

Unfortunately, the authors did not provide any figures for the expected endurance of any of the schemes, though it is apparent they were all supposed to be able to generate about 80,000 shp.
 
Does
Phoenix_jz said:
MrMemerMan said:
Does anyone have the data for Project 7770?
Click to expand...

Do you mean Design 770 from 1932?

Garzke & Dulin in Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II give the basic specifications as such;

View attachment 688637

Profile & Internal Cuts:


View attachment 688639
View attachment 688642

The exact armor scheme was never decided, between a system that would use a 210mm inclined belt with a 70mm outer belt or a classic 280mm belt with a 25mm sloped deck behind it, which I will put in this spoiler below. It should be noted that on either scheme, the battery deck/main armor deck was 50mm thick over machinery spaces, and 75mm thick over the magazines. Inboard torpedo bulkheads were 7mm thick.

View attachment 688641

Much as with the armor scheme, the propulsion was never finalized, with four different arrangements existing at the time the design was dropped in December 1932;
  • Steam Turbo-Electric w/ two shafts
  • Diesel Electric w/ four shafts
  • Combined Steam Turbo & Diesel Electric w/ four shafts (seen in Figure 7-11 above)
  • Steam turbine w/two shafts
The RM at the time had high hopes for diesel propulsion, hence it's proposed use on these ships, as a way to achieve high endurance despite the size limits of the design, and Fiat was trying their hand at large marine diesels at this time (they did so throughout the 1930s, but without much success).

Unfortunately, the authors did not provide any figures for the expected endurance of any of the schemes, though it is apparent they were all supposed to be able to generate about 80,000 shp.
Click to expand...
Yup that's the one. Thank you! :)
 
ptdockyard said:
Here is one I found in my archives. I have no information other than what it written on it. "USSR Ansaldo Small Battleship."

Anyone know more?
Click to expand...
So a new tack on this one. In the article on the U.P. 41 Battleship in Warship 2023, there are mentions of other designs that were sent:

“Although Ansaldo refused to hand over the Littorio plans, on July 14 1936 the firm did deliver no fewer than five designs to Bzhezinskii: two battleships, two battlecruisers and an armored scout.”

The article lists a 28,000 ton design with 9-343mm guns.

Possibly there were more per the wording here?

Dave
 
Thst sounds like a battlecruiser to me. But 343mm, 13,5" is an interesting choice.
 
The 343mm was also planned in the 35,000 battlecruiser proposed by OTO and shown in Robert Stern's book "Battleship Holiday."
 
Last edited:
Disregard the Ansaldo small Battleship picture. It is fictional.

Here is something real, though. Listed as

Ansaldo S.A cantieri navali
Progetto per Cannoniera da 850 tonnellate, 1929​


Sorry the image isn't the greatest.
Alsaldo 850 Ton Gungoat project Italian.jpg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom