The Ship Model Forum

[quote="Jean-Paul Binot"]Moreover, the contribution of the US Navy to the war in the Mediterranean was limited. Should the ships have changed owners, the British would have insisted to get them. Ultimately, by that late in the war, there was only very limited use for battleships, especially non-standard ones.[/quote]

Why would the British insist on getting both of them? Had they both been overhauled, isn't it likely that it would have been done in the US? Also, wouldn't the ammunition/spare parts be made in the US? If so then it seems highly unlikely that the British would have been in position to demand both. I agree that it is logical for both to serve together, as shipping ammunition/parts too two separate bases of operation make little sense. Furthermore, why would the British even desire them? As you alluded too, by the time they'd be ready for service all but Gneisenau and Tirpitz were left to oppose the Royal Navy in the Atlantic/Med.


[quote="Jean-Paul Binot"]In the end, both Italian battlewagons lingered in a lake in Egypt and could not even be returned to the post war Italian fleet due to Soviet opposition, which was very sad indeed as they were fine looking ships.[/quote]

I have to agree with you there.

[quote="Jean-Paul Binot"]Should you wish to stay within plausible boundaries, I would suggest you consider a limited modernization in the US along similar lines to what was done to the Richelieu (modern light AA, radar, deletion of aircraft and aviation facilities) and little else. And the ships should remain under the Italian flag (but with USN or RN camouflage!).[/quote]

This is probably what I'll end up doing, but once I get the kit in hand I might be too tempted to do something more drastic. :heh: Painting her in MS22 also means that I wont have to buy new paints!

[quote="Sr. Gopher"]

Jean-Paul, but if I recall correctly, wasn't the Prinz Eugen still under German control until the end of WWII? Germany did become an Ally after it's defeat right, or am I just losing my mind again?
[/quote]
I guess you mean to address me in there, since it was I who brought up the PE.

PE was indeed taken over by the USN - I might be wrong about him given the USS prefix, but he was given the US designation of IX-300 and "Acquired by US Navy, 13 January 1946" and "Placed in service as Prinz Eugen (IX-300) in January 1946" according to NavSource:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/46/46300.htm

Sounds like a declarative statement. I don't mean to sound hostile, but if you feel the need end the idea, it could kind of be an add-on to my what-if fleet. It has many ideas, though it is somewhat lacking any battleships. I tend to ignore most of the historical constraints I usually run into during the process, and I like the idea. Just an offer though.

Jean-Paul, but if I recall correctly, wasn't the Prinz Eugen still under German control until the end of WWII? Germany did become an Ally after it's defeat right, or am I just losing my mind again?

Anyway, to go with the limited modernization idea, I think the only real change would be in the light AA fits. Anything else would take far too long to install if these ships were actually going to be used.

The Italian fleet was indeed surrendered to the Allies in Malta, but that was done only to put the ships out of reach of the Germans. Since Italy essentially switched sides and fought the Germans thereafter, the Italian big ships would not have been seized by the Allies for their own use as the war went on (several Italian ships were given to the Soviets and the French navies as a part of the peace treaty). Moreover, the contribution of the US Navy to the war in the Mediterranean was limited. Should the ships have changed owners, the British would have insisted to get them. Ultimately, by that late in the war, there was only very limited use for battleships, especially non-standard ones. Even the Richelieu, which was a decidedly more useful and serviceable ship than the Littorio and VV was of marginal practical benefit to the British Eastern Fleet.

In the end, both Italian battlewagons lingered in a lake in Egypt and could not even be returned to the post war Italian fleet due to Soviet opposition, which was very sad indeed as they were fine looking ships.

Should you wish to stay within plausible boundaries, I would suggest you consider a limited modernization in the US along similar lines to what was done to the Richelieu (modern light AA, radar, deletion of aircraft and aviation facilities) and little else. And the ships should remain under the Italian flag (but with USN or RN camouflage!).

I don't think they would have changed the name - when Prinz Eugen changed hands, she kept her name, with just a USS tacked in front of it.

Well I'm basing this on her being overhauled in the US, sometime in late '43 or '44. She was a war prize, and I've read that there was some talk of letting her fight with the RN in the Atlantic or the USN in the Pacific (same for Vittorio Veneto). I assume it's more likely that she would be in the Atlantic due to her limited range, which was 4000 nm vs the Iowa's 15000+ nm range. However the possibility of her in the Pacific is more intriguing to me.

As for the name, I'm not sure that the US would name a foreign ship after an American state, but the timetable does work. Montana and her sisters were canceled in July '43, and Italy didn't surrender until later.

Does this scenario involve the ship being overhauled in the US, or being built altogether in the US? If it is the latter, then the 6 inch guns would be the US-made model. As for the 3.5 inch guns, that would be turned into single 5/38 inch guns, but the number reduced. Either that, or they smack the types put onto the Midway class CVs. The light AA seems on target. As for the name, if it is made in the US, I would end up naming it the USS Montana or USS Vanguard. I prefer Vanguard, but if you want to keep it historical...

With Trumpeter releasing the Roma in 1/350 I've been thinking about the possibility of building a model of the Italia as she might have appeared had the USN refitted her for service in the Pacific. For the sake of this build I'm going to overlook their measly 4000nm range, perhaps one of the Iowa's could share some fuel with her :smallsmile: .

There are area's of interest and I'd like to get everyone's thoughts. I'm no expert so please tell me if any of these ideas are absurd. I'd like for it to be recognizable as a Vittorio Veneto Class, but make it obvious that it's a USN ship.

The most important would be the secondary battery. I'd like to keep the unique look of the layout of the 6 side mounts, and focus more on replacing the 3.5" guns. I assume replacing these 1:1 with dual 5"/38's would be impossible, but what about single 5" mounts? Is that within the realm of possibility or should I be looking at dual 3"/50's? Worst case scenario would be single 3"/50.

Next would be the 4 3x6" turrets. I'm at a loss for what to do with these... any thoughts are welcomed. I'm leaning towards keeping them.

The light AA would need to be entirely redone with 40mm's and 20mm's. I don't have any plans of the ship but it looks like she could have 40mm gun tubs added to her stern like the Iowa's. Would the 2nd and aft main turrets take a quad 40mm like the Iowa's? I'm sure there are couple other places where a quad 40 could be added.

Radar and gun directors would have to be added.

Finally, what would she be named? USS Italy?