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

World of Warships

Official website of the award-winning free-to-play online game World of Warships. Action stations!
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

World of Warships

Official website of the award-winning free-to-play online game World of Warships. Action stations!
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: 269
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
 
I wonder if this design is related.
 

Attachments

  • 53815514238_6336e30aa8_o.jpg
    53815514238_6336e30aa8_o.jpg
    685 KB · Views: 145
  • RDT_20240630_160535257519248440055536~2.jpg
    RDT_20240630_160535257519248440055536~2.jpg
    53.6 KB · Views: 186
Tybarious said:
I wonder if this design is related.
Click to expand...

I don't believe so.

The battlecruiser art pictured in the article isn't a 'real' project, at least in the sense of something developed by the Regia Marina or an Italian company that we know of. It's a sketch made for an International Engineering Conference, specifically in 1915 when it was hosted in San Francisco. A Colonel (GN*) E. Ferretti presented a study of trends in capital ship development since the introduction of the dreadnought type battleship, and drew conclusions on where they might lead and what features may be pursued on future capital ship designs. The drawing/sketch he created for it was more or less a notional one intending to incorporate these features for the purposes of this study, but should not be taken as a real design project or anything the Italians were intended to actually put into steel.

This is rather similar to the article by Captain (GN*) Ferdinando Cassone in the October 1921 edition of Rivista Marittima, which approaches a similar topic and a general survey of many of the capital ships of WWI and those about to be culled by the Washington Naval Treaty - and is most famous for the large (45-57k tons) fast (35-40 knots) battlecruiser concept with 456mm guns included as an example at the end of the article - which, again, should not be taken as a 'real' design.

*GN = Genio Navale, or Naval Corps of Engineers. These featured a different rank structure to the regular naval service. A Colonnello (GN) was equal to Capitan di Vascello (equal to Captain in Anglo-American navies), while a Capitano (GN) was equal to Tenente di Vascello (Lieutenant, senior grade in Anglo-American navies).

The second image with the quadruple turret is part of a series of quadruple turret designs that can be found in the Ansaldo archives - they're listed as being from 1940, but that should be taken with a grain of salt as unfortunately many of the dates listed in the online photo archive of Ansaldo are wrong. With that said, I'm fairly confident the turret design is from the mid to late 1930s, based on its features and contemporary Italian design practice. Unfortunately there is very little information known about those quadruple turret designs, as we really only have the pictures themselves to go off of.
 
ceccherini said:
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.
Click to expand...
Somebody able to scan this article?
 
14 Years ago I found in the Dutch National Archive microfilms with drawings of Dutch warships 18-20th Century. Since then there are several thousands of drawing of Dutch warhips digitaized by this archive. So why keeping the pdfs my son and I made? Yesterday evening I found this drawing of an Ansaldo design between drawings of Dutch 19th screw steam gunboats. The quality is very poor, maybe somebody can identify, first glimp minelayer. Where the original is I don't know
 

Attachments

  • ansaldo.png
    ansaldo.png
    450.4 KB · Views: 144
ceccherini said:
Judging by stern, superstructure, funnel and AA guns disposition it seems a fictional design. In mid '30 between the first and the second Littorio's pair, Italian navy had a great interest in small battleships but the picture you posted is very different from any proposal I know. Here are some official Italian small BB designs for a comparison
Click to expand...
Is there any data on these? Like armor or guns?
 
MrMemerMan said:
Is there any data on these? Like armor or guns?
Click to expand...

The four latter designs are discussed later in the threat. Specifically, this post:


As for the first one - the values of the P1 study are on the card shown in the image, but there is a clearer version of this sketched by John Jordan for Michele Costentino's article "The Italian Navy and the Battleship in the 1930s: Theory and Practice" in Warship 2023.

The design is from a study conducted by General (Genio Navale) Luigi Barberis from December 1931 to January 1932 on battleships of moderate displacement, both in reaction to the French decision to build Dunkerque and in anticipation of the upcoming Geneva disarmament conference (February 1932).

These were not so much intended to provide specific designs the Regia Marina would want to build, but rather to evaluate what kind of capabilities might be viable on large cruisers or fast battleships with full load displacements ranging as low as 14,000 tons and as high as 30,000 tons.

Card P1, in the image shared earlier, appears as follows:

1739466986377.png

The ultimate conclusions of the study were that, should Britain succeed in if its effort to press the limits of battleship designs down to 25,000 tons, this would be advantageous for Italy (allowing it to acquire the desired number of capital ships without the risk of superior modern ships from other navies being built), but also that 25,000 tons was really the minimum standard displacement one could build a viable battleship on, and displacement limits should go no lower than this.
 
Phoenix_jz said:
The design is from a study conducted by General (Genio Navale) Luigi Barberis from December 1931 to January 1932 on battleships of moderate displacement, both in reaction to the French decision to build Dunkerque and in anticipation of the upcoming Geneva disarmament conference (February 1932).
Click to expand...
Hm! Could be a good export design, if someone ordered Italy a battleship (they were dominating military shipbuilding market, after all - took money, build ships, not asking any political questions)
 
Dilandu said:
Hm! Could be a good export design, if someone ordered Italy a battleship (they were dominating military shipbuilding market, after all - took money, build ships, not asking any political questions)
Click to expand...

In this case that would fall into two pitfalls.

1) These were general studies and none of the 'designs' (poor wording on my part, calling them 'designs' overstates what they were) were particularly well fleshed out.

2) Italy was still under the limits of the international naval treaties, which forbid them from building capital ships for export. The best you can do is share a design with a power that wants to build them on their own, as was done with the Soviets. Which actually reminds me, I need to add to this post with some of the information about the designs beyond UP.41 now that we have a bit more information on them.

alexi said:
Hello @Phoenix_jz do you know or have any more information about Umberto Pugliese's light carrier programs in 1935?
Click to expand...
Hello,

So these ships stem from the Abyssinian Crisis and the Flotta d'evasione ('Breakout Fleet') of 1935, which in the more expansive 'Programme B' version called for the construction of three 22,000-ton aircraft carriers. The economic realities of the time and the likelihood of that program failing to proceed ('Programme A' was a reduced plan that did not call for aircraft carriers, and was always considered more realistic, but was still not enacted) lead the navy to accelerate the design of smaller 14,000 tonne aircraft carriers in September of 1935 by MARICOMINAV, then headed by Gen. Pugliese.

The requirements set by the Regia Marina were for a 14,000-tonne carrier with 42 aircraft (fighters and torpedo bomber-reconnaissance [TBR] aircraft) and a top speed of 38 knots.

The latter requirement was obviously quite extreme, and Pugliese fought to have that requirement reduced in the process of developing the design (he highlighted that all existing fast carrier designs ranged from 31 to 34 knots). He drew upon both prior Italian carrier design efforts and studies of foreign carrier designs (always a major subject of analysis by RM staff), with Ranger in particular catching a lot of focus.

As of Gen. Pugliese's report on the effort in July 1936, the characteristics of the design were:

Length Overall: 211 meters;
Length (waterline): 206.9 meters;
Beam (waterline): 25 meters;
Trial Displacement: 15,000 tonnes;
Draught (13,000 tons displacement): 4.5 meters;
Propulsion (8x boilers, 4x turbine groups): 160,000 shp for 36 knots;
Range: 4,000 nmi at 25 knots;
Flight Deck Length: 196 meters;
Flight deck maximum breadth: 30 meters (18 meters at the bow);
Aircraft: 42 (24x Fighters, 18x TBR;
Protection: 60mm belt, deck ???, layered bulkhead TDS;
Armament: 2x3 152/55, 10x1 90/50;

At the time, the fighter under consideration for the design study was the Caproni Ca.165. For the TBR, a single-engine version of the CANT Z.1012 was being looked at (apparently broadly similar to the the Japanese B5N). Pugliese was intending to use catapults on the design, though the exact details of how these were to be mounted are uncertain as none of the attached sketches and plans have yet been located. There was to be at least one catapult for fighters, which Michele Cosentino believes was likely mounted in front of the hangar, and possibly a second one on the flight deck for the TBR's.

The design did not progress meaningfully beyond this point at this time because the Naval Staff could not come to a unanimous decision on the final definition of characteristics of the carrier.

Stressing once again that the general plans have not been located (or at least not as of 2021), and perhaps do not survive to the modern day, these are sketches by the late Franco Harrauer on what these designs may have looked like, The top sketch is the 22,000-ton design (with 4x2 152mm guns) and the bottom is the 14,000-ton design:

1739768623882.png

The RM's planning office would subsequently request a pair of 15,000-ton carriers, developed from these designs, almost every year from this point up to the 1939/40 naval program, though no such ships ever made it into the final programs.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom