Um... while not technically a mistake, it's really outdated to say "Che?" like that.
"Cosa?" would be more appropriate...
I thought it depends on which region (south vs north) of Italy, with some parts preferring "che" and some others "cosa"? I picked "che" because of its similarity to French and Spanish que/qué.
Oh well, changed to note to "Che cosa è", which should work regardless of region. Might sound a little bit too formal, but then again this sorta fits Roma's pattern of speech in Japanese.
Thanks for the heads-up. Colloquial Italian is hard, and I really appreciate your inputs.
I thought it depends on which region (south vs north) of Italy, with some parts preferring "che" and some others "cosa"? I picked "che" because of its similarity to French and Spanish que/qué.
Oh well, changed to note to "Che cosa è", which should work regardless of region. Might sound a little bit too formal, but then again this sorta fits Roma's pattern of speech in Japanese.
Thanks for the heads-up. Colloquial Italian is hard, and I really appreciate your inputs.
Thank you. Then, if you don't mind... perhaps a little bit more colloquial? "Cosa c'é?" would be perfect.... Sorry for being an Italian grammar nazi...
Thank you. Then, if you don't mind... perhaps a little bit more colloquial? "Cosa c'é?" would be perfect.... Sorry for being an Italian grammar nazi...
Hit by a torpedo of the same type (British MKVIII with 340kg warhead, the heaviest the British had) in almost the same place (port side, abreast of III turret) the Vittorio Veneto fared better than the Sharnhorst (3000 tonnes of water shipped, but negligible damage to the engines, no loss of speed and two months of repair for the Littorio, VS 2500 tonnes of water shipped, but two turbines out of service for several hours and five months of repair for the Sharnhorst). Which means that the Pugliese device probably gave some advantage over a conventional design, even if probably not enough to justify its consume of volume.
Hit by a torpedo of the same type (British MKVIII with 340kg warhead, the heaviest the British had) in almost the same place (port side, abreast of III turret) the Vittorio Veneto fared better than the Sharnhorst (3000 tonnes of water shipped, but negligible damage to the engines, no loss of speed and two months of repair, VS 2500 tonnes of water shipped, but two turbines out of service for several hours and five months of repair). Which means that the Pugliese device probably gave some advantage over a conventional design, even if probably not enough to justify its consume of volume.
Well, there are some other factors to consider, too:
- it is little known, but it was created and studied in the early 1920s; - the materials used were not of optimal quality; - on the modernized battleship the system gave poor results, but its dimensions were compromised to fit in the preexisting hulls; - at Taranto the Littorio was hit by three torpedoes, of which only one hit in the main belt area, where the system had the proper dimension and was therefore efficient as it could be; - in terms of floodings, it should be considered also that other factors (damage control organization, damage control parties,...) played a part in that, and that faults in such things continued to be present on Italian battleships for a long time, to be considered properly dealt with only from 1942 onwards.
These things are usually not mentioned when talking about the system; a recent publication in which those are instead considered is the 2009 book "The Littorio class: Italy's largest and last battleship", a balanced and interesting book.
You don't say!?This?...I want... to become a battleship too...How nice... give me one too...
staaaaare—
I've an interest in that gear...I would appreciate it if you don't stare so much...Hi.Pugliese
