This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Littorio-class battleship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Littorio-class battleship has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Littorio-class battleship is part of the Battleships of Italy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[1] The official name for the class is Littorio. The official Italian navy site states that.-- TheFEARgod 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
...but we have a problem here. Many books state that the class's name was Vittorio Veneto. The most simple solution to this would be Italian documents from 1930's or 1940's.
Cheers. Kurt Leyman.
It appears that the turret armor of the secondary battery is incorrect: "The turret faces were 350 mm thick, with 75 to 130 mm (3.0 to 5.1 in) thick sides and 150 mm thick roofs.[12]" This seems highly unlikely, even with the citation of "[12]Gardiner & Chesneau, p. 290" Can someone verify this, as I don't have access to the reference work in question.-- Joedumlao
Hi wikipedians, seems that there is a battleship article still missing: the one related to the U.P 41 design. Couldn't find much info online, however in one forum there is mention to an article about it published in "Warship 2006". If anyone can access that source, it might be possible to write the wikiarticle about the U.P 41. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 14:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Littorio class' belt armor is stated as being 280mm thick when numerous sources, every single other Wikipedia version and the Wiki page itself clearly state that the armor was 350mm thick?
the littorio was torpedoed three times at taranto (the texts says first once and later twice)
the 120 mm did not supplement the 152 mm but only fired illuminating shells (supplementing in this the 90) -- but now I see that was said clearly in the table
Veneto and Pola were not hit in the same wave
pietro 93.145.250.148 ( talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend that the two illustrations showing the artists conceptions be replaced or if possible the artists requested to revise them. The Regia Marina did not have red paint for the underwater hulls of their ships during WWII but rather green color copper based paints. See the photo here of models at the Naval Museum in Venice: https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/2006-06-30-at-10-15-03.jpg Also note the wide range of models shown here: https://wargamingmiscellanybackup.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/i-have-been-to-the-naval-history-museum-venice-a-photo-essay-part-3-the-models-of-20th-century-warships/
Brooksindy ( talk) 00:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
In the 7th paragraph of the Service History section, "she" was hit by two bombs on June 5. Who is "she", Roma?
In the next sentence, Littorio is hit on June 19, two weeks later. Yet the article says "one week after her sister".
Roma was moved to Genoa - and was hit again in Genoa on June 23? Repairs were not complete, yet she left Genoa anyway?
I don't have the reference material to clarify these, but someone should.
Dmforcier (
talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Littorio-class battleship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Littorio-class battleship has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Littorio-class battleship is part of the Battleships of Italy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[1] The official name for the class is Littorio. The official Italian navy site states that.-- TheFEARgod 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
...but we have a problem here. Many books state that the class's name was Vittorio Veneto. The most simple solution to this would be Italian documents from 1930's or 1940's.
Cheers. Kurt Leyman.
It appears that the turret armor of the secondary battery is incorrect: "The turret faces were 350 mm thick, with 75 to 130 mm (3.0 to 5.1 in) thick sides and 150 mm thick roofs.[12]" This seems highly unlikely, even with the citation of "[12]Gardiner & Chesneau, p. 290" Can someone verify this, as I don't have access to the reference work in question.-- Joedumlao
Hi wikipedians, seems that there is a battleship article still missing: the one related to the U.P 41 design. Couldn't find much info online, however in one forum there is mention to an article about it published in "Warship 2006". If anyone can access that source, it might be possible to write the wikiarticle about the U.P 41. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 14:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Littorio class' belt armor is stated as being 280mm thick when numerous sources, every single other Wikipedia version and the Wiki page itself clearly state that the armor was 350mm thick?
the littorio was torpedoed three times at taranto (the texts says first once and later twice)
the 120 mm did not supplement the 152 mm but only fired illuminating shells (supplementing in this the 90) -- but now I see that was said clearly in the table
Veneto and Pola were not hit in the same wave
pietro 93.145.250.148 ( talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend that the two illustrations showing the artists conceptions be replaced or if possible the artists requested to revise them. The Regia Marina did not have red paint for the underwater hulls of their ships during WWII but rather green color copper based paints. See the photo here of models at the Naval Museum in Venice: https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/2006-06-30-at-10-15-03.jpg Also note the wide range of models shown here: https://wargamingmiscellanybackup.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/i-have-been-to-the-naval-history-museum-venice-a-photo-essay-part-3-the-models-of-20th-century-warships/
Brooksindy ( talk) 00:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
In the 7th paragraph of the Service History section, "she" was hit by two bombs on June 5. Who is "she", Roma?
In the next sentence, Littorio is hit on June 19, two weeks later. Yet the article says "one week after her sister".
Roma was moved to Genoa - and was hit again in Genoa on June 23? Repairs were not complete, yet she left Genoa anyway?
I don't have the reference material to clarify these, but someone should.
Dmforcier (
talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)