Talk:Italia-class ironclad

Troop capability

About the 10,000 troop capability, this is an absurdity. Never those ships were used as 'troop transport', but just imagine how a 400 ft ship could ever accomodate 10,000 men! Not even a great ocean liner could do this, so i wonder how this number came off. It's impossible and never demostrated, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.135.245.89 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Save for later

This has some details on the design of the ships. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italia-class ironclad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as I've reviewed Italia, may as well do the class too!

• Insp Eng; what does this mean?
  • I'd assume Inspector Engineer, but Conway's doesn't give the full title. FWIW, Brin's bio doesn't mention the title.
• on 15,000 tons (15,237 tonnes) displacement; the armament and coal has been reduced but the displacement increases? Just checking this is correct?
  • Yup - no details on why the apparent discrepancy, but I'd assume Brin wasn't planning on so large a hull to achieve the speed he wanted (which is to say, finer lines and thus a longer hull were required to reach 17+ knots, requiring more armor to protect the hull, etc.)
• en echelon; could this be linked to something?
  • There is a link to en echelon in the glossary of nautical terms we have
• in vs. inch; could it be made consistent or is different in places for a reason?
  • I usually like to spell out a unit the first time its used - it might not be all that worthwhile, since inch is a common unit, so it's probably
• The armored deck sloped downward to meet the ships' sides at a point 6 feet (1.8 m) above the waterline and combined with two bulkheads that ran the entire length of the ships, set back several feet from the side, and numerous other bulkheads interspersed among the two main bulkheads; the resulting cellular raft of small compartments was designed to detonate shells before they could penetrate very far into the ships and contain or dampen the effects of the resulting explosion by confining it to small compartments. ; very long sentence trying to tell us several things... I didn't want to risk breaking it up and losing technical meaning, can you take a look?
  • See how I've rewritten it.

Nice article. I've made some copyedits as well. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, ErrantX. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked it slightly, because it started and ended with small compartments. Otherwise looks good. I'd be inclined to change Insp Eng to naval engineer, but that's up to you. Passing. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of measurements

The 57mm guns added during the initial alterations are shown converted to 2.2 inches calibre.

Properly, the 57mm was an approximately six-pounder gun, and was of roughly two-and-a-quarter inch calibre, compared to the contemporary 'three-inch' twelve-pounder gun. Thus it was of half the shell weight and three-quarters the bore.

Correct conversion of 57mm to inches is 2.24409 inches; very close to the rule-of-thumb two-&-a-quarter inches.

"2.2" hardly conveys the relationship of the two calibres under the old system in a very clear way at all.

Recommend changing the conversion format to two decimal places to improve this, given the context.

2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:606D:10BE:D964:6CCF (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)