Talk:Littorio-class battleship

Name

[1] The official name for the class is Littorio. The official Italian navy site states that.--TheFEARgod 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps...

...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.

Question about the secondary armaments turret armor thickness

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

The numbers were wrong - fixed now. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Design U.P. 41

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)

It's probably "Project 82: The Stalingrad Class" by Stephen McLaughlin - @Sturmvogel 66: used it in the Stalingrad class article. I'd wager there isn't really enough information on the design to warrant an article. Most of these designs are generally not covered unless they were particularly notable (for instance, the German H-class designs), and the relevant information can be included here and at Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Belt Armor

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?

Because the main belt was in fact only 280mm thick. The 70mm decapping plate was separated by a 250mm gap - to simply add the two together gives a misleading impression to the readers. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The 280mm figure is even more misleading, since the 70mm decap plate + 250mm concrete + 280mm armor + 36mm splinter screen (without counting contruction steel and timber) were meant to act as a single defensive system, more effective than a single 386mm (the sum of thickness of the armored plates) layer. Moreover, between those layers there were no manned space, so they effectively constituded a single armored belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.226.108.169 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Which is all well and good, but all of those other components of the side protection system are not part of the belt armor. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

According to a questionable interpretation ("a layer" is not necessarily "a single layer") of an unsourced wikipedia article? All that layers were part of the belt "designed to prevent projectiles from penetrating to the heart of a warship". Infact, to penetrate to the hearth of the warship, a projectile has to pass through all them. Moreover, the wikipedia article is linked to an article by Nathan Okun, that nothing say about the Littorios' belt, or that a belt had to be made of a single layer. But, in "Decapping Revisited", Okun specicically deal with Littorios' armor, and gives a definition: "the especially-designed-for-decapping spaced belt of the Italian World War II VITTORIO VENETO Class battleships". At this point, there is a verifiable source that states that the different layers of the Littorio's armor were part of the belt (that's a "spaced belt"). There is one that denegates it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.242.240 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Two sources actually the Enciclopedia Treccani in its 1949 edition, stated that the "cintura corazzata" (armored belt) of the Vittorio Veneto class battleships was made of a single armor of composite structure, with a front decap plate and a rear resistant plate. http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/umberto-pugliese_(Enciclopedia-Italiana)/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.242.240 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

On sources in the article...

Navweaps is not a reliable source. Gardiner & Chesneau is...Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Treccani is. Moreover, "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946" is not a treaty on ships' construction, but a summary list.

Instead... Vittorio Bagnasco's "The Littorio Class: Italy's Last and Largest Battleships" Seaforth Publishing, Jul 18, 2011 p.57 "The belt consisted of composite armour panels (70 + 280mm = 350mm see previous chapter) that extended from the top of the nternal bulges to the armoured battery deck,"

Bagnasco does not know what he is talking of? John Jordan, Robert Dumas "French Battleships 1922-1956" Seaforth Publishing, Sep 17, 2009 ch.4 "Richelieu and Jean Bart": "the two battleships of the Littorio class, laid down in october 1934, had a main armament of nine 381mm (15in) guns in three triple turrets ... an armoured belt 350mm thick and a maximum speed of 30 knots". The 350 mm figure is reported also in the comparison table with the Richelieu, where the Littorio's belt is indicated "70+280mm".

books and encyclopedias which expressily deal with battleships' construction, have the priority, on that matter, on simple lists of "all the ships of the world". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.242.240 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

taranto and other

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

pietro93.145.250.148 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Artist illustrations in article

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)

If you have freely-licensed alternatives, of course we'd be happy to have them. But the authors of the illustrations currently in the article have long since retired, so I doubt any alterations can be made. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Antecedent? (et al)

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)

Effectiveness of Pugliese TDS

I've no clue where they got this ridiculous idea that the joints would "give out" more easily than the much weaker cylinders, or how the several hits taken outside the limits of the TDS are somewhat "evidence" of it being ineffective. LolloTheBlue (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)