Talk:Edgar Quinet-class cruiser/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 21:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- External links good.
- HMS Invincible, which with its all-big-gun armament had rendered missing a comma between armament and had. IMO.
- Good point
- Link funnel, bulkhead, watertight compartment for watertight bulkhead, magazine, generator.
- Added all.
- The 19-pounders were actually 65 mm in size. Silverstone, p. 82, says that the torpedo tubes were actually 450 mm in size, not 480 mm. Crosscheck against Friedman's Naval Weapons of WWI to see if they actually had torpedoes of the larger size in service. He also says that 2 x 75 mm and 2 x 65 mm AA guns replaced 12 of the older 65 mm guns in 1918. Gives belt thickness of 90-170 mm, 150 mm for turrets, 120 mm for casemates, 45-65 mm deck. Cruising range was 5100 nm @ 10 knots, which I find more plausible than 10,000 nmi. Crosscheck these figures against that little Doubleday book on the French Navy in WWI.
- The 480 was a typo - Conway's has the correct figure
- I'll check Conway's for the armor details
- Yeah, I thought the 10k nmi figure was a wee bit high, but then it was written in 1908, before either ship actually entered service.
- Watch for ampersands like usual.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Added.
I'll promote this once you double-check the armor thicknesses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, everything is correcting according to Conway's. I checked Peltier, and his description agrees with the 170mm belt (reduced to 100mm forward and 75 aft), and gives figures of 45mm for the main deck (with 65mm slopes) plus the upper deck of 35mm. But the turrets had 160mm faces and the casemates had the same thickness. So we have three different descriptions of the armor layout. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Curious, then I'd add a note discussing the discrepancies with cites. No need to do that for the individual ships, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Added a note on the discrepancies, let me know if that works. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Curious, then I'd add a note discussing the discrepancies with cites. No need to do that for the individual ships, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, everything is correcting according to Conway's. I checked Peltier, and his description agrees with the 170mm belt (reduced to 100mm forward and 75 aft), and gives figures of 45mm for the main deck (with 65mm slopes) plus the upper deck of 35mm. But the turrets had 160mm faces and the casemates had the same thickness. So we have three different descriptions of the armor layout. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)