Talk:Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hyphenate the class name in the first sentence.
- Done
- Change the hyphen in 1912–13 to a endash which should be used for all date ranges.
- Should be good now
- Thaon di Revel could authorize a naval construction program on his own authority? Didn't Parliament or the Navy Minister, or whatever have to authorize it?
- Fixed.
- Link funnel
- Done
- cruising speed... could have cruised Awkward, rephrase with less use of cruise
- Reworked
- Do you have range/elevation figures for the guns? I'm curious if the 102 mm guns were high-angle or not.
- They should be in Friedman's book on WWI naval guns - should have time to check it tomorrow.
- 40 mm ain't no machine gun. Try autocannon or automatic weapons. Were these the British 2-pounders?
- Fixed
- I think you mean horizontal here: vertical protection consisted of a 50 mm (2.0 in) thick deck.
- Yup :)
- next most progressed Progressed? furthest along?
- Yup.
- Faà di Bruno only got a turret's worth, not all eight guns.
- Clarified
- This is awkward: guns originally intended for the Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships. We already what class was going to use the guns.
- Reworded
- forced severe restrictions consider "forced severe reductions" or "severely restricted"
- Reworded.
- Fix this: It was nevertheless still to expensive for the Regia Marina.
- Good catch
- Combine these two sentences: A new conversion design for Francesco Caracciolo was prepared, with an island superstructure. Italy's chronic budgetary problems prevented the navy from building any of these ships
- Merged
- Pity that these ships have generated so little commentary. They were four knots faster than the QEs and seven faster than the Royal Sovereigns and Bayerns. Very good candidates for the best battleship design of the war and the first true fast battleships. Only two knots slower than Hood with similar armor; with some deck reinforcement they would have been very viable in WW2 and really would have caused the RN conniption fits. But that's all OR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is disappointing that they've been overlooked. It would have been interesting to see how Calabria might have turned out if Cunningham had been confronted by a couple of these ships. And what they would have done to the balance of power in the Med. Might the French have been compelled to finish the Normandies? And what would that have done to the WNT? Hmm, I took a counter-factual history seminar last Fall - this would have been an interesting line to pursue. Anyway, thanks for reviewing the article, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Brits would have been in a lot of trouble if these bad boys had been in service. An inch less armor than the QEs, but four knots faster! Only Hood would have been able to deal with them and the Nelsons probably would have been forced to be redesigned for more speed. And I think that they'd have eaten the lunch of any of the 21-knot designs like the Normandies, or even of the 23-knot designs like the Lyons unless the slower ships had a lot more armor than 12 inches. Their biggest flaw, common to all designs of the period, was the thin deck armor, but I expect that they'd get that reinforced sometime during the 1930s. Of course, I can only think that the only way that these puppies get finished is if Italy does the sensible thing and stays out of the war entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Conti di Cavours had their decks strengthened during the modernization process, so it seems logical that the completed Caracciolos would have as well. And you're right, there was no chance of completing them once Italy entered the war - they should have stayed out. Curiously, Goldstein's and Maurer's book talked about the Italo-French naval rivalry, and made the claim that it was wise for the Italians to cancel these ships, since the French had the Normandies on the stocks and the Lyons planned, but they ignored the significant superiority the Caracciolos would have had over the French ships. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Brits would have been in a lot of trouble if these bad boys had been in service. An inch less armor than the QEs, but four knots faster! Only Hood would have been able to deal with them and the Nelsons probably would have been forced to be redesigned for more speed. And I think that they'd have eaten the lunch of any of the 21-knot designs like the Normandies, or even of the 23-knot designs like the Lyons unless the slower ships had a lot more armor than 12 inches. Their biggest flaw, common to all designs of the period, was the thin deck armor, but I expect that they'd get that reinforced sometime during the 1930s. Of course, I can only think that the only way that these puppies get finished is if Italy does the sensible thing and stays out of the war entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is disappointing that they've been overlooked. It would have been interesting to see how Calabria might have turned out if Cunningham had been confronted by a couple of these ships. And what they would have done to the balance of power in the Med. Might the French have been compelled to finish the Normandies? And what would that have done to the WNT? Hmm, I took a counter-factual history seminar last Fall - this would have been an interesting line to pursue. Anyway, thanks for reviewing the article, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)