Talk:Littorio-class battleship

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question about the secondary armaments turret armor thickness 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's probably "Project 82: The Stalingrad Class" by Stephen McLaughlin -  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)
thread_title:  Design  U.P. 41 

message: 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)
thread_title:  taranto and other 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Artist illustrations in article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Antecedent? (et al)