This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What is the criteria for determining this class' 'ironclad' status? In which ways is the steel-hulled, steel armoured Re Umberto design so different to the following higher-freeboard types like the RN's Royal Sovereign, especially when compared with earlier types of central citadel battleship like the de Laurias and Edinburghs?
While I appreciate that the term 'ironclad' was in use for a long time by the general public, press and even with navies, so too was the term 'battleship' in quite early use by navies and publications. Wells is using "ironclad" in 1898, while 'battleship' is in use in the late 1880s.
I completely appreciate that these terms are not technical descriptors, but both Parkes and Conways consider these ships under the heading/classification of 'battleship. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:19A1:1638:5B80:27B5 (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
