Talk:HMS Inflexible (1876)

Military history: Maritime / British / European C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ships C‑class

	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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Merged from HMS Inflexible (1881)[edit]

I have merged the text of HMS Inflexible (1881) into this one. This required cutting and pasting large slabs of text, so the edit history for them got left behind in the other article. However this is apparently how merges are done. My apologies if I have misunderstood how to do it. Jll 10:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

assessment[edit]

This article would be a B-class if it had more citations. Thanks! Cam 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC) User:Climie.ca

Weight of protection[edit]

Not a big issue; typo on the armour weight 11,000lb altered to 1,100lb (x2 RN rated 12", I'd guess actually 480lb/ft2 or 11.76" plus teak ~50lb/ft3, works out for almost exactly 1,100lb/ft2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armor[edit]

I just finished reading the article on the Italian ships this was designed to counter. If this was designed in response to the Italian ships, then how is it possible that this is "the first ship" to utilize horizontal underwater armor instead of traditional hull armor...the article on the Italian ships appears to claim that they were built the same way. The exact quotes from that page are: "To accommodate such massive weapons, the armour belt was restricted to the central third of the vessel, forming a citadel on which the turrets were mounted en-echelon" "...there was insufficient space within the citadel to accommodate all the machinery. The boilers and engine spaces were protected by an armoured deck 50 mm thick extending the full length of the waterline. This protection scheme was described as a 'raft-body' design." Which I take to mean it had exactly the same armor as described in the article on the Inflexible. They were both laid down and launched at almost identical times; in fact the Italian ship was first by a bit. If the Inflexible was built solely to react to the existence of the Italian ships, and was launched slightly after them, how can it be the first one to use this type of armor? I think the best you can say is that they were both launched at the same time, if not that the Italians were first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]