Talk:Trento-class cruiser

Armour
The class are described as "very lightly armoured" in the opening part of the article.

This is interesting as the armour belt & citadel appear to have been rather extensive in their coverage and probably considered adequate to provide protection against 6-inch fire (the fast 8-inch type being a brand-new one at the class' inception and very uncommon compared to 'light' cruisers).

By contrast, the British & French equivalents were scarcely armoured at all, with splinter-proofing and internal defence to magazines the main extent. American designs would incorporate a thick strake of armour amidships at the waterline, but this was of very limited coverage by comparison with the Italian design.

I would suggest rewording this from "very lightly armoured" - if one must describe the thickness of plate used as thin by later standards (never the best policy) - to something more along the lines of "extensively armoured to a moderate average thickness", since this more correctly conveys what was provided for and achieved. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A920:CEA1:1:7842 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources to support your observation? The idea that the Trentos were very lightly built is well-attested. For example, Brescia & De Toro, both noted experts on the Regia Marina, state in their book Italian Heavy Cruisers that "On the whole, the protection, if not entirely pro forma, was very limited, since in particular, 70mm armour could not represent much defence against hypothetical 203mm projectiles." Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)