Let's talk French battleships a bit...

[piritskenyer]

 

Alright.

 

Now that I think of it, the use of two hulls with different values of belt armor for Dunkerque will likely be a first... if it hasn't happened yet on a ship already in the game and I missed it.

 

Isn't the New York a ship like that? I thought I read somewhere that the second hull was another ship of the class, with a thicker layout... May be wrong. Anyway, I don't think it would be that huge a shocker, since the armour's raw thickness is thinner than that of the preceding and succeeding ships as it is. Now to counteract the issue of "omg, thinner armour than predessecor and smaller guns, garbage for the garbage can, QQ" the radical break in playstyle means that in most cases the armour is going to be angled because it's the natural stance of the ship.

[Comrad_StaIin]

 

Isn't the New York a ship like that? I thought I read somewhere that the second hull was another ship of the class, with a thicker layout... May be wrong. Anyway, I don't think it would be that huge a shocker, since the armour's raw thickness is thinner than that of the preceding and succeeding ships as it is. Now to counteract the issue of "omg, thinner armour than predessecor and smaller guns, garbage for the garbage can, QQ" the radical break in playstyle means that in most cases the armour is going to be angled because it's the natural stance of the ship.

 

the New York modled in game is USS Texas

[Historynerd]

 

Isn't the New York a ship like that? I thought I read somewhere that the second hull was another ship of the class, with a thicker layout... May be wrong. Anyway, I don't think it would be that huge a shocker, since the armour's raw thickness is thinner than that of the preceding and succeeding ships as it is. Now to counteract the issue of "omg, thinner armour than predessecor and smaller guns, garbage for the garbage can, QQ" the radical break in playstyle means that in most cases the armour is going to be angled because it's the natural stance of the ship.

 

I think it's the same condition, in which the armor increase is merely in terms of horizontal protection and little more.

What I meant in this case was a definite case of improvement to the belt armor, which even in modernizations was left alone (perhaps the only instances I can recall is the Kongo-class, whose layered belt armor was rendered of uniform thickness, and the Renown-class battlecruisers).

[RamirezKurita]

The non-premium ships in-game don't represent single ships, they represent entire classes of ship. Many sister ships had slight differences between them,one of the biggest examples in-game currently are the Fusos, where the A hull is Fuso while the B hull is Yamashiro, complete with slightly different turret layout and armour. It's also why the AA of the different hulls jumps about, as they are not limited to a single ship's AA but instead pick and choose across the entire class's modernisations to give a smoother progression. Having Strasbourg's armour layout on a later hull upgrade wouldn't be particularly unusual because you wouldn't be playing as Dunkerque, you would be playing as a ship of the Dunkerque class.

 

Which is also why I'm somewhat annoyed by WGs policy of T10 ships having no modernisation options, as the Yamato class would have been one of the most diverse classes of battleship ever made as the later ships were to have different secondary batteries (not to mention the modernisation plans they had and the other options that were part of the original specification), but instead we are stuck with a single specific set up. But that line of conversation is for a different thread, so I'll not elaborate further so that I don't clutter up the thread with off-topic stuff.

[44smok]

I'm afraid Richelieu will provoke dull play. It's kind of NC on steroids. Eight guns pointing forward may be scary if there are no CV, you stick one side to island and get the other covered by friendlies. WG will need to put a lot of effort if they don't want the ship to be a perfect rear drive camper.

[warsinger2]

There were several different designs for the Alsace mostly centered around number and arrangement of the secondary batteries and heavy AA. You can easily use one of those as a T9 and use a different design, especially the one with the large number of heavy AA as the T 10 with some improved range and loading time. Putting a beefed up Jean Bart at T9 sounds kinda problematic since you would have to fiddle around with those 380mm quite a bit to make it a proper T9 since it only had 8. 

[Poster_2015]

@44smok thats why I think Richelieu is just fine as t9 despite slightly smaller caliber of the guns. with t9 generally being about backpedalling it would be easy to balance. 8x2.3 or so ROF 380 mm guns vs 6x2.0 ROF 410 seem advantageous actually, but also balanced by the lack of the rear turret OPTION. I really see no problem with balancing Dunquerke for t8, Richelieu for t9 and Alsace for t10 while maintaining some historical accuracy - and without the need to "invent" completely paper ship for t10 (even more then paper, there werent really any plans after Alsace, so if Alsace is t9, t10 would be some version of it , maybe upgunned or something). 

[Getzamatic]

Apparently, there was a sketch design for a French battleship with 450mm guns.  I understand there was a short piece about it in a recent edition of Warship International, although sadly I haven't read it myself so I don't know anything much about it.  I'm given to understand it was a concept design from about the same time as the Alsace design intended to explore what might be possible on much higher displacements.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have a tier 10 contender...

[piritskenyer]

Apparently, there was a sketch design for a French battleship with 450mm guns.  I understand there was a short piece about it in a recent edition of Warship International, although sadly I haven't read it myself so I don't know anything much about it.  I'm given to understand it was a concept design from about the same time as the Alsace design intended to explore what might be possible on much higher displacements.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have a tier 10 contender...

 

Interesting. Could you be so nice as to dig a link or the article up for me? My access to paper resources is unfortunately pretty limited, so I need all the help I can get. 

 

Thanks in advance!

[Historynerd]

There is something in here:

 

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/30868#.VqIqsfnhDIU

[piritskenyer]

Looks workable. Are there any preliminary ship designs to carry them or do we pull one out of our rearsides?

 

In the meantime, I'll start drawing up possible upgrade solutions for the Normandie and the Lyon classes, maybe even literally draw some visual mods for the upgrades.

[Getzamatic]

 

Interesting. Could you be so nice as to dig a link or the article up for me? My access to paper resources is unfortunately pretty limited, so I need all the help I can get. 

 

Thanks in advance!

 

I'm afraid I only heard about it second hand so i don't know which issue to find it in.  I'll see if I can dig something up.

[piritskenyer]

 

I'm afraid I only heard about it second hand so i don't know which issue to find it in.  I'll see if I can dig something up.

 

That'd be great, thanks!

[Niaro]

Hmm where would you put  the Gascogne? Seperate Ship? or Prem?

Since those changes would be too much for a Richelieu upgrade.

[piritskenyer]

Hmm where would you put  the Gascogne? Seperate Ship? or Prem?

Since those changes would be too much for a Richelieu upgrade.

 

Well, never being as much as laid down, I doubt she'd make the game even as a premium. Clemenceau would be more likely, as the hull was at least floated out of the dock (to free up sapce, admittedly, but still)

 

I'm reverting to the original version of the tech tree with Alsace at Tier IX, I'm adding Jean Bart's original config as a premium for T8, with weakish AA for now.

[piritskenyer]

Blatant double post, once more.

 

I made a spreadsheet with armament for preliminary buildups I've set the link so you guys can leave comments on it. There are four different tabs, one for the ships themselves, one for main guns, one for secondaries, and one for AA.

 

Note: It's WIP.

[Historynerd]

Hmmm... well, I guess that the WG guys will have to come up with a triple mount for the 450 mm gun, if it has to be the Tier X main armament. I think twin mounts might not make the cut.

[Waroch]

Looks workable. Are there any preliminary ship designs to carry them or do we pull one out of our rearsides?

 

In the meantime, I'll start drawing up possible upgrade solutions for the Normandie and the Lyon classes, maybe even literally draw some visual mods for the upgrades.

 

Even if they have studied a ship with those guns, it could only be a super dreadnought in the same vein than the Normandie and Lyon classes. Big, fat, slow and an antique protective scheme. It's a dead duck in T10.

In my mind even in T6 Lyon will have a rough time. Why not considering the pre-Dunkerque studies of the 1920s? There were several BC designs with either high velocity 305mm guns or three twin 406mm turrets. They's a step up from the pre-WW1 stuff and make a nice ramp to the Dunkerque in T7.

 

If we really are to invent stuff for T10, then we should at least consider a contemporary gun. The naval gun board of Ruelle was working on a 431mm modèle 1939 which could do the trick in triples, there was a plan of its liner mentionned in an inventory document of the SHD.

 

Hmm where would you put  the Gascogne? Seperate Ship? or Prem?

Since those changes would be too much for a Richelieu upgrade.

 

I'd say Gascogne in T8, Richelieu (with post war Jean Bart upgrades) in T9, work out an Alsace configuration for T10.

 

Blatant double post, once more.

 

I made a spreadsheet with armament for preliminary buildups I've set the link so you guys can leave comments on it. There are four different tabs, one for the ships themselves, one for main guns, one for secondaries, and one for AA.

 

Note: It's WIP.

 

I've only done a quick check, the 130mm DP gun existed in quad and twin turrets on the Dunkerque (model 1932), modernized twins were considered by 1939/40 for the CV Joffre and contemporary destroyers. No triple mount to my knowledge.

[piritskenyer]

 

Even if they have studied a ship with those guns, it could only be a super dreadnought in the same vein than the Normandie and Lyon classes. Big, fat, slow and an antique protective scheme. It's a dead duck in T10.

In my mind even in T6 Lyon will have a rough time. Why not considering the pre-Dunkerque studies of the 1920s? There were several BC designs with either high velocity 305mm guns or three twin 406mm turrets. They's a step up from the pre-WW1 stuff and make a nice ramp to the Dunkerque in T7.

 

If we really are to invent stuff for T10, then we should at least consider a contemporary gun. The naval gun board of Ruelle was working on a 431mm modèle 1939 which could do the trick in triples, there was a plan of its liner mentionned in an inventory document of the SHD.

 

 

I'd say Gascogne in T8, Richelieu (with post war Jean Bart upgrades) in T9, work out an Alsace configuration for T10.

 

 

I've only done a quick check, the 130mm DP gun existed in quad and twin turrets on the Dunkerque (model 1932), modernized twins were considered by 1939/40 for the CV Joffre and contemporary destroyers. No triple mount to my knowledge.

 

Nice to see you here again!  

 

1) The 450mm gun *could* theoretically be workable in an Alsace hull with 3 triple turrets (suggest you check out my opening post n°2, and there TX, Proposal 2.2). If not, then I'd like to ask you for some more detail on those 431mm guns (all the data you can get basically).

 

2) Like I've mentioned before, my access to paper-based resources is pretty limited from here, so I'm mainly going off of information nuggets available from Wiki, and then boosting those up with info from some sites I trust (For example navweaps). I don't know what those pre-Dunkerque studies look like, but by all means, if you think they are workable, please point me towards them.

Normandie and Lyon are indeed not ideal with their god-awful ballistic characteristics, but I think in this case quantity would in part make up for the lack of quality. Plus in a 12 or 16 gun HE salvo there is always going to be at least a few that hit and do damage.

 

3) I'm sensing something off here. Gascogne? Wasn't that the planned 4th ship of the Richelieu class? That's how I was handling it. I may be at loss here.

 

4) Yes, the 130mm triple mount was a typo (I probably had the 152mm triple in mind), it was supposed to be twin, and has been corrected accordingly, thank you.

[Waroch]

 

Nice to see you here again!  

 

1) The 450mm gun *could* theoretically be workable in an Alsace hull with 3 triple turrets (suggest you check out my opening post n°2, and there TX, Proposal 2.2). If not, then I'd like to ask you for some more detail on those 431mm guns (all the data you can get basically).

 

2) Like I've mentioned before, my access to paper-based resources is pretty limited from here, so I'm mainly going off of information nuggets available from Wiki, and then boosting those up with info from some sites I trust (For example navweaps). I don't know what those pre-Dunkerque studies look like, but by all means, if you think they are workable, please point me towards them.

Normandie and Lyon are indeed not ideal with their god-awful ballistic characteristics, but I think in this case quantity would in part make up for the lack of quality. Plus in a 12 or 16 gun HE salvo there is always going to be at least a few that hit and do damage.

 

3) I'm sensing something off here. Gascogne? Wasn't that the planned 4th ship of the Richelieu class? That's how I was handling it. I may be at loss here.

 

4) Yes, the 130mm triple mount was a typo (I probably had the 152mm triple in mind), it was supposed to be twin, and has been corrected accordingly, thank you.

 

1) details... I have none I'm afraid. Like said above, I know there was such a gun because it was mentionned on an inventory of the historical service of the mindef. There was a single blueprint mentionned, and it was about the internal liner. Since they were studying such constructive details, one may think there is more in the archive centre, and that the design was relatively advanced. To know more though, one has to take a trip to Châtellerault ^^

 

2) I can do better actually. Check your mp.

 

3) Yes and no. It was supposed to come after Clémenceau, which was the third ship of the Richelieu class. Nonetheless the Gascogne is quite a different ship. The change in the layout of the main battery meant a complete revision of the internals of the ship; plus the armour scheme was somewhat modified (the belt is slightly thinner and more inclined), which implies a structural revision. Of course there are elements in common with the Richelieu, but it's not really the same class anymore, like the name suggests it's rather a stop-gap to the next class with province names. It's at most a half-sister to the Richelieu.

Personnaly, I would rather stick to history and split the Richelieu class in two (1943 Richelieu in T8, 1953 Jean Bart in T9). However it is true that it would be a première, and if the devs are against that idea then having the Gascogne as an independant ship could be an alternative.

[piritskenyer]

 

1) details... I have none I'm afraid. Like said above, I know there was such a gun because it was mentionned on an inventory of the historical service of the mindef. There was a single blueprint mentionned, and it was about the internal liner. Since they were studying such constructive details, one may think there is more in the archive centre, and that the design was relatively advanced. To know more though, one has to take a trip to Châtellerault ^^

 

2) I can do better actually. Check your mp.

 

3) Yes and no. It was supposed to come after Clémenceau, which was the third ship of the Richelieu class. Nonetheless the Gascogne is quite a different ship. The change in the layout of the main battery meant a complete revision of the internals of the ship; plus the armour scheme was somewhat modified (the belt is slightly thinner and more inclined), which implies a structural revision. Of course there are elements in common with the Richelieu, but it's not really the same class anymore, like the name suggests it's rather a stop-gap to the next class with province names. It's at most a half-sister to the Richelieu.

Personnaly, I would rather stick to history and split the Richelieu class in two (1943 Richelieu in T8, 1953 Jean Bart in T9). However it is true that it would be a première, and if the devs are against that idea then having the Gascogne as an independant ship could be an alternative.

 

1) Chatellerault... Oh joy. Wish I had the money and time to travel now. We need to find someone who'll make the trip for us

 

2) Checked, reacted

 

3) The problem with splitting the two ships is that you'd need to balance them on soft and RNG-dependent stats, which doesn't bode well in terms of progression. Like: "Here you go, here's a ship that on paper is better than the preceding one, so it may in atuality be better. If you're lucky and have sacrificed enough goats to the RNJeezus"

It is likely that the two ships would be pretty much the same but since the opposition has hardened, the one up the tiers would perform noticably worse. Gascogne may have been differently arranged internally, but I don't know how that would or could be represented in game. Mabe higher survivability and not just in terms of HP. Anyway, in terms of armament, I'm not sure we'd be any better off...

A commonly known example would be the Cromwell and the Comet in WoT, where the average stats for the Comet (in the beggining at least) were noticably lower than the ones for the Cromwell, because the Comet was just a bit better than the Cromwell, but not really enough to have the same weight tier-for-tier as the Cromwell.

[piritskenyer]

Updated the tables up to T9 Check it out and comment. Pay attention to the note for Dunkerque C hull.

[Waroch]

a few things i've spotted ;)

 

the navy used the 13.2mm Hotchkiss in twin and quad mounts only. The 13.2mm used in single mount was the Browning mg rechambered by the FN Herstal. Same ammunition but belt-fed, water-cooled and pushed to some 1050 rpm.

 

The Oerlikon gun was used only on ships refitted in anglo-saxon shipyards, or very briefly in post war refits. By the early war the French navy was turning to the 25mm Hotchkiss in single, twin or eventually quad mounts for capital ships.

So in what-if configurations, 20mm Oerlikon should rather go with 40 or 57mm Bofors. If you're considering guns such as the 37mm models 33 or 35 ACAD, it would be more logical to associate them with 13.2mm mgs or 25mm guns.

It's pretty much the step up from 13.2mm mgs...

 

Concerning Dunkerque's what-if "hull C", I see you chose the twin automatic 37mm model 35. It's a good choice, however we have to keep in mind that it was quite an advanced weapon system. The Bofors gun was used in rather straight-to-business systems and could be stacked about anywhere on a ship, whereas the 37mm ACAD consisted in a real turret, teleoperated and with its own ammunition lobby and supply chain. We just can't placed them anywhere.

So where would you see them? If you get rid of the aviation hangar and catapult, I think there may be enough room for four of these on the quaterdeck, plus a number of 25mm guns. Where would the others go?

[piritskenyer]

So in practice what Richelieu has listed as 4 single mount Hotchkiss MG's, are actually M2's chambered in 13.2?

 

The part about the 37mm will need some work then, but I don't want to take away the hangar space. The semi automatic 37mm is completely inadequate for AA duties at this point.

[Waroch]

Yes, that's the configuration by July 41, five quad and two twin Hotchkiss plus four single FN-Browning. Not that it would make a big difference in T8 tbh :ph34r:

 

About the Dunkerque, I can see three options:

- the lazy one is to draw a what-if refit in a US shipyard, in which case you just pack it with Bofors & Oerlikons à la Richelieu post-43

- another option is to imagine an emergency war-time refit. So I guess sticking twin 25mm Hotchkiss everywhere. The Japanese way...

- or we work out a configuration with 37mm ACAD and a few 25mm for close range, which in my mind is the most interesting option but it might not be that obvious.

 

I'll check in Jordan's French Battleships in I can find something about this.