Let's talk French battleships a bit...

[Waroch]

ok so good news froms Jordan & Dumas' book, there was actually a configuration with those automatic 37mm turrets studied from 1935 on. Here's what Jordan says of it:

 

It still features in the official plans of Dunkerque dated Brest 1 March 1939, which show two mountings on the upper deck abeam turret II, a further pair on either side of the deckhouse between the funnel and the mainmast, and a fifth mounting on the centreline aft above the after 130mm quad turret – these locations were in part determined by the requirement for an ammunition lobby directly beneath the gun mounting. There were to be four associated directors with integral 2-metre rangefinders and RPC: two at the forward end of the shelter deck above the forward pair of mountings, and two on either side of the deckhouse between the funnel and the mainmast

 

and a drawing to illustrate:

 

(in J.Jordan and R.Dumas, French Battleships 1922-1956)

 

I suggest adding this as Hull C upgrade, but switching the 13,2mm MGs for twin 25mm guns. If eight mounts aren't enough, it should be possible to add at least a couple of extra mounts in the heights ot the front tower. Or switch to quads eventually.

 

[piritskenyer]

This is great news indeed. Now not to sound like a know-it-all, but that's pretty much how I would have distributed the turrets, with two more behind and off the forward tower superstructure. I wouldn'T have put one behind the after tower though. Those did seem like the most obvious places.

Those quad Hotchkisses seem to be very neatly distributed, but I'm really inclined to put two twin 25mm's to the two sides of the crane, another two onto the forward mast/tower, and two to four mounts forward of the wavebreaker.

 

[Waroch]

Well, the two forward turrets aren't that obvious to me. When you think of it, it's a very bad position for an AA turret, with a very limited arc when the turret is centered, and pretty much unable to fire if the turret is turned to their side. The aft turrets are quite good, but the forward ones would be much more efficient if they were taken back a little bit. Abeam the forward 13.2mm position would be a huge improvement for example. But then it would limit the firing arc of turret II... That's the one big trouble with the turret configuration of the Dunkerque/Richelieu; not the blindspot of the rear like most people say, it's not that much of a problem in a normal combat situation, but to find good spots for AA turrets is a real challenge. Only Jean Bart really had an efficient AA suite, and it took quite an extensive rebuild to have it.

 

And yeah, don't be shy with the 25's, you can place these wherever you like ;)

[piritskenyer]

Well, the two forward turrets aren't that obvious to me. When you think of it, it's a very bad position for an AA turret, with a very limited arc when the turret is centered, and pretty much unable to fire if the turret is turned to their side. The aft turrets are quite good, but the forward ones would be much more efficient if they were taken back a little bit. Abeam the forward 13.2mm position would be a huge improvement for example. But then it would limit the firing arc of turret II... That's the one big trouble with the turret configuration of the Dunkerque/Richelieu; not the blindspot of the rear like most people say, it's not that much of a problem in a normal combat situation, but to find good spots for AA turrets is a real challenge. Only Jean Bart really had an efficient AA suite, and it took quite an extensive rebuild to have it.

 

And yeah, don't be shy with the 25's, you can place these wherever you like ;)

 

AA turret placement isn't that much of an issue, since in real life AA armament and main armament was rarely used alongside.

 

I'll look for some more spots to put twin 25's

[B777LR]

Hello there!

 

Regarding the lack of a battleship to fill out the full tree, I recently got hold of a copy of Anthony Preston's "Battleships of world war 1". He mentions that in 1913-1914 the french drew up plans for a class of battlecruisers based on the Normandie class. Displacement about 27.000 tons, armed with 12x 13.4 inch guns and 24x 5.5 inch secondaries, armour belt of 11 and a quarter inches, powered by 4-shaft turbines delivering 63.000 shp, with a design speed of 27 knots.

 

Sounds like a pretty good fit for tier 6 ship? Sacrifices some armour, but is a bit faster than most battleships of it's tier. They would have been newer than the Fuso class of tier 6, had they been built.

 

A more radical alternative would be the Austrian Viribus Unitis class dreadnought Prinz Eugen. She was passed on to France following the war, only to be sunk as a gunnery target. But arguably still had a stint with France. And the Austro-Hungarians aren't likely to be added anyway.

 

Same with the German SMS Thüringen, which was ceded to France but scrapped in 1920.

[Loutral]

Hey,

 

That's not really the problem. There is enough ships to fill up that BB line. The main problem remains the choice of the Tier X.

 

Oh and btw. I just want to point something about the underwater protections and the late french BB ships (Dunkerque, Richelieu, and probably Alsace) : They were pretty huge !

That's definitively something to consider in game balance concerning torpedoes.

[B777LR]

Well it was more to avoid a completely fictional ship in tier X and putting sister ships in different tiers. Arguably the Alsace would have been capable of taking on the Yamato, and could possibly fit in tier X

 

[Loutral]

Well it was more to avoid a completely fictional ship in tier X and putting sister ships in different tiers. Arguably the Alsace would have been capable of taking on the Yamato, and could possibly fit in tier X

 

I have the same opinion. I think Alsace could fit tier X. There are so many "hidden" variables that can be tweaked to make it a good tier X without being unrealistic.

But i understand perplexity of some people. The Montana & Yamato are basicaly monstrous. And it looks like little Alsace would looks like a shrimp fishing boat next to them. But hey the size & firepower of these 2 doesn't only have pros.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hey about those underwater protections i talked about a little above. I managed to find out some numbers on Wikipedia (yea i know) :

- 4.10 meters (13.5 ft) on King George V

- 5 meters (16 ft) on Scharnhorst

- 6 meters (20 ft) on Bismarck

- 3.8 meters (12 ft) on Littorio-class (Seems like it was a very singular cylindrical protection developed by an Italian naval chief disigner)

- 7 meters (23 ft) on Richelieu

- 7.5 meters (24.6 ft) on Dunkerque 

 

So yeah i know it's Wikipedia. Far from being the best source of information. So i tried to check the sources they are refering to. Found the free part of Jordan & Dumas 2009 

https://books.google.fr/books?id=YnS9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Jordan+%26+Dumas+2009&source=bl&ots=BS8xjGtAQ8&sig=cruOnmjf3ytWfK7ASJkbRM9JDcc&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuo-rx5N7KAhWKOz4KHYHIDMUQ6AEIPTAF#v=onepage&q=Jordan%20%26%20Dumas%202009&f=false

Lot of informations about the Dunkerque. But not able to continue to read about the Richelieu since this part is pay to read.

Thanks to that, i learned that the difference of 0.5m on Richelieu & Dunkerque is explained by a difference in the arrangment of the boilers.

 

Finally, here is something to give you an idea of the protection on the Richelieu (and the protection of the Littorio just for curiosity, bcs it's a really singular architecture) :

 This pic was posted by someone from the forum.

 

Littorio :

 

 

There you go. I'm aware it was really incomplete and rough. But i think it gives an overall idea.

[Waroch]

 

AA turret placement isn't that much of an issue, since in real life AA armament and main armament was rarely used alongside.

 

But it doesn't mean that your main turret will always be pointing forward. The Dunkerque shared a weakness with its german rival in that its bow was not very efficient. It tended to be quite wet and could not maintain high speed in rough waters. In the early years of its short operational life, it didn't have the leather seal on its main gun and therefore had to sail sometimes with its turrets pointing backwards in order not to get packs of water falling down the turret well. The KGV as well had this problem in the early years.

 

Anyway in game it would definitely matter, expect a lot of rant about this

 

 

I have the same opinion. I think Alsace could fit tier X. There are so many "hidden" variables that can be tweaked to make it a good tier X without being unrealistic.

But i understand perplexity of some people. The Montana & Yamato are basicaly monstrous. And it looks like little Alsace would looks like a shrimp fishing boat next to them. But hey the size & firepower of these 2 doesn't only have pros.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hey about those underwater protections i talked about a little above. I managed to find out some numbers on Wikipedia (yea i know) :

- 4.10 meters (13.5 ft) on King George V

- 5 meters (16 ft) on Scharnhorst

- 6 meters (20 ft) on Bismarck

- 3.8 meters (12 ft) on Littorio-class (Seems like it was a very singular cylindrical protection developed by an Italian naval chief disigner)

- 7 meters (23 ft) on Richelieu

- 7.5 meters (24.6 ft) on Dunkerque 

 

So yeah i know it's Wikipedia. Far from being the best source of information. So i tried to check the sources they are refering to. Found the free part of Jordan & Dumas 2009 

https://books.google.fr/books?id=YnS9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Jordan+%26+Dumas+2009&source=bl&ots=BS8xjGtAQ8&sig=cruOnmjf3ytWfK7ASJkbRM9JDcc&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuo-rx5N7KAhWKOz4KHYHIDMUQ6AEIPTAF#v=onepage&q=Jordan%20%26%20Dumas%202009&f=false

Lot of informations about the Dunkerque. But not able to continue to read about the Richelieu since this part is pay to read.

Thanks to that, i learned that the difference of 0.5m on Richelieu & Dunkerque is explained by a difference in the arrangment of the boilers.

 

Well, tier 10 is above all a problem of firepower. The 380mm gun model 1935 would be fine in T8 and okay in T9 but clearly not enough for T10. And if you go for the 406mm armed Alsace, you're still missing 25% of the broadside of a Montana.

 

About underwater protection, the Richelieu's system is pretty much identical to the Dunkerque's, only slightly slimmer due to the machinery spaces like you could read.

But it's not all about the raw thickness at the widest point; the actual architecture of the system and the way efforts are transmitted to the rest of the ship's structure matter as well. For instance, the Bismarck and South Dakota have roughly the same maximum thickness, but the Bismarck had a less sophisticated system with a single liquid-loaded space directly outward the anti-torpedo bulkhead, then a second void space. SoDak had a four-space sandwich V/L/V/V which would be more efficient to vent out the energy of a torpedo explosion.

 

The bottom league in that domain is the KGV, whose system is not only thin, but had a deffective link to the rest of the structure. On top of that, since it was too short-legged to the taste of the Admiralty, the void spaces, particularly on the already vulnerable bottom, were progressively used for fuel storage, which reduced even further the submarine protection of the poor thing. Because the fuel tanks which are drawn fully grayed in the schemes you posted in real life could not be filled more than 2/3rd or at most 3 quarters of their capacity... Else they become dreadfully effective to transfer shockwaves to the internal structures!

Where you realise that the brits really have... well, "[edited]dans la colle" like we say around here :ph34r:, is that the SW protection of the 35 000 ton KGV is no better than the 10 000 ton Algérie heavy cruiser :s

 

Anyway, the Dunkerque and the Richelieu both had a very effective SW system, thick and elaborated. The post-war Jean Bart goes even further: since it was bulged, a torpedo hitting amidship would have to get through about 9 meters in five layers void/liquid/void/solid/void. It's undeniably the most efficient passive SW protection system ever mounted on a warship; in fact I've always wondered if even a Long Lance could get through that...

 

 

[HariSeldon]

Guys, i'm just reading and learning, probbably one of the better topics of the forum. No trolls or bad manners, very good job, continue please

 

[Historynerd]

- 3.8 meters (12 ft) on Littorio-class (Seems like it was a very singular cylindrical protection developed by an Italian naval chief disigner)

 

I have made a topic about the Pugliese underwater defense system, with some more info. If you'd like, you can look it up here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/38017-the-pugliese-underwater-protection-system/

 

Sorry for the brief OT.

[B777LR]

 

I have the same opinion. I think Alsace could fit tier X. There are so many "hidden" variables that can be tweaked to make it a good tier X without being unrealistic.

But i understand perplexity of some people. The Montana & Yamato are basicaly monstrous. And it looks like little Alsace would looks like a shrimp fishing boat next to them. But hey the size & firepower of these 2 doesn't only have pros.

Well, tier 10 is above all a problem of firepower. The 380mm gun model 1935 would be fine in T8 and okay in T9 but clearly not enough for T10. And if you go for the 406mm armed Alsace, you're still missing 25% of the broadside of a Montana.

 

 

But the thing about the 2 tier X BBs currently in game, is that they were the anomaly, not the norm, for the last generation of battleships. Even if they do end up with a Super Alsace in the game, there will still be a problem trying to find suitable tier X battleships for the likes of Germany, the UK and Russia. They had the H-class, Vanguard and Sovietsky Soyuz as the pinacle of battleship design. If the level of firepower is the deciding fact for tier X, none of those would rate any higher than tier IX, and those are just about the most powerful battleships ever designed by those nations. (Ok, Germany did have the H43/H44 concept, but that was very far out).

 

Vanguard was very close to what the Alsace could have been, and while Vanguard "only" had BL 15 inch guns, she would have been more that capable of matching the Yamato. She was, like the Alsace would have been, completed several years after the Yamato, applying many lessons learnt during the war, thereby making up for the deficiencies in firepower. One example is that the Alsace would most likely have received a very modern radar assisted fire control system, whereas the Yamato relied on optical fire control. It would have been far more accurate. Torpedo protection is as mentioned also a possibility of improving it, as torpedoes are one of the primary causes of premature death for battleships in the game

This link suggests that the 380mm/45 gun could penetrate Yamato's belt armour at the distances seen in the game, so in theory it would be able to penetrate and kill a Yamato under some circumstances:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.htm

 

Putting the Normandie based battlecruiser in tier 5 or 6 will also provide a nice break from the monotony of the line from tier 3 to tier 6. The Courbet, Bretagne, Normandie and Lyon and all 20-23 knot hulkers: http://s73.photobucket.com/user/Rengokuy/media/French/Gille-13.jpg.html

 

[Poster_2015]

Yes I honestly have the urge to make jokes about compensating some deficiencies by having big guns by posters here. There is absolutely no reason for t10 to have caliber higher then 15". The firepower is mostly decided by accuracy/flight time/penetration, not by caliber (and the shell damage that is tied to it). 

 

French 15"/45 is more then capable of penetrating t10 ships. It actually has higher shell velocity as well (and in this game high shell velocity is not burdened by accompanying higher dispersion). Any deficiencies can be adjustedby manipulating rof/range/dispersion - which is pretty much developpers whim anyway. 

 

Also dont compare to Yamato really - its an outlier , and probably an OP ship (not that important until rankeds reach t10 imo, but it really is designed to make yamato fans happy). Ofc with just 2 t10 BBs you can say Montana is too weak and not Yamato too strong, but if you look at broader picture - as comparing to t9 and so on - Yamato is the biggest outlier here.

 

Same way I dont see a problem with the Dunquerke at T8 - very fast forward shooting ship with 330mm gun is a bit extreme - but I wouldnt have a problem playing it myself - given correct ROF adjustment to keep the dps decent (it should honestly be lower given the forward shooting guns only giving huge advantage in bow tanking). 

 

Having French flavor at high tier being lower caliber but faster shooting guns with good penetration and flight time (at cost of alpha), is perfectly fine to me.

 

[piritskenyer]

As it now stands, the rumored TX BB for the RN is the L3 or the N3 (armed with 18" guns), the rumored TX BB for Germany is the H-41/42/43 (420/480/480mm-gun-armed).

 

Sovyetsky Soyuz wouldn't be anything impressive, but what did we expect, the Soviet navy is not one to have shined brightly in regards to surface fleet during the era of battleships. They are the very best good for T9, but I'm sure the people in charge of that will come up with something for TX. 

 

I for one would love the idea of a Super-Alsace (the sheer volume of fire would be amazing) or a 450-Alsace (big guns are also nice). Case in point is that Alsace as either a 380-armed 12-gun ship or a 406-armed 9-gun ship is inadequate as a TX BB, even with an insane RoF.

[Poster_2015]

And why exactly is it inadequate? Tirpitz is a 8 gun BB with lower caliber vs 9 and 10 gun BBs, and is perfectly adequate. Alsace with 12 15" guns would be basically tirpitz with 50% more firepower and better turret layout. Montana is a 33% more firepower North Carolina with WORSE turret layout and is perfectly fine (again if you make example of Yamatos - Yamato shells are WAY overperforming compared to RL in this game - it would make the ship actually more historically accurate if they were nerfed). 

 

Its like saying 155mm Mogami is inadequate (and it doesnt actually have insane ROF - its only 20% faster shooting then Hipper is shooting 203mm). 

 

Main metric I use is basically "would I enjoy such ship". And Alsace with 12 guns and 2.3-2.5 rof (honestly 2.3 is enough) doesnt strike me as anything bad. Now there can be things in implementation which would make it bad - like bad manouverability , slow speed, turret turn rate  (which especially for a paper ship are easy to tweak for WG), but there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong with such ship for me. 

[Loutral]

 

I have made a topic about the Pugliese underwater defense system, with some more info. If you'd like, you can look it up here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/38017-the-pugliese-underwater-protection-system/

 

Sorry for the brief OT.

 

Thanks ! All good  i put the link in my favourites for later.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think i found some stats for the 450mm mle 1920.

Nothing official but one member of this forum seems relatively well informed about it : 

http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie/canon-marine-450mm-sujet_915_1.htm

 

I'm gonna translate the main characteristics :

 

Manufacturer : Schneider in the Creusot steelworks.

Designation : 450 mm modèle 1920 

 

Tested in 1929 : 

fired in a 50° angle

Velocity : 851 m/s

Range : 51.923 m (pretty impressive)

 

Still, i think the 380 mm can handle the job. Plus i would be sad if the last french BB wasn't even in a 4x3 configuration. (it's too badass to be left aside )

[Waroch]

French 15"/45 is more then capable of penetrating t10 ships. It actually has higher shell velocity as well (and in this game high shell velocity is not burdened by accompanying higher dispersion). Any deficiencies can be adjustedby manipulating rof/range/dispersion - which is pretty much developpers whim anyway. 

 

Also dont compare to Yamato really - its an outlier , and probably an OP ship (not that important until rankeds reach t10 imo, but it really is designed to make yamato fans happy). Ofc with just 2 t10 BBs you can say Montana is too weak and not Yamato too strong, but if you look at broader picture - as comparing to t9 and so on - Yamato is the biggest outlier here.

 

 

Some time ago I've toyed with penetration simulation on the software Naval armour and Balistics, to try to figure out what the Alsace's 406mm could look like.

Sure, if you can get close enough (<15km) and if there is ZERO angle, you have a chance to pen T10 battleships with the 380mm gun. But since battleship players tend to optimize angle and distances to get the best out of their armour, the 380mm really has marginal performances.

The Alsace 3rd type has a serious lack of armour, even compared to a Montana. The few knots advantage won't make a difference. Since the gun is only good up close at this stage, you can forget about range and dispersion to balance things out. The only thing you can do is to buff the rof and effectively turn your BB into a large cruiser. But would people play a full line of battleships to get a cruiser in the end?

Every ship needs a forte. Alsace will never have the survivability of a Yamato, not even of a Montana. Mobility is only a slight advantage. So there's only firepower left, and there you need hard-hitting guns. A large volume of fire is certainly not enough, since you won't survive long enough to make profit of it.

[Poster_2015]

Not sure what software you used, but French 15"/45 gun according to tests had better short range penetration then US 16" super heavies. Up to 10km its better, at 20km its slightly worse. If Montana can penetrate stuff, so could 15"/45 french gun.  Yamato guns are better at those ranges, but not by a huge margin (10% generally). If it has 11600 (tirpitz level) damage and 2.3 RoF (again tirpitz level), it will already be on par with Montana in dps, with 33% more firepower front. Dispersion is a powerful knob to turn, even at 12-18 km range (which is where battleship actually get effective). Pair it with good shell velocity and low travel time, and you can have a powerful gun setup. Forte is pretty obvious - fast ship with very good anti-cruiser guns, that are also accurate and on par with other BBs. 8 guns shooting forward is a forte on its own. 

 

Why Alsace cant have the survivability? Armor is not everything, there are plenty of hidden values that make more sense to "adjust at expense of reality" then gun caliber. Give it more hp, give it ability to repair citadels, there are plenty "game only" stats that can be tuned. 

[Historynerd]

As it now stands, the rumored TX BB for the RN is the L3 or the N3 (armed with 18" guns), the rumored TX BB for Germany is the H-41/42/43 (420/480/480mm-gun-armed).

 

At most, the Tier X German BB would be the H41; any subsequent design would clash with WG's statement that they wouldn't put anything in the game that surpasses Yamato's own guns (460 mm).

[piritskenyer]

 

At most, the Tier X German BB would be the H41; any subsequent desgin would clash with WG's statement that they wouldn't put anything in the game that surpasses Yamato's own guns (460 mm).

 

I stand corrected. It's indeed the case, I completely forgot about the calibre cap...

[Loutral]

Hey guys, i'm a bit off, but i found this Battleships Comparison page.

Pretty interesting so far and in depth despite some subjective points.

 

I drop the link if you're interested :

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

[piritskenyer]

Don't mind it being off, if it can be of use to the people involved, it's welcome. Also, maybe we can use the knowledge in there to flesh out our tree better.

 

I like the matrix the guy put up, and it's interesting to see that Richelieu scores pretty high throughout except for AA. Also, it seems he's a bit biased towardsa the Iowa and the SoDak, but eh.

[Historynerd]

Hey guys, i'm a bit off, but i found this Battleships Comparison page.

Pretty interesting so far and in depth despite some subjective points.

 

I drop the link if you're interested :

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

 

Don't mind it being off, if it can be of use to the people involved, it's welcome. Also, maybe we can use the knowledge in there to flesh out our tree better.

 

I like the matrix the guy put up, and it's interesting to see that Richelieu scores pretty high throughout except for AA. Also, it seems he's a bit biased towardsa the Iowa and the SoDak, but eh.

 

In here I have read that the site is considered unreliable, as it doesn't have complete or up-to-date info, and the comparison has a bad reputation as well, as it seems that the author didn't do a 100% thorough job in its sources and conclusions.

 

For example, the fact that he gives such a high score to the Richelieu's main armament, while that of the Vittorio Veneto scores much lower, is quite eyebrow-raising, since both guns were notoriously affected by dispersion issues, and for the former the only serious cure was to put delay coils so to avoid firing the guns together. But he admits that he knows little about the guns of the Vittorio Veneto, therefore it kind of shows that he doesn't have the complete picture he should have to undertake such a task.

Conversely, I was surprised by the high score given to the Vittorio Veneto's underwater defense system; in my opinion, while better than most think, it doesn't warrant such a positive consideration.

 

I point these objections out because their topic is one I am knowledgeable about, but I believe that others might be made by more qualified people for other battleships.

[Shha]

Well the scores there are very subjective. When a guy openly says "past 1943 best optical fire control system is irrelevant" and gives example of ONE night battle, it speaks volumes to me. Not that he might not be right BY ACCIDENT, but his reasoning is very flawed. He scores Yamato higher then Iowa for the optical FC, then just completely ignores it (as in gives 0 weight to it - and during day fight it probably would be still superior). Not to mention that US navy is represented by 2 ships just so it can win in both categories . 

 

Regardless, aside from scores, he posts some useful raw data there. And frankly piritskenyer, dont get your hopes up too much, i value this topic for entertainment purposes, but i have 0 hopes anything said here will have any impact on the actual tree . So I dont really wanna get too detailed, as it feels like a waste of time. 

[Comrad_StaIin]

the Asace cant have that much HP since it isnt as big as Yamato or even Montana

I think the German Tier 10 BB could break the 100k Mark since german ships have always more HP than their counterparts (for whatever reason)