Let's talk French battleships a bit...

[Shha]

What has the size to do with hp? Nurnberg is heavier then Aoba and has less hp ;p (just used that for the whole german ships have more hp then their counterparts). Hp is the easiest way to manipulate the ships balance, without actually getting into historical arguments. 

[RamirezKurita]

The problem with trying to get the Alsace at T10 is that, in terms of displacement and age, they are all T9 material. There's only so much a 1940ish 45,000 ton design is capable of, and trying to shoehorn it into T10 would basically involve throwing historical accuracy out of the window.

 

The reason why the Bismarck's guns work at T8 is because of their high fire rate, coupled with a modern shell design (although the French shell designs were similarly modern, so they would likely have similar effectiveness to the Germans for a given calibre). They were famed for their high rate of fire due to extremely efficient ammunition hoists, however the French 380mm guns didn't have nearly as efficient hoists so their fire rate was notably lower, not even reaching the 2 RPM of standard battleships even during trials even on the improved design on the Jean Bart, compared to the German guns which could reach 3 RPM during trials. This overall means that an Alsace with 4x3 380mm guns would have about 33% more DPM on the front than the Bismarcks (the same as a Richelieu), but a simlar broadside DPM. Having a bit more firepower on the front, coupled with some improved AA and a slightly greater speed can be a reason for it to be a tier higher than the Bismarcks, but not 2 tiers difference to put them into T10. Even the 3x3 406mm Alsace designs are basically just rehashes of the Iowas, so not T10 material again. T10 battleship gameplay is the playing ground of the 70,000 ton superbattleships, not regular 45,000 ton battleships.

 

The only way an Alsace design would work at T10 is if there is some design proposal that I'm not aware of that is significantly larger than the others, likely equipped with either 4x4 380mm guns (which would be an amazing cruiser and DD hunter due to the number of projectiles) or a 3x4 406mm version.

[Comrad_StaIin]

I would want a 4x4 Alsace (even if its fictional) 

as I want the French T10 BB to have quad Turrets

[piritskenyer]

Do you guys think the gns on the ships could be sleeved in pairs instead of all-in-one? What I mean is this:

The turrets on Dunkerque and Richelieu (and probably would have on Normandie, Lyon and Alsace) had a central bulkhead that separated the two guns on either side. Due to the size of the turret and the number of guns, the two guns to either side were sleeved together instead of being individually sleeved (meaning they elevated together). Now this could be useful because the loss of an entire turret would result in a much higher loss of firepower than for any other ship which has double or even triple turrets. Do you think it would be possible to have two gungroups for a turret and lose only one of those gungroups permanently at a time instead of the whole turret?

[Historynerd]

Do you guys think the gns on the ships could be sleeved in pairs instead of all-in-one? What I mean is this:

The turrets on Dunkerque and Richelieu (and probably would have on Normandie, Lyon and Alsace) had a central bulkhead that separated the two guns on either side. Due to the size of the turret and the number of guns, the two guns to either side were sleeved together instead of being individually sleeved (meaning they elevated together). Now this could be useful because the loss of an entire turret would result in a much higher loss of firepower than for any other ship which has double or even triple turrets. Do you think it would be possible to have two gungroups for a turret and lose only one of those gungroups permanently at a time instead of the whole turret?

 

I had the same opinion, but then it was pointed out to me that the Richelieu's guns could, in fact, elevate separately, and therefore were not sleeved together.

Here's the image that proves it:

 

 

As for the separation of a turret in two groups... well, it might be. Either the risk of permanently losing a turret is kept very low, or this should be implemented.

[piritskenyer]

 

I had the same opinion, but then it was pointed out to me that the Richelieu's guns could, in fact, elevate separately, and therefore were not sleeved together.

Here's the image that proves it:

 

 

As for the separation of a turret in two groups... well, it might be. Either the risk of permanently losing a turret is kept very low, or this should be implemented.

 

Well, wow. I stand corrected yet again  I'm still for sleeving the guns in pairs in game in order to reduce critical firepower loss.

 

@Shha: We'll do our best to make a workable tree, then we'll pitch it to the devs. It's the most we can do, from then on it's up to them if they use the info we provide (if they don't already have it) or they resort to using "sikrit dokumints tovarish".

Also, our proposal will probably provide them with some indication as to how actual players think about the game.

[Historynerd]

Well, wow. I stand corrected yet again

 

Sorry if I am proving to be a pain in the backside.

 

Anyway, the opinion seems to be that the movement of each gun in a pair could be limited in respect to the other, but there is no conclusive evidence that tells us for sure how it was.

[piritskenyer]

 

Sorry if I am proving to be a pain in the backside.

 

Anyway, the opinion seems to be that the movement of each gun in a pair could be limited in respect to the other, but there is no conclusive evidence that tells us for sure how it was.

 

No, no, it's a good thing if you guys provide me with information I didn't have. It all goes towards building an accurate, playable and balanced tree. 

[Poster_2015]

Well its actually rather irrelevant for the tree - the guns on Iowa could be elevated separately, and its not and it wont be implemented in the game. So Id say whether you could or not elevate guns on Richelieu is irrelevant.

[piritskenyer]

Well its actually rather irrelevant for the tree - the guns on Iowa could be elevated separately, and its not and it wont be implemented in the game. So Id say whether you could or not elevate guns on Richelieu is irrelevant.

 

Actually what we are discussing is wether we should request the guns on the quad turrets to be grouped in pairs instead of all-in-one like on the tripple turrets of the NC, Iowa, Montana, Izumo and Yamato. The main reason for this in case of the Dunkerque and Richelieu is the fact that the loss of a single turret would mean the loss of 50% of the firepower, which is pretty much unprecedented on capital ships in the game (right now the maximum firepower a BB can lose by losing a turret is 33%).

[warsinger2]

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. 

France 380mm/45 0 yards  748mm penetration, 24.060 yards 393mm pen http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.htm

USA 16"/50 mark 7 0 yards 829mm penetration, 25,000 yards 441mm pen http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

German 380mm/52 SK c/34 0 yards 742mm  penetration  24.060 yards 393mm pen other formla rates it a little lower http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm

Japan 400mm/45 type 94 (460mm actual size) 0 yards 864mm+ penetration, 21.872 yards ~ 494 mm http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm

 

I do not see how the French 380/45 were superior to the US 16" mark 7, they were pretty similar/holding a slight edge to the German 380/52 SK c/34 at best.    

[Historynerd]

France 380mm/45 0 yards  748mm penetration, 24.060 yards 393mm pen http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.htm

USA 16"/50 mark 7 0 yards 829mm penetration, 25,000 yards 441mm pen http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

German 380mm/52 SK c/34 0 yards 742mm  penetration  24.060 yards 393mm pen other formla rates it a little lower http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm

Japan 400mm/45 type 94 (460mm actual size) 0 yards 864mm+ penetration, 21.872 yards ~ 494 mm http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm

 

I do not see how the French 380/45 were superior to the US 16" mark 7, they were pretty similar/holding a slight edge to the German 380/52 SK c/34 at best.    

 

You could add the Italian gun, for comparison purpose (after all, it was the gun against which the French battleship were most likely to fight).

 

Italy 381 mm/50 Model 1934 - 0 yards 814 mm, 30621 yards 380 mm http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_15-50_m1934.htm

[Loutral]

I know the reload time of the Richelieu is often debated.

But i've also heard an important and pretty unique thing (I dunno if it has been mentionned here).

 

It seems like the guns could be (theorically) reloaded at any angle.

 

I've checked on Navweaps :

 

About the Dunkerque :

          "An electric chain rammer was carried on an extension of the gun cradle and theoretically permitted loading and any angle of elevation.  In practice, it was found that shells jammed in the breech at higher elevations when the other guns were firing.  As a result, loading usually took place at angles no more than 15 degrees."

 

About the Richelieu :

         "These turrets were equipped with a unique "semi-flexible" chain rammer carried on an extension from each cradle which permitted loading at any angle and thus a theoretical high rate of fire.  The shells were "vigorously rammed" so that they would be held in place at high elevations by their own driving bands."

 

It seems like this feature was a mixed success. But still it can be considered in game for a relatively short reload time.

[Comrad_StaIin]

 

(right now the maximum firepower a BB can lose by losing a turret is 33%).

ever played the Mikasa ?

[piritskenyer]

ever played the Mikasa ?

 

That doesn'T really matter now does it? She doesn't have enough guns to hit 2 times out of 12 anyway...  She's more reliant on her secondaries to do the job for her.

But still a good point.

[triumphgt6]

I suppose the other issue would be that if a turret is hit and half destroyed, wouldn't that be likely to damage the turning mechanism? And wasn't the French 15" gun notoriously unreliable with the shells misfiring - I seem to remember reading that they tried a number of fixes for this including using US shells. I suppose the argument for the quad turrets was reducing the armoured citadel, but if hit, the reduction in firepower must have been realised as a big disadvantage. Beautiful ships though, and the Italian battleships even prettier!

[Historynerd]

I suppose the other issue would be that if a turret is hit and half destroyed, wouldn't that be likely to damage the turning mechanism? And wasn't the French 15" gun notoriously unreliable with the shells misfiring - I seem to remember reading that they tried a number of fixes for this including using US shells. I suppose the argument for the quad turrets was reducing the armoured citadel, but if hit, the reduction in firepower must have been realised as a big disadvantage. Beautiful ships though, and the Italian battleships even prettier!

 

Well, given that the internal bulkhead was placed just to make sure that the other "semi-turret" could remain in the fight, I presume that the designers must have thought about that; even if a shell had wrecked the gun themselves, the mechanisms would have remained intact, so the other two guns could be brought to bear, I figure. But we would need someone with better info about this, I'm afraid...

 

As far as I know, several other battleships experienced such misfires (such as the Littorio and the Vittorio Veneto, or even the USS Washington when engaging the Kirishima), so a certain degree of these were to be expected in any battleship.

What happened to the Richelieu at Dakar was, as far as I know, because of a design flaw in the shells. The NavWeaps webpage says that it was the fault of four cavities at the base of the shells that were supposed to house toxic gas cartidges! 

[Waroch]

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.

 

 

As said above, the software used is Naval armor and ballistics. It's a freeware available on the net.

There is no penetration test results available for these guns. The figures you might find are calculated figures. The calculation is usually based on US navy's empiric formulae from the 1930s, which are fairly well documented.

 

Now, I don't know how familiar you are with that kind of jugglery, but briefly and just in case: the theories of the impact are a very complex matter. They're semi-empiric theories, which means that you can't just do your maths on paper and reach an absolute result based on starting postulates. There is of course some amount of theorising, but you do need  to process lots of raw, experimental data to obtain ready-to-use formulae.

 

The problem with XXth century naval guns is two-fold: due to obvious military secrecy, there was no international standard, which makes comparison between nations very hasardous. Secondly, there is only a very limited number of sufficiently detailed testing documentation and actual operationnal results available. To sum it up, we just don't have enough raw data available to have 100% trustworthy formulae.

 

The software used, NAAB, processes amateur historian Nathan Okun's self-made formula for penetration of naval face-hardened armour, itself an attempt to further refine the USN's semi-empiric formula using non-US data which was not available back in the days. I hope I'm still being clear enough...

 

Anayway, the results gained are still an approximation and should be taken with a lot of caution. On top of that, we have absolutely no idea on how wargaming is cooking their soup, so all this estimation could be completely wrong, but we don't have anything else.

 

Still, based on that estimation, 15 km seems to be about the maximum practical range you can hope to get through the main belt of the Montana and the Yamato... With no angle, and without taking into acount potential de-capping effet of the outside hull (which is another much debated topic).

 

It seems you got confused between the US 16" Mk 6 (North Carolina, South Dakota) and Mk 7 (Iowa, Montana) guns. The latter is superior or equal to the French 380mm Mle35 at all ranges.

 

Ship forte: having a two-gun advantage in the front sector does not seem to me to be enough to equal the other disadvantages.

HP pool is certainly an important factor, but it seems to me to be a last resort one. Playing a large, slow to die punching ball won't be very funny to anyone. A ship has to be more or less viable on hard factors, then only one can tweak such things as HP pool, RoF, concealment etc... to make it statistically balanced.

 

The reason why the Bismarck's guns work at T8 is because of their high fire rate, coupled with a modern shell design (although the French shell designs were similarly modern, so they would likely have similar effectiveness to the Germans for a given calibre). They were famed for their high rate of fire due to extremely efficient ammunition hoists, however the French 380mm guns didn't have nearly as efficient hoists so their fire rate was notably lower, not even reaching the 2 RPM of standard battleships even during trials even on the improved design on the Jean Bart, compared to the German guns which could reach 3 RPM during trials. This overall means that an Alsace with 4x3 380mm guns would have about 33% more DPM on the front than the Bismarcks (the same as a Richelieu), but a simlar broadside DPM. Having a bit more firepower on the front, coupled with some improved AA and a slightly greater speed can be a reason for it to be a tier higher than the Bismarcks, but not 2 tiers difference to put them into T10. Even the 3x3 406mm Alsace designs are basically just rehashes of the Iowas, so not T10 material again. T10 battleship gameplay is the playing ground of the 70,000 ton superbattleships, not regular 45,000 ton battleships.

 

I quite agree with you. I would still nuance it in that we don't have to solely rely on historical performance to balance things in game. At least not in WG's games... We all know the extent of their... *hem* "creativity" when they need top-tier materiel :ph34r:

 

Even in real life though, the practical rate of fire depended on several factors. The mechanical capacity of the weapon system was one thing, but others were crew training, adequation of ammunition in the case of ships which had to depend on foreign production lines (French, Dutch, Polish...), doctrinal safety procedure which varied quite a lot -for instance the kriegsmarine and royal navy were known to be relatively loose on those in hope to increase the volume of fire, whereas the usn and mn were excessively rigid on that point- the actual will of the crew to comply with such bureaucratic safety procedures, the efficiency of target aquisition, the performance of the ship as a gun platform...

 

In the case of the Richelieu,  her battle experience from the years 1944 and 1945 in sout-east Asia provides some interesting insight compared to the British BBs Queen Elizabeth, Renown and Valiant which operated alongside her. Despite adverse conditions (non-standard US-built APC shells, remade powder bags taken from the Stasbourg in 1940 or new Us-made crappy ones, lack of firing trials) it seems that she was quicker than the QE BB's of her line of battle to aquire her targets, more accurate on them (despite a larger dispersion indeed) and wih an equal or superior practical RoF. In French Battleships 1922-1956, John Jordan mentions that during operation Crimson in July 1944, Richelieu's practical RoF was about twice as much as the British BBs...

 

All that to say that it would seem quite justified to me to have a higher RoF in game as well, even if that means taking some liberties from the absolute mechanical values.

 

 

I had the same opinion, but then it was pointed out to me that the Richelieu's guns could, in fact, elevate separately, and therefore were not sleeved together.

 

Yep that's true. Each gun had its own craddle and were mechanically independant. In normal operation, the two guns of each half-turret were supposed to be linked together; they still had some freedom of action, but limited to a few degrees only if memory serves. However they could be disconnected if required and moved/fired/reloaded independantly.

 

In game, since that separated quad turret design is the dominant feature of French BBs past tier 5, I would expect WG to model them as joined twin turrets.

 

I suppose the other issue would be that if a turret is hit and half destroyed, wouldn't that be likely to damage the turning mechanism? And wasn't the French 15" gun notoriously unreliable with the shells misfiring - I seem to remember reading that they tried a number of fixes for this including using US shells. I suppose the argument for the quad turrets was reducing the armoured citadel, but if hit, the reduction in firepower must have been realised as a big disadvantage. Beautiful ships though, and the Italian battleships even prettier!

 

Both things happened IRl. At Casablanca in 42, one 16" shell from the Massachussets bounced on Jean Bart's barbette and locked the turret for a few hours. On the other hand, a half-penetrating hit from HMS Hood on Dunkerque in 1940 at MeK only silenced half a turret; the other half remained operational until the end.

 In the same way, an old fashionned tight pattern of twin turrets could have two turrets going off with a single hit, or more commonly a single one. It's not much different in terms of vulnerability.

But as said above, I doubt WG would nerf the quad turret design if they don't need to.

 

Misfires -happened ONCE, at Dakar. It's something that normally would have been detected and corrected during factory trials or at worst during the ship's preliminary trials. But these couldn't take place and in the end of the day Richelieu had to face the most improbable ennemy with a makeshift and pretty much untested main battery installation.

The 1943 refit at New York brought a dramatic improvement of the AA defense and the installation of a first crude but functionnal radar suite, but it didn't change much to the actual gun performance. The secondary 152mm shells -also used in light cruisers- were considered to be successful, which was not the case of the rather ill-regarded 100mm shells. The 380mm APC seem to have given satisfaction but we're unfortunately lacking data to compare them with the original OpfK mle 1936. The reason US-built shells were used is pretty obvious, since the original French factories were quite hard to reach in occupied France... It has nothing to do with the actual gun performance.

The dispersion problem appeared evident only quite late, during operations in SEA with the RN in 44-45 like said above, and was only corrected after the war, when complete firing trials could finally take place.

 

 

Well, given that the internal bulkhead was placed just to make sure that the other "semi-turret" could remain in the fight, I presume that the designers must have thought about that; even if a shell had wrecked the gun themselves, the mechanisms would have remained intact, so the other two guns could be brought to bear, I figure. But we would need someone with better info about this, I'm afraid...

 

As far as I know, several other battleships experienced such misfires (such as the Littorio and the Vittorio Veneto, or even the USS Washington when engaging the Kirishima), so a certain degree of these were to be expected in any battleship.

What happened to the Richelieu at Dakar was, as far as I know, because of a design flaw in the shells. The NavWeaps webpage says that it was the fault of four cavities at the base of the shells that were supposed to house toxic gas cartidges! 

 

 

True again. The internal bulkhead proved to be a valuable idea at MeK.

Yeah, the design issue with the 380mm shell was indeed the presence of cavities at the bottom of the shell. A relique from the origins of chemical warfare in WW1. The cavities were sealed, the cavity resistance as well as the covering cap were strength-tested... But not with the caps in place, which obviously makes a world of a difference for the shearing stress on the border of the cap!

Frankly it seems to be quite the beginner's mistake, but here again structural calculations back then were in their in infancy. I suppose it didn't seem that obvious

As ususal, the info comes from Jordan & Dumas' book, which I can't recommand enough ;)

[piritskenyer]

I'll start coughing up some drawings, I seem to have some spare time coming up.

[Psychocouac]

Here is my personnal techtree about Marine Nationale:

BB

tier II ou III
Patrie/Liberté/Danton. Pre-dread so very few chances they appear ever.


tier IV
Courbet (6 x 2 305mm / 22 x 138 mm) 20 knots.


tier V
Bretagne (5 x 2 340mm / 22 x 138 mm) 20 knots.


tier VI
Lyon (4 x 4 340mm / 24 x 138 mm) 21 noeuds. Maybe a bit hard for the tier VI but i don't see an old concept like that in tier VII. Can be balanced with shotgun like dispersion.


tier VII
Dunkerque (2 x 4 330 mm / 3 x 4 130mm / 10 x 37 mm / 8 x 4 13.2mm) 28~30 knots. Undergunned compared to other battleship a this tier but hey: scharnhorst too.

tier VIII
Richelieu (2 x 4 380 mm / 3 x 3 152mm / 6 x 2 100mm / 4 x 2 37mm / 20 x 13.2mm) 32 knots.

 

Gascogne in premium maybe?

tier IX
Alsace (3 x 3 380mm / 3 x 3 152mm / 8 x 2 100mm / ???) 31 knots. light Iowa (~40000t vs 45000t / 52000t full).

 

It's projet Type 1. 

tier X
projet Type 3 (3 x 4 380mm / 3 x 3 152mm / 12 x 2 100mm / ?? 37mm / ?? 25mm) 32 knots. Undergunned and underarmored compared to other tier X BB at the moment. But WG can buff soft stats to make it competitive.

 

Otherwise: fantasy shiiiiip.~~~~~

[piritskenyer]

Here is my personnal techtree about Marine Nationale:

BB
[...]
tier VII
Dunkerque (2 x 4 330 mm / 3 x 4 130mm / 10 x 37 mm / 8 x 4 13.2mm) 28~30 knots. Undergunned compared to other battleship a this tier but hey: scharnhorst too.

[...]

 

 

Undergunned my ar$e. Those 330mm guns have extremely flat trajectory and tremendous penetration (over 290mm's at 27000m - in comparison, the 16"/45 guns on the Colorado could penetrate only about 10mm's more at the same range). They lack in the plunging fire department because of their flat arcs, but it's a price I'm willing to pay. Those guns are gonna be every BB cpt's wet dream: point, pull the trigger, and penetration happens.

[Psychocouac]

I'll pray for this. 

[Comrad_StaIin]

better get it like this

 

III   Courbet      (6(5)x2 305cm)

IV   Bretagne    (5x2 34cm)

V    Normandie (3x4 34cm)

VI   Lyon           (4x4 34cm)

VII  Dunkerque (2x4 33cm)

VIII Richelieu    (2x4 38cm)

IX   Alsace        (3x4 38cm)

X    Fantasy      (4x4 38cm? I want something that keeps the french quad turrets)

[Psychocouac]

X    Fantasy      (4x4 38cm? I want something that keeps the french quad turrets)

 

I would love that too.

 

But Courbet seems to be a bit hard a tier III. It's basically a wyoming. Bretagne again is a french New York.

[Historynerd]

Undergunned my ar$e. Those 330mm guns have extremely flat trajectory and tremendous penetration (over 290mm's at 27000m - in comparison, the 16"/45 guns on the Colorado could penetrate only about 10mm's more at the same range). They lack in the plunging fire department because of their flat arcs, but it's a price I'm willing to pay. Those guns are gonna be every BB cpt's wet dream: point, pull the trigger, and penetration happens.

 

All true,

However, they'll also pay with somewhat lower alpha damage, albeit a bit more than the German 28cm.