MN Gascogne (NB) - Guide 180
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2020
- The Gascogne, a never-built variant of the Richelieu classbattleships of the French Navy, are today's subject.
Read more about the Gascogne class here:
www.amazon.co.uk/French-Battl...
www.amazon.co.uk/Battleships-...
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a medal? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel
Drydock Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Next on the list:
-Alsace
-Patreon Choice
-Leander class
-HMS Ajax
-Project 1047
-Battle class
-HMS Caroline
-All-big-gun designs
-Daring class
-USS Indianapolis
-Atago/Takao
-Midway class
-Graf Zeppelin
-Bathurst class
-RHS Queen Olga
-HMS Belfast
-Aurora
-Imperator Nikolai I
-USS Helena
-USS Tennesse
-HMNZS New Zealand
-HMS Queen Mary
-USS Marblehead
-New York class
-L-20e
-Abdiel class
-Panserskib (Armoured ship) Rolf Krake
-HMS Victoria
-HMS Charybdis
-Eidsvold class
-IJN “Special” DD's
-SMS Emden
-Ships of Battle of Campeche
-USS England (DE-635)
-Tashkent
-1934A Class
-HMS Plym (K271)
-Siegfried class
Music - / ncmepicmusic
![DDG & Blueface - Top ft. Swae Lee [Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p2wIDXar9ns/mqdefault.jpg)
Pinned post for Q&A :)
If you were tasked with mounting the Schwerer Gustav onto a ship, what spawn of madness would you build?
Why was the barrel ware on the 37mm mounts mentioned so awful and how much of an issue would this have been in service? Thanks
Could snipers on modern ships work? At though history?
The RN kept clinging onto the battleship for a long as time. In 1944 (I believe) the RN drew up preliminary plans for a post war fleet of 12 Battleships, 3 QE, 2 Nelson, 4 KGVs, Vanguard and a pair of new ships; for reasons I hold to be self evident this was a stupid plan. As such, I intend to provide the RN with the money to rebuild the 4 KGVs (bear in mind that the Quad 14" and the triple Single-Stroke 16" are at the very least similar in weight and I would expect have similar roller diameters), all 6 Lions finished to a uniform standard including the modifications as seen on Vanguard where applicable and the construction of two new battleships to one of the better post war schemes (I have a personal like for B4); now does this have any notable affects on any other navies or the outcome of the various wars fought post war? Does this mean CVA-01 is built as the RN is in desperate need of carriers of any for? is this an almost criminal waste of the RNs limited manpower? etc.
Did you ever discuss the reasons for the various layout in turrets? Germany's consistent 4 X 8, etc?
Ohh....♪
♫ No one's slick as Gascogne
No one's quick as Gascogne
No one's belt is as incredibly thick as Gascogne! ♫
For there's no battleship half as manly
♪ Perfect, a pure paragon!
You can ask any Bogue, Sims or Langley
And they'll tell you whose team they prefer to be on! ♪
How can you read this? There's no pictures
Howdy LWM
A wild LWM appears.
OMG, the illusive LWM, also on Drach!
Wait no way it’s the Little White Mouse
The Richelieus are some really beautiful ships.
Yess et j'ai fait une vidéo sur lui
I love the flag too
Such a pure shade of white
The Richelieu and the Littorio are in the running as the most beautiful battleships ever.
They look pretty weird and ugly to me, like most French stuff. Nothing really compares to the beauty of German warships.
@@ArenBerberian tu te fous de ma gueule ? La classe Richelieu, Dunkerque et Alsace était les plus beaux navires que notre terre est porté (ok aucun Alsace n'a été construit mais É).
Les navires germain son plutôt jolie mais pas magnifique...et les anglais n'ont fait que des navires terriblement laid.
I've always been a fan of French design aesthetically, and the Gascogne in particular is a rather good-looking battleship.
Not gonna lie, hearing about those 37mm twin mounts outperforming the 40mm Bofors made me long for the halcyon days of the early 20th century, when I (probably) could have just ordered one from the Sears catalogue. 😍 And while I have mixed feelings regarding only having one turret per end, I do have to give the French credit for striving for maximum efficiency in terms of gun layout. I consider the Richelieus to be the more attractive design, but Gascogne would’ve still been quite a handsome ship.
The French and changing designs between warships in a class, name a more iconic duo
This. Not a single other navy does this. /s
I mean, if you have significant delays before you can construct the next ship you might as well take the time to reevaluate the design and look for ways to improve it.
The American Standards were classes of two each except for the New Mexicos. In fact most American battleships were two to a class until you got to South Dakota and Iowa.
You could argue, that particulary prior to WW2 the Germans were similiar. Every Deutschland class is fairly unique, dfferences between Leipzig and Nürnberg are enough, to argue, they are different classes, the Admiral Hippers had different dimensions, and Tirpitz has quite some improvements and changes compared to Bismarck.
Particulary Deutschland, later known as Lützow, looked absolutely nothing like her sisters, and had also a different armor layout. At least in the original configuration. Later in war, she and Scheer looked fairly similiar again, even though of course armor layout can not really be changed.
The French really love their quad turrets
who didnt?
french always have exotic ship design
*predreadnought flashback*
a e s t h e t i c s
Who doesn't? Quad turrets look sooooo goooood
On en est fier !
@@matheuslira7076 héhé les navires anglais son presque tous moche....
Must be in the French blood. Since no two Baguettes are exactly the same, they didn't believe any two Battleships should be exactly the same!
The last one was an excellent ship for the French Navy. Now, make the next one even Frenchier.
Except for the whole reason for there to be a battleship: the main guns. 13.9" guns in an era when the world standard is the Japanese 16.1" & 18.1" or American 16" super heavy AP, the French selection was a poor choice when compared. The Germans and Italians were expected to stay at 15" and the British were producing the 14" KGV's. These boats might have been okay around Europe but against either the USN or IJN they would be a huge disadvantage in firepower.
@@cadengrace5466 against most of the IJN practically any BB of the era would have done fine. in a Battleship on Battleship engagement level (excluding carriers) the Japanese had Yamato, Musashi, and a bunch of old Battleships with no Radar or anything of the sort. The Ijn, short of its carriers, was actually pretty weak in WWII
@@economicssimulator5979 That is not what is being done here. You do not build a battleship that can defeat one built 25 years ago. You build for the present and hope it works in the future. A 13.9" gun is a 25 year old caliber. What makes this so much worse is that there are only 8 of them on a ship tipping the scales between 40,000 and 45,000 tons - depending on your source.
As for the IJN being pretty weak in WW II short of its carriers. There were three navies on rough par at the start of WW II, IJN-RN-USN. Take away their carriers and nothing changes, but toss in the carriers and the RN is the sister of the poor. Everyone else got participation trophies.
The RN could not beat the IJN without or without carriers and the best chance the RN would have would be without. But, this is not the focus of the thread. The French built a ship so underwhelming and so sloppy, it never worked and would never be a threat needing to be countered by any navy - much like any French ship since steel hit the water.
How can anyone govern a country that has over 246 different kinds of cheese?
Once again, I absolutely love how freaking crazy some French battleship desig designs were.
This video is so French, I'm suddenly craving some wine and cheese.......and a little revolution would be lovely as well.
Fantastic video as always Drach.
Et oh, c'est quoi c'est clichés monsieur je mange du poudingue avec mon canard a l'orange
Les clichés qui mettent la *max*
I got no idea what's being said but I'm clicking like anyway.
@@admiraltiberius1989 eh oh, what is that cliché sir i "eat pudding with my duck with orange "
@@Yataka again....I got no idea.
French battleship design is infuriating: they finally seem to get things right just as the whole battleship concept became obsolete.
Bk Jeong technically they weren't obsolete for varying reasons other than shore bombardment or aircraft being able to strike from far away. Due to some weakness of the carrier concept like limited strike capability which can keep diminishing as it gets into competently designed flak batteries, interceptors etc. It's more a case of the backers of carrier supremacy used the Pacific war as an example even though the Japanese carriers and AA suffered existence failure towards the end which allowed US strikes to go unimpeded mostly. Which would be like using one train wreck to justify trains being unsafe.
I think this was covered in one of the older dry docks, but I can't remember which one. But yeah the French really did screw up battleship design for a long time.
Which reminds of that old and cruel story: in 1870 the French were ready for an 1814-15 war; in 1914 they were ready for an 1870 war; and in 1939-40 they were ready for a 1914 war. Alas, sometimes I wonder if now they are prepared for a 1939-40 war!!
@@RG-fc7ht Battleships WERE obsolete in WWII regardless of AA; it doesn't matter how well you can protect yourself if you can't attack the enemy due to increased battle ranges.
Yes, carriers had a hard time attacking battleships, but battleships couldn't attack carriers at all (unless we're talking CVEs or cases of extreme human incompetence). It's still a one-sided engagement.
@@bkjeong4302 I think you are mistaking obsolete with losing their primary position in fleet composition. Battleships in WW2 had a change in role for sure, but that does not equate to them being obsolete. You can say they were obsolete as the primary strike force of a fleet.
@@ivanchemeris9632 and since the entire point of the battleship *was* to be the primary combat power of the fleet, BK_Jeong has more of a point than many on these boards give him credit for. I think he overstates his case, but for the vast majority of what the fast battleships did during WW2, cruisers would be just as effective (especially at a 2:1 ratio to keep the crew requirements the same) and substantially cheaper. The gunfire support argument is mooted by the existence of the standard type battleships which accompany the invasion fleet, assuming that the target in question needs a battleship shell or battleship gun range. My primary disagreement with him lies in a narrow window in the late 30s when the UK and US can't build more cruisers under the treaty but can start new battleship classes to replace, say, the Revenges, Texas, New York, and Arkansas.
1:23
The curvature of the book leads to some pretty honhonhon hull shapes
Thank you so much for catching this.
Ah yes, the NASCAR hull, for when your ship only needs to turn left. (in case NASCAR fans are reading this, yes I know about the road courses, this is a simplistic joke)
Imagine that forward Turret being knocked out
That’s not good. In world of warships I saw a poor French battleship try to fight a Smolensk cruiser with one turret knocked out. That was just sad.
I have seen worse: a Jean Bart with both fowards turrets permanently destroyed
PREPARE FOR RAMMING SPEED
SET COURSE FOR RAMMING SPEED!!!!
Alsace got both her forward turrets knocked out, but she got six kills anyway. Just too angry to die I guess. Those two turrets were destroyed.
I would like to see a vid on the different types of floatplanes used on warships.
I was thinking about French warships a few weeks ago when I found a RUclips video about a floating hotel that was originally sat over the Great Barrier Reef some years ago.
You have to wonder what they would have finally looked like once they were finished.
A very nice looking ship! Always thought that with the quad-turret that French Inter-War dreadnoughts could have been the most readily adopted to the missile age by replacing the 152mm turrets with RIM-2 Terrier/ Masurca twin launchers, and converting stern aviation facilities for helicopters. Too bad the French battleships of Inter-War period didn't see more service in WWII or Cold War.
When you plan to counter for the italians and germans but the eternal anglo sinks your ships.
thank you for that little precision as to why it was 320mm
Great video!
Really enjoying these videos. It's a pleasure to see the thought and research put into these works. Dry Brit humour also seems appropriate for a naval setting. Keep up the great work Drach.
New to your channel. Your library of ship reviews is astounding. Your review of the French pre-dreadnoughts was what originally got my attention. Keep it up.
Great video Drach! Always been a fan of your NB videos.
Good work!🤗
I like the Color line drawings of the subject your using for the thumbnail shots of late, nice touch😁
Once again, thanks for your work. Highly informative.
I read the name as Gascoigne and thought of Bloodborne. "Beasts all over the shop...you'll be one of them, sooner or later...the sweet blood, it sings to me."
I truly like the way you present your videos the old way with commentary !!!!!!!!!!!!
Has anyone noticed that the designs include the colours pre-struck?
Thank you, Drachinifel.
Drach talking about French Capital ships, always worth a view.
Ah, those tinkering French...... why would anyone want a ship class that's all the same?
*France : wHAt IS a lOGiStICS ?*
like germans with ww2 tanks, every dozen or so must be slightly tinkered with and adjusted.
@@ogscarl3t375 Do they use different fuel... or different engines.... or different guns? Or Maybe different optics? Oh right the armor is different
EVERYBODY tinkers with their ship classes, if they can afford the time to do to.
For example, the Brit King George V battleships of WW2 are all very similar, but that's because they were a crash program and every ship was started within a seven month period, so all to the same plans. Original idea was to have them all complete at about the same time too, but the last two got delayed - which time was used to make some small improvements.
When the Brits were building the Lion class battlecruisers before WW1, Lion had her foremast and front funnel swapped around while she was being built! Queen Mary started a year later, so had some changes. Tiger had even more changes, although originally she was supposed to be the same class.
Still true today. Some years back I was at a presentation given by an engineer heavily involved in US Navy ship building. He said that while Los Angeles subs or Ticonderoga cruisers or Arleigh Burke destroyers look alike, there are continuous small changes going on because only a couple get built each year. If you're building hundred million dollar ships with an expected lifespan of twenty years or more, it would be foolish not to fix something you know could be better. (Again, provided you have time and money to do so.)
@@hughfisher9820 There's tinkering and there's building a different version with the armamment redistributed. The french seem to be more prone to this - maybe due to their labyrinthine procurement process and limited shipyard capacity. Look at the Dantons!
Fantastic scholarly effort. Hat's off.
The Yamato also had her floatplane catapults and below-deck hangar in the stern.
The Last Time I was this early for a Drachinifel video the Krigsmaine was still a threat.
Great video! Well illustrated.
Always informative and interesting... i served aboard a US Coast Guard 255 Lake Class Cutter, Androscoggin. They were an interesting design both in armament and propulsion, supposedly the most heavily armed vessel for there size as built. None saw action however until Vietnam... do 5 minutes on them.
Excelente Drachinifel.
Very nice review. Thanks!
A very beautiful ship
I kinda love how French ships try new stuff. It might not be the most practical but their very entertaining.
just in time for Azur Lane french event
Hello fellow SKK
Greetings Comrades
another shikikan, nice
You DO have all 3 Richelieus, right, SKK?
@@rgm96x49 3? I think you mean 4, don't forget muse Gascogne.
Beautiful ship - on paper.
Love your content but I’d love to see more on sailing ships and age of sail battles like Trafalgar and Nile. :)
The Gascogne looks like the French Graf Spee.
Neat design.
@0:40 Beautiful ship!! The most interesting dazzle camouflage I've seen yet! The fake bow is awesome. Tt looks like burning ship pictures were painted as a mural on the sides. The turrets must get hot inside. I see canvas covers on them. The covers might provide shade. I suppose they could be sprayed with water for extra cooling too. Any thoughts on that?
If she was never built, where did you get those black and white pictures of her at sea? 🤔
Pretty sure those are photo shopped images. There is apparently a fictional story that features gascogne and likely these images were from that.
That's Photoshoped,simple
Speaking of battleships, two months after its completion in January 1910, Brazil's Minas Geraes was described as "the last word in heavy battleship design and the ... most powerfully armed warship afloat". Its construction ignited a South American dreadnought race.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_dreadnought_race
3:22 damn that loader lil thicc
Weren't MN quads in fact merged duals? Why is everyone talking about 'knocking out front turret' so easily ?? Is that some game mechanics from WoWS??
Odd that they didn't think of this armament arrangement until making the same mistake twice, with both Dunkerques and again with both Richelieus. It's like they didn't realize the issues with the Dunkerques until they were in service, and, by then, the Richelieus were too far along.
How doing a video on the royal navy's emerald class light cruisers(hms emerald and hms enterprise)
Non, les navires français son mieux ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
No one shoots like Gascogne
@04:42, the forward oil-tank is surrounded by 'ebonite mousse'. What is it?
Thanks for the history.
"It's a Rechelieu-type battleship."
"But it looks nothing like one-"
"DO NOT QUESTION MY GENIUS!!!"
World's shortest video would be New French Capital Ships of 1944-45
I feel like Drachinifel has reduced the music volume in the into the last few episodes and it kind of irritates me. The intro isn't as cool without the music and if I raise my volume to hear the music then Drachinifel's voice booms out my speakers as soon as he starts talking.
This
J'aime tellement l'intro!
It is just you - maybe see a doctor and have your hearing examined? Or there is something wrong with your speakers. The volume is fine.
I haven't changed the intro volume, but I have upped the input on my microphone.
@@Drachinifel so cunningly insidious
I`ve searched the channel but haven`t found guides about russian battleships, except for Imperator Nikolai I further down the list. Drach, can you please add Sevastopol-class, Imperatritsa Mariya-class battleships and Izmail-class battlecruisers to the list?
So, in overall theoretical effectivness, which of the 3 variants was the best? Would you consider Clemenceau and Gascogne reasonable improvements over the first pair? Particulary on Gascogne you increase the target quite a lot when using 8 guns, and got a longer citadel...
Longer citadel is a disadvantage on the drawing board(price). In combat it's a big advantage.
Strictly speaking, all 3 sub variants aren't that far from one another to be treated too differently, but overall Gascogne is an obviously superior design(on paper).
The only clear downsides are some armor and clearly worse aviation facilities.
@@neniAAinen How is a longer citadel an advantage in combat if you got an easier to hit weakspot ?
@@TheKingofbrooklin Citadel isn't a weak spot, quite the opposite. Citadel is part of the ship with maximum protection. Hit outside of the protected space means hole. Holes let in water, which isn't good for staying afloat.
Citadel is a weakness in wows - well, that's true. But that's a game for you.
I am intersted in the Alsace Class and the Successor of the Bismarck Class
En vrai la classe Alsace n'était pas nécessaire dans l'immédiat, le Richelieu était un très bon rival du Bismarck...
@@Yataka Richelieu was a rival for Bismarck/Tirpitz
Alsace was a Rival for the Successor of the Bismarck class, H-39 for example
@Damian Dorhoff, Drach has already done a video on the successor designs to the Bismarck. Check out "H-40 through H-44 - Guide 111 (NB)"
@@LuvLikeTruck link it bls I can't find it
@@asiftalpur3758 ruclips.net/video/ZUjrQ9cCulg/видео.html
Replace barrels after every engagement? What design choices lead to barrel wear THAT extreme?
Very informative - thank you for this.
As much as I think the Dunkerque's were rather silly (in that they were only superior to the 3 Deutschland's and though a bit faster than the 4 Italian battleships of the time, they were about equal/slightly inferior in firepower and armor. They should have just built 2X35,000 ton battleships instead).
I REALLY like the Richelieu's.
For 37,000 tons, they had plenty of armor and firepower...plus they could do 32 knots!
French 330mm pretty much outpreformed britsh 15 and 16 inch guns (it was the best sub 15 inch gun in the world) and Strasbourg was significantly uparmored compared to Dunkerque. They also had inclined belt so in case of Strasbourg it was effectively over 300mm.
@@filipzietek5146 British 15inch were just updated WW1 guns (albeit using Super Charge's it could beat 330mm gun, but then guns with 30 degree elevation weren't using them, still could) while 16inch had issue of to light shells that was never fixed due to lack of funding (but still beat 330mm by 2inches at 20km)
on other hand KGV 14inch were equal up to 20km and past that outpreformed Dunkerque's 330mm (so much for best sub 15inch)
also almost all new battleships (except for KGV) had inclined belt. (in some cases at greater angle 11.3° vs 19-20°)
The French 330 mm guns was very powerful for its size, and the shells burstingcharge rivaled or surpassed those of many larger caliber weapons.
@@arczer2519 330mm had better belt penetration than 14 inch as far as i remember. As for the belt most battleships with inclined belt are younger than Dunkerque class. German battleships didn;t have inclined belts either.
@@filipzietek5146 Filip Ziętek yes belt penetration is better, but not that much (~1.5inch max), note that im using navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.php
with tend's to be more accurate than regular penetration table, especially KGV navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.php somehow it give's heavier and faster shell less penetration than lighter and slower shell of the same caliber..
note especially massive differience between KGV 14inch and USN New Mexico 14inch
and now
KGV 14inch has striking velocity of 445m/s at 25000 yards with 721kg shell at 26.4° angle of fall
NM 14inch has 443m/s with 680kg shell at 24.08°
330mm 492m/s with 560kg shell at 21.3°
now tables :
241mm for KGV 14inch
286mm for NM 14inch
342mm for 330mm
now table's that i given at 26000yars (as there's no 25000yard mark) against British Cemented Armor
KGV 14inch - impact velocity 472m/s at 25.1° gives 332mm
NM 14inch - impact velocity 447m/s at 26.3° gives 289mm (note this is latest shell version)
330mm - impact velocity 502m/s at 19.6° gives 322mm
note beteen KGV 14inch and 330mm there's 28.75% differience in weight while 6% differience in impact velocity
yep, they are younger, but still build in around the same decade 1930s Dunquerqe is definitley closer to them than much WW1 ship's, also Nelson to used Inclined belt.
about German BB that depend's while machinery belt is mostly flat, around magazines it's start's to angle
Great striking rate, but a bit of a problem with the on board bar and dentist...
Has anyone been able to find any pictures of the incompleted hull?
One day I'd love to know what Drach thinks of all the WWII ship games out there, specially the paper ships in any of those games.
Drachinifel is your intro music volume very low?
Hi Drach! Why was there no 17-inch gun?Or was there a Navy that wanted such a weapon and the IJN simply pushed the limit up to 18-inch and eveybody was like: Well...
One day perhaps a video on the Estonian submarines Kalev and Lembit?
I say these ships were the prettiest battleships of them all.
Gottta admit I have a weakness for the various "ships that never were"
What are the pictures shown fot example at 5:50? The Gascogne was never completed like the video said
Photoshop
Always thought this version made more sense than the ships as built, do we have to worry about you turning Francophile drac?
Not with that “pronuncianationay.”
This would make a very tidy KGV variant, with two 14" quads, three triple 6" off a Town class, and the Bofors 40mm. I also prefer the aircraft on the stern. Much better to keep all those flammable materials and aviation fuel away from the centre of the superstructure.
Downside is that you're getting huge hangers very far aft, very close to the waterline.
This is a significant risk from survivability point of view.
For cruisers it can be treated as an acceptable trade-off. On battleship... a bit close to the borderline.
Note that South Dakota's fire from the stern turret set it's own aircraft on fire during the engagement with Kirishima. It was ok, though, because the subsequent salvo blew the burning aircraft over the side. *raised eyebrow*
I accept these valid criticisms of stern hangars on battleships 😉
Problem is, a midships hangar increases hull and main belt length. However... as a post 1940 design, with KGV armour and saving weight by only having the 2 quad turrets, and somerthing like four or five 5.25" turrets, mostly on the centreline fore and aft, and scads of 40mm, we might request a design speed of 33 knots, and consider it a very capable ship of the line in home waters and the Med, an excellent carrier escort in the Pacific, and a useful support ship for the cruisers that were, pre-war, intended to deploy to the Far East.
Edit: swap the 5.25" for the 4.5" dual purpose as used on the carrier's and refitted battleships. A much better option early on, while the 5.25 only had all the bugs worked out late in the war. Also, would not fall foul of 5.25" production delays.
Picture at 3:15 what ship is that it looks real?
Can we get a mnf jean bart guide
改リシュリュー級のガスコーニュの主砲塔配置、元になったリシュリューの主砲塔前甲板集中配置から前後に振り分ける変更なんて旧日本帝国海軍だとあり得ない発想です。
まず大蔵省(現、財務省)が承認しないし、現に改大和級戦艦だと装甲配置や装甲厚の変更や主砲の口径変更はあっても主砲塔配置は変更はしなかった。
What ship were the pictures of
Can you explain why winged turrets and those overall ineffective turret layouts were a thing, I get that they wanted a maximum broad side while also having some gun forward but that still doesn't explain why most 12 inch dreadnoughts had such "brilliant" designs.
@Nguyen Johnathan aren't wing turrets extremely exposed to torpedo attacks?
@@l.h.395 That made no sense......
@@l.h.395 Yes. Shell and powder handling equipment will require a "hole" in the TDS, so there is a notable increase in vulnerability to torpedoes.
Edit: It is also practically impossible to waterproof the different floors of the turret machinery and handling rooms, meaning that for the purpose of damage control the whole turret well is one giant floodable compartment. This is true for centerline turrets as well, but centerline flooding probably wouldn't have as serious effects because of the shorter moment arm.
@@l.h.395 they are (and they exploded on great many occasions, from Tsushima to Dardanelles).
Then again, we're talking about designs predating powerful TDS.
That would have been a very beautiful ship had she been built. Regardless of what one might think of French naval architects of the pre-WW2 period, they knew how to design their ships.
And they included wine tanks in the double bottom!
2:33 how do you get this picture?
Edited
Hang on, where did those two photographs come from if she was never completed, those aren't of Richelieu because you can see the one of the main turrets aft
"And would never be restarted"😭😭😭
Des Moines Class CA pls pls pls
Why do the French keep on pausing construction of their warships when war breaks out? This happened with some of the ships during ww1 as well. You would think that new warships would be in high demand due to the whole 'war' thing?
Lesson learned from the 1870 invasion by Prussia, and again in WW1. Battleships are not a whole lot of use against the German army
HMS Rawalpindi and HMS Jervis Bay please
as this ship was never built, where do the photos of the ship at sea come from?
Photoshopped
@@KatyushaLauncher hmm, yeah makes sense. But whoever did that, they're damn good at Photoshop
2:15 - when YOU are playing by the rules, but your opponent isn't...
Hmm.....I seem to see a pattern here, though I don't know what it might be.
...I guess the next time the French try to build a modern version of a battleship (not carrier, mind you) - we'll know that the next war is comming. Or at least - that it will break out before that program will be finished.
It would have been a beautiful ship
The Gascogne mounted its main battery in two turrets just as did the classical predreadnoughts. Can we call the Gascogne a super predreadnought? (THIS IS A JOKE! )
carney malone A highly perceptive observation. Consider also the proliferation of secondary and tertiary batteries and the wide distribution of hull armour. Totally un-Dreadnought! Yes indeed, what goes around, comes around.
It seems the French Navy finally got it's act together with this ship as opposed to the gun farm that was the Lyon.
A thought that occurred to me is that the German Navy's Plan Z to oppose the RN totally fails to factor in the French Navy. With these four ships, plus carriers to add the the building program the RN would have certainly undertaken, it would have been WW1 all over again for the German Navy
The German plan for the French navy is always to invade by land where warships make no difference.
Can you review the Sovetsky Soyuz class battleships next please?
Tbh this doesn't really seem to really be an improvement, just differently optimized
Hello cute french robot shipfu.
Why put the gun's away from each other? Yes, though a simpler design, it could've just have the same gun arrangement but have the specifations of Gascogne. The Gascogne would've been Hooded by either Tirpitz or Bismarck
Because center mounted AA guns give much better firing angles for said AA guns.
Also, Richelieu class magazine protection is ridiculously better then that of Hood. So no, it wouldn't
Well, Hood was a battlecruiser, so she didn't have the same protection according to her armour belt compared to a battleship.
She should've been built, oh what a beautiful French dame she would've been....
At least we have her in AL to gaze upon lovingly 💖
If France hadn't been invaded by Germany sure it's plausible that they'd build her
@@KatyushaLauncher You don't say?
@@RetroVzqz9313 I just did
@@KatyushaLauncher It's called sarcasm lol
@@RetroVzqz9313 I know, I just wanted to sound cool and it definitely failed
Ah the french. From sliced buildings to gorgeous lines. Maybe those will make the fatherland proud.
Right?
Last time I was this early, the French decided to render all fleets, invluding their own, by putting an iron armour over the hull of yheir ships... to outdo a country that produced far more and better iron than they themselves.
I love the photoshopped photos to make it look like it was made
2:24 thats one hell of a photoshop..
Gas Gas Gascogne
Sadly, the French actually developed a good 127 mm/54 DP gun immediately postwar. That availability of USN 5" ammunition influenced part of the design, but there's no reason this gun couldn't have been ready prewar if the French had abandoned the idea they needed a triple turret secondary battery that was going to equally useful in the surface and AA roles. It was a bridge too far for the USN, with much more technical and material skills than the French, so the idea the French could ever have made this work was far fetched at best. As shown by wartime experience, the 5" gun was more than adequate in the surface role and superb as an AA gun. The French had just developed a blind spot for big triple and quad turrets, and it retarded their ship designs until they finally got it right with the 127 mm/54 gun, just at a time when they were actually no longer needed.
"immediately postwar" desing was in 1948 while it reached service in 1954.
US 5inch/54 DP was started in 1940 (for Montana [NB] and Essex), by 1954 you had new automatic version.
no wonder they adopted USN ammuntion.
still it's not like they haven't went with the crowd, almost everyone wanted DP 6inch gun's (be it on a Cruiser (Brooklyn, Mogami) or in case of French Battleship) and then realised that they aren't to useful and fall back on smaller weapons.
albeit they made 130mm gun at that time (Dunkerque), but it didn't happened to be to successful (by part maybe because FIXED 53KG SHELL proven to be difficult to handle and fatuged crew fast, even 38.6 kg shell in UK service proven to be troublesome, on other hand USN 5inch/38 had separate 25kg shell and ~7kg propellant charge, while later 5inch/54 31.5kg shell and ~8.5kg propellant charge)
all in all success of USN 5inch in general were more combination of solid gun, very good Fuse setter and combined with good fire control along with access to proximity fused rounds later in war.