Under the Washington Naval Treaty France and Italy were allowed to build one new battleship each in 1927 and 1932 du to the obsolescence of their existing capital ships. This program resulted in the two French ships. Italy prepared designs but never acted on them, later modernizing four old ships, as described on this channel.
I always thought Strasbourg was, more or less, an identical sister to Dunkerque. My only knowledge of her prior to this vid was her involvement at the Tragedy of Mers El Kebir. She reminds me of a sister that was ostracized form her family, had things gone another way, she may have fought alongside Warspite, Renown, or even her sister against the Regio Marina and the Kreigsmarine. Really cool vid on a warship that I now understand just a bit better. Look forward to the next one, keep it up!!
Beyond his typical obvious errors, that Dark guy permanently lost me when he covered an alleged USSR "subterrene" (think of TMNT Shredder's underground drill vehicle) and claimed it could go 10mph underground. Anybody with even a surface-level understanding of tunnel boring knows that's insane. The Channel Tunnel took three years. The Dark Docs guy is just an idiot.
I’ll admit I make the odd mistake, here and there, but I try really hard to avoid that. But…Hipper? A *battleship*? I’ll admit that Prinz Eugen and the (designed) displacement of Seydlitz is getting towards small dreadnought size. But that’s…a critical research fail. At least people going over movie trailers and calling everything a battleship have an excuse. If you’re presenting history, though… (Now. My insistence on sticking to what navies call their ships will annoy all the ‘Alaska is a battlecruiser!!!’ types when I get there. That’s a different story, though.)
Those were some of the saddest days for the Royal Navy and England. I think you should have explained that 3 days were spent trying to persuade the French to (a) disable (b) sale under escort to America and be interned during the war or hopefully (c) joint the fight. No reply was ever received. The French Admiral never even warned his sailors what was about to happen. There were tears on Winston Churchill's cheeks when he announced in parliament what had transpired. One can only assume that the French Admiral not only hated the British but thought we would not carry out the destruction.
Nice looking ship. I can't decide which I think looks better - this class or the Roma. The superstructure reminds me of the "pagoda masts" on the Japanese battleships.
Always admired these ships from being a boy in the early 1960’s. It would have been interesting to see how they would have matched up to the Scharnhorst Class and older modernised Italian battleships. 👍🏻🏴🇬🇧🇺🇸
Interesting Fact: Some of Strasbourg's armor plating was reused as armor for some of France's first post-war tank, the ARL 44. Not a bad way to reuse steel but the ARL 44 was not a good tank; the design was way obsolete by the 1950s.
Albert Brenet, the great French marine artist, made an oil; painting of the Dunkerque at the 1937 Coronation Naval Review at Spithead, England that hangs in the Musée de la Marine in Paris. I sat on the floor in front of it and made a watercolor copy of it in 1975.
The only thing that interests me in terms of technology with these frog ships: how effective are the two four-gun turrets (both mounted at the front) in a battle? The English had various problems with the four gun turrets on the King George V class.
@@robbielee2148 You're right, different concept than King George V guns However, the French 2x2 configuration was never put to the test in a “real” sea battle (let’s leave the African ports out of the equation)
It's flawed in a major defensive category. 2 hits, even one, could knockout the entire main battery. Also, as mentioned the ship was defenseless on the stern. It did allow more power to size and weight ratio.
I think cause the threat of the destruction of their country convinced them to do otherwise just look at the cities that resisted and how they got destroyed by ther Germans.
With rare exception the French have always built fine ships going back to Louis XIV …this particular class were truly exceptional exceeded only by the graceful Richelieu
The French Navy were the victim of the Washington naval treaty. How could Italy recurve the same tonnage as France. France had a truly global empire to protect. With potential for conflict with Japan and Germany. Italy was solely a Mediterranean power with only Eritrea and Ethiopia laying outside that boundary.
I always wonder why the French didn't just get underway for North Africa as the Italian fleet did 9 months later for Malta. At least with the ships that were able to get underway.
When Winston Churchill,-was awoken by an aid,-who told him of the news,-that Italy had joined up with the Germans,--he said "Thank God,-they are not on Our-Side !""--(Churchill-Papers)-
Being Archie Bunkers next of kin I wanted to bring one fact forward about the French Italian & Greek Navies in those days is they had some decent hardware until it came to completing them ships for duty they forgot about one major thing. Like most USA ships we even had active sea water that ran thru our terlets and 4 our showers... Only we pressurized the release of that stuff... The French & others in the beginnings had not a clue about that unless the sewer line ran above the water line constantly like many USA ships also did the sewage could not flush on their newer bought ships with the bilge ejections below the water lines once underway them dang terlets stopped workin... Now how about dat 4 a historical fact??? When water pressure under the hull builds up the plumbing will not work no matter the sizes of the outlets
Nah, look to the Italians for the *worst* leadership. Their army may have sucked but the Regia Marina had some very nice ships and an *amazing* special operations force.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Under the Washington Naval Treaty France and Italy were allowed to build one new battleship each in 1927 and 1932 du to the obsolescence of their existing capital ships. This program resulted in the two French ships. Italy prepared designs but never acted on them, later modernizing four old ships, as described on this channel.
I always thought Strasbourg was, more or less, an identical sister to Dunkerque. My only knowledge of her prior to this vid was her involvement at the Tragedy of Mers El Kebir. She reminds me of a sister that was ostracized form her family, had things gone another way, she may have fought alongside Warspite, Renown, or even her sister against the Regio Marina and the Kreigsmarine.
Really cool vid on a warship that I now understand just a bit better. Look forward to the next one, keep it up!!
Strasbourg had to be the most formidable capital ship to come in under 30,000 tons standard displacement.
She was, full load, about 35,000 tons. She had very well armoured decks, but a weak belt.
Just heap of scrap ♍
Strasbourg didn't accomplish too much in her wartime career, but it still seems a lot more than any Russian ship of any type I've ever read about.
Yeah the good old Russians that betrayed their oaths to their king and murdered the whole family
Your channel has been a joy so far, just please never go full Dark Seas and call Admiral Hipper a "battleship" and annoy Drachinifel haha.
Beyond his typical obvious errors, that Dark guy permanently lost me when he covered an alleged USSR "subterrene" (think of TMNT Shredder's underground drill vehicle) and claimed it could go 10mph underground.
Anybody with even a surface-level understanding of tunnel boring knows that's insane. The Channel Tunnel took three years. The Dark Docs guy is just an idiot.
I’ll admit I make the odd mistake, here and there, but I try really hard to avoid that. But…Hipper? A *battleship*?
I’ll admit that Prinz Eugen and the (designed) displacement of Seydlitz is getting towards small dreadnought size. But that’s…a critical research fail. At least people going over movie trailers and calling everything a battleship have an excuse.
If you’re presenting history, though…
(Now. My insistence on sticking to what navies call their ships will annoy all the ‘Alaska is a battlecruiser!!!’ types when I get there. That’s a different story, though.)
@@skyneahistory2306 What's closer to a battlecruiser- the Alaskas or the Imperial German Navy's Blucher?
@@budwyzer77Alaska.
Those were some of the saddest days for the Royal Navy and England. I think you should have explained that 3 days were spent trying to persuade the French to (a) disable (b) sale under escort to America and be interned during the war or hopefully (c) joint the fight. No reply was ever received. The French Admiral never even warned his sailors what was about to happen. There were tears on Winston Churchill's cheeks when he announced in parliament what had transpired. One can only assume that the French Admiral not only hated the British but thought we would not carry out the destruction.
Nice looking ship. I can't decide which I think looks better - this class or the Roma. The superstructure reminds me of the "pagoda masts" on the Japanese battleships.
Always admired these ships from being a boy in the early 1960’s. It would have been interesting to see how they would have matched up to the Scharnhorst Class and older modernised Italian battleships. 👍🏻🏴🇬🇧🇺🇸
Interesting Fact:
Some of Strasbourg's armor plating was reused as armor for some of France's first post-war tank, the ARL 44. Not a bad way to reuse steel but the ARL 44 was not a good tank; the design was way obsolete by the 1950s.
That's one long bayonet there at 7:15!
Albert Brenet, the great French marine artist, made an oil; painting of the Dunkerque at the 1937 Coronation Naval Review at Spithead, England that hangs in the Musée de la Marine in Paris. I sat on the floor in front of it and made a watercolor copy of it in 1975.
Another outstanding video once again thank you for your hard work looking forward to the next
Even if Strasbourg didn't do much in the grand scheme of things, she's definitely a memorable ship in terms of looks alone.
Looks dont count in war but battleships were imposing visually false security
The only thing that interests me in terms of technology with these frog ships: how effective are the two four-gun turrets (both mounted at the front) in a battle?
The English had various problems with the four gun turrets on the King George V class.
The French quads were actually 2 twins sharing the middle.
@@robbielee2148 You're right, different concept than King George V guns
However, the French 2x2 configuration was never put to the test in a “real” sea battle (let’s leave the African ports out of the equation)
It's flawed in a major defensive category. 2 hits, even one, could knockout the entire main battery. Also, as mentioned the ship was defenseless on the stern.
It did allow more power to size and weight ratio.
Another well researched and presented content..underrated for sure Sky..but keep working you do have quite a few fans for sure..
Noice lookin boat!
Elegant lady...
I still don’t know why the French captains didn’t just Sail to Britain and surrendered?
I think cause the threat of the destruction of their country convinced them to do otherwise just look at the cities that resisted and how they got destroyed by ther Germans.
Thank you that was interesting.
Fabulous.
beautiful ships!
With rare exception the French have always built fine ships going back to Louis XIV …this particular class were truly exceptional exceeded only by the graceful Richelieu
The French Navy were the victim of the Washington naval treaty. How could Italy recurve the same tonnage as France. France had a truly global empire to protect. With potential for conflict with Japan and Germany. Italy was solely a Mediterranean power with only Eritrea and Ethiopia laying outside that boundary.
I always wonder why the French didn't just get underway for North Africa as the Italian fleet did 9 months later for Malta. At least with the ships that were able to get underway.
She was lucky as HMS Hood stripped a turbine in the chase and thus a battle was averted.
When Winston Churchill,-was awoken by an aid,-who told him of the news,-that Italy had joined up with the Germans,--he said "Thank God,-they are not on Our-Side !""--(Churchill-Papers)-
Now when I grew up I was taught Italian ships shot Linguini and Meat Balls and French ships shot Truffles and Panty Hose..
I hate (and have) to be that guy xD Strasbourg i believe is pronounced "Straz-borg", at least over in the UK. Another great video though my dude :D
it's more "Strassboor" in french, why you would insist on a UK pronunciation with a french ship is beyond me
French Navy - They had one? Great video @skynea
good video
🥰🥰🥰🥰
Being Archie Bunkers next of kin I wanted to bring one fact forward about the French Italian & Greek Navies in those days is they had some decent hardware until it came to completing them ships for duty they forgot about one major thing. Like most USA ships we even had active sea water that ran thru our terlets and 4 our showers... Only we pressurized the release of that stuff... The French & others in the beginnings had not a clue about that unless the sewer line ran above the water line constantly like many USA ships also did the sewage could not flush on their newer bought ships with the bilge ejections below the water lines once underway them dang terlets stopped workin... Now how about dat 4 a historical fact??? When water pressure under the hull builds up the plumbing will not work no matter the sizes of the outlets
Very disappointing she never got to show what she was capable of. Should have joined the Free a French.
1.25x listening speed works well.
Just tragic
A British war crime murdering French sailors
They should have left for the USA
mers el kebab.
The French military is a dichotomy. They had some of the best equipment in the world, but lead by equally worst leadership.
Nah, look to the Italians for the *worst* leadership. Their army may have sucked but the Regia Marina had some very nice ships and an *amazing* special operations force.