Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Viper101

French BB Turrets

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

105
[PNGYN]
Members
490 posts
2,950 battles

With the French BBs upon us, there is still one thing I would like to ask. 

For those who do not know, the French had a rather unique turret arrangement. Instead of "traditional" dual or triple gun turrets, the French designed their ships around a quad gun turret (see Dunkerque). 

 believe this was due to port limitations, as their ships could only be so long, but still needed adequate main batteries. 

 

Now, French naval designers were not stupid. They knew the risks of reducing the number of turrets: A single shell could destroy half of the battleships firepower (speaking to Dunk/Rich), so they put a bulkhead in the middle of the turret. In the case of the Dunk, I believe this was 25-30mm thick. Not enough to stop an AP shell penetration, but enough for the crew of two of the guns to survive a hit. 

This was put to the ultimate test during the Attack on Mers-el-Kèbir, when a British 381mm shell struck Dunkerque's number two turret and detonated inside. The crew in the right half of the turret perished. But those on the left side survived due to this bulkhead. 

 

Now, I believe I have seen before that this would not work in the game due to engine limitations (or something like that). 

Is that true? Is it really outside the realm of possibility to have this feature implemented? 

 

If it isn't, this would add a more functional "flavor" (god I hate that term) to the French Battleships that would increase their effectiveness/survivability. 

 

Spoiler

 

Incidentally, I got this information from Wikipedia. Fortunately their sources on this subject seem reliable. Unfortunately I don't have the means to read the books right now, so I will post the cited sources below in the hopes that someone can verify this info. 

Dumas, Robert (2001c). Les cuirassés Dunkerque et Strasbourg (in French). Rennes: Marine Éditions ISBN 978-2-909675-75-6;

 

Le Masson, Henri (1969). The French Navy Volume I. Navies of the Second World War. London: Macdonald. ISBN 0-356-02384-2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,424
[HINON]
Supertester
18,898 posts
12,421 battles

WG's method of getting around their engine limitation was just to give Dunkerque's turrets more health, but the armored bulkhead is not modeled in Dunkerque's turrets nor any mechanic to simulate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles

Not to mention that the earlier quad turrets in Normandie and Lyon featured a mere 1.6 inch divider, which, in all likelihood, would not have been sufficient in preventing a direct hit from knocking out a whole turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,037
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,647 posts
9,957 battles

It doesn't always take penetrations to knock out turrets.

Offhand Massachusetts knocked out Jean Bart's only turret at Casablanca with a non penetrating hit. KGV knocked out one of Bismarck's turrets with a non-penetration. Rodney knocked out Bismarck's turrets without even hitting them directly, as did DoY to Scharnhorst.

So, a truly reflective mechanic could still see the whole turret go to one hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
5 hours ago, mofton said:

It doesn't always take penetrations to knock out turrets.

Offhand Massachusetts knocked out Jean Bart's only turret at Casablanca with a non penetrating hit. KGV knocked out one of Bismarck's turrets with a non-penetration. Rodney knocked out Bismarck's turrets without even hitting them directly, as did DoY to Scharnhorst.

So, a truly reflective mechanic could still see the whole turret go to one hit.

HMS Hood also knocked out half of Dunkerque's turret from a shell bounce too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,788 posts

It’s a lot more coding and added processing complexity for a minimal difference.

There are a lot better ways for WG to spend their resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×