Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
LubzinNJ

Something about the Richileu description bothered me

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

359
[SDIWO]
Members
1,218 posts
6,644 battles

"One of the most successful and well-balanced 'New-Generation' battleships in the world.

According to who? According to what real world performance? When did any Richilieu class battleship actually engage in battle? I don't know why but that line is bothering me.

And frankly the whole put everything on the front of the ship method of arming a ship is [edited].

  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[WOLFC]
Members
239 posts
9,829 battles
4 minutes ago, LubzinNJ said:

"One of the most successful and well-balanced 'New-Generation' battleships in the world.

Well WGing/Wiki had to write something good in order to get players to go down that line. Looks like it did not work on you lol.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[SDIWO]
Members
1,218 posts
6,644 battles
1 minute ago, JBR40 said:

Well WGing/Wiki had to write something good in order to get players to go down that line. Looks like it did not work on you lol.

Frankly boredom got be starting down the line. I'm at Lyon and was looking forward to 16 barrels of death....but what I got was 16 barrels of dispersion. Not looking forward to Richie next though.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,042
[BNKR]
Members
1,649 posts
2,806 battles

Richelieu and Jean Bart were in front line service well into the 1960s, longer than almost any other battleships ever built. I think that speaks well for them. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[WOLFC]
Members
239 posts
9,829 battles
1 minute ago, LubzinNJ said:

but what I got was 16 barrels of dispersion

I am stuck on the Normandy, and I got that free from the campaign!  :Smile_amazed: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,224
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,144 posts
14,735 battles
2 minutes ago, LubzinNJ said:

"One of the most successful and well-balanced 'New-Generation' battleships in the world.

According to who? According to what real world performance? When did any Richilieu class battleship actually engage in battle? I don't know why but that line is bothering me.

And frankly the whole put everything on the front of the ship method of arming a ship is [edited].

The reason they put both turrets together was to make the magazine area smaller, they still turned broadside to fire. They were designed to counter the Italian Littorio class battleships and were the first BB's built by the French after the Washington Treaty of 1922. She was a fine ship for the time she was designed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[SDIWO]
Members
1,218 posts
6,644 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The reason they put both turrets together was to make the magazine area smaller, they still turned broadside to fire. They were designed to counter the Italian Littorio class battleships and were the first BB's built by the French after the Washington Treaty of 1922. She was a fine ship for the time she was designed.

None of that justifies calling her "one of the most successful" ships. Don't get me wrong she could have been well designed and all but she had no actual experience to justify that language. That was what bothered me to the point I made a topic about it.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,580
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles
5 minutes ago, LubzinNJ said:

None of that justifies calling her "one of the most successful" ships. Don't get me wrong she could have been well designed and all but she had no actual experience to justify that language. That was what bothered me to the point I made a topic about it.

She squared off against the British for a while at the Battle of Dakar and served with the Allies from 1943 on once her refit in New York was completed, plus Jean Bart (sort of) went rounds against USS Massachusetts during the invasion of Casablanca.  Fighting and winning a major battle is one thing, but I'd argue that solid design that keeps on going and performing well through multiple smaller engagements is just as impressive as something like sinking a major capital ship one-on-one or surviving massive damage. War is a marathon, not a sprint.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,224
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,144 posts
14,735 battles
8 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

War is a marathon, not a sprint.

This.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,062
[GWG]
Members
7,216 posts
14,001 battles
29 minutes ago, LubzinNJ said:

"One of the most successful and well-balanced 'New-Generation' battleships in the world.

According to who? According to what real world performance? When did any Richilieu class battleship actually engage in battle? I don't know why but that line is bothering me.

And frankly the whole put everything on the front of the ship method of arming a ship is [edited].

I looked into it.

Compliment of the Richelieu/Jean Bart was somewhere around 750-900 when deployed.  Wiki says 1500, but that's with 500 troops.

Iowa compliment is well over 2,000.

Success would be rated at 'Operating Cost'.  This is the reason is stayed in commission so long.  It was the cheapest battleship to keep in the water -- in the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[WOLF8]
Members
381 posts
7,737 battles

I wouldn’t put much historical stock into the WoWs wiki.  It’s written for marketing purposes by “enthusiasts.”  If there’s any viable history there, it’s been borrowed from actual sources.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[EQRN]
Members
2,122 posts
18,626 battles

Well... how much BB on BB action did the Iowas or Yamatos get?  I think most people would put them in the "good" category regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,841
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,775 posts
2,137 battles
1 hour ago, LubzinNJ said:

"One of the most successful and well-balanced 'New-Generation' battleships in the world.

According to who? According to what real world performance? When did any Richilieu class battleship actually engage in battle? I don't know why but that line is bothering me.

And frankly the whole put everything on the front of the ship method of arming a ship is [edited].

According to many, very reputable naval historians. And, for all the flaws and shortcomings I can note in the design, was a very well-rounded ship.

She was one of the best balanced ships in terms of speed, armament, and firepower.

 

To take it point by point;

  • Her speed was excellent - designed for 32 knots, she would have easily been capable of 31 knots in service. This made her the fastest treaty battleship, with Littorio a close second (the only other one capable of over 30 knots).  
  • She had an excellent armor layout, even if armor quality is questionable - a 150mm deck over the machinery, 170mm over the magazines, with a 40mm splinter belt below that. The only class that comes close to challenging that kind of deck armor in raw thickness is Yamato-class, which is far and away beyond treaty limits. Her armor belt, 327mm thick, was inclined at 15.24º, and provides excellent protection. The only treaty battleships with better belt armor would be King George V (which had a flat 373.5mm over the magazines and and 348.6mm over the machinery spaces, with some of the best armor quality to be found anywhere) and Littorio (which was equipped with a composite belt). Her turret armor was also the thickest of any European battleship, at 430mm, thus only surpassed by American treaty battleships (457mm, iirc, and of a higher armor quality)
  • Adding to that, her torpedo defense system is generally considered to be the best of any battleship ever fielded, never mind just treaty ships. Although never tested in combat, it is of an excellent design and would have offered adequate protection against almost any (Euro) Axis torpedo.
  • Her armament is undoubtedly her weakest category, but it was still decent. Eight 380mm guns of good quality, in well armored turrets. The all-forward design had its advantages and disadvantages, but it did offer a good opportunity to take advantage of her high speed. Had France developed working RPC, it would also work extremely well for a maneuvering gunnery duel. Her secondary battery was also not terrible, as designed she was to field a nine-gun broadside of 152mm guns (although not in practice, as two of the triple turrets were swapped for 100mm guns). 

 

Overall, she offered the best combination of speed and firepower of almost any of the treaty battleships. King George V was overall more heavily armored, but she was considerably slower, and she was armed with 14" guns, albeit 10 of them. The American treaty battleships (North Carolina and South Dakota) were both better armed, but they were also considerably slower, and had overall weaker armor (except on their turrets). Littorio is probably the only one that comes close in terms of 'balance' between armor/firepower/speed.

 

Overall Richelieu was an excellent design, and once of the best-balanced of any of the treaty battleships. Don't get me wrong - it had plenty of flaws. The French lacked the RPC technology to take advantage of the speed and turret arrangement fully, the guns had awful dispersion due to the proximity of the barrels, the 152mm guns didn't work properly as dual-purpose guns and the 100mm guns made a poor replacement for heavy AA - overall French AA and AA fire control was very poor, so the ships would be very vulnerable to air attack - and to boot the initial APC shells the guns were supplied with were defective.

But, every design has its share of flaws, so you can't hold that against Richelieu, especially as some of that her designers couldn't exactly help. The King George V-class's dual-purpose secondary battery didn't work well, and its quad turrets were a source of constant jams and breakdowns. The North Carolina-class didn't have great armor, and they also suffered from considerable vibration issues. The Littorio-class placed their diesel generators outside the citadel. The South Dakota-class had worse TDS than the prior North Carolina-class and still didn't have fantastic belt armor, although they probably came out as the best of the treaty battleships with little in the way of obvious flaws.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,765
[SQUAD]
Members
9,176 posts
11,680 battles

Much more goes into a ship's success than combat. Form, function, operational ability, operational costs, these things are vitally important to a ship's success.

 

Also, Lyon's an extremely good ship, probably the best overall ship in the French BB line.. Yeah, her dispersion isn't great, but that's to balance out those 16 barrels of death. If she and Normandie had regular dispersion, they'd be brokenly over powered. As it stands, they're very well balanced ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
837
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,410 posts
5,761 battles
8 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

Much more goes into a ship's success than combat. Form, function, operational ability, operational costs, these things are vitally important to a ship's success.

 

Also, Lyon's an extremely good ship, probably the best overall ship in the French BB line.. Yeah, her dispersion isn't great, but that's to balance out those 16 barrels of death. If she and Normandie had regular dispersion, they'd be brokenly over powered. As it stands, they're very well balanced ships. 

thats not how dispersion works...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,765
[SQUAD]
Members
9,176 posts
11,680 battles
25 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

thats not how dispersion works...

It is in the game. They're programmed to have a wider and longer spread than they should have, because if they didn't, Lyon and Normandie would be devstriking literally anything and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
837
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,410 posts
5,761 battles
3 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

It is in the game. They're programmed to have a wider and longer spread than they should have, because if they didn't, Lyon and Normandie would be devstriking literally anything and everything.

the entire line has exactly the same dispersion. Every ship line sits on the same dispersion curves. You are right that they are balanced in their precision int heir poor sigma. but the dispersion isnt any different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
704
[FLEE]
Members
2,194 posts
4,953 battles
2 hours ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

Richelieu and Jean Bart were in front line service well into the 1960s, longer than almost any other battleships ever built. I think that speaks well for them. 

No. It speaks well for the fact that France had noting worthwhile with which to replace them.
By 1945 these things (battleships) were only useful as offshore barrage machines.....or for accepting the surrender of  vanquished nations.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,188
[LEGIO]
Members
3,470 posts
8,178 battles

As much as the design had potential she really couldn't take advantage of it until her gun dispersion problems were corrected post-war and by then the aircraft carrier's dominance was well established.

Oh the plus side she had a good armor scheme although the quality of the armor was supposedly a bit lacking.

The all forward gun scheme works great in WoWS less so in real life. Hence why the last ship planned for the class (Gascogne) would have moved one of the turrets to the rear.

Basically the class had some good design characteristics but wasn't able to demonstrate them due to the way the war turned out. With the dispersion problems solved Richelieu would be a challenge for the other treaty battleships (North Carolina, South Dakota, King George V) and even those who blatantly cheated or outright ignored the treaties would have to be careful.

Edited by Lampshade_M1A2
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
689 posts
5,768 battles
3 hours ago, JervisBay said:

No. It speaks well for the fact that France had noting worthwhile with which to replace them.
By 1945 these things (battleships) were only useful as offshore barrage machines.....or for accepting the surrender of  vanquished nations.

The offshore barrage and accepting surrender sounds an awful lot like a certain T9 American battleship...

Arguably the battleship was never that useful during the later stages of the war, being almost completely replaced by the Carrier and its escort of cruisers and destroyers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,263
[RLGN]
Members
14,908 posts
26,428 battles
9 hours ago, JBR40 said:

I am stuck on the Normandy, and I got that free from the campaign!  :Smile_amazed: 

Full secondary build and concealment and play with battlecruiser caution. (Bulli small things and don’t fight battleships alone.)

Personally don’t have issues with the dispersion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,900
[WOLFG]
Members
30,708 posts
9,292 battles
8 hours ago, JervisBay said:

By 1945 these things (battleships) were only useful as offshore barrage machines.....

And it was a long time before that ability was fully superseded by other weapons systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[-RNG-]
Members
557 posts
14,161 battles
11 hours ago, JBR40 said:

I am stuck on the Normandy, and I got that free from the campaign!  :Smile_amazed: 

Both Lyon and Normandie are excellent ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×