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

French Carriers line?

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

41
[PWH]
Members
139 posts
6,029 battles

So, I know that people are very upset with with the current carrier rework, but I am wondering that, since then reduced the carrier lines to 4 ships, would it be possible for a french line maybe? I don't know if the Clemenceau-class aircraft carriers could be considered for the tier 10 position, as its would be the most advance carrier, being built in 21 December 1957 or if it would be underpowered airwing compared to the other tier 10 carriers, but with it, there would almost be enough carriers for a french carrier line. Possibly have Béarn would be the entry to the french carriers as it was the first carrier built by the french until after the war. Next would be the Joffre-class aircraft carrier. It was laid down just before the war and would have been completed if France wasn't invaded by Germany. After this though, it would be trouble. France didn't create any carriers until the Clemenceau carrier, but it did buy a couple of carriers from other countries such as the USA and Britain, though the Britain carrier Arromanches an ex-HMS Colossus might work, or Wargames could pull a mid-war or after-war carrier concept, to somehow to fill in tier 8 position, possibly a more advance version of the Joffre, as there were two ships scheduled to be built, the second being  Painleve. The way that the cvs would play as smaller wings compared to the other cvs but would have stronger or faster planes or something. I haven't had a chance to look at the planes and compare them to the tech tree comparisons, but if it was possible, it would bring a fourth carrier line to the game in the future if and when they fix current cvs, but this could be wishful thinking. 

I know that carriers are kind of hated right now, but I always like the idea of new ships, and a carrier line for the french might be interesting, or maybe it wouldn't. Who knows, but wargames will sooner or later run out of ships to put into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,744
[SOUP]
Modder
9,055 posts

With them cutting it down to even-number carriers only (at least for now), that puts the French well within the realm of possibility even with their few and minor carrier plans.

Plus, I've heard from a source within WG (and I trust their intel)... one simple name:     Dixmude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,584
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,280 battles

It would definitely be nice to see more carriers from more nations in-game. France and Italy are both excellent candidates with their own native designs and aircraft that could no doubt be used in interesting ways. That said, a full line? That's a tough one. I suppose that something like Commandante Teste > Bearn > Joffre > Jean Bart Conversion with Dixmude as a premium would work well, and the Italians have nearly as much to work with. Heck, even Germany has enough paper designs for... Oh right, Graf Zeppelin is already a premium, and she'd pretty much be the lynch-pin of any German CV line. Crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,744
[SOUP]
Modder
9,055 posts
1 hour ago, Landsraad said:

 

 

Simple, rename it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
759 posts
9 hours ago, Landsraad said:

It would definitely be nice to see more carriers from more nations in-game. France and Italy are both excellent candidates with their own native designs and aircraft that could no doubt be used in interesting ways. That said, a full line? That's a tough one. I suppose that something like Commandante Teste > Bearn > Joffre > Jean Bart Conversion with Dixmude as a premium would work well, and the Italians have nearly as much to work with. Heck, even Germany has enough paper designs for... Oh right, Graf Zeppelin is already a premium, and she'd pretty much be the lynch-pin of any German CV line. Crap.

The 2nd Graf Zeppelin class would have been called the Peter Strasser.  So I guess they could go with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
116 posts
7,600 battles
On 2/5/2019 at 10:01 AM, Royeaux said:

The 2nd Graf Zeppelin class would have been called the Peter Strasser.  So I guess they could go with that?

The original version of the GZ was kitted out with mostly biplanes, which could put it in early tier 6 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
529
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,676 posts
5,123 battles

The Bearn was the one carrier France had operational in WW 2.  It was obsolescent and roughly the equivalent to the Tier IV carriers in the game (before the remuddle they did).  The Bearn's replacement was to be the Joffre class:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffre-class_aircraft_carrier

This class would have been the rough equivalent of the Graf Zeppelin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,009
[REVY]
Members
2,837 posts
15,075 battles

What about the Bois Belleau and the La Fayette?

Yes they are Independence-class CVLs, and yes they were given/loaned to France post war, but we do have precedence with this in the Boise,  Admiral Marakov, and the Irian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,697 posts
8,726 battles

If we're getting a Russian BB line then a lot of things become possible.  France built one of her own CVs in the relevant time period, recieved some from other nations following the second war, and had a few more designs proposed or canceled like Joffre or the Jean Bart conversion. Plus according to War Gaming Republique is based off an ultra-armored carrier design. I have a sneaking suspicion that this CV design comes from the same seekrit documents Roon and Hindeburg come from, but it does mean that in WG's mind France has T10 CV material.

Edited by Chimera2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,672
[WPORT]
Members
9,891 posts
14,359 battles

Interesting topic.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[PIZZA]
[PIZZA]
Members
101 posts
35,302 battles

I'm currently working on a French Carrier tech tree line. I will try to have it posted in April. It's not easy...there is little info on the net I've found on paper ships. If anyone knows of a website that has some historical info please share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
915
[HELLS]
Members
2,848 posts
31,612 battles

Dixmude (Bogue class), Arromanches (Colossus), Bois Belleau (Independance Class-Belleau Wood or Lafayette as an option), Foch.

You could add Béarn, Joffre and Painlevé to a prewar chain. That's the lot.

All the aircraft would be USN surplus in any case. Wildcats, Hellcats, Bearcats, Corsairs, SBDs, Helldivers and Avengers all saw service in the MN postwar, from Indochina right up until the Algerian war and Suez.

EDIT: Foch at T10 would be a stretch indeed with a straight deck!

Edited by GrandAdmiral_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,153
[FURIA]
WoWS Community Contributors
2,088 posts
6,332 battles

 

@Fr05ty I summon thee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles

I have been summoned!

Since I've been in contact with a few French historians and I've finished the Italian CV line, I think I can help out with this. France has plenty of paper designs from which to draw from which means that it is VERY well stocked for ships from T4-8, the only issue is the T10. The issue with the T10 is that we have massive designs from prior to WW2 or a post-WW2 design that we need to find detailed data for and which should be available at the French archives (and we're already coordinating with some French historians on a joint expedition to the archives to retrieve them).

The summary of my line proposal is:

T4: Bearn (you wouldn't have it any other way, would you? It's the first French CV and thus a righteous T4)

T6: Joffre (it's a light carrier from early WW2 vintage, so it's a fine prospect)

T8: PA25A2 (a post-war carrier design that is halfway between a light carrier and a fleet carrier, but with armour)

T8 Premium: PA28 "Clemenceau" (Light carrier ordered in 1947 and canceled in 1951)

T10: PA31 (a post-war fleet carrier design alternative from the same design process that gave us PA28 "Clemenceau")

I'll be publishing the line as soon as we get access to the accurate data on PA31 from the archives. Otherwise, I'll have to choose another suitable design which will sadly be lacking wartime experience design choices :(

There are a few T10-sized designs from prior to WW2, but they would be unsuitable due to their weapons fit, airplane capacity and general poor designs. T6 & T8 designs there's plenty, with the most notable one being the PA28 "Clemenceau" which was approved for construction post-war in 1947 and was then cancelled, but a mighty premium like the Saipan it would make. For reference, Joffre is the PA16 design, so you have over 30 designs (there's some numbers which have multiple iterations as well) going from 13400t to 88000t, so plenty of variety to choose from!

There's also a LOT of hybrid battlecarrier designs, but I'll leave those in the dark.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
2 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

I have been summoned!

Since I've been in contact with a few French historians and I've finished the Italian CV line, I think I can help out with this. France has plenty of paper designs from which to draw from which means that it is VERY well stocked for ships from T4-8, the only issue is the T10. The issue with the T10 is that we have massive designs from prior to WW2 or a post-WW2 design that we need to find detailed data for and which should be available at the French archives (and we're already coordinating with some French historians on a joint expedition to the archives to retrieve them).

The summary of my line proposal is:

T4: Bearn (you wouldn't have it any other way, would you? It's the first French CV and thus a righteous T4)

T6: Joffre (it's a light carrier from early WW2 vintage, so it's a fine prospect)

T8: PA25A2 (a post-war carrier design that is halfway between a light carrier and a fleet carrier, but with armour)

T8 Premium: PA28 "Clemenceau" (Light carrier ordered in 1947 and canceled in 1951)

T10: PA31 (a post-war fleet carrier design alternative from the same design process that gave us PA28 "Clemenceau")

I'll be publishing the line as soon as we get access to the accurate data on PA31 from the archives. Otherwise, I'll have to choose another suitable design which will sadly be lacking wartime experience design choices :(

There are a few T10-sized designs from prior to WW2, but they would be unsuitable due to their weapons fit, airplane capacity and general poor designs. T6 & T8 designs there's plenty, with the most notable one being the PA28 "Clemenceau" which was approved for construction post-war in 1947 and was then cancelled, but a mighty premium like the Saipan it would make. For reference, Joffre is the PA16 design, so you have over 30 designs (there's some numbers which have multiple iterations as well) going from 13400t to 88000t, so plenty of variety to choose from!

There's also a LOT of hybrid battlecarrier designs, but I'll leave those in the dark.

Would any Independence-class or Colossus class Light Carriers fit anywhere in the line, or were those carriers just too small?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
Just now, Sventex said:

Would any Independence-class or Colossus class Light Carriers fit anywhere in the line, or were those carriers just too small?

Why would you want them in the line when there's perfectly adequate indigenous designs? You could fit one of the "borrowed" CVs (Independence or Colossus) as Premiums, but they're both T6s. Not really much to write home about them tbh as they're Joffre analogues pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
5 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

Why would you want them in the line when there's perfectly adequate indigenous designs?

Seeing videos of these Carriers on exercise with French Battleships gives off the strong impression that they represented the strength of the real French Fleet, despite their origin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
4 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Seeing videos of these Carriers on exercise with French Battleships gives off the strong impression that they represented the strength of the real French Fleet, despite their origin.

 

They were the only aircraft carriers that France had in operation at the time and thus that's what they had to do with, but the French were never happy with them and only considered them to be stopgap measures due to them being unable to build their CVs during occupation. As soon as the war ended, France considered it a priority to build their own aircraft carriers of vastly improved capabilities. You can see this as the Joffres were considered for completion to an updated design as well as numerous CV designs already in 1946 that would end with the order for PA-28 in 1947 (though it was subsequently cancelled in 1951 as operational requirements had changed).

I at no point said that they weren't useful for the fleet (and a fleet that had been decimated due to the war and lack of new builds), but why would you want a copy of someone else's ship in your tech-tree when there's indigenous designs instead? Like I said, they're fit for being T6 premiums and that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
4 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

I at no point said that they weren't useful for the fleet (and a fleet that had been decimated due to the war and lack of new builds), but why would you want a copy of someone else's ship in your tech-tree when there's indigenous designs instead? Like I said, they're fit for being T6 premiums and that's all

I value putting emphasis on real ships over paper designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
Just now, Sventex said:

I value putting emphasis on real ships over paper designs.

And nobody is saying they don't deserve to be in the game, but putting them in the actual tech-tree does a disservice to French shipbuilding by slaving them to another nation's design when the French actually started building both their T6 and T8 designs. Let me just put it this way: Joffre (PA16) and Clemenceau (PA28) are both more "real" than the Montana class of battleships ever were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
Just now, Fr05ty said:

And nobody is saying they don't deserve to be in the game, but putting them in the actual tech-tree does a disservice to French shipbuilding by slaving them to another nation's design when the French actually started building both their T6 and T8 designs. Let me just put it this way: Joffre (PA16) and Clemenceau (PA28) are both more "real" than the Montana class of battleships ever were.

I don't think the Kongo is a disservice to the Japanese Battleship tech tree, despite being of British make.  She was a real ship and is more deserving in my mind, than a Japanese paper ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
2 minutes ago, Sventex said:

I don't think the Kongo is a disservice to the Japanese Battleship tech tree, despite being of British make.  She was a real ship and is more deserving in my mind, than a Japanese paper ship.

Kongo is a ship MADE TO JAPANESE SPECIFICATIONS. That is a very different thing from a ship that's literally a HANDOVER from another navy. Kongo is not a copy from anybody else, it is a ship made to Japanese fleet doctrine and design in a British yard. Independence and Colossus carriers that served with France were hand-me-downs from the USA & UK with no modifications or considerations for French service due to the fact that they were never intended for French service. There's a VERY big difference between having a ship tailor-made for you by a foreign yard than comparing it to a hand-me ship.

If we go by your considerations, every navy will end up using Gearings, Fletchers and other hand-me-downs which ends up with a line like the Pan-Asian one which is pretty damn unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
Just now, Fr05ty said:

Kongo is a ship MADE TO JAPANESE SPECIFICATIONS. That is a very different thing from a ship that's literally a HANDOVER from another navy. Kongo is not a copy from anybody else, it is a ship made to Japanese fleet doctrine and design in a British yard. Independence and Colossus carriers that served with France were hand-me-downs from the USA & UK with no modifications or considerations for French service due to the fact that they were never intended for French service. There's a VERY big difference between having a ship tailor-made for you by a foreign yard than comparing it to a hand-me ship.

If we go by your considerations, every navy will end up using Gearings, Fletchers and other hand-me-downs which ends up with a line like the Pan-Asian one which is pretty damn unpopular.

The ship is still not entirely a Japanese design.  Much of the ship was designed with British shipbuilding knowledge that was beyond Japan's capabilities for the time.  Even the Fuso and Ise class had significant British designs incorperated.  And again, I do not see this as a disservice to the Japanese tech tree.  Just being a purely domestic design is not that impressive against real ships that made it beyond the slipway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
4 minutes ago, Sventex said:

The ship is still not entirely a Japanese design.  Much of the ship was designed with British shipbuilding knowledge that was beyond Japan's capabilities for the time.  Even the Fuso and Ise class had significant British designs incorperated.  And again, I do not see this as a disservice to the Japanese tech tree.  Just being a purely domestic design is not that impressive against real ships that made it beyond the slipway.

You do not seem to understand the point. Kongo is not a 100% Japanese ship, that's fine, but she's not a HAND ME DOWN. Kongo is a unique design made FOR Japan, she is not a literal ship from a different nation that was given to another nation just to make due while they were occupied. It's not an issue to have external influences in your designs (and in fact, the latter French CVs took cues from British CVs and their armored decks for example), it's the fact that these aren't "inspired" designs but rather ships from a foreign navy that were loaned in a period of need. The French HAD CVs being built as they were invaded (the Joffre class) so they were REAL designs that were in the process of building. Using an American or British ship with American or British planes and just slapping a French flag on it when there's an actual equivalent French ship that was being built and which had French planes built for it IS a disservice to the French.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×