Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Flagship1

Richelieu-class battleship, objectively a better design than Bismarck class?

65 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
33 posts
501 battles

Do you think overall, Richelieu is simply a superior design compared to Bismarck, both in game and historically? She is faster than Bismarck, and despite that fact, better armored than Bismarck. The turrets have considerably stronger armor than Bismarck, and the armored belt is slightly thicker than Bismarck. Their guns are comparable in performance, but Richelieu has the quick draw advantage, all her guns are in a position to fire at the start of an engagement, while Bismarck has to wait until it can go broadside to fire all its guns, and then it exposes it self as a bigger target, while Richelieu can be a smaller target while still being able to fire all its guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
501 battles
13 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

Lol. No. Richelieu is not remotely a better design than Bismarck, neither in game, nor in real life.

Care to give some reasons why it isnt? I just explained Richelieu is faster and has better armor, and they are pretty much equal in firepower.

Edited by Flagship1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[BUOY]
Members
1,213 posts
16,240 battles

While I'd say in game the Richyrich is the better boat; IRL literally none of the in game mechanics wrt angling and such would matter a whit and the Bisquick was a far superior design to an actually unfair degree since the Richelieu was built in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty's 35k ton BB displacement limit while Bismarck was 45k+ tons. And if you think Richelieu's 4 gun turret is wonky, it's nothing compared to RL where they were by far the slowest loading modern BB guns (WG giving the JB / Bourgogne MBRB is ironic as all get out).

The proof is in the pudding; basically, while the Jean Bart would've been the Just Blown Up if the ship had been completed and magazines had been loaded while dueling the Massachusetts, the Bismarck was pounded for over an hour by the 14" gun KGV and 16" gun Rodney and only finally sunk by either torpedoes and/or scuttling.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
501 battles
22 minutes ago, lloyd1701 said:

While I'd say in game the Richyrich is the better boat; IRL literally none of the in game mechanics wrt angling and such would matter a whit and the Bisquick was a far superior design to an actually unfair degree since the Richelieu was built in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty's 35k ton BB displacement limit while Bismarck was 45k+ tons. And if you think Richelieu's 4 gun turret is wonky, it's nothing compared to RL where they were by far the slowest loading modern BB guns (WG giving the JB / Bourgogne MBRB is ironic as all get out).

The proof is in the pudding; basically, while the Jean Bart would've been the Just Blown Up if the ship had been completed and magazines had been loaded while dueling the Massachusetts, the Bismarck was pounded for over an hour by the 14" gun KGV and 16" gun Rodney and only finally sunk by either torpedoes and/or scuttling.

As I've said, Richelieu has thicker armor everywhere than the Bismarck. From the turrets, to the armor belt, Richelieu is stronger armor, and thus, can take more hits than Bismarck.

Also, its a myth that Bismarck took "hits for hours" she was destroyed early on by Rodney's shells, Halfway into the battle, Bismarck was a floating wreck, the British just kept firing because the German crew didnt lower their flag, most likely because they were dead.

one of Rodney's shells penetrated one of Bismarck's turrets and blew out its back armored wall. Massachusetts shell only did minor damage to Jean Bart.

Edited by Flagship1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,369
[PVE]
Members
10,914 posts
18,891 battles

I don't know about real life but in game I have had better luck with the French bread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,668
[HINON]
Members
8,689 posts
12,682 battles
53 minutes ago, Flagship1 said:

Care to give some reasons why it isnt? I just explained Richelieu is faster and has better armor, and they are pretty much equal in firepower.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.php    heres an article about the 380s of French BBs, turns out they were pretty crap guns 

from the article

"The rate of fire was hampered by the slow rate in which the hoists could deliver projectiles. Reportedly, gunnery trials in the spring of 1940 for Richelieu achieved no more than 1.33 rounds per minute. However, "French Battleships: 1922 - 1956" states on page 126 that in July 1940 that "it took fifteen minutes to bring up a charge from the magazines to the guns, so the ship was realistically capable of firing only two initial four-gun salvos before her big guns fell silent." Some of the problems must have been rectified, as she was able to fire salvos every two minutes during the British attacks on Dakar in September 1940. Postwar, her reloading gear was modified and improved and she could then fire every 32 seconds. Jean Bart as completed could achieve the same rate of fire."

15 minutes just to load the guns, meanwhile Bismarck was able to fire at least twice every minute, only AFTER the war was she and her sister able to get a decent reload

Edited by tcbaker777
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
501 battles
13 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.php    heres an article about the 380s of French BBs, turns out they were pretty crap guns 

from the article

"The rate of fire was hampered by the slow rate in which the hoists could deliver projectiles. Reportedly, gunnery trials in the spring of 1940 for Richelieu achieved no more than 1.33 rounds per minute. However, "French Battleships: 1922 - 1956" states on page 126 that in July 1940 that "it took fifteen minutes to bring up a charge from the magazines to the guns, so the ship was realistically capable of firing only two initial four-gun salvos before her big guns fell silent." Some of the problems must have been rectified, as she was able to fire salvos every two minutes during the British attacks on Dakar in September 1940. Postwar, her reloading gear was modified and improved and she could then fire every 32 seconds. Jean Bart as completed could achieve the same rate of fire."

15 minutes just to load the guns, meanwhile Bismarck was able to fire at least twice every minute, only AFTER the war was she and her sister able to get a decent reload

I like how you bolded that part, but didnt bold the part right after it that says the problems were fixed, not after the war, but in 1940, " as she was able to fire salvos every two minutes during the British attacks on Dakar in September 1940. "

 

But for the sake of the argument, ignoring the fact that the guns were fixed early on...even with that original handicap, that doesnt outweigh the fact that Richelieu is faster and better armored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,668
[HINON]
Members
8,689 posts
12,682 battles
1 minute ago, Flagship1 said:

I like how you bolded that part, but didnt bold the part right after it that says the problems were fixed, not after the war, but in 1940, " as she was able to fire salvos every two minutes during the British attacks on Dakar in September 1940. "

 

But for the sake of the argument, ignoring the fact that the guns were fixed early on...even with that original handicap, that doesnt outweigh the fact that Richelieu is faster and better armored.

being faster and better armored doesnt mean a damn thing if you cant fight

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
501 battles
11 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

being faster and better armored doesnt mean a damn thing if you cant fight

This seems more like a crew training issue, rather than a design flaw. The problem was detected in early trials, and it went away later that year when the crew just so happened to be better trained. I'm not even sure how we can hold not being ready in early 1940 against Richelieu, when Bismarck wasn't fully completed until August 1940.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,373
[CVA16]
Members
6,171 posts
19,021 battles

We also have to consider armor quality if  you are looking  IRL factors. Germans made really good armor. The French...not so much. Very likely the thinner German armor, and possibly the overall armor scheme, were superior to the French. 

In game, where WG determines how good/bad things are and the best tactics to use, the Richelieu is likely superior mostly due to the bow camping meta. Although the Bismarck will be able to dodge more torps (it will be moving and have hydro) if we assume it isn't just the two of them on the map. OTOH, if I were the Bismarck. I would work to close the range so the turtleback comes into play, all the while slinging AP in hopes of taking out one or both of those huge turrets.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
324 posts
15 hours ago, tcbaker777 said:

being faster and better armored doesnt mean a damn thing if you cant fight

You can ram the enemy.   Richelieu with faster speed will be able to get into better position in real life to ram an opposing ship.   Not to mention, with a faster speed, a ship will be able to deliver a stronger force of impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,466 posts
13,117 battles
17 hours ago, Flagship1 said:

Do you think overall, Richelieu is simply a superior design compared to Bismarck, both in game and historically? She is faster than Bismarck, and despite that fact, better armored than Bismarck. The turrets have considerably stronger armor than Bismarck, and the armored belt is slightly thicker than Bismarck. Their guns are comparable in performance, but Richelieu has the quick draw advantage, all her guns are in a position to fire at the start of an engagement, while Bismarck has to wait until it can go broadside to fire all its guns, and then it exposes it self as a bigger target, while Richelieu can be a smaller target while still being able to fire all its guns. 

Richelieu is probably a somewhat better design, and was based on a newer design. She was built within the treaty limits, had good speed, armor protection and firepower in one package. AA armament was limited, and they had to dump the floatplane to help that. She also had the drawback of two quad turrets, so one hit could knock out 50% of her firepower.

Bismarck was a product improved WWI design. Very conservative, and for a treaty battleship, she was overweight. For the extra tonnage, she didn't gain much beyond being able to take more damage. Her four main battery turrets and amidships catapult with hangars sterilized a lot of deck space that could have been used for a better anti-aircraft armament. 

In the end, they are very similar in capabilities, and it comes down to how they are used. For that you have to look at each counties unique failings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,668
[HINON]
Members
8,689 posts
12,682 battles
51 minutes ago, Ciryandil said:

You can ram the enemy.   Richelieu with faster speed will be able to get into better position in real life to ram an opposing ship.   Not to mention, with a faster speed, a ship will be able to deliver a stronger force of impact. 

how much damage would a difference of 2 knots really do though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
324 posts
5 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

how much damage would a difference of 2 knots really do though?

Honestly, I am not sure. 

 

Hmmmm...on second thought, weight is also a big factor. Not just speed.

How heavy is Richelieu compared to Bismarck?   If Richelieu is not that much lighter than Bismarck, and since she is faster, her ramming of Bismarck would be more powerful  (I am speaking in real life mechanics, not for WoWS in-game mechanics) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,668
[HINON]
Members
8,689 posts
12,682 battles
1 hour ago, Ciryandil said:

Honestly, I am not sure. 

 

Hmmmm...on second thought, weight is also a big factor. Not just speed.

How heavy is Richelieu compared to Bismarck?   If Richelieu is not that much lighter than Bismarck, and since she is faster, her ramming of Bismarck would be more powerful  (I am speaking in real life mechanics, not for WoWS in-game mechanics) 

for Richy

Standard: 37,250 long tons (37,850 t)

Full load: 43,992 long tons (44,698 t)

Bismarck

41,700 t (41,000 long tons) standard

50,300 t (49,500 long tons) full load

so, if these numbers are correct, itd probably do more damage to Richy than to Bismarck if they rammed

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
501 battles
4 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

We also have to consider armor quality if  you are looking  IRL factors. Germans made really good armor. The French...not so much. Very likely the thinner German armor, and possibly the overall armor scheme, were superior to the French. 

In game, where WG determines how good/bad things are and the best tactics to use, the Richelieu is likely superior mostly due to the bow camping meta. Although the Bismarck will be able to dodge more torps (it will be moving and have hydro) if we assume it isn't just the two of them on the map. OTOH, if I were the Bismarck. I would work to close the range so the turtleback comes into play, all the while slinging AP in hopes of taking out one or both of those huge turrets.

We have no reason to believe French armor is of any less quality than German armor. On the Char B1 heavy tanks they made in 1940, these tanks were immune to all German tank guns of 1940, and this armor did not crack from hits, unlike German Tiger II armor later in the war which did tend to crack open from hits. The French steel industry is world class, just like Krupp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
501 battles
2 hours ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Richelieu is probably a somewhat better design, and was based on a newer design. She was built within the treaty limits, had good speed, armor protection and firepower in one package. AA armament was limited, and they had to dump the floatplane to help that. She also had the drawback of two quad turrets, so one hit could knock out 50% of her firepower.

Bismarck was a product improved WWI design. Very conservative, and for a treaty battleship, she was overweight. For the extra tonnage, she didn't gain much beyond being able to take more damage. Her four main battery turrets and amidships catapult with hangars sterilized a lot of deck space that could have been used for a better anti-aircraft armament. 

In the end, they are very similar in capabilities, and it comes down to how they are used. For that you have to look at each counties unique failings.

Just a quick note on the quad turrets being knocked out you mentioned. Penetrating one of Richelieu's turrets would not knock out 50% of her firepower. Inside the turrets there was an armored wall dividing the turrets in half, so if one side is penetrated and destroyed, the explosion is contained to that side of the turret, and the other half is still functional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
501 battles
1 hour ago, tcbaker777 said:

for Richy

Standard: 37,250 long tons (37,850 t)

Full load: 43,992 long tons (44,698 t)

Bismarck

41,700 t (41,000 long tons) standard

50,300 t (49,500 long tons) full load

so, if these numbers are correct, itd probably do more damage to Richy than to Bismarck if they rammed

Thats not how ramming works. Generally, if two battleships were to collide, they'd both sink. a difference of a few thousand tons wont change the fact that your hull got a gigantic hole punched into it.

 

More importantly, why would Richelieu resort to ramming? Once her guns were fixed in 1940, she would have superiority in firepower over Bismarck. Richelieu's shells are heavier and have a higher velocity than Bismarck's shells, meaning Richelieu has higher penetration, and Richelieu's deck armor is thicker than Bismarck's, so At long range, Richelieu would have supremacy in a firefight.

Edited by Flagship1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,668
[HINON]
Members
8,689 posts
12,682 battles
35 minutes ago, Flagship1 said:

Thats not how ramming works. Generally, if two battleships were to collide, they'd both sink. a difference of a few thousand tons wont change the fact that your hull got a gigantic hole punched into it.

 

More importantly, why would Richelieu resort to ramming? Once her guns were fixed in 1940, she would have superiority in firepower over Bismarck. Richelieu's shells are heavier and have a higher velocity than Bismarck's shells, meaning Richelieu has higher penetration, and Richelieu's deck armor is thicker than Bismarck's, so At long range, Richelieu would have supremacy in a firefight.

ok, but the fact that Richys average dispersion was  recorded at +300 to +500 meters, id think she'd have a hard time being able to constantly land shots on Bismarck, which was, granted under optimal conditions, able to fire every 18 seconds so it was probably more like in the 20 second range, and was known to have quite accurate fire, could Richy beat Bismarck in a one on one? possibly, but she would have her work cut out for her with a 2 minute reload at best, and horrific dispersion issues, its kinda like the age old question of "Iowa vs Yamato, which would win?" we'll never know, and itd probably come down to the conditions in which the fight happened, now, im not downplaying Richy in any way, just saying with the issues she had, she'd have quite a time bringing down the beast that was known as Bismarck

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,466 posts
13,117 battles
36 minutes ago, Flagship1 said:

Just a quick note on the quad turrets being knocked out you mentioned. Penetrating one of Richelieu's turrets would not knock out 50% of her firepower. Inside the turrets there was an armored wall dividing the turrets in half, so if one side is penetrated and destroyed, the explosion is contained to that side of the turret, and the other half is still functional.

Hits to the barbette or turret penetrations can damage or destroy the traversing gear or damage the roller path for the turret, so even if the turret retains guns, it won't be able to use them. The biggest benefit to the armored bulkhead between the halves is it should save half the turret proper crew, and preserve equipment so repairs will be cheaper and quicker.

Edited by SgtBeltfed
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
501 battles
26 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

ok, but the fact that Richys average dispersion was  recorded at +300 to +500 meters, id think she'd have a hard time being able to constantly land shots on Bismarck, which was, granted under optimal conditions, able to fire every 18 seconds so it was probably more like in the 20 second range, and was known to have quite accurate fire, could Richy beat Bismarck in a one on one? possibly, but she would have her work cut out for her with a 2 minute reload at best, and horrific dispersion issues, its kinda like the age old question of "Iowa vs Yamato, which would win?" we'll never know, and itd probably come down to the conditions in which the fight happened, now, im not downplaying Richy in any way, just saying with the issues she had, she'd have quite a time bringing down the beast that was known as Bismarck

Richelieu...the ship with thicker armor, higher speed, firing bigger heavier shells...and some how Bismarck is the "beast" in this fight. Lol, if you say so.

Edited by Flagship1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
324 posts
56 minutes ago, Flagship1 said:

Thats not how ramming works. Generally, if two battleships were to collide, they'd both sink. a difference of a few thousand tons wont change the fact that your hull got a gigantic hole punched into it.

 

More importantly, why would Richelieu resort to ramming? Once her guns were fixed in 1940, she would have superiority in firepower over Bismarck. Richelieu's shells are heavier and have a higher velocity than Bismarck's shells, meaning Richelieu has higher penetration, and Richelieu's deck armor is thicker than Bismarck's, so At long range, Richelieu would have supremacy in a firefight.

The reason why ramming was brought up into this discussion on Richelieu vs. Bismarck was because of me replying to @tcbaker777's comment that "being faster and better armored doesnt mean a damn thing if you cant fight"

Ramming IS a "weapon" that a ship can use, besides the guns.  

....now, we are discussing whether or not Richelieu would be better able to successfully ram the Bismarck and take less damage in turn (or vice versa). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[NFJF]
Members
707 posts
10,917 battles
5 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

We also have to consider armor quality if  you are looking  IRL factors. Germans made really good armor. The French...not so much. Very likely the thinner German armor, and possibly the overall armor scheme, were superior to the French.

At that time, Germany had the best cemented armor recipe in the world.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,668
[HINON]
Members
8,689 posts
12,682 battles
6 minutes ago, Flagship1 said:

Richelieu...the ship with thicker armor, higher speed, firing bigger heavier shells...and some how Bismarck is the "beast" in this fight. Lol, if you say so.

i say beast as in it was seen as one by others, it was the biggest battleship made in Europe after all, all BBs in their own right are beasts and every navy had their own beast to rule the others in the fleet, Germany's beast was Bismarck, even though it never got to truly show it because it got hunted down like an escaped convict 

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×