Assuming that Admiral Somerville wasn't put on the clock with "Settle matters quickly" message plus other pressures do you think that like him he could have got away with not having to open fire all other factors remain the same
@Sparky Puddins no you dont understand the Battleships most all were sunk but except for arizona were all raised back up again and some then were sunk during or after the war
I'm kind of impressed that the French navy with all its quirks and problems, went from having ships that were bizarre floating hotels to reasonably competitive warships within a relatively short period. I mean, I know that the Royal Navy also advanced pretty spectacularly, I'm just saying that the French seemed to come from along way further back. ...if that makes sense.
It's probably the steepest learning curve of any significant navy in the 20th century. Unfortunately, by the time they actually got battleships right and produced some fine designs, the entire battleship concept was outdated.
I think the Japanese had a steeper learning curve. I mean the French had a continuous development of first rate (ish) warships since the middle ages, with a little bit of falling behind due to consequences of the Franco-Prussian war. The Japanese stagnated during the Edo period, bought most of their warships abroad until WW1 and then casually started building top of the line warships, sometimes the best in the world in their class at the time of commissioning. They even managed to be pioneers in aircraft carriers.
No, France has continually had problems in ship design going back at least to the 18th century because of their silly love of over innovation. The RN was always criticized for being too conservative, but that conservativism kept their feet on the ground and their designs evolutionary. They also knew when to drastically innovate and to have it be the exception not the rule.
@@VersusARCH Japan didn't stagnate, they had almost no naval tradition before the Meiji period. Despite being an island nation they had a reluctance to sail beyond the sight of land and their ship designs were never great until they began to Westernize. This is why Korea's turtle ships were so devastating. They were actual warships going up against ships intended to be transports crewed by sailors who had little to no naval warfare experience. They cut through them like a gunboat against rowboats.
I wouldn't be surprised if the French tried to argue that cheese and wine shouldn't be included in the ship's total displacement for Washington Naval Treaty, just like how the English argued that water shouldn't be calculated, for much the same reason. Then you get cheese and wine filled armor bulges.
@@stanleyrogouski I was not in the Marine Nationale myself, but it was well known among military that food is always very good onboard " La Royale" ships.
I have 1/400th scale Heller models of all four ships. Of them all I find Richelieu the most beautiful and purposeful - with guns totalling more than 100 barrels!
The best comparison of the Dunkerques and other battleships of their era I've ever heard is that they were, ton for ton, one of the best battleships. They just didn't have enough tons.
If you stop considering them battleships, but rather battlecruisers (although Strasbourg is actually semi-decently armored) they aren't quite so bad. I see a lot of similarity in them compared to something like the US Alaska-class, although just a much older design. Dunkerque is around 5k tons lighter but brings fairly similar capabilities if not possibly slightly more firepower.
To a certain extent, Richelieu is basically Dunkerque with those extra tons, and was quite possibly the best battleship any European power ever built At least after the US slapped a couple dozen bofors guns on it
Strasbourg (and to lesser extent Dunkerque) had the best armor to tonnage ratio of all battleships at the time they were built. They were actually very modern and it is a shame that they had very bad luck and couldn't fight alongside allies. They were modern enough, while being small enough that they could have been used post-war if they survived.
A real shame neither of these beautiful ships ever saw real useful service. And double shame that the French Navy didn't order its ships to make for British ports. Fantastic video as always Drach.
Well, they're another of those 1930s/1940s capital ship classes that were rendered obsolete on launch by naval aviation. Doubly bad because the expansion of the Marine National was arguably a much worse waste of the French national defence budget than the Maginot Line.
@@bkjeong4302 Only in hindsight, and even then it's not a particularly strong argument. A navy capable of defending France's sea lanes was very important (ex, France was entirely reliant on imports for fuel oil), and keep in mind for much of the interwar period the most likely threat to France was Italy, and a war with Italy required a strong navy. Therefore, the rebuilding of the Marine Nationale, which in 1920 consisted almost entirely of old and obsolete ships, was essential to France's defense and foreign policy.
Some ships did join the British navy. France was indecisive. We have to remember the atrocious casualties taken during the Great War. 1,300,000 French servicemen died during the first three months of the war.
The number of times shallow water in harbor has saved a ship, or at least made her salvage much, much faster, is so great as to make one wonder if berths shouldn't' be dredged to a standard depth and floored with concrete.
I play battle of warships and its pretty accurate ship dynamics wise. this and the old rodney I have a big soft spot for. front super turret design was just elegant
@@chloroxbleach8561 Actually, they were better thought of as two dual turrets side by side - there was a thick armored bulkhead dividing the two. This saved half a turret crew aboard Dunkerque at Mers el Kebir "Dunkerque fired several salvos at Hood before being hit by four 15-inch (381 mm) shells in quick succession. The first was deflected on the upper main battery turret roof above the right-most gun, though it shoved in the armor plate and ignited propellant charges in the right turret half that asphyxiated all the men in that half; the left half remained operational." Asphyxiated? More likely, burned alive
Hey Drachinifel, there's a game called, Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought(still in Alpha stage but it's good!). Now if you ever played Rule the Waves then it's very similar but you can see the ships in their glory in full action. The reason I mentioned this game is I want to see how you would build ships to counter other nations navies if you were given authority and budget for development. BTW great videos as always! 👍
The problem with losing guns is obvious but there were advantages If they were winning and the enemy running away - they had all their main guns up front to shoot at them. If they were losing and running away themselves - having the secondary armament on the stern put it in a good position to engage any enemy destroyers coming after them. .
@Jimmy De'Souza maybe that, in the 1950s, Richelieu and Jean Bart finally got to meet up in service? It was only briefly, but after over a decade, they finally got to sail together.
@@bkjeong4302 Battleships were not wholly obsolete when Richelieu was commissioned and the idea that they were in 1940 is based on an overzealous application of hindsight that ignores that there were still very distinct limits on the capabilities of carriers at the time, such as a requirement of broad daylight, as well as ignoring that it took years to refine the tactics that made them as effective as they were. This goes even moreso in European waters where land-based air support was far more available than the vast expanses of the Pacific.
Balmung60 Even with the limits of naval aviation in the late 1930s, carriers still had a massive edge over battleships in that their superior range enabled them to simply remain out of a battleship’s attack range (unless it’s a CVE or you’re an idiot and sail your carrier towards the enemy a la Glorious). This is the single biggest reason battleships were replaced by carriers-the battleship could not attack the new capital ships. And the entire justification behind battleships existing was sea control through combat with other capital ships; they could do other things, sure, but they were not the best available options (tactically and/or strategically) for any sort of supporting role. Once carriers took away the primary fleet unit role in the 1930s (though nobody knew that yet), there was no reason for any new battleships to enter service.
Considering its armor was made from the rusting remains of a scuttle ship? Yea I can kinda see why it wasn't all that great to be honest, but at least it was somewhat better than those bloated WW1 designs... Oh wait... (Honestly why do we keep the french around?!)
In my game 'battle of warships' I love using Dunkerque, USS Texas and the Kongo but Dunkerque is my favourite, slightly disadvantaged with only forward facing cannons but she's a beautiful ship and packs a fair punch, I just wish I could've seen them in reality
Hi Drach, I'm just here once again to point out that the French 330mm guns were monstrously powerful weapons in terms of penetration, to the point where they outpenned the 14" Mk VII and the 14"/50 Mk 11 (was it Mk 11 on the refitted New Mexicos? Anyway, those) and even the early USN 16" guns.
aw man, i was hoping you were gonna go more into the whole scuttling at toulon, theres like nothing online in english; unsure how reliable it was, but i recall reading somewhere that the guards at the naval base asked the germans for paperwork to buy time for the fleet to prep for scuttling (and probably to delay them without getting involved in a firefight)
It's an interesting subject in its own right. The French were very thorough in the scuttling. There wasn't any coming back from it for the ships involved.
If i recall correctly, the Strasbourg held out some German soldiers and tanks with its secondary guns while the others where preparing the scuttling. The Germans attempted to negotiate and demanded that Laborde, the admiral of the Strasbourg, surrender his ship, to which he answered that the ship was already sunk. Also the submarines Casabianca, Vénus, Marsouin, Iris and Le Glorieux attempted to escape under German machineguns and bombs. The Casabianca, Marsouin and Le Glorieux managed to join the Allies but the Iris was seized by the Spanish while it was refueling in Spain. Venus, being the first creating a breech for the others, was too badly damaged during its evasion and so was scuttled at the entrance of the harbour.
@@oOkenzoOo The account I've read didn't mention anything like that. The French waited until they knew German troops were approaching Toulon, then essentially wrecked the ships. Guns were destroyed with charges of picric acid, the boilers were lit and had feed water turned off, sea cocks were opened, and the crew ran rampant with sledgehammers destroying everything that could be smashed. There wasn't much salvageable left after, even though several ships looked relatively intact, aside from sitting on the seabed.
@@davefinfrock3324 This was from various French reports which detailed the events hour by hour. In those there were the accounts of several officers and crewmen from the various ships who witnessed the scuttling.
Thanks for great video - as usually! But, sorry for pointing one thing. When you're talking about Dunkerque do not use a fotos of Strassbourg instead. The main visual difference was the conning tower with admiral's bridge - Dunkerque had only 1 platform, where Strasbourg had 2 platforms. Only my 2 cents to this. Good job, carry on Drach!
@@OhSome1HasThisName It was built in France in a Fenech shipyard though. Not sure how they could get the guns of course. But the hull? I believe so. They also had made some 40,000 ton ships as well. The L'Atlanique and Il-de-France. Not sure if I got the spelling right. Both of those were built in the 1920s though. (I just looked at your post comment again. Do you mean a ship yard that had the ability to make a warship? I always heard of British shipyard making both passenger and naval ships. I will look more into what kind of ships the shipyard that built Normandie could build.)
@@baronvonjo1929 Yeah I meant more on the lines of the ones that were big enough to build the ocean liners lacked the skills to make warships; unsure if this is correct, just speculation
Those yards could have been in use and not freed. Plus the French have always had a hard time expanding their yards. The carrier Charles de Gaulle had such a wide beam for its lengh (which messed with its speed) because they couldn't expand the intended dock she was to be built in: there was a shed at the end of the dock owned by another government branch and they refused to move it for the navy forcing them to redesign the ship to fit the docks dimensions as is.
France certainly had quite the hardon for quad guns on everything. Even the secondaries. At least the Richelieus had saner secondaries. Quite like the class from a design standpoint aside from said secondary battery, just rather sad about their fate during the war. I reckon they could've been quite the asset had they been made available to the FFNF.
Strasbourg considering belt inclination was quite decently protected and it's worth mentioning that french 330mm guns outpreformed some 15 inchers in both penetration and bursting charge.
@@torpedospurs Strasbourg was a fast treaty battleship. The gun limit at the time was 14 inches. Scharnhorst was a a fast battleship too but undergunned due to treaties. Alaska and B-65 were not battlecruisers in any capacity and were not intended to be. They were unrestricted cruisers which could be seen more as revival of armored cruiser. People make mistake compare Alaska to treaty ships while it's a post treaty ship and don't look at Alaska in it's contemporary escalatory context.
@@filipzietek5146 You can't tell people not to compare when they've got the guns and the size. Alaska was a bigger ship, built much later, and still comes out looking worse. The Alaska and B-65 were pretty much the 1945 version of the Invincible so yes they are definitely battlecruisers. Strasbourg was designed to catch the Graf Spee's of the world, exactly the battlecruiser's job.
As for Scharnhorst, she's German and German battlecruisers all go with the same idea - keep the armor thick and have smaller guns than your displacement would suggest.
@@torpedospurs German battlecruiser had no idea of having smaller guns ffs, german battleships and battlecruisers both used 11 and 12 inch guns. For a while they preferd more 11 inch to less 12 inch guns but it's rally a minor difference. Germans overall used smaller guns. Scharnhorst was not an "idea" but it literally was not legally allowed to have bigger guns. The whole point of of a battlecruiser was to have contempotary battleships guns and a cruiser speed. Invinvible was called a drednought armored cruiser becasue it was an all big gun armroed cruiser, the term battlecruiser was coined later and the concept was crystalzied. Battlecruisers were suppsoed to be capable of joing the battleline if needed, Alaska was not capable not intened for that. All it was it was an overgrown cruiser because after treaties ened usa was expecting larger cruisers to show up. As for the role of battlecruiser it was the same as that of an armored cruiser except the fact that increased firepower allowed it to meaningfully contribute to the battleline. They were also designed to be faster than older ships but the same as drednought was faster than pre drednoughts. Alaska was not even faster than Iowa and had neither armor nor firepower to meaningfully contribute to a modern battleline. As for comparing based on gun size this is such a ridiculous argument than i am tired of hearing it. You compare late ww2 post treaty ships to ww1 ships etc which is ridiculous. This is the kind of logic kids use and call dolphin a fish. Armored cruisers in the past had 8-12 inch guns when pre drednoughts had 10-12 inch guns. Thats way smaller difference than between Alaska and Iowa. Post treaty Battleships guns are 15-18 inch guns. Alaska was not really faster than Japanese heavy cruisers so it wouldn;t be able to hunt them either, it was basicly intended for the same role as heavy cruiser just not burdened by treaty limitations and expected to to be capable of fighting other large cruisers but not anything above that. People say cruiser killer = battlecruiser which is simply not true while every battlecruiser is capable of that its not the full extent of it's role. Large armored cruisers were cruiser killers, battlecruiser was an armored cruiser that could engage battleships on top of that due to battleship grade armament.
Actually, from what I remember, the Dunkerque was actually salvaged and the steel from the ship was used to build Frances Pre War ARL-44 Tanks but maybe I am confusing it with another ship
on all battleship games that have real as possible dynamics dunkerque and rodney are an absolute power house for what they were tonnage wise and front attack monsters
Much desired, and I hope that french admiral is rotting in hell for all eternity or being driven mad in purgatory for what he did that Mers-el-Kébir...
Considering the word has a french origin makes it rather ironic in this situation? www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/salvage I'm not sure about restoration part though? Salvage is claiming anything of value before its too late usually...
In World of Warships, the Dunkerque is great... at going in reverse. No joke. It really was a really fast BB going in reverse when it came out - and still is.
@@stanleyrogouski Oh please, the british may have had a few gems but most RN battleships were boring and a bit weird to look at. USN dreadnoughts were (and still are- we have the only one) at the same time very practically laid out AND beautiful. They have an imposing presence, when I first saw the Texas she looked downright mean and regal. And of course, the US built the Iowa class and won the award for most beautiful ship in history, so there's that.
Well about Mers i hope you're not too biased towards a certain faction, in my opinion Churchill was paranoid back then, well of course Darlan is a bit opportunistic but he did kept his promise for the ships not falling to Axis hands didn't he? For some, the lost of lives at Kebir is a thorn in the side for Anglo French relations and what they did is still unacceptable
Don't forget the UK was afraid, not just of Darlan's reaction, but what the _germans_ might do. It's all well and good to say "I will do this", but the germans might very well have been able to force a surrender *before* a scutling was possible. And plans often go wrong: rushed work, shallow waters, a malfuctioning fuse, and now the germans had at least part of the french fleet in their hands. And, in 1940, the brits were desperate; the only things that kept the germans away were the Channel and the german navy's lack of ships. Hence, the perceived need for the attack.
@@jlvfr dont forget that the French admiral at Mers failed to inform his government that the British were offering an option Darlan had already approved of, moving French ships to French territory in the Americas. Or that the French had already violated their agreement with the British not to seek a separate peace with Germany.
@@Arthion i know jean bart (richelieu class) and dunkerque (dunkerque class) are different but its such a minor difference i see them as sisters, same with akagi and kaga, 1 is battlecruiser (amagi class) converted into carrier, 1 is a battleship (tosa class) converted into carrier
I love the design but I would never command such a ship due to the lack of a rear turret. but some will say forward fire power is all you need. And I say I rather not have a ship of any size get behind me to wreak havoc.
Enough room for wine an cheese eh?.. Well as a longtime ships agent I can tell you that it was always a pleasure to attend French merchant ships since they were sure to have excellent vittles and drink well above the standard of other nations ships. No doubt the MN was the same...Sooo.. Torpedoes be damned.. full steam ahead and pass the cheese!
Hey, those wine & cheese stores add class! I mean, grog & hardtack? No wonder British jack tars were so eager to get into battle, death seemed better than dinner! Or maybe that was the point...
Interesting twist in the final fate of the ship. Late WW2, France wanted to build a new tank design, resulting in the obscure vehicle ARL 44. The armor plates for the turret was made by cutting up the hull of Dunkerque. One of these vehicles is still on display at a museum in Saumur.
as if more evidence was required, that chaos, and the leading part the French play in it was needed, I invite you to peruse the comments below.... enjoy!
Italian navy ships were just trophy ships. If the italians used them well they might aswell troll the russian (soviet) caspian fleet and annoy the hell out of allied US and UK ships.
5:10 so the French admiral shoot at the French ships?? No mister, you shall not change the past. The British shoot at the french and killed "...several thousand Frenchmen". The French said that the french fleet would scuttle if the German came too close.
The French gad already betrayed Britain's trust by seeking peace with Germany separately from Britain, so they could never have known if the French would actually have done that. And if anything went wrong with the scuttling then Germany could repair them. They should've either sailed to Alexandria or the Caribbean
The French also claimed no Germans would get their ships, whilst at the same time having just signed a treaty that explicitly gave Germany the majority of the French fleet.
Britain also trusted France to not let Germany take France. Look how that that turned out. And a few quirky French ships in "allied" ports are a lot easier to seize than all of France.
the British gave the French multiple options such as going to the US or French West Indies, going to the UK, Scuttle the ships immediately, the British were remarkably fair in not insisting the fleet be handed over to them. Saying that the French would scuttle is neither here nor there, the British couldn't rely on that promise, being maybe the French are surprised, maybe the scuttling is ineffective, maybe key person who would off scuttled are replaced by more pro Vichy officers. IMHO the French where to blame
Kinda hard to enjoy this one. Excellently done, though. Here’s me grimly anticipating that video on the broader situation, if you do decide to cover it.
Just to add here, about Mers el Kebir, many believed only the Axis commited warcrime in the war but this is definitely a crime for the Allies, for those who said that all of this tragedy could be avoided if only Darlan immediately surrendered the ships to the Brits during the ultimatum, it was not, it was the only show of might France had left after her surrender, The Germans are kind enough to spare 30% of what's left of France and THIS FLEET is the only thing France had left, her Army had fallen, her air force is in shambles. If this fleet is gone, there's nothing left stopping the Germans invading the rest of France. Fortunately, The Hero of Verdun was there. Look Petain did his best for France and some of his actions are unacceptable (deporting the jews etc) but he did that for the good of many. IF the Army continue fighting like what de Gaulle had promoted, and engaging in guerilla warfare, the Germans would invade and perhaps slaughter even more innocent civilians. If you're in his position what will you choose? Continue fighting and letting your country be invaded, innocents killed, your country destroyed by the enemy or cease fire, sign a treaty and retain what's left of your country, saving millions of lives from unnecessary slaughter?Petain took the logical option. Cease fire, surrender to the Germans, and become client state and hope for the best. He tried to protect his country, unlike a certain man who escaped to Britain and declares his own government in exile. Darlan DID keep his promise to Churchill, of course he tried to negotiate some deals with the Germans, with Hitler rejected him because he believed the French cannot be trusted. The Allied invasion of North Africa change it all, Dakar, Casablanca, Torch everything. Darlan's opportunistic side get the best of him and he sign that treaty, prompting the Germans to invade the rest of France. Case Anton, the name given by the Germans for the capture of the fleet in Toulon saw some pretty dramatic actions. The checkpoint guards asked the Germans for paperwork, trying their best to stall them and give time for the crew to prepare the scuttling charges. In the end, The Scuttling succeeds, The Germans got nothing from Anton and Darlan kept his promise to Churchill, only to be assassinated by men under the order of the Allied leaders
Not as clear cut as anyone would've put it. The British and the French had their own conflicting agendas and only rarely agreed together. The U.S was the only power of the western allies that managed to make both the French and the British to cooperate.
I was prepared to hear the let's just say, "british side of narrative" on this channel and I was also prepared to be esentially okay with it, but by God, at this point even "We just went there to help but they started shelling themselves" would not sound more bonkers. Outright implying "It's their fault that they had to die", seriously? I'm massively, massively disappointed by the video. At least take an effort to make it look like a "fair assessment of a complex situation".
“...much embarrassed coughing and shuffling of feet...” That is an English response; a French reaction would more likely involve emotionally demonstrative objections to the blatant use of facts to deny what is wanted with no acknowledgement of the feelings of the wrongfully disparaged naval architects who are not in charge of dockyard development. Mon Dieu!
I guess the Dunkerque was designed with big guns going forward and attacking, with little guns when retreating. Guess they only used smaller guns, caused they would be closer.
Of course, it makes lots of sense to take gold reserves to Canada......through a bunch of Uboats......cuz some people there spoke French......and we don't want to ask Americans for anything cuz they might remind us of all that inconvenient advice we ignored during WW1 and after....like building the Maginot Line after....
Why are the Brits, who claim obsessively that they do everything better than everyone else (especially the French), factually so average by European standards and benchmarks of all kinds?
"10,000 Tons was needed for the wine and cheese stores" LMFAO These and The Richileu's were very beautiful and very bad ass BCs and BBs - far more than reasonably competitive and actually superior to British Renown and Admiral Class (Hood) BCs which were fossils comparably and same with Richileu class vs QE, NelRods certainly Revenge class and even modern KGVs At one time in early 70's was the baddest ship afloat. After debacle at Mirs el Kabib ? it was refit on east coast in NY I think and was comparative to Iowa class with all same radar fire control and as much AA after refit . With 8 forward guns these ships presented much smaller when exchanging heavy metal coming at you head on . KGV not as good - but they did manage to build 5 of them. Arguably its every bit as Dangerous as a Bismark if not more modern Tirpitz and better then Littorio Venetto (sp?) class - likely every bit as dangerous as a SD or NC Class - more so because of speed and most modern by end of war - after the NY refit it was basically baldest boat afloat - sure Yamoto bigger but better? It would easily run away from her during day and attack with superior radar/range finding at night and probably pummel it into retreat if not submission It would take escorts with torpedo's to sink it though as 14 " shells likely would not. And as far as Dunkerque - likely best BC ever built Hood, 2nd entirely due to age and lack of refit - same as Renown class..... Alaska class which "technically " is not a BC or BB would likely avoid 1 vs 1. Dunkerque's 13.5 inch guns would wreck Alaska's thin armor - it was perfect counter to Germans Scharnhorst class with 11 inch guns or their planned six 14,5 inch gun upgrade that never was . Arguably Hood owns best BC due to speed, range and armament just not near modern as Dunkerque so a fair comparison not possible for that.... if modernized? Hood all day and 2x on Sundays With refits Renown class likely equal to Dunkerque class. Then there's the Kongo class....... 8 x 14" guns and eight 21-inch torpedo tubes is a lot of hitting power from a BC but its slow (27 knot ) speed due to Hood era (1915 ish) age..... Kongo like Hood great example of "not quite a BC but not quite a BB either" description . It was actually built at Vickers in UK. at 700 feet and 27,000 tons its basically a scaled down slower version of Hood. Certainly capable of out gunning and US Cruiser and out running any Standard class US BB in her time and right up to WW2 when SD and NC entered service. Really only Hood could deal with her as no QE class could catch her and likely not a NelRod either. In the Pacifi was baddest boat afloat for a long time.
Admiral Gensoul was not an idiot . He was faithful to his parole to the French Government , and did not want to endanger the ceasefire . I resent this film , not even quoting the name of the father of our modern battleships : Admiral Duran-Viel . Mers El Kebir amounts to cold blooded murder and cannot be easily forgotten . On what assumption was the attack carried out? The French ships would have been a logistical nightmare for the British ( from calibers down to nuts and bolts size ), they had short legs , catastrophic artillery dispersion and lack of ACAC . Only the Strasbourg was fit for anything amounting to a fight against Italian converted pre-dreadnoughts , Dunkerque was largely insufficiently armoured , and the two 23400 tonnes were of WWI vintage which held together primarily with paint : truly a great prey and a great victory ! If you had read just a tad more , you would have found out that the French were allowed by Wiesbaden to transfer more ships in Africa ( with a nice Dakar defeat!) , and more or less trade normally with North and West Africa afterwards . And what products didn't fall into French hands , were promptly seized by the Germans (a blatant strategic victory there!). If you want to discuss the merits of British admirals , can you explain that the crew of both Bismarck and Scharnhorst were left to drown , on the mere assumption that there were submarines in the vicinity ? In the end , just how many ships fell into Axis hands ? How many were destroyed by our "allies" ? If you answer this one correctly , you will stop the stupid racist comments which reflect only the lack of knowledge and prejudices against us .
Gensoul was not an idiot! Just he could not conceive such a bastardly attack, and thought he had no orders of the britishs to comply. The murderers trying to reject the reponsibility of their crime on the victim. Pityful ...
I know in some of your videos you've said you played wows with your community, but have you ever checked out Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought? The game is still in alpha but let's you build and design various types of ships.
Very sad history for a pair of fine ships, too bad. Would have made good escorts for carriers, too bad the French didn't build any beyond the Bearn, and that they never served alongside British or American flatops, as the Richelieu actually did in the Indian Ocean, steaming in company with the HMS Illustrious and USS Saratoga on a few missions. Capital ships are a expensive long-term investment, so from a design perspective it seems always best to go with the biggest practical main armament so that your ships are not soon outmatched by those of a rival power. There is some nuance, the USN's 16-inch guns being "good enough" or equal to the 18-inch gun of the Japanese. The British 15-inch was also very effective and reliable weapon. Yet after the 15-inch and 16-inch guns were introduced in WWI, building big and expensive capital ships with 11 to 14 inch guns seems a poor choice. Unless you got surplus turrets and guns in good condition you can just stick on a hull for cheaper and faster construction, like HMS Vanguard (and those were 15-inchers). Glad the USN managed to avoid that mistake.
